cannot be held liable.
If the notary public knows the affiants
BERNARD JANDOQUILLE v. Atty. QUIRINO REVILLA, JR. A.C.
No. 9514, Apr. 10, 2013 J. Villarama, Jr.
FACTS
Atty. Revilla, Jr. notarized a complaint-affidavit signed by
Heneraline Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas-Pedrosa and Elmer
Alvarado. Heneraline and Herezaline are sisters of Atty.
Revilla, Jr.'s wife, while Elmer is a houseboy of the
Brosas’s Family. Jandoquile complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. is
disqualified to perform the notarial act per Sec 3c, Rule IV of
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, viz:
“ DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public,
Notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if
he is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant,
or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within
the fourth civil degree
”.
Jandoquile also complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not
require the three affiants in the complaint-affidavit to show
their valid identification cards. Hence, this complaint for
disbarment against Atty. Revilla Jr.
Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not deny but admitted Jandoquile’s
material allegations.
He 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 or not notarizing a document 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 Atty. Revilla, Jr. violated the disqualification rule under
Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Given the clear provision of the disqualification rule, it
behooved upon Atty. Revilla, Jr. to act with prudence and
should have refused notarizing the document.
The court didn’t agree with Atty. Revilla’s
proposition that he should be considered more as a counsel
of the affiants than as notary public, when he notarized the
complaint-affidavit. The notarial certificate at the bottom
of the complaint-affidavit shows his signature as a notary
public, with a notarial commission valid until December 31,
2012. He cannot therefore claim that he signed it as counsel
of the three affiants. On the second charge, Atty. Revilla, Jr.
personally, he need not require them to show their valid
identification cards. But Atty. Revilla, Jr. is not without fault
for failing to indicate such fact in the "jurat" of the
complaint-affidavit. No statement was included therein that
he knows the three affiants personally. Atty.
Revilla, Jr.’s violation of the disqualification rule under
Section 3(c), Rule IV of 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. Atty. Revilla, Jr., was just REPRIMANDED and
or from performing any notarial act if he is presently
commissioned as a notary public, for a period of three (3)
months.
Facts: In January 2004, Lazareto and his family engaged the
respondent's services (the respondent was a member of the
law office Jaromay Baylon Acorda Landrito & Associates to
handle the extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Lazareto's
father who died intestate. They agreed to set the deadline for
the filing of the extrajudicial settlement action on May 26,
2004, to enable the family to avail of a P100,000.00 deduction
in estate taxes They also agreed that titles to a parcel of
conjugal land (Lots B & E) at Tomas Mapua St., Sta. Cruz,
Manila, left by the deceased, be transferred to Lazareto's
mother, Cleotilde D. Lazareto.On July 17, 2008, the IBP Board
of Governors passed Resolution No. XVIII-2008-347approving,
with modification, Comm. Inocencio's recommendation. The
board suspended respondent from the practice of law for one
month, for his failure to comply with his obligation towards
Lazareto and his family.The respondent argued that in the
light of Comm. Inocencio's finding that he did not act in bad
faith in dealing with Lazareto and the fact that he had
returned the TCT of Lot E and substantially all of the amounts
paid to him, substantial justice, fairness and equity demand
that the case be dismissed
Issues: (1) whether respondent was negligent in handling the
legal matter entrusted to him; and (2) whether respondent
acted in bad faith in dealing with complainant Lazareto and
his family
Held: Yes and yes. After an objective examination of the facts
and the evidence, we find the dismissal of the case
unacceptable, notwithstanding Lazareto's affidavit of
desistance and his silence with respect to said dismissal. The
IBP Board of Governors misappreciated the gravity and the
scope of the respondent's breach of his contractual obligation
with Lazareto and his family. He had been negligent in
carrying out the task entrusted to him by Lazareto and his
family as found by Comm. Inocencio, a clear violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. He had been grossly
dishonest with respect to certain actions he claimed he had
taken in relation to his task.According to the Supreme Court,
the respondent should be made to answer for his dishonest
dealings with Lazareto and his family, as well as for his
negligence in the handling of the task Lazareto had entrusted
to him. We say this notwithstanding the layman Lazareto's
desistance, as the respondent's action was a transgression not
only of what is due Lazareto as a client but also of the
profession and the nation that expect its lawyers to live up to
the highest standards of performance in this noble profession.