I. SHORT TITLE: SPS.

CHAMBON VS RUIZ

II. FULL TITLE: Spouses Andre Chambon and Maria Fatima Chambon vs Atty.
Christoper S. Ruiz – A.C. No. 11478, September 5, 2017

III. TOPIC: Notarial Practice

IV. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS:

Spouses Chambon were the creditors of Mrs.Suzette Camasura Remoreras. The

obligation was secured by a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land with improvements
covered by a TCT, registered in the latter’s maiden name and annotated in the Registry of
Deeds. When Remoreras failed to pay her obligation, the spouses instituted an extra-
judicial foreclosure proceeding on the property. The public auction was set on April 27,
2010.
In February 2010, the spouses’ counsel learned that the RTC issued an order
directing the issuance of a new Owner’s Duplicate Copy of the TCT grounded on an
alleged Notice of Loss/Affidavit of Loss of the title filed by Remoreras.

Prior to the auction, Remorenas filed a complaint to enjoin the same based on an
alleged execution and delivery of a Release Mortgage document on the property executed
by the spouses. However, the spouses discovered that the Notice of Loss/Affidavit of Loss
was notarized by Atty. Ruiz even though it contained defects. The jurat of the Notice did
not contain a competent evidence of identity of the executor and the spouses denied having
executed the Release.

When the spouses filed a complaint against Atty. Ruiz for violation of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice, he denied the existence and Notarization of the Release of
Mortgage. As to the Notice of Loss/Affidavit of Loss, he admitted its existence and its
entry in the notarial register but imputed negligence to his secretary.

V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

The Investigating Officer of the IBP-CBD recommended the revocation of his

commission as a notary public for 4 years. The IBP Board of Directors adopted the
recommendation but modified it to disqualifying Atty. Ruiz from reappointment as a notary
public for 3 years and suspending him from practice of law for 3 years.

VI. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent should be administratively disciplined.

VII. RULING:

Yes. We find that the respondent failed to live up with the duties of a notary
public as dictated by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The subject Notice of
Loss/Affidavit of Loss, allegedly executed by Remoreras, was undisputedly notarized by
the respondent and entered in his Notarial Register. However, a careful examination of said
Notice reveals that violation of the 2004 Rules was committed.
 The jurat was incomplete in that the competent proof of identity of the executor,
Remoreras, was left in blank. Also, reference to the Notarial Register indicates that the
entries pertaining to said Notice were also left in blank. The title/description of instrument,
name and addresses of parties, competent evidence of identity, date and time of
notarization, and type of notarial act were not filled up. The respondent affixed his
signature and seal on the notarial certificate without verifying the identity of the executor.
Such was inferred from the fact that the competent proof of such executor's identity was
left in blank. Hence, his act of signing the notarial certificate, notwithstanding the fact that
it was incomplete, is a clear violation of the said Rules. No allegation as well that
Remoreras is personally known to the respondent to dispense with the presentation of a
competent evidence of identity. Moreover, entries in the respondent's Notarial Register,
which refer to said Notice of Loss/Affidavit of Loss were also not properly accomplished.

As to the Release of Mortgage, the respondent denied having notarized the same.
He averred that reference to the book number, document number, and page number of such
alleged Release points to a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in his Notarial Register. The
respondent admitted that while an SPA is indicated therein, it was actually a Deed of
Absolute Sale, which he actually notarized. Such inadvertence was also blamed to his
office secretary. Said Release of Mortgage bears similarities as to the signature and seal of
the respondent as provided in the Notice of Loss/ Affidavit of Loss. Nevertheless, his
admission that inadvertence on the part of his secretary was committed with regard to the
entries in his Notarial Register also constitutes a violation under the Rules as
aforementioned.

VIII. DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, the instant complaint is GRANTED. Respondent Atty. Christopher S.

Ruiz is found GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Accordingly, We
hereby REVOKE his notarial commission and PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFY him from
being a notary public. Atty. Ruiz is also SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of one (1) year, effective immediately. He is STERNLY WARNED that repetition
of the same will be dealt with more severely.