TAN TIONG BIO a.k.a. HENRY TAN, complainant, vs. ATTY. RENATO L.

GONZALES, respondent.

Facts:

Complainant purchased several parcels of land in Manila Southwoods Residential Estates owned FEGDI
and FEPI. Complainant was made to execute a Deed of Sale. Respondent Renato L. Gonzales, employed
as corporate counsel for FEPI and appointed/reappointed from 1996 to 2001 as notary public for
Quezon City, was the notarizing officer of Deed on which the name and signature of Bondoc appear as
the vendor's authorized representative. The office of FEPI is in Pasig.

complainant claims, Ms. Bondoc, signatory (for FEGDI as vendor) to Deed, that she had not personally
met nor transacted with her either with respect to the negotiations for the sale of the land nor during
the execution of Deed. Complainant would add, however, that Ms. Bondoc admitted that she and the
complainant did sign the said deed of sale, but at different times and in different places, and not in each
other's presence, like other "signed hundreds of deeds ( of sale) over other documents for our behalf of
the President [of Fil-Estate] with buyers

Issue:

Whether or not respondent violated the Notarial Law

Held:

Yes. respondent breached the injunction against notarizing a document in a place outside one's
commission. As reported by the Investigating Commissioner, respondent acknowledged that from
February 1, 1996 to September 30, 2001, within which period Deed 1108 was notarized, his notarial
commission then issued was for Quezon City. The Deed was, however, notarized in Pasig City. To
compound matters, he admitted having notarized hundreds of documents in Pasig City, where he used
to hold office, during the period that his notarial commission was only for and within Quezon City.

respondent's act of notarizing documents in a place outside of or beyond the authority granted by his
notarial commission, partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. For all legal intents and purposes,
respondent, by performing through the years notarial acts in Pasig City where he is not so authorized,
has indulged in deliberate falsehood. By such malpractice as a notary public, respondent likewise
violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which directs every lawyer to uphold at all
times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession

HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES LUCAS and FRANCISCA VILLANUEVA,

complainants, vs. ATTY. SALUD P. BERADIO, respondent.

Facts:

Alfonso, one of the heirs of spouses villanueva, executed an affidavit of adjudication stating that “as the
only surviving son and sole heirs of the spouses villanueva”, he was adjudicating to himself the parcel of
land under OCT 2522. He then executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of Adriano Villanueva.
Respondednt appeared as notary public on both the affidavit of adjudication and deed of sale.
Contrary to the misrepresentations of Alfonso, his sister Florencia was still alive at the
time he executed the affidavit of adjudication and the deed of sale. Complainants claimed that
respondent was aware of this fact. Complainants claimed that respondent was aware of this fact.
respondent admitted that she notarized the affidavit of adjudication and
the deed of sale executed by Alfonso in 1984. However, respondent denied that she
conspired with Alfonso to dispose of fraudulently the property.

Issue:

Whether or not responded violated the notarial law when she notarized the affidavit knowing that
Alfonso was not the sole compulsory heir of the spouses Villanueva

Held:

Yes.

Respondent herself admitted that she knew of the falsity of Alfonso's statement that he was the "sole
heir" of the spouses Villanueva. Respondent therefore notarized a document while fully aware that it
contained a material falsehood,

the notary public has personal knowledge of a false statement or information contained in the
instrument to be notarized, yet proceeds to affix his or her notarial seal on it, the Court must not
hesitate to discipline the notary public accordingly as the circumstances of the case may dictate.
Otherwise, the integrity and sanctity of the notarization process may be undermined and public
confidence on notarial documents diminished. In this case, respondent's conduct amounted to a breach
of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. Respondent also violated Rule 1.01 of the
Code which proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

CHITA PANTOJA-MUMAR, complainant, vs. ATTY. JANUARIO C.

FLORES, respondent.

Facts:

Atty. Flores prepared an Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale covering a three-hectare property in
Pangdan, Cambanay, Danao City. The deed was executed in favor of the spouses Filomena and Edilberto
Perez, who were later able to secure a torrens title over the property under their names. Complainant
alleged that respondent knowing fully well that there actually was no transaction between the Pantojas
and the Perezes, notarized the same document apparently in violation of his oath as a lawyer and a
breach of his duty as a notary public.

Issue:

Whether respondent is guilty of violating the notarial law

Held:
Yes.
respondent admitted he did not actually see one of the signatories to the subject deed sign, and that he
notarized the deed despite the absence of the complainant's signature: in notarizing the Deed of
Absolute Sale without ascertaining that all the vendors- signatories thereto were the very same persons
who executed it and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are
stated therein, respondent undermined the confidence of the public on notarial documents; he thereby
breached Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires lawyers to uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes, and Rule
1.01 thereof, which proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.

MANUEL L. LEE, complainant, vs. ATTY. REGINO B. TAMBAGO,

respondent.

Facts:

Respondent was charged for violation of the notarial law. Complainant alleged that respondent
notarized a spurious will. The will contained forged signatures, absence of notation of the residence
certificates of the witness and no copy of such purported will was on file in the archives division of the
Records Management and Archives of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA)

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent violated the notarial law

Held:

YES, Atty. Gonzales commited a violation

A cursory examination of the acknowledgment of the will in question shows that this particular
requirement was neither strictly nor substantially complied with. For one, there was the conspicuous
absence of a notation of the residence certificate of the notarial witnesses Noynay and Grajo in the
acknowledgment. Similarly, the notation of the testator's old residence certificate in the same
acknowledgment was a clear breach of the law. These omissions by respondent invalidated the will.
As the acknowledging of the contested will, respondent was required to faithfully observe the
formalities of a will and those of notarization.

The Notarial Law then in force required the exhibition of the residence certificate upon notarization of a
document or instrument:

Section 251. Requirement as to notation of payment of [cedula] residence

tax. — Every contract, deed, or other document acknowledged before a notary
public shall have certified thereon that the parties thereto have presented their
proper [cedula] residence certificate or are exempt from the [cedula] residence tax,
and there shall be entered by the notary public as a part of such certificate the
number, place of issue, and date of each [cedula] residence certificate as
aforesaid.
respondent should also be faulted for having failed to make the necessary entries pertaining to the will
in his notarial register. The old Notarial Law required the entry of the following matters in the notarial
register, in chronological

1. nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him;

2. person executing, swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument;
3. witnesses, if any, to the signature;
4. date of execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the instrument;
5. fees collected by him for his services as notary;
6. give each entry a consecutive number; and
7. if the instrument is a contract, a brief description of the substance of the
instrument.

Notaries public must observe with utmost care and utmost fidelity the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties, otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of notarized deeds
will be undermined

PASTOR EDWIN VILLARIN, PACIANO DE VEYRA, SR., and

BARTOLOME EVAROLO, SR., complainants, vs. ATTY.
RESTITUTO SABATE, JR.,respondent.

Facts:

Complainants filed a complaint against Paterno Diaz in SEC. Respondents in the SEC Case filed their
"Motion to Dismiss With Answer To Villarin’s Et Al., Complaint To The Securities and Exchange
Commission" prepared and notarized by Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr. Complainants alleged that the
signature of Paterno Diaz was not his, but that of a certain Lilian Diaz; that with regard to the signatures
of Levi Pagunsan and Alejandro Bofetiado, it was Atty. Sabate, Jr. who signed for them; and that herein
respondent Sabate, Jr. made it appear that said persons participated in the said act when in fact they did
not do so.

Respondent alleged that respondents in the SEC Case swore to the correctness of the allegations in the
motion to dismiss/pleading for the SEC through their authorized representatives known by their names
as Lilian C. Diaz and Atty. Restituto B. Sabate, Jr. manifested by the word "By" which preceded every
signature of said representatives. On the strength of the said authorizations he notarized the document.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Sabate failed to exercise due diligence in upholding his duty as a notary public.

Held:

Yes. A member of the bar who performs an act as a notary public should not notarize a document unless
the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared
before said notary public to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. It cannot be
delegated to anyone for what are stated therein are facts they have personal knowledge of and swore
to the same personally and not through any representative.

As an individual, and even more so as a member of the legal profession, respondent is required to obey
the laws of the land at all times. For notarizing the Verification of the Motion to Dismiss With Answer
when three of the affiants thereof were not before him and for notarizing the same instrument of which
he was one of the signatories, he failed to exercise due diligence in upholding his duty as a notary public.