14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In re: Atty. Rufillo D. Bucana

*
Adm. Case No. 1637. July 6, 1976.

IN RE: ATTY. RUFILLO D. BUCANA, respondent.

Attorneys; Notaries public; Malpractice; Notarization of

document allowing spouses to remarry, with waiver of civil and
criminal actions against each other; Suspension from office of notary
public for six months; Case at bar.The respondent, in effect,
pleads for clemency, claiming that the notarization of the
questioned document was due to his negligence. However, the
document could not have been notarized if the respondent had only
exercised the requisite care required by law in the exercise of his
duties as notary public. Held, the respondent is guilty of
malpractice and is hereby suspended from the office of notary public
for a period of six (6) months, with the admonition that a repetition
of the same or a similar act in the future will be dealt with more
severely.

________________

* SECOND DIVISION

15

VOL. 72, JULY 6, 1976 15

In re: Atty. Rufillo D. Bucana

Same; Same; Duty of notaries public to exercise functions of

their office with due care and with due regard to provisions of
existing law.A notary public, by virtue of the nature of his office,
is required to exercise his duties with due care and with due regard
to the provisions of existing law. It is for the notary to inform
himself of the facts to which he intends to certify, and to take part
in no illegal enterprise. The notary public is usually a person who
has been admitted to the practice of law, and as such, in the
commingling of his duties as notary and lawyer, must be held
responsible for both. A member of the bar who performs an act as a
notary public of a disgraceful or immoral character may be held to
account by the court even to the extent of disbarment.
Persons; Marriage: Agreement allowing spouses to remarry,
with waiver of civil and criminal actions against each other contary
to law, morals and good customs.The Agreement is contrary to
law, morals and good customs. Marriage is an inviolable social
institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is
deeply interested for it is the foundation of the family and of society,
without which there could be neither civilization nor progress. The
contract, in substance, purports to formulate an agreement between
the husband and the wife to take unto himself a concubine and the
wife to live in adulterous relations with another man, without
opposition from either one, and what is more, it induces each party
to commit bigamy. This is not only immoral but in effect abets the
commission of a crime.

RESOLUTION

ANTONIO, J.:

Acting upon the letter of Mrs. Angela Drilon Baltazar,

Barangay Captain of Victorias, Dumangas, Iloilo, dated
February 26, 1976, respondent Notary Public Rufillo D.
Bucana was required by this Court in its Resolution of
March 23, 1976, to show cause within ten (10) days from
notice, why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for
having notarized on November 10, 1975 at Dumangas,
Iloilo an Agreement executed by the spouses Gonzalo
Baltazar and Luisa Sorongon wherein the afore-mentioned
spouses agreed therein that in case anyone of them will
remarry both parties offer no objection and waive all civil
and criminal actions against them and that the afore-
mentioned Agreement was entered into for the purpose

16

16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In re: Atty. Rufillo D. Bucana
of agreement to allow each and everyone of them to
remarry without objection or reservation * * *, which
affidavit is contrary to law because it sanctions an illicit
and immoral purpose.
On April 21, 1976, respondent submitted his
explanation, admitting that he notarized the afore-
mentioned document and that the Agreement is immoral
and against public policy, but in mitigation he asserted
that the document in question was prepared by his clerk,
Lucia D. Doctolero without his previous knowledge; that
when said document was presented to him for signature
after it was signed by the parties, he vehemently refused to
sign it and informed the parties that the document was
immoral; that he placed the said document on his table
among his files and more than a week later, he asked his
clerk where the document was for the purpose of destroying
it, but to his surprise he found that the same was notarized
by him as per his file copies in the office; that he dispatched
his clerk to get the copy from the parties, but the afore-
mentioned parties could not be found in their respective
residences; that he must have inadvertently notarized the
same in view of the numerous documents on his table and
at that time he was emotionally disturbed as his father
(now deceased) was then seriously ill. The foregoing
contentions of respondent were corroborated substantially
by the separate sworn statements of his clerk, Lucia D.
Doctolero and Angela Drilon Baltazar, both dated April 20,
1
1976.
There is no question that the afore-mentioned
Agreement is contrary to law, morals and good customs.
Marriage is an inviolable social institution, in the
maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply
interested for it is the foundation of the family and of
society, without which there could be neither civilization
2
nor progress.
The contract, in substance, purports to formulate an
agreement between the husband and the wife to take unto
himself a concubine and the wife to live in adulterous
relations with another man, without opposition from either
one, and3 what is more, it induces each party to commit
bigamy. This is

________________

1 Annexes A and B.
2 Ramirez v. Gmur, 42 Phil. 855.
 3 Panganiban v. Borromeo, 58 Phil. 367; Biton v. Momongan, 62 Phil.
7.

17

VOL. 72, JULY 6, 1976 17

In re: Atty. Rufillo D. Bucana

not only immoral but in effect abets the commission of a

crime. A notary public, by virtue of the nature of his office,
is required to exercise his duties with due care and with
due regard to the provisions of existing law.
As stressed by Justice Malcolm in Panganiban v.
4
Borromeo, it is for the notary to inform himself of the
facts to which he intends to certify, and to take part in no
illegal enterprise. The notary public is usually a person
who has been admitted to the practice of law, and as such,
in the commingling of his duties as notary and lawyer,
must be held responsible for both. We are led to hold that a
member of the bar who performs an act as a notary public
of a disgraceful or immoral character may be held to
account by the court even to the extent of disbarment.
In the case at bar, respondent in effect pleads for
clemency, claiming that the notarization of the questioned
document was due to his negligence. We find, however, that
the aforementioned document could not have been
notarized if the respondent had only exercised the requisite
care required by law in the exercise of his duties as notary
public.
WHEREFORE, We hold that respondent Rufillo D.
Bucana is guilty of malpractice and is hereby suspended
from the office of notary public for a period of six (6)
months, with the admonition that a repetition of the same
or a similar act in the future will be dealt with more
severely.

Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Aquino and Martin,

JJ., concur.
Concepcion Jr., J., is on leave.
Martin, J., was designated to sit in the Second
Division.

Respondent suspended from the office of notary public for

a period of six months and admonished.
 Notes.a) Misrepresentation by notary public by
making it appear in jurat of document that affiant exhibited
to him residence certificate when in fact affiant did not do
so.The respondent is guilty of misconduct as a notary in
making it appear in the jurat of a tenancy contract that the
affiant exhibited to him a residence certificate when in fact
he did not

_________________

4 58 Phil. 367, 369.

18

18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

American Insurance Company of Newark vs. Manila Port
Service

do so. Such misrepresentation is unquestionably

censurable and justifies disciplinary action against the
respondent as a member of the bar and as a notary public.
The respondent violated the mandate in his attorneys oath
to obey the laws and do no falsehood. (Vda. de Guerrero
vs. Hernando, Adm. Case No. 704, November 24, 1975).
b) Function of office of notary public.The function of a
notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal
or immoral arrangements. That function would be defeated
if the notary public were one of the attesting witnesses. For
then he would be interested in sustaining the validity of
the will as it directly involves himself and the validity of
his own act. It would place him in an inconsistent position
and the very purpose of the acknowledgment, which is to
minimize fraud would be thwarted. (Cruz vs. Villasor, L-
32213, November 26, 1973).
c) Duty of notary public regards notarizing documents.
A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and
credit upon its face, and for this reason notaries public
must observe the utmost care to comply with the
elementary formalities in the performance of their duties.
Otherwise the confidence of the public in the integrity of
this form of conveyancing would be undermined. All too
often, in the name of friendship a notary public unwittingly
lends the authority of his signature and notarial seal to an
incomplete instrument. He assumes his act to be harmless,
little realizing that he may thereby facilitate the
 commission of fraud by others. (Ramirez vs. Ner, Adm.
Case No. 500, September 27, 1967).

o0o

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.