HEIRS OF PEDRO ALILANO REPRESENTED BY
Examen violated the notarial
DAVID ALILANO v. ATTY. ROBERTO E. EXAMEN
FACTS: Petitioner: Complainants were the holder
of Original Certificate of Title of a land located in
Sultan Kudarat. Absolute Deeds of Sale were
executed by the Spouses Alilano in favor of
Ramon Examen and his wife, Edna. Both
documents were notarized by respondent Atty.
Roberto Examen, brother of the vendee. On 2002,
the heirs of Alilano filed a suit for recovery of
possession before the Regional Trial Court of
Sultan Kudarat against Edna Examen and Atty.
Roberto Examen. Atty. Examen introduced into
evidence the Absolute Deeds of Sale.
-since a notary public is prohibited from
notarizing a document when one of the parties is
a relative by consanguinity within the fourth civil
degree or affinity within the second civil degree,
notarized the documents knowing that the cedula
or residence certificate number used is the
residence certificate number of Florentina, and
also falsely acknowledged that the two witnesses
personally appeared before him when they did
not.
Defendant: no longer any prohibition under the
Revised Administrative Code, with regard to the
use of Florentina’s residence certificate
Ramon’s, Atty. Examen said that he was in good
faith and that it was office practice that the
secretary type details without him personally
examining the output, use of another’s residence
certificate is not a ground for disbarment and is
barred by prescription
IBP: penalty of suspension from the practice of law
for a period of one year and disqualification from
re-appointment as Notary Public for a period of
two years.
ISSUE: W/N atty.
code.
HELD: Yes. The prohibition might have still applied
had the applicable rule been the Spanish Notarial
Law. However, following the Court’s ruling in
Kapunan, the law in force at the time of signing
was the Revised Administrative Code, thus, the
prohibition was removed. Faithful observance and
utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath
in an acknowledgment are sacrosanct. He cannot
simply disregard the requirements and solemnities
of the Notarial Law.
-A notary public must discharge his powers and
duties, which are impressed with public interest,
with accuracy and fidelity. Good faith cannot be a
mitigating circumstance in situations since the
duty to function as a notary public is personal,
had Atty. Examen diligently performed his
functions: personally checked the correctness of
the documents. To say that it was his secretary’s
fault reflects disregard and unfitness to discharge
the functions of a notary public for it is he who
personally acknowledges the document. This
Court cannot stress enough that notarization is
not a routinary act, violating the provisions of the
Notarial Law, Atty. Examen also transgressed the
as his oath as a lawyer, provisions of the CPR and
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court By his
negligent act of not checking the work of his
secretary and merely perfunctorily notarizing
documents, it cannot be said that he upheld legal
processes thus violating Canon 1 of the CPR. And
Rule 1.02 of the CPR. We cannot stress enough
that as a lawyer, respondent is expected at all
times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession and refrain from any act or
omission which might lessen the trust and
confidence reposed by the public in the integrity
of the legal profession. SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for TWO (2) YEARS, his present
notarial commission, if any, is hereby REVOKED,
and he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a
notary public for a period of two (2) years
RODOLFO ESPINOSA., and GLINDO vs. ATTY.
JULIETA A. OMAA
FACTS: Petitioner’s Contention: Complainants
alleged that Espinosa and his wife Elena Marantal
(Marantal) sought Omaas legal advice on whether
they could legally live separately and dissolve their
marriage. Omaa then prepared a document
entitled Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay (contract).
Complainants alleged that Marantal and Espinosa,
fully convinced of the validity of the contract
dissolving their marriage and Marantal eventually
took custody of all their children and took
possession of most of the property they acquired
during their union.
Espinosa sought the advice of his fellow
employee, complainant Glindo, a law graduate,
who informed him that the contract executed by
Omaa was not valid. Espinosa and Glindo then
hired the services of a lawyer to file a complaint
against Omaa before the (IBP-CBD).
Respondent’s Contention: Omaa alleged that she
knows Glindo but she does not personally know
Espinosa. She denied that she prepared the
contract. She admitted that Espinosa went to see
her and requested for the notarization of the
contract but she told him that it was illegal. Omaa
alleged that Espinosa returned the next day to
persuade her part-time office staff to notarize the
document. Her office staff forged her signature
and notarized the contract. Omaa presented
Marantals Sinumpaang Salaysay (affidavit) to
support her allegations that the complaint was
instigated by Glindo. Omaa further presented a
letter of apology from her staff, Arlene Dela Pea,
acknowledging that she notarized the document
without Omaas knowledge, consent, and
authority.
Espinosa later submitted a Karagdagang Salaysay
stating that Omaa arrived at his residence
together with a girl whom he later recognized as
the person who notarized the contract. He further
stated that Omaa was not in her office when the
contract was notarized.
Commission on Bar Discipline Ruling:
The IBP-CBD found that Omaa violated Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The IBP-CBD stated that Omaa had
failed to exercise due diligence in the performance
of her function as a notary public and to comply
with the requirements of the law. The IBP-CBD
noted the inconsistencies in the defense of Omaa
who first claimed that it was her part-time staff
who notarized the contract but then later claimed
that it was her former maid who notarized it,
thereby revealing much more her propensity to lie
and make deceit.
-suspended for one year from the practice of law
and for two years as a notary public.
ISSUE: Whether or not Omaa violated the Canon
of Professional Responsibility in the notarization of
Marantal and Espinosas Kasunduan Ng
Paghihiwalay?
HELD: Yes, in preparing and notarizing a void
document, Omaa violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides that [a] lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Omaa knew fully well that the Kasunduan Ng
Paghihiwalay has no legal effect and is against
public policy.
Extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal
partnership without judicial approval is void. The
SC ruled that a notary public should not facilitate
the disintegration of a marriage by encouraging
the separation of the spouses which is exactly
what Omaa did in this case.
-The High Court agreed with the IBP-CBD that
Omaa herself notarized the contract. Even if it
were true that it was her part-time staff who
notarized the contract, it only showed Omaas
negligence in doing her notarial duties, A notary
public is personally responsible for the entries in
his notarial register
-suspended from the practice of law for ONE
YEAR and her commission as a notary public is
REVOKED and she is SUSPENDED as a notary
public for TWO YEARS.
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY v.
ARGUELLES
FACTS: Respondent brothers, Servando and
Claudio Arguelles (the Arguelleses ), were
registered owners of a parcel of land in Imus,
Cavite, they entered into a conditional sale of the
land to Edgardo Trinidad and his wife Marilou.
With a deed of sale in their favor, the Trinidads
eventually had the land titled in their names. In
that same year, they applied with Metropolitan
Bank & Trust Company (Metrobank) for a loan,
offering the land as collateral. Subsequently,
Metrobank granted the couple several more
loans, totaling more than P 11 million.The
Arguelleses filed a complaint against the Trinidads
for the cancellation of their title in the latter’s
names. Subsequently, the complaint was
amended to implead Metrobank and sought the
cancellation of the real estate mortgages over the
property in its favor.
The Arguelleses denied having executed a deed of
sale in favor of the Trinidads. They alleged that
they entrusted their owner’s duplicate copy of title
to Atty. Saulog, Sr., who assisted the parties in
executing a conditional sale covering the land.
The Trinidads used a fictitious deed of sale,
notarized by a certain Atty. Saulog, Jr. to effect the
transfer of title in their names.
Respodent’s defense: The Trinidads claimed that
they paid for the land by installments, completing
the payment on June 24, 1986 with the result that
the Arguelleses executed the deed of sale in their
favor. For its part, Metrobank filed a cross-claim
against the Trinidads for litigation expenses,
alleging that the Trinidads were answerable for
such expenses under the mortgage contracts.
ISSUE: WON, the subject document is valid.
RTC’s Decision: The RTC ruled in favor of the
Arguelleses and cancelled both the title in the
name of the Trinidads and the mortgages in
Metrobank’s favor. It found that they did not pay
since they could not present proof of the
payments they supposedly made.
CA’s decision: The CA affirmed that of the RTC but
reduced the award of moral damages to
P50,000.00 each in favor of Servando and Claudio
Arguelles. As for Metrobank, the CA held that it
was not a mortgagee in good faith as it appears
that Metrobank compelled the Trinidads to
acquire title over the property before the initial
loan could be approved.
The SC ruled in favor of the Trinidads. Atty.
Saulog, Jr. failed to establish the authenticity of
the signatures on it. But it is too much to expect a
notary public who had but a brief time with the
Arguelleses during the notarial ceremony to
remember their faces 12 years later. What matters
is Atty. Saulog, Jr.’s testimony respecting the ritual
of notarization that he invariably followed. He
gave unbending assurance that he ascertained the
identities of the parties to documents who
appeared before him, including the Arguelleses,
by requiring them to show documentary proofs of
the same and to sign the documents in his
presence. Besides, the theory of the Arguelleses is
that it was Atty. Saulog, Jr. who facilitated the
preparation of the falsified deed of sale for the
benefit of the Trinidads. But, if this were so, it
would have made more sense for Atty. Saulog, Jr.
to testify in defense of the genuineness of the
transaction by claiming that he recalled the faces
of those who appeared before him 12 years ago
and that they were no other than the Arguelleses.
EFIGENIA M. TENOSO VS. ATTY. ANSELMO S.
ECHANEZ.
A.C. No. 8384, April 11, 2013
FACTS: Efigenia M. Tenoso filed a complaint
against Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez alleging that
respondent was engaged in practice as a notary
public in Cordon, Isabela, without having been
properly commissioned by the RTC of Santiago
City, Isabela.
a. documents signed and issued by RTC Santiago
City Executive Judge bearing the names of
commissioned notaries public within the territorial
jurisdiction, respondent's name does not appear
on the list;
b. documents that appear to have been notarized
by respondent; and
c. A copy of a certification issued by Judge
Cacatian stating that a joint-affidavit notarized by
respondent in 2008 could not be “authenticated
as to respondent's seal and signature as NO
Notarial Commission was issued upon him at the
time of the document's notarization.”
RESPONDENT: denied the allegations saying, “I
have never been notarizing any document or
pleadings” and “never committed any malpractice,
nor deceit nor have violated [the] lawyers (sic)
oath”. He dismissed such allegations as being
“preposterous, full of lies, politically motivated and
x x x meant to harass or intimidate [him]”. Also,
the documents were “tampered and adulterated,”
or that “[s]omebody might have forged [his]
signature.”
IBP: Recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law and
disqualified from being commissioned as a notary
public.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent can be
administratively liable.
HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that Atty.
Anselmo S. Echanez is guilty of engaging in
notarial practice without a notarial commission,
and be Suspended from the practice of law for
two (2) years and be Disqualified from being
commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.
the Court emphasizes that the practice of law is
imbued with public interest and that “a lawyer
owes substantial duties not only to his client, but
also to his brethren in the profession, to the
courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of
the most important functions of the State — the
administration of justice — as an officer of the
court.” Similarly, the duties of notaries public are
dictated by public policy and impressed with
public interest. “[N]otarization is not a routinary,
meaningless act, for notarization converts a
private document to a public instrument, making
it admissible in evidence without the necessity of
preliminary proof of its authenticity and due
execution.”
respondent committed acts of deceit
falsehood in open violation of the explicit
pronouncements of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Evidently, respondent's conduct
falls miserably short of the high standards of
morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing
required from lawyers. It is proper that he be
sanctioned.
Jandoquile vs. revilla
FACTS: Atty. Revilla, Jr. notarized a complaint-
affidavit signed by Heneraline L. Brosas, Herizalyn
Brosas Pedrosa and Elmer L. Alvarado. Heneraline
Brosas is a sister of Heizel Wynda Brosas Revilla,
Atty. Revilla, Jr.'s wife.
Petitioner: Jandoquile complains that Atty. Revilla,
Jr. is disqualified to perform the notarial act per
Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice. Jandoquile also complains that Atty.
Revilla, Jr. did not require the three affiants in the
complaint-affidavit to show their
identification cards.
Defendant: Atty. Revilla, Jr. admitted Jandoquile’s
material allegations. Atty. Revilla, Jr. submits that
his act is not a ground for disbarment. He also
says that he acts as counsel of the three affiants;
thus, he should be considered more as counsel
than as a notary public when he notarized their
complaint-affidavit. He did not require the affiants
to present valid identification cards since he
knows them personally.
ISSUE: Whether the single act of notarizing the
complaint-affidavit of relatives within the fourth
civil degree of affinity and, at the same time, not
requiring them to present valid identification cards
is a ground for disbarment.
HELD: No, Indeed, section 3(c), Rule IV of the
and 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly disqualifies
respondent from notarizing the complaint-
affidavit, from performing the notarial act, since
two of the affiants or principals are his relatives
within the fourth civil degree of affinity. Given the
clear provision of the disqualification rule, it
behooved upon Atty. Revilla, Jr. to act with
prudence and refuse notarizing the document.
- the Court ruled that he cannot be liable, if the
notary public knows the affiants personally, he
need not require them to show their valid
identification cards. In this case, Heneraline Brosas
is a sister of Atty. Revilla, Jr.’s wife; Herizalyn
Brosas Pedrosa is his wife’s sister-in-law; and
Elmer Alvarado is the live-in houseboy of the
Brosas family. -While he has a valid defense as to
the second charge, it does not exempt him from
liability for violating the disqualification rule.
However, Atty. Revilla, Jr.’s violation of the
disqualification rule under Section 3(c), Rule IV of
valid the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice is not a
sufficient ground to disbar him. Atty. Revilla, Jr.
did not commit any deceit, malpractice, gross
misconduct or gross immoral conduct, or any
other serious ground for disbarment under
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
-the court ruled that a punishment less severe
than disbarment would suffice.
- REPRIMANDED and DISQUALIFIED from being
commissioned as a notary public for a period of
three (3) months.

WILBERTO C. TALISIC v. ATTY. PRIMO R. RINEN,
A.C. No. 8761, February 12, 2014
FACTS: This is an administrative case instituted by
complainant Wilberto C. Talisic (Wilberto) against
Atty. Primo R. Rinen1(Atty. Rinen), charging the
latter with falsification of an Extra Judicial Partition
with Sale which allowed the transfer to spouses
Benjamin Durante and Eleonor Lavifia (Spouses
Durante) of a parcel of land formerly owned by
Wilberto's mother, Aurora Corpuz (Aurora).
situated in Barangay Langgas, Infanta, Quezon.
Wilberto claimed that his mother Aurora died on
May 7, 1987, leaving behind as heirs her spouse,
Celedonio Talisic, and their three children, namely:
Arlene Talisic Villarazo, Wilberto and Alvin Corpuz
Talisic. It was only after his father’s death on
November 2, 2000 that Wilberto and his siblings
knew of the transfer of the subject parcel via the
subject deed. While Wilberto believed that his
father’s signature on the deed was authentic, his
and his siblings’ supposed signatures were merely
forged. Wilberto also pointed out that even his
name was erroneously indicated in the deed as
"Wilfredo".
Respondent denied the charge against him and
explained that it was only on April 7, 1994 that he
came to know of the transaction between the
Spouses Durante and the Talisics, when they
approached him in his office as the then Presiding
Judge of the MTC, Real, Quezon, to have the
subject deed prepared and notarized. His clerk of
court prepared the deed and upon its completion,
ushered the parties to his office for the
administration of oath. The deed contained his
certification that at the time of the document’s
execution, "no notary public was available to
expedite the transaction of the parties." Notarial
fees paid by the parties were also covered by a
receipt issued by the Treasurer of the Municipality
of Real, Quezon.
Commissioner Abelita issued the Report and
Recommendation for the cancellation of Atty.
Rinen’s notarial commission and his suspension
from notarial practice for a period of one year.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Rinen should be
removed from being a notary public.
HELD: YES. The notarization of a document carries
considerable legal effect. Notarization of a private
document converts such document into a public
one, and renders it admissible in court without
further proof of its authenticity. Thus, notarization
is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it
engages public interest in a substantial degree.
- Such failure was further shown by the fact that
the pertinent details of the community tax
certificates of Wilberto and his sister, as proof of
their identity, remained unspecified in the subject
deed’s acknowledgment portion. Clearly, there
was a failure on the part of Atty. Rinen to exercise
the due diligence that was required of him as a
notary public ex-officio.
- as recommended by the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, the Court REVOKES the notarial
commission which Atty. Primo R. Rinen may
presently have, and DISQUALIFIES him from being
commissioned as a notary public for one year,
effective immediately.
MELANIO S. SALITA., vs. ATTY. REYNALDO SALVE
FACTS: On November 15, 2006, Salita paid his
loan in full as evidenced by a Release of Real
Estate Mortgage executed by Rodriguez before
Notary Public Buenaventura Melendres, which was
later duly entered in the Register of Deeds of
Davao Del Norte. Notwithstanding such full
payment, Rodriguez, on September 17, 2007,
instituted an ejectment complaint against Salita in
furtherance of his cause the pre-formed Deed of
Absolute Sale and the two (2) REM instruments
signed by the latter.
- Salita discovered that the Deed of Absolute Sale
had already been notarized by Atty. Salve and his
Community Tax Certificate Numbers
allegedly falsified.
Petitioner’s Contention: Salita noticed that one
copy of the Deed of Sale was purportedly
notarized on August 12, 2007, while another was
notarized a month later, or on September 12,
2007. Thus, Salita went on to conclude that
because of the foregoing events, it appeared as if
he had sold the subject property to Rodriguez
and executed the same before Atty. Salve.
Respondent’s Contention: He averred that the said
document was regular on its face except the
month of sale, i.e., August 12, 2007 instead of
September 12, 2007, which is a mere clerical error
due to “sheer” inadvertence on the part of his
secretary. Atty. Salve claimed that the date stamp
accidentally slid to August instead of September
as it was also being used by three (3) other office
clerks and two (2) lawyers for other office
documents. Atty. Salve further narrated that both
Salita and Rodriguez went to him and brought the
PN and other loan documents executed by Salita
himself. He also clarified that the PN was
notarized in their presence on December 12, 2002
and both got a copy right after. Atty. Salve then
inferred that it was Salita who erased the PN’s
machine printed numbers using his
handwriting and thereafter photocopied it to
make it appear that the document was not among
the notarial documents he submitted to the Office
of the Clerk of Court of Tagum Cityfor the year
2002. Finally, Atty. Salve averred that the certified
electronic copies of the PN in the Office of the
Clerk of Court of Tagum City and the ones in his
law office are identical and the same, while Salita’s
alleged falsified photocopy is totally different.
IBP Report and Recommendation:
were It dismissed Salita’s complaint for lack of merit.
especially considering that Salita’s criminal
complaint was dismissed for lack of probable
cause.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and
approved the IBP Investigating Commissioner’s
Report and Recommendation dismissing the case
for lack of merit. However, upon reconsideration,
the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution
dated March 8, 2014 setting aside its December
29, 2012 Resolution and recommended the
suspension of Atty. Salve’s notarial commission for
a period of three (3) months. It, however, failed to
state the reasons for imposing the suspension.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Salve should be held
administratively liable?
HELD: Yes, Atty. Salve’s act of certifying under
oath an irregular Deed of Absolute Sale without
requiring the personal appearance of the persons
executing the same constitutes gross negligence
in the performance of duty as a notary public.
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
the truth of what are stated therein.
own To recount, records reveal that Rodriguez used,
among others, the Deed of Absolute Sale
notarized by Atty. Salve to file an ejectment
complaint against Salita. However, it must be
remembered that Salita was merely made to sign
such document as collateral for his loan and that
he had already fully paid the same, as evidenced
by the notarized Release of Real Estate Mortgage
executed by Rodriguez herself. Considering the
circumstances, it is simply unfathomable for Salita
to appear before Atty. Salve to have the said
document notarized, as it will be detrimental to
his own interests. Hence, the Court finds that Atty.
Salve notarized the pre-formed Deed of Absolute
Sale without Salita’s presence before him.
The function of a notary public is, among others,
to guard
Respondent Atty. Reynaldo T. Salve was found
GUILTY of gross negligence in his conduct as a
notary public. His notarial commission, if still
existing, was REVOKED and he was DISQUALIFIED
from being commissioned as a notary public for a
period of two (2) years.
JIMMY ANUDON AND JUANITA ANUDON v.
ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA. A.C. No. 5482. February
10, 2015
FACTS: Complainants Jimmy Anudon and Juanita
Anudon are brother- and sister-in-law.
Complainants co-owns a 4,446-square-meter
parcel of land located in Sison, Pangasinan
Respondent Atty. Arturo B. Cefra is a distant
relative of Jimmy and Juanita. Atty. Cefra
notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale over a land
owned by the petitioners. The names of
petitioners appeared as vendors, while the name
of Celino Paran, Jr. appeared as the vendee.
Jimmy and Juanita claimed that the Deed of
Absolute Sale was falsified. They alleged that they
did not sign the Deed of Absolute Sale. Moreover,
they did not sign it before Atty. Cefra. The
National Bureau of Investigation’s Questioned
Documents Division certified that Jimmy and
Juanita’s signatures were forged. Due to the
forgery of the Deed of Absolute Sale, the Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor, with Jimmy and Juanita as
witnesses, filed a case of falsification of public
document against Atty. Cefra and Paran.
Defendant Defense: Atty. Cefra stated that Jimmy
and Juanita were aware of the sale of the property
and that Juanita and Jimmy’s wife Helen Anudon
went to his residence to consult him on how they
could sell the land. Atty. Cefra claimed that he
assisted in the preparation of the documents for
the sale, which included the deed of sale and the
acknowledgment receipts for payment. Paran’s
relatives informed Atty. Cefra that they witnessed
Jimmy, Juanita, and Loejan sign the document.
Loejan affixed the signatures for his father,
Johnny, and his uncle and aunt, Alfonso and
Benita. Atty. Cefra admitted knowing that Loejan
affixed the signatures of Johnny, Alfonso, and
Benita - Loejan needed the proceeds of the sale
for the amputation of his mother’s leg.
ISSUE: Is Atty. Cefra guilty of violating the Notarial
Law and Canon 1 of Code of Professional
Responsibility?
HELD: The IBP’s finding: Respondent violated the
Notarial Law and Canon 1. That his notarial
commission be revoked, his notarial practice
suspended for 2 years and that he be suspended
from practice of law for 1 year.
The SC declared the Respondent Atty. Cefra
violated the Notarial Law and the Code of
Professional Responsibility in notarizing a
document without requiring the presence of the
affiants.
Transgressing the rules on notarial practice
sacrifices the integrity of notarized documents. It
is the notary public who assures that the parties
appearing in the document are the same parties
who executed it. This cannot be achieved if the
parties are not physically present before the
notary public acknowledging the document.
- Atty. Cefra is also guilty of violating Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. This
canon requires a lawyer “to uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes.” He
contumaciously delayed compliance with this
court’s order to file a Comment. Atty. Cefra did
not comply with this order until he was arrested
by the National Bureau of Investigation. Atty.
Cefra only filed his Comment on January 15, 2008,
more than seven years after this court’s order.
Atty. Cefra’s actions show utter disrespect for legal
processes.
The Court SUSPENDED him from the PRACTICE
OF LAW for TWO YEARS, REVOKED his incumbent
NOTARIAL COMMISSION, and PERPETUALLY
DISQUALIFIED him from being COMMISSIONED
as a NOTARY PUBLIC.
CARLITO ANG vs. ATTY. JAMES JOSEPH GUPANA
FACTS: The case stemmed from an affidavit-
complaint filed by complainant Carlito Ang
against respondent. Ang alleged that he and the
other heirs of the late Candelaria Magpayo,
namely Purificacion Diamante and William
Magpayo, executed an Extra-judicial Declaration
of Heirs and Partition involving a land.
- when he tried to secure a TCT in his name, he
found out that said TCT number had already been
cancelled and in lieu thereof, new TCTs had been
issued in the names of William Magpayo, Antonio
Diamante, Patricia Diamante, Lolita D. Canque,
Gregorio Diamante, Jr. and Fe D. Montero.
-Ang believe that respondent had a direct
participation in the commission of forgeries and
falsifications because he was the one who
prepared and notarized the Affidavit of Loss and
Deed of Absolute. Ang pointed out that the Deed
of Absolute Sale which was allegedly executed by
Candelaria Magpayo on was antedated and
Candelaria Magpayo’s signature was forged as
clearly shown by the Certification issued by the
Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Cebu since the Notarial Report
indubitably showed that the document executed
was an affidavit, not a Deed of Absolute Sale.
- As to the Affidavit of Loss, which was allegedly
executed by the late Candelaria Magpayo on April
29, 1994, it could not have been executed by her
as she Died three years prior to the execution of
the said affidavit of loss. and alleged that
respondent made himself the attorney-in-fact and
executed a Deed of Sale selling the lot to Lim Kim
So Mecantile Co even though a civil case was
pending before the RTC of Mandaue City, Cebu.
- Respondent denied any wrongdoing. According
to the respondent, in the pending civil case Ang
anchored his claim on the Extra-judicial
Declaration of Heirs and Partition and sought to
annul the deed of sale and prayed for
reconveyance of the subject parcel of land.
However, because of Ang’s admission that he is
not an heir of late Candelaria Magpayo, the notice
of lis pendens annotated in the title of land were
ordered cancelled and the land became available
for disposition. Respondent surmised that these
developments in Civil Case No. Man-2202 meant
that Ang would lose his case so Ang resorted to
the filing of the present administrative complaint.
respondent prayed for the dismissal of the case
for being devoid of any factual or legal basis,
Investigating Commissioner Navarro of the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline found that
respondent is administratively liable. And be
suspended from the practice of law for three
months. She held that respondent committed an
unethical act when he allowed himself to be an
instrument in the disposal of the subject property
through a deed of sale executed between him as
attorney-in-fact of his client and Lim Kim So
Mercantile Co. despite his knowledge that said
property is the subject of a pending litigation
before the RTC of Mandaue City, Cebu.
- The Investigating Commissioner additionally
found that respondent "delegated the notarial
functions to the clerical staff of their office before
being brought to him for his signature."
Respondent should not delegate to any
unqualified person the performance of any task
which by law may only be performed by a
member of the bar in accordance with Rule 9.0117
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
ISSUE: WON the respondent is administratively
liable for violating the notarial law and the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
HELD: The Court finds respondent administratively
liable for violation of his notarial duties when he
failed to require the personal presence of
Candelaria Magpayo. it is clear that the party
acknowledging must appear before the notary
public or any other person authorized to take
acknowledgments of instruments or documents,
however, was already dead since March 26, 1991.
Hence, it is clear that the jurat was made in
violation of the notarial law.
- Respondent likewise violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9,
of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides that "[a] lawyer shall not delegate to any
unqualified person the performance of any task
which by law may only be performed by a
member of the Bar in good standing."
- respondent is liable for misconduct.
ATTY. AURELIO C. ANGELES, JR., PROVINCIAL
LEGAL OFFICER, BATAAN CAPITOL, BALANGA
CITY, BATAAN vs. ATTY. RENATO C. BAGAY
Atty. Angeles (Provincial Legal Officer of Bataan)
sent a letter to Hon. Escalada, Jr. (Executive Judge
of the RTC of Bataan) against Atty. Bagay for his
alleged notarization of 18 documents at the time
he was out of the country from March 13, 2008 to
April 8, 2008.
- These documents while respondent was outside
the country attending the Prayer and Life
Workshop in Mexico. The letter contained the
affidavits of the persons who caused the
documents to be notarized which showed a
common statement that they did not see Atty.
Bagay sign the documents himself and it was
either the secretary who signed them or the
documents came out of the office already signed.
The Bureau of Immigration verified that a Bagay
departed from the country on March 13, 2008 and
returned on April 8, 2008.
Defense: he was not aware that those documents
were notarized using his name while he was out of
the country. The notarizations were done by his
secretary and without his knowledge and
authority. He apologized to the Court and averred
terminated the employment of his secretary from
his office. For 21 years that he had been practicing
law, he acted as a notary public without any
blemish on record dutifully minding the rules of
the law profession and notarial practice.
R&R: guilty of negligence, the Investigating
Commissioner recommended the immediate
revocation of respondent’s commission as notary
public and his disqualification to be commissioned
as such for a period of two (2) years and observed
that respondent’s signature on his comment
appeared to be strikingly similar to the signatures
in most of the attached documents which he
admitted were notarized in his absence by his
office secretary. Thus, by his own admission, it was
established that by his negligence in employing an
office secretary who had access to his office.
SC: grossly negligent in his duty as a notary public
=REVOKES his notarial commission and
DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as
notary public for 2yrs + 3mos suspension from
practice of law
Respondent admitted that the 18 documents were
notarized under his notarial seal by his office
secretary.. A notary public’s secretary is obviously
not commissioned to perform the official acts of a
notary public.
- A person who is commissioned as a notary
public takes full responsibility for all the entries in
his notarial register. He cannot relieve himself of
this responsibility by passing the buck to his
secretary.
- Because of his negligence, the Court also holds
him liable for violation of the CPR. His failure to
solemnly perform his duty as a notary public not
only damaged those directly affected by the
notarized documents but also undermined the
integrity of a notary public and degraded the
function of notarization. He should, thus, be held
liable for such negligence not only as a notary
public but also as a lawyer.
- He violated Canon 9 of the CPR which requires
lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the
unauthorized practice of law.
- He also violated Canon 7 of the CPR, which
directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession. By
prejudicing the persons whose documents were
notarized by an unauthorized person, their faith in
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession
was eroded.
A notarial commission is a privilege and a
significant responsibility. It is a privilege granted
only to those who are qualified to perform duties
imbued with public interest. Notarization is not an
empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested
with substantive public interest, such that only
those who are qualified or authorized may act as
notary public. The protection of that interest
necessarily requires that those not qualified or
authorized to act must be prevented from
imposing upon the public, the courts, and the
administrative offices in general.