---
The claim or belief of Atty. de la Rea that the presence of
SECTION 6. Jurat. — "Jurat" refers to an act in which an
individual on a single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public and
presents an instrument or document;
(b) is personally known to the notary public or
identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules;
(c) signs the instrument or document in the
presence of the notary; and
(d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary
public as to such instrument or document.
SECTION 1. Acknowledgment. — "Acknowledgment" refers
to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public and
presents an integrally complete instrument or
document;
(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary
public or identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined by these
Rules; and
(c) represents to the notary public that the
signature on the instrument or document was
voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated
in the instrument or document, declares that he
has executed the instrument or document as his
free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in
a particular representative capacity, that he has
the authority to sign in that capacity.
Gamildo v. New Bilibid Prisons, G.R. No. 114829 March
1, 1995
This is an Administrative Matter concerning a lawyer’s
disbarment for having executed a jurat without the
presence of affiant. He explains that he “never intended to
do a wrong, to commit illegal or criminal acts but [he did it]
merely in the honest and sincere belief that [the act] is valid
and legal.” He says that he did in the “honest belief” that it
was a “jurat and not an acknowledgement”, thus, it would
have been acceptable since he knew Mr. Gamido, his
accused client. Atty. de la Rea was fined P5,000.00 and
warned that if he does the same thing again, he will be
punished more severely.
---
A jurat is that “subscribed and sworn to before me”
statement. An acknowledgement, on other hand, certifies
that “the person acknowledging the instrument or
document is known to him and that he is the same person
who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free
act and deed”; it should have been made “before a notary
public or an officer duly authorized by law”.
petitioner Gamido was not necessary for the jurat because
it is not acknowledgement is patently baseless.
SECTION 2. Affirmation or Oath. — The term "Affirmation"
or "Oath" refers to an act in which an individual on a single
occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public;
(b) is personally known to the notary public or
identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and
(c) avows under penalty of law to the whole truth
of the contents of the instrument or document.
SECTION 3. Commission. — "Commission" refers to the
grant of authority to perform notarial acts and to the
written evidence of the authority.
SECTION 4. Copy Certification. — "Copy Certification"
refers to a notarial act in which a notary public:
(a) is presented with an instrument or document
that is neither a vital record, a public record, nor
publicly recordable;
(b) copies or supervises the copying of the
instrument or document;
(c) compares the instrument or document with the
copy; and
(d) determines that the copy is accurate and
complete.
SECTION 14. Signature Witnessing . — The term "signature
witnessing" refers to a notarial act in which an individual
on a single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public and
presents an instrument or document;
(b) is personally known to the notary public or
identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and
(c) signs the instrument or document in the
presence of the notary public.
SECTION 5. Notarial Register. — "Notarial Register" refers
to a permanently bound book with numbered pages
containing a chronological record of notarial acts
performed by a notary public.
 (4) the notary public notarizes the
signature by thumb or other mark
SECTION 8. Notarial Certificate. — "Notarial Certificate" through an acknowledgment, jurat, or
refers to the part of, or attachment to, a notarized signature witnessing.
instrument or document that is completed by the notary
public, bears the notary's signature and seal, and states the
facts attested to by the notary public in a particular
notarization as provided for by these Rules.
(c) A notary public is authorized to sign on behalf
of a person who is physically unable to sign or
make a mark on an instrument or document if:

Sec. 12. Component Evidence of Identity. The phrase (1) the notary public is directed by the
"competent evidence of identity" refers to the identification person unable to sign or make a mark to
of an individual based on: sign on his behalf;

(a) at least one current identification document
issued by an official agency bearing the
photograph and signature of the individual, such
as but not limited to, passport, driver’s license,
Professional Regulations Commission ID, National
Bureau of Investigation clearance, police
clearance, postal ID, voter’s ID, Barangay
certification, Government Service and Insurance
System (GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS)
card, Philhealth card, senior citizen card, Overseas
Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID,
OFW ID, seaman’s book, alien certificate of
registration/immigrant certificate of registration,
government office ID, certification from the
National Council for the Welfare of Disable
Persons (NCWDP), Department of Social Welfare
and Development (DSWD) certification; or
(2) the signature of the notary public is
affixed in the presence of two
disinterested and unaffected witnesses to
the instrument or document;
(3) both witnesses sign their own names;
(4) the notary public writes below his
signature: "Signature affixed by notary in
presence of (names and addresses of
person and two [2] witnesses)"; and
(5) the notary public notarizes his
signature by acknowledgment or jurat.

(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness

not privy to the instrument, document or
transaction who is personally known to the notary
public and who personally knows the individual,
or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is
privy to the instrument, document or transaction
AMENDING AND CODIFYING THE LAWS RELATIVE TO
who each personally knows the individual and
REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY AND FOR OTHER
shows to the notary public documentary
PURPOSES
identification.
Section 64. Power of attorney. Any person may, by power
of attorney, convey or otherwise deal with registered land
and the same shall be registered with the Register of Deeds
of the province or city where the land lies. Any instrument
SECTION 1. Powers. revoking such power of attorney shall be registered in like
manner.
(b) A notary public is authorized to certify the
affixing of a signature by thumb or other mark on
an instrument or document presented for
notarization if:

(1) the thumb or other mark is affixed in

the presence of the notary public and of
two (2) disinterested and unaffected
a.) Cases:
witnesses to the instrument or document;

(2) both witnesses sign their own names in Francisco A. Veloso v. CA, G.R. No. 102737, August 21,
addition to the thumb or other mark; 1996

(3) the notary public writes below the
thumb or other mark: "Thumb or Other
Mark affixed by (name of signatory by
mark) in the presence of (names and
addresses of witnesses) and undersigned
notary public"; and
This case originates from an action for annulment of
documents, reconveyance of property with damages and
preliminary injunction and/or restraining order. Veloso
disputes the sale, specifically, the general power of attorney
his wife possessed. In relation to the topic, part of his
arguments was that what was needed in the sale is a special
power of attorney.
---
The special power of attorney can be included in the
general power when it is specified therein the act or
transaction for which the special power is required.
---
“2. To buy or sell, hire or lease, mortgage or otherwise
hypothecate lands, tenements and hereditaments or other
forms of real property, more specifically CT No. 49138,
upon such terms and conditions and under such covenants
as my said attorney shall deem fit and proper.”
Boaz International Trading Corporation v. Woodward
Japan, Inc., G.R. No. 147793. December 11, 2003
This case originates from Woodward Japan, Inc’s complaint
for Sum of Money and Damages against Boaz International
Trading and F.R. Cement Corp for demurrage charges in the
sum of USD 75 thousand (but failed to show prima facie any
agreement on the payment of demurrages, according to
SC). As a side note, those two defendants filed a third-party
complaint against North Front Shipping Services, Inc. Due
to failure to reach an amicable settlement, the case was set
for pre-trial. Neither Woodward nor its counsel arrived at
the pre-trial conference. Upon motion, the trial court
dismissed the complaint but reversed itself on Woodward’s
second motion for reconsideration entitled “Motion to
Reinstate Plaintiff’s Complaint and Allow Them to Present
Evidence Ex-Parte.” CA reversed RTC, faulting counsel for
not assigning a substitute lawyer. SC affirmed CA.
---
“Settled is the rule that the negligence of counsel binds the
client.”… If the negligence of counsel be admitted as a
reason for opening a case, there would never be an end to
litigation so long as there is a new counsel to be hired every
time it is shown that the prior one had not been sufficiently
diligent, experienced or learned.
1. Cases:
Carlos Sevilla, et al. v. CA, G.R. No. L-41182-3, April 16,
1988
The case originates from a mandatory preliminary
injunction suit against Tourist World Service for its act of
padlocking its branch office (says it’s because it could not
contact Sevilla). Segundina Noguero and Tourist World
Service (represented by Eliseo Canilao) entered into a
contract of lease of a branch office with Noguero as lessor.
Lina Sevilla ran said branch office as agent of Tourist
World Service where 4% of the airline fare goes to Sevilla
while 3% was to be withheld by Tourist World Service.
Sevilla has been found to have been connected with a rival
firm. Thus, Tourist World Service closed down the branch
office—padlocked to be more precise (pursuant to a
termination of contract). At issue is the relationship
between Sevilla and Tourist World for, as the Court held,
the same would be determinative of RTC’s jurisdiction or
lack thereof (if there existed an employer-employee
relationship). RTC and CA ruled against Sevilla. RTC held
that Tourist World, being lessee, had the right to padlock
and CA held that the true issue was whether or not the
padlocking entitled Sevilla to damages, despite her
malicious conduct. SC awards damages Sevilla for the
tortious acts of Tourist World.
---
Unlike simple grants of a power of attorney, the agency that
we hereby declare to be compatible with the intent of the
parties (coupled with an interest, created for the mutual
interest of the agent and the principle), cannot be revoked
at will.
---
The contract is not one of employment nor of a joint venture
agreement
Sevilla was not subject to Tourist World’s control since: (a)
she bound herself solidarily for rental payments (disputing
master -servant relationship), (b) it was Sevilla’s own “gifts
and capabilities” that got her airline fares thus belying the
“as to the means used” portion of Tourist World’s control
and (c) she earned compensation in fluctuating amounts
(4% from her airline bookings as commission).
It is also not a joint venture agreement since the same
requires parity. Here, Sevilla expressly “concedes [Tourist
World]’s right to stop the operation of [its] branch office”,
in her letter.
When Sevilla agreed to (wo)man the Ermita office, she must
have done so pursuant to a contract of agency, or rendering
service “in representation or on behalf of another.”
The contract is one of agency coupled with interest
First, she is a bona fide travel agent herself, thus acquiring
an interest in the business.
Second, she assumed a personal obligation for its
operations (payment of rentals).
Third, she continued the business in her own name despite
Tourist World’s stopping the operations.
Thus, her interest extends to the very subject matter of the
power of management delegated to her (not just limited to
the commissions).
---
As to the other issues, no evidence that she was working for
another firm or that she sustained losses.
Nelita Bacaling v. Felomino Muya, et al, G.R.
Nos.148404-05, April 11, 2002
This case originates from a petition for cancellation of the
certificates of land transfer against respondents and a
certain Jaime Ruel with the Department of Agrarian
Reform. Dismissed in DAR, OP for being the result of a
legitimate conversion from agricultural to residential lots.
CA reversed due to a failure of reclassification. Sps.
Bacaling owned three parcels of land, subdivided into 110
lots. To secure the performance of a contract of absolute
sale with Jose Juan Tong and facilitate the transfer of title,
Wife Bacaling executed, in favor of Tong, an irrevocable
special power of attorney.1 Tong bought the lands after
Bacaling’s repurchase of the same from GSIS2 and after a
controversy with alleged tenant-tillers.3 Ten years after
perfection and execution of the sale, Bacaling sought to
nullify the sale. It was dismissed and said dismissal has long
become final and executory. The DAR case then came. Tong
won the case in the SC.

---

The agency, to stress, is one coupled with interest which is

explicitly irrevocable since the deed of agency was
prepared and signed and/or accepted by petitioner Tong
and Bacaling with a view to completing the performance of
the contract of sale of the 110 sub-lots… The fiduciary
relationship inherent in ordinary contracts of agency is
replaced by material consideration which in the type of
agency herein bars the removal or dismissal of petitioner
Tong as Bacaling’s attorney-in-fact on the ground of alleged
loss of trust and confidence.

1
1. To file, defend and prosecute any case/cases involving lots nos. 1
to 110 covered by TCT Nos. T-10664 to T-10773 of the Register of
Deeds of the City of Iloilo;
2. To assume full control, prosecute, terminate and enter into an micable
settlement and compromise agreement of all cases now pending before
the DARAB, Region VI, Iloilo City, which involved portion of Lots 1 to
110, covered by TCT Nos. T-10664 to T-10773 of the Register of Deeds
of Iloilo City, which were purchased by Jose Juan Tong, Vicente Juan
Tong and Victoria Siady;
3. To hire a lawyer/counsel which he may deem fit and necessary to
effect and attain the foregoing acts and deeds; handle and prosecute
the aforesaid cases;
4. To negotiate, cause and effect a settlement of occupation and
tenants on the aforesaid lots;
5. To cause and effect the transfer of the aforesaid lots in the name of
the VENDEES;
6. To execute and deliver document/s or instrument of whatever nature
necessary to accomplish the foregoing acts and deeds.
2
Failed to pay amortizations, so GSIS foreclosed, but Bacaling
widow was eventually able to restore herself ownership of
the sub-lots
3
This was resolved by City Council of Iloilo’s Zoning
Ordinance reclassifying the lots from agricultural to
residential