Heirs of Alilano v.
Examen (Vi) FACTS:
March 24, 2015| Villarama, Jr., J. |Notarial Duties
PETITIONER: Heirs of Pedro Alilano represented by David Alilano
RESPONDENTS: Atty. Roberto E. Examen
SUMMARY: Pedro and Florentina Alilano sold land to Ramon and Edna
Examen. The deeds of Absolute Sale were notarized by Ramon’s brother,
Atty. Roberto Examen. In 2003, The heirs of Alilano filed a complaint
saying that Atty. Examen violated the notarial law by notarizing the
document even if the party to it is his brother (the Spanish Notarial Law
prohibited it but the prohibition was removed by the Revised Admin Code,
then returned by the Revised Rules on Notarial Practice), and that he
notarized it knowing that the cedula (residence) certificate number was not
Ramon’s but Florentina’s, then he introduced these documents into
evidence. Issues: (1) Whether the prescriptive period of two years applies
for actions; (2) Whether Atty. Examen can be held administratively liable.
The Court ruled that the provision setting a prescriptive period of 2 years is
void because “It is the duty of this Court to protect the integrity of the
practice of law as well as the administration of justice. No matter how much
time has elapsed from the time of the commission of the act complained of
and the time of the institution of the complaint, erring members of the bench
and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court.” The prohibition
on relatives notarizing doesn’t apply because the documents were notarized
in 1984 and the law controlling back then was the Revised Admin Code
which removed the prohibition. However, Atty. Examen is administratively
liable because among the grounds for revoking commission of a notary
public is when the notary fails to make a proper notation regarding the
cedula certificates (the cedula certs here were not Ramon’s but Florentina’s
so he is liable). He should have checked the correctness. This could have
been avoided if he diligently performed his functions. By violating the
notarial law, Atty. Examen violated the lawyer’s oath, Rules of Court, and
CPR (deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, willful disobedience, and
upholding legal processes). The Court revoked his notarial commission for
2 years and suspended him from the practice of law for the same time.
DOCTRINE: Notarization is invested with substantive public interest.
Notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties in the performance of their duties. Good faith
cannot be a mitigating circumstance since the duty to function as a
notary public is personal.
1. This is a complaint for disbarment filed before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) by the heirs of Pedro Alilano against Atty.
Roberto E. Examen for misconduct and malpractice for falsifying
documents and presenting these as evidence in court thus violating
the Lawyer's Oath, Canons 1, 10, and 19, and Rules 1.01, 1.02,
10.01, and 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
2. Pedro Alilano and his wife, Florentina, owned a 98,460 sq.m. parcel
of land in Paitan, Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat. Pedro died in 1985 and
Florentina in 1989.
3. In 1984, the spouses sold the land to Ramon Examen and his wife,
Edna embodied in Absolute Deeds of Sale. Both documents were
notarized by respondent Atty. Roberto Examen, brother of the
vendee. Sometime in September 1984, Spouses Examen obtained
possession of the property.
4. On January 12, 2002, the heirs of Alilano filed a suit for recovery of
possession before the RTC of Sultan Kudarat against Edna Examen
and Atty. Roberto Examen. It was during this proceeding that Atty.
Examen introduced into evidence the March 31, 1984 and
September 12, 1984 Absolute Deeds of Sale.
5. On November 15, 2003, the heirs of Alilano filed a complaint
alleging that Atty. Examen violated the notarial law when he
notarized 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. It is also alleged that Atty.
Examen notarized the documents knowing that the cedula or
residence certificate number used by Ramon Examen was not
actually his but the residence certificate number of Florentina.
Atty. Examen also falsely acknowledged that the two witnesses
personally appeared before him when they did not. Lastly, it is
alleged that despite knowing the infirmities of these documents,
Atty. Examen introduced these documents into evidence
violating his oath as a lawyer and the CPR.
6. In his defense, Atty. Examen said that there was no longer a
prohibition under the Revised Administrative Code for a notary
public to notarize a document where one of the parties is related to
him by consanguinity and affinity. With regard to the use of
Florentina's residence certificate as 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. He said that the use of another's residence certificate is not
a ground for disbarment and is barred by prescription based on
IBP Resolution No. XVI-2004-13 where it was proposed that the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline Integrated
Bar of the Philippines, Section 1, Rule VIII, be revised to include a
prescription period for professional misconduct: within two
years from the date of the act.
7. IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Examen
liable for breach of the Notarial Law and introducing false Absolute
Deeds of Sale. There was evidence to support the contention that the
Sps. Alilano did not voluntarily and knowingly convey their
property (Pedro’s signature was different). Ramon Examen's
residence certificate number, date and place of issue were also
falsified since it actually belonged to Florentina Pueblo. IBP-CBD
recommended disbarment. IBP Board of Governors (BOG) adopted
the report of the CBD but modified the penalty to 2 years suspension
of Atty. Examen’s Notarial Commission and from the practice of
law (2 years also).
8. Atty. Examen moved for reconsideration but the BOG denied it and
also modified the penalty imposed to 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:
1. Whether there is a prescriptive period to file an admin case on the
actions of Atty. Examen - NO
2. Whether Atty. Examen is administratively liable – YES (and modify
penalty)
RATIO:
1. In disbarment cases the only issue that is to be decided by the Court
is whether the member of the bar is fit to be allowed the privileges
as such or not (so, not the proper venue to rule on whether the
property was properly sold or if the signatures were really forged).
1st Issue:
2. In Frias v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada, the Court said that there can be
no prescription in bar discipline cases. It pointed out this has been
the policy since 1967 with the Court's ruling in Calo, Jr. v. Degamo
and reiterated in Heck v. Santos where the Court said that, “It is the
duty of this Court to protect the integrity of the practice of law as
well as the administration of justice. No matter how much time has
elapsed from the time of the commission of the act complained of
and the time of the institution of the complaint, erring members of
the bench and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court.”
It was ruled in Frias that this provision was void and had no
legal effect for being ultra vires, thus null and void.
2nd Issue:
3. Before, the governing law was the Spanish Notarial Law of 1889
but in 1917, the Revised Administrative Code took effect and in
2004, the Revised Rules on Notarial Practice was passed by the SC.
4. The prohibition on relatives within the 4th degree from notarizing
documents was removed in the Revised Administrative Code.
Therefore, Atty. Examen was allowed to notarize the document
even if one of the parties to the deed was his brother.
Note: The 2004 Revised Rules on Notarial Practice returned the
prohibition but it doesn’t matter here because Atty. Examen
notarized it in 1984 so the 2004 rules didn’t apply yet.
5. Nunga v. Atty. Viray: Notarization is invested with substantive
public interest. It converts a private document into a public
document. Notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of their duties in the performance
of their duties.
6. Chapter 11, Section 251 of the Revised Administrative Code:
requires that “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] certificates or are exempt from the cedula [residence] tax
and there shall be entered by the notary public as a part of such
certification the number, place of issue, and date of each cedula
[residence] certificate as aforesaid.”
Chapter 11, Section 249: among the grounds for disqualification
is “the failure of the notary to make the proper notation
regarding cedula certificates.” (Atty. Examen violated this ground
for revocation of commission)
7. Notarial Law requires them to certify that a party to the instrument
acknowledged before him has presented the proper residence
certificate but it is clear that the residence certificate number used
by Ramon Examen and as notarized in both Absolute Deeds of Sale
was not Ramon’s but Florentina's. Atty. Examen said he was in good
faith and that his secretary typed it and he did not check it but the
 court said good faith cannot be a mitigating circumstance since
the duty to function as a notary public is personal. The error could
have been prevented if he 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.
8. In violating the provisions of the Notarial Law, Atty. Examen also
violated his oath as a lawyer, provisions of the CPR and Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court (deceit, malpractice, gross
misconduct, willful disobedience) and Canon 1 of CPR (uphold
legal processes).
9. Penalty: Atty. Examen not only failed to uphold his duty as a
notary public but also failed to uphold his lawyer's oath and ran
afoul the provisions of the CPR. Atty, Examen was SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for 2 years and his present notarial
commission REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED from
reappointment as a notary public for 2 years. He is WARNED that
any similar act or infraction in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.