CASE (Canon No, FACTS and ISSUES IBP-CBD IBP-BOG SC

parties)

Notarial Practice On November 25, 2007, the Ferguson purchased a house Guilty of ADOPT AND The importance of the affiant's
Case1 and lot located in San Rafael, Bulacan for ₱800,000.00. violating the law APPROVE personal appearance was further
Without her knowledge, the seller obtained a Certificate on notarial emphasized in Section 2 (b),
Ferguson v Ramos of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) to transfer the title practice Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial
of the said property to her name, but the seller was Practice of 2004 which
NENITA DE unaware that the said CLOA was void ab initio as the Suspended from Suspended from specifically provides that:
GUZMAN subject land was not an agricultural land and there the practice of the practice of law A person shall not perform a
FERGUSON, existed a 10-year prohibition to transfer the subject land. law - (1) year – 6 MOS and, notarial act if the person involved
Complainant and, as signatory to the instrument or
vs. In 2009, the Ferguson filed a petition for the cancellation in case he held a document -
ATTY. of the CLOA before the DAR Office, the in case he held a commission as a (1) is not in the notary's presence
SALVADOR P. sellers(defendants) were represented by Atty. Ramos, commission as a notary public; personally at the time of the
RAMOS, who was the Chief Legal Officer of DAR-Provincial notary public; that it be notarization; and
Respondents Office in Bulacan. Ferguson withdrew the petition before that it be IMMEDIATELY (2) is not personally known to
the DAR and filed the case before the Regional Trial revoked and revoked and that the notary public or otherwise
Before the Court is Court, Branch 12, Malolos City (RTC). that he be he be disqualified identified by the notary public
the Complaint- disqualified to to act as a notary through competent evidence of
Affidavit, filed by Upon receipt of the Answer, Ferguson found out that it act as a notary public - (2) years identity as defined by these
Nenita De Guzman was strikingly similar to the one filed by the defendants public - (2) Rules.
Ferguson in the DAR, which was prepared by Atty. Ramos; that years to be
(complainant), complainant discovered that the Deed of Sale, dated counted after A notary public, before
seeking the April 24, 2009, which became the basis of the transfer of his suspension notarizing a document, should
disbarment of Atty. title was fraudulently altered as it only covered the require the presence of the
Salvador P. Ramos sale of the land, not the house and lot, and the price very person who executed the
(Atty. Ramos) for indicated was only ₱188,340.00, not the amount of same. Thus, he certifies that it
falsification, ₱800,000.00 that complainant actually paid. was the same person who
violation of notarial executed and personally
law and engaging Complainant’s signature and her husband, Douglas appeared before him to attest to
in private practice Ferguson were forged. Atty. Ramos notarized the the contents and truth of what
while employed in deed of Sale without their presence. The complainant were stated therein. The presence
the government and her husband neither appeared, executed nor of the parties to the deed is
service. acknowledged any document before Atty. Ramos as they necessary to enable the notary
never met him in person. public to verify the genuineness
of the signature of the affiant. In
Atty. Ramos denied that he represented the defendants in the present case, Atty. Ramos
the case before the DAR but he admitted that he denied having notarized the April
notarized their Answer. With respect to the charge of 24, 2009 deed of sale and
falsification of the April 24, 2009 Deed of Sale and the claimed that his signature was
notarization of the aforementioned deed, Atty. Ramos forged. He even alluded that the
likewise denied any participation and countered that his person who benefited from it
signature as a notary public was forged. could be the forger as the capital
gains tax liability was reduced.
Ruling: He, nonetheless, admitted
Note: notarizing the “genuine” deed of
sale, dated May 12, 2009.
With respect to the allegation that Atty. Ramos was
engaged in a private practice while employed in the In the case of Gonzales v.
government service, the Court agrees with the CBD that Ramos, the Court explained the
the issue should be brought before the Civil Service significance of the act of
Commission for the determination of his appropriate notarization, thus:
administrative liability, if any. By affixing his notarial seal on
the instrument, the respondent
converted the Deed of Absolute
Sale, from a private document
into a public document. Such
act is no empty gesture. The
principal function of a notary
public is to authenticate
documents. When a notary
public certifies to the due
execution and delivery of a
document under his hand and
seal, he gives the document the
force of evidence. Indeed, one of
the purposes of requiring
documents to be acknowledged
before a notary public, in
addition to the solemnity which
should surround the execution
and delivery of documents, is to
authorize such documents to be
given without further proof of
their execution and delivery. A
notarial document is by law
entitled to full faith and credit
upon its face. Courts,
administrative agencies and the
public at large must be able to
rely upon the
acknowledgement executed
before a notary public and
appended to a private
instrument. Hence, a notary
public must discharge his powers
and duties, which are impressed
with public interest, with
accuracy and fidelity.
Not only did Atty. Ramos fail to
comply with the Rule on Notarial
Practice when he notarized the
deed of sale without the presence
of the parties but he likewise
violated Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
which obliges a lawyer to
uphold the Constitution, obey
the laws of the land and
promote respect for the law
and legal processes; and Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
which proscribes a lawyer
from engaging in any unlawful,
dishonest, immoral and
deceitful conduct.

As a lawyer commissioned as
notary public, Atty. Ramos was
mandated to exercise the
function of his office and must
observe with utmost care the
basic formalities of his office and
requisites in the performance of
his duties. When Atty. Ramos
affixed his signature and notarial
seal on the deed of sale, he led us
to believe that the parties
personally appeared before him
and attested to the truth and
veracity of the contents thereof.
His conduct was fraught with
dangerous possibilities
considering the conclusiveness
on the due execution of a
document that our courts and the
public accord on notarized
documents. Certainly, Atty.
Ramos failed to exercise the
functions of the office and to
comply with the mandates of the
law.
CASE (Canon No, FACTS and ISSUES IBP-CBD IBP-BOG SC
parties)
Notarial Practice Maniquiz alleged that Emelo violated his lawyer's oath 2 years Adopted, approved The Court upholds the findings
Case 2 and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) suspension from w/ modification and recommendations of the IBP
when he willfully notarized a fictitious Deed of practice of law that Emelo should be held liable
MA. VILMA F. Absolute Sale containing a falsified signature of her SUSPENDED from for the questioned act.
MANIQUIZ, sister-in-law, Mergelita Sindanom Maniquiz, as vendor the practice of law
Complainant, v. of a parcel of land in favor of spouses Leonardo and for two (2) years the Court SUSPENDS Atty.
ATTY. DANILO Lucena Torres, as the vendees. Even worse, Emelo and Danilo C. Emelo from the
C. EMELO, notarized said document without being authorized to act his notarial practice of law for a period of
Respondent. as a notary public for Cavite. commission, if two (2) years, REVOKES his
presently notarial commission, if presently
On January 11, 2011, a person connected with the commissioned, is commissioned, and
This is an Spouses Torres gave Maniquiz a copy of said deed of REVOKED. PERPETUALLY
administrative sale. When she showed it to Mergelita, the latter was Further, he is DISQUALIFIES him from
complaint filed by surprised and denied that she ever signed the same. DISQUALIFIED being commissioned as a notary
Ma. Vilma Also, they noticed that the document did not show the from being public.
Maniquiz against names of the witnesses but only their signatures and the commissioned as
Atty. Danilo C. purported vendees failed to present any government- notary public for
Emelo, for issued identification documents. Emelo's notarial two (2) years. Notarization is the act that
notarizing a commission and roll of attorneys number were likewise ensures the public that the
fictitious Deed of not indicated in the document. Thus, Maniquiz went to provisions in the document
Absolute Sale and Emelo's residence to confirm if he indeed notarized said express the true agreement
in the absence of deed of sale. Emelo told them that he did notarize said between the parties.
the required document based on a photocopy of Mergelita's passport Transgressing the rules on
notarial which was shown to him by his kumpare, Leonardo notarial practice sacrifices the
commission. Torres, who personally appeared before him at that integrity of notarized documents.
time. The notary public is the one who
assures that the parties appearing
Emelo, for his part, denied the accusations against him. in the document are indeed the
In his belatedly filed Comment on July 26, 2012, he same parties who executed it.
argued that he was not remiss in his obligations as a This obviously cannot be
notary public when he notarized the subject deed of achieved if the parties are not
absolute sale since the parties actually appeared before physically present before the
him. He likewise attested that a woman introduced notary public acknowledging the
herself to him as Mergelita Maniquiz, as evidenced by document since it is highly
her passport. As regards the issue of absence of notarial possible that the terms and
commission, he explained that for the year 2007, he conditions favorable to the
could not retrieve orders of his commission as they may vendors might not be included in
have been destroyed when his residential house was the document submitted by the
inundated by the typhoon Milenyo on September 28, vendee for notarization. Worse,
2006. He admitted the notarization of said document the possibility of forgery
without notarial commission and begged for clemency, becomes real. It should be noted
kind consideration, and forgiveness for the same. that a notary public's function
should not be trivialized; a notary
public must always discharge his
powers and duties, which are
impressed with public interest,
with accuracy and fidelity, and
with carefulness and faithfulness.
Notaries must, at all times,
inform themselves of the facts
they certify to. And most
importantly, they should not take
part or allow themselves to be
part of illegal transactions.

Where the notarization of a

document is done by a member
of the Philippine Bar at a time
when he has no authorization or
commission to do so, the
offender may be subjected to
disciplinary action. For one,
performing a notarial act without
such commission is a violation of
the lawyer's oath to obey the
laws, more specifically, the
Notarial Law. Then, too, by
making it appear that he is duly
commissioned when he is not, he
is, for all legal intents and
purposes, indulging in deliberate
falsehood, which the lawyer's
oath similarly proscribes. It
cannot be overemphasized that
notarization is not an empty,
meaningless, routinary act.
Notarization is invested with
substantive public interest, such
that only those who are qualified
or authorized may act as notaries
public. Hence, the requirements
for the issuance of a commission
as notary public are treated with
a formality definitely more than
casual.
These violations fall squarely
within the prohibition of Rule
1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR.
Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the
CPR.

When Emelo was admitted to the

Bar, he took an oath to obey the
laws, do no falsehood, and
conduct himself as a lawyer
according to the best of his
knowledge and discretion. After
a review of the records of the
case, however, the Court finds
him guilty of deceit, gross
misconduct, and dishonesty in
notarizing the deed of sale
without all the parties personally
appearing before him and in the
absence of a notarial
commission.
CASE (Canon No, FACTS and ISSUES IBP-CBD IBP-BOG SC
parties)

Case No. 3 Complainant Oscar M. Baysac (complainant) owns a SUSPENSION Disqualification of WHEREFORE, this Court
property with covered by Transfer Certificate of Title FOR 2 YEARS respondent from hereby finds Atty. Eloisa M.
OSCAR M. (TCT) No. T-58159 and registered with the Registry of AS NOTARY being Aceron-Papa GUILTY of
BAYSAC, Deeds of Trece Martires City. The property was PUBLIC commissioned as violating the Notarial Law and
COMPLAINANT, mortgaged by complainant to Spouses Emmanuel and notary public for the Code of Professional
VS. ATTY. Rizalina Cruz (Spouses Cruz) on December 20, 2000. three years with a Responsibility. Accordingly, this
ELOISA M. The Deed of Real Estate Mortgage was notarized by stern warning Court REVOKES her incumbent
ACERON-PAPA, Atty. Renelie B. Mayuga-Donato on December 20, commission, if any PROHIBITS
RESPONDENT 2000. the Commission her from being commissioned as
on Bar a notary public for two (2) years;
In February 2003, complainant went to the Registry of Discipline, in its and SUSPENDS her from the
Deeds of Trece Martires City to get a certified true Order dated practice of law for one (1) year,
copy of the certificate of title of the property because August 27, 2009, effective immediately. She is
the property had a prospective buyer. However, terminated the further WARNED that a
complainant was surprised to find out that TCT No. mandatory repetition of the same or similar
T-58159 had already been cancelled, and in lieu conference and offense shall be dealt with more
thereof, TCT No. T-67089 was issued in favor of directed the severely.
Spouses Cruz. parties to submit
their verified
Deed of Absolute Sale which was allegedly position papers It was respondent's duty as
executed on January 13, 2003 for the consideration so as not to delay notary public to require the
of P100,000.00. the early personal appearance of the
disposition of the person executing the document
case. Despite the to enable the former to verify the
The Deed of Absolute Sale which was allegedly signed
Order dated genuineness of his signature.
by complainant, as the owner of the property, was
August 27, 2009 Doing away with the essential
notarized by Atty. Papa on January 13, 2003.
being received by requirement of physical presence
respondent as of the affiant does not take into
Baysac, however, vehemently denied having ever evidenced by the account the likelihood that the
signed the Deed of Absolute Sale and having ever Registry Return documents may be spurious or
appeared before a notary public on January 13, Receipt signed that the affiants may not be who
2003 to acknowledge the same. He claimed that he by a certain Zyra they purport to be.
was in Tanza, Cavite that entire day with Ms. Flocerfida N. Ningas, it was
A. Angeles (Ms. Angeles) searching for a buyer of the only complainant Respondent should have been
property. Complainant Baysac further stated that the who filed a diligent enough to make sure that
Deed of Absolute Sale showed that what he allegedly position paper. the person appearing before her
presented to the notary public when he acknowledged is the same person
having executed the document was his Community Tax acknowledging the document to
Certificate (CTC) issued on May 26, 2000 or three be notarized. Respondent should
years prior to the execution of the Deed of Absolute have checked the authenticity of
Sale. The same CTC was used for the notarization of the evidence of identity
presented to her. Further, she
the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage on December 20,
2000.
In the Questioned Documents Report No. 515-703, the
NBI confirmed that the signature of complainant in
the Deed of Absolute Sale and the signatures in
other sample documents which he actually signed
were not made by one and the same person.
The complainant received a letter of demand to vacate
the property in execution of the deed of sale.
According to complainant, Atty. Laysa is respondent's
partner in Laysa Aceron-Papa Sayarot Law Office.
Thus, complainant claimed that respondent's act of
improperly notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale caused
him injustice because he was ousted from his property.
should not have relied on the
CTC in view of the ease with
which CTCs are obtained these
days. It should likewise be
pointed out that the CTC is not
included in the list of
competent evidence of identity
that notaries public should use
in ascertaining the identity of
persons appearing before them
to have their documents
notarized.
By notarizing a spurious
document, respondent has made
a mockery of the legal solemnity
of the oath in an
acknowledgment. Respondent's
failure to perform her duty as a
notary public resulted not only in
the damage to those directly
affected by the notarized
document, but also in
undermining the integrity of a
notary public, and in degrading
the function of notarization.
Precisely because of respondent's
act, complainant was unlawfully
deprived of his property.

Since such responsibility is

incumbent upon her, she must
now accept the commensurate
consequences of her professional
indiscretion. Her act of
certifying under oath an
irregular Deed of Absolute Sale
without ascertaining the
identities of the persons
executing the same constitutes
gross negligence in the
performance of duty as a notary
public.
CASE (Canon No, FACTS and ISSUES IBP-CBD IBP-BOG SC
parties)

Notarial Practice In support of her complaint, Mariano attached several Found Atty. ADOPTED AND Time and again, this Court has
Case No. 4 documents to show proof that Atty. Echanez has indeed Echanez liable APPROVED in stressed that notarization is
performed notarial acts without a notarial commission, for malpractice toto not an empty, meaningless and
FLORA C. to wit: for notarizing routine act. It is invested with
MARIANO, (1) Complaint dated June 18, 2007; documents substantive public interest that
Petitioner, (2) JointAffidavit of Gina Pimentel and Marilyn without a notarial
only those who are qualified
vs. Cayaban dated May 8, 2008; commission. The
ATTY. (3) Affidavit of Ginalyn Ancheta dated May 8, 2008; IBP-CBD further or authorized may act as
ANSELMO and (4) Joint-Affidavit dated May 8, 2008. noted that Atty. notaries public. It must be
ECHANEZ, Echanez ignored emphasized that the act of
Respondent. Also attached to the complaint is a document containing the processes of notarization by a notary public
the list of those who were issued notarial commissions the Commission converts a private document
violation of the for the year 2006-2007 signed by Executive Judge by failing to file into a public document
Notarial Law by Efren Cacatian of the Regional Trial Court of Santiago an answer on the making that document
performing notarial City where Atty. Echanez's name was not included as complaint, thus, admissible in evidence
acts on documents duly appointed notary public. it recommended without further proof of
without a notarial that Atty.
authenticity. A notarial
commission. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Echanez be
document is by law entitled to
Bar Discipline (IBP-CED) ordered Atty. Echanez to suspended from
submit his answer to the complaint against him. the practice of full faith and credit upon its
Atty. Echanez moved for extension to file his Answer law for two (2) face, and for this reason,
but nevertheless failed to submit his Answer. Thus, the years and that notaries public must observe
IBP-CBD, deemed Atty. Echanez to be in default. he be with utmost care the basic
permanently requirements in the
barred from performance of their duties.
being
commissioned In the instant case, it is
as notary undisputable that Atty.
public. Echanez performed notarial
acts on several documents
without a valid notarial
commission.

The fact of his lack of notarial

commission at the time of the
unauthorized notarizations
was likewise sufficiently
established by the
certifications issued by the
Executive Judges in the
territory where Atty. Echanez
performed the unauthorized
notarial acts.

Atty. Echanez, for

misrepresenting in the said
documents that he was a
notary public for and in
Cordon, Isabela, when it is
apparent and, in fact,
uncontroverted that he was
not, he further committed a
form of falsehood which is
undoubtedly anathema to the
lawyer's oath. This
transgression also runs afoul
of 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.

Atty. Echanez' conduct in the

course of proceedings before
the IBP is also a matter of
concern.1awp++i1 Atty.
Echanez, despite notices, did
not even attempt to present
any defense on the complaint
against him. He did not even
attend the mandatory
conference set by the IBP. He
ignored the IBP's directive to
file his answer and position
paper which resulted in the
years of delay in the resolution
of this case. Clearly, this
conduct runs counter to the
precepts of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
and violates the lawyers oath
which imposes upon every
member of the Bar the duty to
delay no man for money or
malice.

In Ngayan v. Tugade, we ruled

that [a lawyer's] failure to
answer the complaint against
him and his failure to appear
at the investigation are
evidence of his flouting
resistance to lawful orders of
the court and illustrate his
despiciency for his oath of
office in violation of Section
3, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court.

Atty. Echanez's failure to

attend the mandatory
conference and to submit his
Answer and Position paper
without any valid explanation
is enough reason to make him
administratively liable since
he is duty-bound to comply
with all the lawful directives
of the IBP, not only because
he is a member thereof but
more so because IBP is the
Court-designated investigator
of this case. As an officer of
the Court, Atty. Echanez is
expected to know that a
resolution of this Court is not
a mere request but anorder
which should be complied
with promptly and completely.