PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

(Cases on Violations of Notarial Law)

January 29, 2018

Case Title Page

FLORDELIZA E. COQUIA, Complainant

vs.
ATTY. EMMANUEL E. LAFORTEZA, Respondent 2
A.C. No. 9364
[Formerly CBD Case No.13-3696] February 8, 2017

JEAN MARIE S. BOERS, Complaint,

vs.
ATTY. ROMEO CALUBAQUIB, Respondent 3
A.C. No. 10562 August 1, 2017

GREGORY FABAY, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. REX A. RESUENA, Respondent. 4
A.C. No. 8723
[Formerly CBD Case No. 11-2974] January 26, 2016

1
FLORDELIZA E. COQUIA, Complainant
vs.
ATTY. EMMANUEL E. LAFORTEZA, Respondent
A.C. No. 9364
[Formerly CBD Case No.13-3696] February 8, 2017

FACTS:
Atty. Laforteza was a former Clerk of RTC Lingayen, Pangasinan from November
2004 until January 2011 before he was transferred to the Department of Justice.

Coquia here alleged that sometime on 2009, Atty. Laforteza conspired with
Clemente Solis (Clemente) to falsify two documents, to wit: (1) an Agreement between
Clemente and Coquia, and the (2) Payment Agreement executed by the latter, and
subsequently notarized the said documents. Coquia further claimed that the documents
were forged to make it appear that on the said date, she subscribed and sworn to the
said documents before Atty. Laforteza when in truth and in fact on the said date and
time, she was attending to her classes at the Centro Escolar University in Manila as
evidenced by the certified true copy of the Centro Escolar University Faculty Daily Time
Record.

Consequently, Coquia asserted that under the law, Atty. Laforteza is not
authorized to administer oath on documents not related to his functions and duties as
Clerk of Court. Hence, this instant complaint for disbarment for conduct unbecoming of
a lawyer.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Laforteza violated the Notarial Law.

HELD:
The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice stresses the necessity of the
affiant's personal appearance before the notary public Rule II, Section 1.

The Supreme Court held that notarization of documents ensures the authenticity
and reliability of a document. Notarization of a private document converts such
document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of
its authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to
rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private
instrument. Notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public
interest in a substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires preventing
those who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon
the public and the courts and administrative offices generally.

Here, it is undisputed that Atty. Laforteza failed to comply with the rules of
notarial law. He admitted that he notarized a pre-signed subject document presented to
him. He also admitted his failure to personally verify the identity of all parties who
purportedly signed the subject documents Such failure to verify the identities of the
parties was further shown by the fact that the pertinent identification details of the
parties to the subject documents, as proof of their identity, were lacking in the subject
documents' acknowledgment portion. Atty. Laforteza even affixed his signature in an
incomplete notarial certificate. From the foregoing, it can be clearly concluded that
there was a failure on the part of Atty. Laforteza to exercise the due diligence required
of him as a notary public ex-officio. Therefore, the SC ruled that Atty. Laforteza's
notarial commission, if there is any, is REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from being
commissioned as a notary public for a period of one year.

2
JEAN MARIE S. BOERS, Complaint,
vs.
ATTY. ROMEO CALUBAQUIB, Respondent
A.C. No. 10562 August 1, 2017

FACTS:
Boers and her siblings are co-owners of parcels of land. Sometime in October
2008, Boers learned that a certain Isaac Gavino (Gavino) annotated an adverse claim
on their land based on a Deed of Sale dated October 16, 1991. Boers' signature appears
on the said document as one of the sellers, which was notarized by Atty. Calubaquib on
that same date.

Boers claims that she could not have signed the Deed of Sale and appeared
before Calubaquib for the notarization because she was in Canada at that time
evidenced by her passport which shows that she left the Philippines to return to Canada
on December 20, 1990. Further, she also presented her Philippine visa which was valid
only until February 7, 1991. Boers also points to the absence of any residence
certificate number under her name and signature in the notarization of the Deed of
Sale. Neither was there any other competent form of identification stated in it.

Boers inquired with the National Archives of the Philippines where she learned
that the Deed of Sale does not appear in Calubaquib's notarial file. Though it appears
that the Deed of Sale was acknowledged, upon verification with the National Archives,
the document that corresponds to it is not the Deed of Sale but an Affidavit.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Calubaquib violated the Rules on Notarial Practice.

HELD:
The SC here held that the Rules on Notarial Practice governs the various notarial
acts that a duly commissioned notary public is authorized to perform. These include
acknowledgment, affirmation and oath, and jurat. In the case of the Deed of Sale,
Calubaquib performed the notarial act identified under the Rules as acknowledgment.

Here, Calubaquib clearly violated the rule. Boer satisfactorily proved that she
could not have personally appeared before Calubaquib. The latter also violated the
mandatory recording requirements under the Rules. Section 1 of Rule VI of the Rules
requires a notary public to keep a notarial register. Section 2 mandates that a notary
public must record in the notarial register every notarial act at the time of notarization.

The notarial registry is a record of the notary public's official acts. Acknowledged
documents and instruments recorded in it are considered public document. If the
document or instrument does not appear in the notarial records and there is no copy of
it therein, doubt is engendered that the document or instrument was not really
notarized, so that it is not a public document and cannot bolster any claim made based
on this document. Considering the evidentiary value given to notarized documents, the
failure of the notary public to record the document in his notarial registry is tantamount
to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when in fact it was not.

In this case, however, the SC noted that this is not the first time that it
sanctioned Calubaquib for his violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice. This serves as
an aggravating circumstance that merits a harsher penalty. Therefore, SC imposed on
Calubaquib the penalty of SUSPENSION for TWO YEARS from the practice of law
effective upon finality of the Decision. Further, Calubaquib's notarial commission is
REVOKED and he is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary
public.

3
GREGORY FABAY, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. REX A. RESUENA, Respondent.
A.C. No. 8723
[Formerly CBD Case No. 11-2974] January 26, 2016

FACTS:
On October 15, 2003, Virginia Perez, Marcella Perez, Amador Perez, Gloria Perez,
Gracia Perez and Valentino Perez (plaintiffs) filed a complaint for ejectment/forcible
entry against Gregory Fabay before the MTC with respondent Atty. Resuena as their
counsel.

On the same date, Atty. Resuena notarized a special power of attorney (SPA)
with plaintiffs as grantors, in favor of Apolo D. Perez. However, it appeared that it was
only Remedios Perez who actually signed the SPA in behalf of Amador, Valentino, Gloria
and Gracia. Said SPA was recorded in Atty. Resuena's notarial book.

Later, the ejectment case was decided in favor of the client of Atty. Resuena,
however, on appeal, the RTC ordered the case to be remanded to the court a quo to try
the case on the merits wherein it noted that both Amador Perez and Valentino Perez
have already died.

Complainant Fabay alleged that Atty. Resuena violated the provisions of the
Notarial Law by notarizing a special power of attorney notwithstanding the fact that two
of the principals therein, Amador and Valentino were already dead long before the
execution of the SPA. Complainant added that Atty. Resuena likewise notarized a
complaint for ejectment in 2003 where Apolo was made to appear as attomey-in-fact of
Amador and Valentino when again the latter could not have possibly authorized him as
they were already dead. Further, complainant averred that Atty. Resuena, as counsel of
the plainfiffs, participated in the barangay conciliations which is prohibited under the
law. Hence, this instant complaint for disbarment for violation of the notarial law and
for Atty. Resuena's misconduct as a lawyer.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a violation on notarial law committed by Atty.
Resuena.

HELD:
Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice stresses
the necessity of the affiant's personal appearance before the notary public.

The Supreme Court held that notaries public must observe with utmost care the
basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the
public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined. Hence, 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 him to attest to the
contents and truth of what are stated therein. The purpose of this requirement is to
enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the
acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act and
deed.
Here, it is undisputed that Atty. Resuena violated not only the notarial law but
also his oath as a lawyer when he notarized the subject SPA without all the affiant's
personal appearance. There is no question then that Atty. Resuena ignored the basics
of notarial procedure and actually displayed his clear ignorance of the importance of the
office of a notary public. Not only did he violate the notarial law, he also did so without
thinking of the possible damage that might result from its non-observance.