Notarial Law-salient and Cases

8/11/2019 Notarial Law-salient and Cases

1/26

Salient features of the notarial law Presentation Transcript

Salient features of the NOTARIAL LAW & the 2004 Rules Legal ethics Atty. JFL Risonar

Relevant provisionsThe Notarial Law (cf. provisions of the Revised Administrative Code)A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC

(2004 Rules on Notarial Practice)

BASES: 251 of the Revised Administrative CodeThe Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of

notaries public. They are required to certify that the party to every document acknowledged before them haspresented the proper residence certificate (or exemption from the residence tax); and to enter its number, place

of issue and date as part of such certification.

BASES: 246 of the Revised Administrative Code.They are also required to maintain and keep a notarial

register; to enter therein all instruments notarized by them; and to give to each instrument executed, sworn to,

or acknowledged before [them] a number corresponding to the one in [their] register [and to state therein] the

page or pages of [their] register, on which the same is recorded.

BASES: 249 of the Revised Administrative CodeFailure to perform these duties would result in the revocation

of their commission as notaries public.See: Protacio v. Mendoza, 395 SCRA 10, 17,01/13/03.

Purpose of the 2004 Notarial Rules:(a) to promote, serve, and protect public interest;(b) to simplify, clarify,

and modernize the rules governing notaries public; and(c) to foster ethical conduct among notaries public.

Who may be a Notary public?(1) must be a citizen of the Philippines;(2) must be over twenty-one (21) years ofage;(3) must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one (1) year and maintains a regular place of work or

business in the city or province where the commission is to be issued;(4) must be a member of the Philippine Bar

in good standing with clearances from the Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court and the Integrated

Bar of the Philippines; and(5) must not have been convicted in the first instance of any crime involving moral

turpitude. (section 1, Rule 3 AM 02-18-13-SC.)

Form & contents of petitionEvery petition for a notarial commission shall be in writing, verified, and shall

include the following:(a) a statement containing the petitioners personal qualifications, including the petitioners

date of birth, residence, telephone number, professional tax receipt, roll of attorneys number and IBP

membership number;(b) certification of good moral character of the petitioner by at least two (2) executive

officers of the local chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines where he is applying for commission;(c)

proof of payment for the filing of the petition as required by these Rules; and(d) three (3) passport-size colorphotographs with light background taken within thirty (30) days of the application. The photograph should not be

retouched. The petitioner shall sign his name at the bottom part of the photographs. (section 2, Rule 3 Ibid.)

Other mattersPayment of application feeHearing of the petition SUMMARY in natureNotice shall be posted

in the designated court areas and published in a newspaper of general circulationAny person who has cause to

oppose the same may file a written opposition

Jurisdiction and term of a notary publicA person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any

place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2) years commencing the

first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked or the notary public

has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court. (section 11, Rule 3, ibid.)

May the term be renewed? YES.A notary public may file a written application with the Executive Judge for the

renewal of his commission within forty-five (45) days before the expiration thereof. A mark, image or impressionof the seal of the notary public shall be attached to the application.Failure to file said application will result in

the deletion of the name of the notary public in the register of notaries public.The notary public thus removed

from the Register of Notaries Public may only be reinstated therein after he is issued a new commission in

accordance with these Rules. (section 13, Rule 3, ibid.)

Powers and limitations of a notary publicPOWERS: A notary public is empowered to perform the following

notarial acts:(1) acknowledgments;(2) oaths and affirmations;(3) jurats;(4) signature witnessings;(5) copy

certifications; and(6) any other act authorized by these Rules.(section 1, Rule IV, ibid. )

Nadayag vs. Grageda(09-27-94) Notarization is not an empty routine.Notarization of a private

documentconverts such document into a public oneand renders it admissible in court withoutfurther proof of its

authenticity. A notarypublic should therefore be conscientious inseeing to it that justice permeated


2/26

everytransaction for which his services had beenengaged, in conformity with the avowed dutiesof a worthy

member of the Bar. S/he must fullyexplain the intricacies and consequences of thesubject transaction.

Function of a notary public- To guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements. That function would be

defeated if the notary public were one of the signatories to the instrument. For then, he would be interested in

sustaining the validity thereof as it directly involves himself and the validity of his own act, and the very purpose

of the acknowledgment, which is to minimize fraud would be thwarted. ( Villarin vs. Sabate, Feb. 9, 2000)

What constitutes competent evidence of identity?(a) at least one current identification document issued by an

official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; or(b) the oath or affirmation of one

credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the notarypublic and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the

instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public

documentary identification. (section 12 Rule 2 AM 02-18-13-SC)

A notary public is authorized to certify the affixing of a signature by thumb or other mark on an instrument or

document presented for notarization if:(1) the thumb or other mark is affixed in the presence of the notary

public and of two (2) disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document;(2) both witnesses

sign their own names in addition to the thumb or other mark;(3) the notary public writes below the thumb or

other mark: "Thumb or Other Mark affixed by (name of signatory by mark) in the presence of (names and

addresses of witnesses) and undersigned notary public"; and(4) the notary public notarizes the signature by

thumb or other mark through an acknowledgment, jurat, or signature witnessing. (ibid.)

A notary public is authorized to sign onbehalf of a person who is physically unableto sign or make a mark on aninstrument or document if:1) the notary public is directed by the person unable to sign or make a mark to sign

on his behalf;(2) the signature of the notary public is affixed in the presence of two disinterested and unaffected

witnesses to the instrument or document;(3) both witnesses sign their own names;(4) the notary public writes

below his signature: "Signature affixed by notary in presence of (names and addresses of person and two [2]

witnesses)"; and(5) the notary public notarizes his signature by acknowledgment or jurat. (ibid.)

Prohibitionsa) A notary public shall not perform a notarial act outside his regular place of work or business;

provided, however, that on certain exceptional occasions or situations, a notarial act may be performed at the

request of the parties in the following sites located within his territorial jurisdiction:(1) public offices, convention

halls, and similar places where oaths of office may be administered;(2) public function areas in hotels and similar

places for the signing of instruments or documents requiring notarization;(3) hospitals and other medical

institutions where a party to an instrument or document is confined for treatment; and(4) any place where aparty to an instrument or document requiring notarization is under detention.

Recent case: Judge Laquindanum versus Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana (A.C. No. 7936)Q: May a lawyer notarize

documents beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his commission?Q2: may

such lawyer, allow his spouse to do notarial acts in his absence?

HELD:NO.the Supreme Court, thru an en banc decision rendered on June 29, 2009 additionally imposed the

penalty of revoking the lawyers notarial commission and disqualified him from discharging duties as a notary

public for an additional period of two years

Ruling:The act of notarizing documents outside ones area of commission is not to be taken lightly. Aside from

being a violation of Sec. 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, it also partakes of malpractice of law and

falsification.Since the public is deceived into believing that he has been duly commissioned, it also amounts to

indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyers oath proscribes.

Finally, Atty. Quintana is personallyaccountable for the documents that he admitted were signed by his wife. He cannot relieve himself of liability by

passing the blame to his wife. He is, thus, guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,

which requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law.

Other prohibitions(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the

instrument or document (1) is not in the notarys presence personally at the time of the notarization; and(2)

is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent

evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.

A notary public cannot notarize a document if s/he:(a) is a party to the instrument or document that is to be

notarized;(b) will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any commission, fee, advantage, right, title, interest,

cash, property, or other consideration, except as provided by these Rules and by law; or(c) is a spouse, common-


3/26

law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil

degree.

Other prohibited actsA notary public shall not perform any notarial act described in these Rules for any person

requesting such an act even if he tenders the appropriate fee specified by these Rules if:(a) the notary knows or

has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or immoral;(b) the signatory shows a

demeanor which engenders in the mind of the notary public reasonable doubt as to the formers knowledge of the

consequences of the transaction requiring a notarial act; and(c) in the notarys judgment, the signatory is not

acting of his or her own free will.

Bon vs. Atty. Ziga and ArcangelQ: May a lawyer notarize a document (Waiver and Quitclaim) w/o the partyappearing before him?HELD: acknowledgments must be made before a notary public who shall certify that the

person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it and

acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed.

Santuyo vs. Atty. HidalgoQ: may a lawyer notary public delegate to his secretary the task of filling up his

notarial register?HELD: Respondent lawyer is negligent in his practice of tolerating the secretary of their law

office to handle the aforementioned notarial activities. For having wholly entrusted the preparation and other

mechanics of the document for notarization to the secretary there can be a possibility that even the respondents

signature which is the only one left for him to do can even be done by the secretary or anybody for that matter.

SLU vs. Atty. Dela CruzQ: What is the effect is a lawyer notarizes documents despite the expiration of his

notarial commission?HELD: where the notarization of a document 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 actionand also constitutes a violation of the lawyers oath to obey the laws, more specifically the Notarial Law.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASES vs NOTARY PUBLIC

PIKE P. ARRIETA, vs. ATTY. JOEL A. LLOSA,[A.C. No. 4369. November 28, 1997]

FACTS:

Complainant Pike P. Arrieta prays for the disbarment of Atty. Joel A. Llosa for certifying under oath a Deed of

Absolute Sale. But somehow pulled back the complaint.

In the Acknowledgment of the Deed of Sale, respondent certified: BEFORE ME, this 24th day of March, 1993 atDumaguete City, Philippines, personally appeared x x x Jesus Bonilla; x x x Leonardo Toledano; x x x. Respondent

claims that as a Notary Public, he asked the signatories whether the signatures appearing above their respective

names were theirs, and whether they voluntarily executed the Deed of Absolute Sale. In order to ascertain their

identities, respondent asked for their respective residence certificates.

Except for Edelina T. Bonilla whose alleged death was not evidenced by a death certificate, respondent certified in the

acknowledgment that Jesus T. Bonilla and Leonardo P. Toledano personally appeared before him. Respondents acts

require the presence of the vendors to be able to verify the authenticity of their signatures, the identities of the

signatories and the voluntariness of the execution of the Deed. It defies imagination and belief how these could have

happened. It would have been impossible, both physically and legally, for Jesus T. Bonilla and Leonardo P. Toledano

to have personally subscribed and sworn before respondent as to the authenticity and validity of the Deed of Sale as

they had already passed on to the Great Beyond prior to the execution of the said documents.

ISSUE: What is required of a lawyer?

Ruling:

That respondent acted the way he did because he was confronted with an alleged urgent situation is no excuse at all.

As an individual, and even more so as a member of the legal profession, he is required to obey the laws of the land AT

ALL TIMES, to refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct AT ALL TIMES, to uphold

the integrity of his profession AT ALL TIMES, to promote respect to his profession AT ALL TIMES, and to act with

justice AT ALL TIMES.


4/26

As a lawyer, respondent breached his professional responsibility by certifying under oath an instrument fully knowing

that some of the signatories thereto were long dead. It is worth stressing that the practice of law is not a right but a

privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications

required by law for the conferment of such privilege. [M]embership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions.

There being no lifetime guaranty, a lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law only during good behavior and

can be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard

has been afforded him.

Pursuant to the foregoing, it is primarily required of lawyers to obey the Constitution and laws of the land. They mustrefrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

An attorney may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath or of his duties as an attorney and counsellor,

which include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, all of these being broad

enough to cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity.

Respondents act of certifying under oath a Deed of Abso lute Sale knowing that some of the vendors were already

dead, they being his former clients, constitutes misconduct. But this being his first administrative offense, such

should not warrant the supreme penalty of disbarment.

MELANIO L. ZORETA vs. ATTY. HEHERSON ALNOR G. SIMPLICIANO [A.C. No. 6492. November 18, 2004]

FACTS:

This is a complaint for disbarment filed against Atty. Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano for allegedly notarizing several

documents during the year 2002 after his commission as notary public had expired.

It is evident from the foregoing that when respondent notarized the aforementioned documents, he was not

commissioned as notary public, which was in violation of the Notarial Law; for having notarized the 590 documents

after the expiration of his commission as notary public without having renewed said commission amounting to gross

misconduct as a member of the legal profession.

Against the evidence presented by complainant, respondent did not even attempt to present any evidence. His

counsel filed an ex-parte motion for extension to file answer, which was granted, but no answer was forthcoming.Still, Hearing Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro gave respondent a last chance to file his answer; which was again

unheeded. Thus, respondent was unable to rebut complainants evidence that he was not so commissioned for the

year in question. His lack of interest and indifference in presenting his defense to the charge and the evidence against

him can only mean he has no strong and valid defense to offer. Conclusively, respondent Atty. Simpliciano is not a

duly commissioned Notary Public for and in Quezon City for the year 2002.

ISSUE: What is the significance of the commission?

RULING:

The requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public must not be treated as a mere casual formality.

The Court has characterized a lawyers act of notarizing documents without the requisite commission therefore asreprehensible, constituting as it does not only malpractice but also x x x the crime of falsification of public

documents.

For such reprehensible conduct, the Court has sanctioned erring lawyers by suspension from the practice of law,

revocation of the notarial commission and disqualification from acting as such, and even disbarment. In the case of

Nunga v. Viray, the Court had occasion to state that 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 without such commission is a violation of the lawyers 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 lawyers oath similarly


5/26

proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility, which provides: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

MARINA C. GONZALES vs. ATTY. CALIXTO B. RAMOS [A.C. No. 6649. June 21, 2005]

FACTS:

When Francisco returned to his office, he brought with him the Deed of Absolute Sale signed by Marina C. Gonzales.

At first, he was hesitant to notarize the document because he did not see the complainant sign the same, but due toFranciscos insistence and knowing them personally, he eventually notarized the deed.

Respondent compared the signatures of Marina C. Gonzales on the Deed of Absolute Sale with her other signatures in

his files, the spouses Gonzales being his clients from way back. Convinced that the signature on the Deed of Absolute

Sale was indeed the signature of complainant Marina C. Gonzales, respondent notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale on

March 27, 1996.

ISSUE: Who are supposed to be present during the notarization of a deed?

RULING:

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 the said notary public to attest to the contents and truth of what are

stated therein. The presence of the parties to the deed making the acknowledgment will enable the notary public to

verify the genuineness of the signature of the affiant. A notary public is enjoined from notarizing a fictitious or

spurious document. The function of a notary public, is among others, to guard against any illegal deed.

JOSEFINA P. SORIANO vs. ATTY. HUMBERTO B. BASCO [A.C. No. 6648. September 21, 2005]

FACTS:

Atty. Humberto B. Basco is charged by Josefina P. Soriano in a complaint for disbarment dated May 5, 2003, filed with

the Committee on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), with violation ofSections 245 and 246 of

the Revised Administrative Code, Title IV, Chapter II, known as the Notarial Law.

That on June 30, 2000, respondent Atty. Humberto B. Basco, Notary Public of Manila testified before the Regional

Trial Court of Manila, Branch 35, stating among others, that he allegedly notarized a Deed of Sale allegedly executed

by complainant Josefina P. Soriano. He further testified that Josefina Soriano personally appeared before him when

he notarized the Deed of Sale. Since complainant had never appeared before Notary Public Humberto B. Basco, had

not seen much less received copy of the alleged contract, complainant requested for a copy of the alleged contract

from the Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, Regional Trial Court of Manila concerning the

aforementioned Deed of Sale. Clerk of Court VII Jennifer H. Dela Cruz-Buendia, issued a Certification dated February

11, 2003 certifying that the alleged Deed of Sale involving Josefina P. Soriano as vendor alleged to have been

acknowledged before Notary Public Humberto B. Basco was not among the document submitted to said office

(Annex A of Complaint). Complainant also received a certified true copy of the notarial register of Notary PublicBasco which disclosed his failure to indicate the names of the witnesses, fees charged, the respective residence

certificates of the parties to the documents which he notarized (Annex B of Complaint). Although Atty. Basco was

duty bound to furnish to complainant a certified true copy of the alleged deed, he failed to do so despite demand

therefor.

Respondent filed his Answer on June 10, 2003. In his defense, respondent declared that on January 17, 1997, herein

complainant together with her son, Marcial P. Soriano went to his office located at 234 City Hall Bldg. both carrying

with them a duly pre-drafted deed of sale, contents whereof signified that complainant did convey to the son valuable

property. Respondent further stated that he instructed his staff secretary, Ms. Elizabeth Roque-Sanchez, to effect the

clerical entry of notarial particulars of the original and copies of the said mutually executed deed of sale. Respondent


6/26

claim that his staff secretary of course, retained a copy for our file and advised complainant and her son to

immediately return or call the office to furnish their respective Community Tax Certificate.

ISSUE: IS THE NOTARY PUBLIC FREE FROM LIABILITY?

Here, Atty. Basco violated the Notarial Law by failing to provide all the necessary information regarding the

questioned Deed of Sale entered in his notarial register. He even notarized said instrument even without the notation

of the residence certificate of the party to the document. As a notary public, respondent is required by the Notarial

Law to certify that the party to the instrument acknowledged before him has presented the proper residencecertificate (or exemption from the residence certificate) and to enter its number, place of issue and date as part of the

certification. Worse, he likewise failed to send copy of the notarized document to the clerk of court of the proper RTC

and to retain a copy thereof for his own records. These formalities are mandatory and cannot simply be neglected.

Failure to perform this duty results in the revocation of a notary's commission.

The notarial registry is a record of the notary publics official acts. Acknowledged documents and instruments

recorded in it are considered public documents. If the document or instrument does not appear in the notarial records

and there is no copy of it therein, doubt is engendered that the document or instrument was not really notarized, so

that it is not a public document and cannot bolster any claim made based on this document. Considering the

evidentiary value given to notarized documents, the failure of the notary public to record the document in his notarial

registry is tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when in fact it was not. xxx. This

is a clear violation of the Notarial Law for which he must be disciplined.

FELICIDAD VDA. DE BERNARDO vs. ATTY. JOSE R. RESTAURO [AC. No. 3849. June 25, 2003]

FACTS:

Complainant averred that on July 19, 1990, respondent prepared and notarized a Special Power of Attorney making it

appear that she, Felicidad G. Soriano (complainants full maiden name), her deceased spouse, Alberto Bernardo and

Hildegarda Mejia appointed Marcelino G. Soriano, Jr. as their attorney-in-fact to sell a parcel of land situated in Davao

City covered by TCT No. T-39100 when they neither appeared nor executed and acknowledged said document before

respondent. The Special Power of Attorney was entered in the Notarial Register of respondent as Doc. No. 380, Page

No. 76, Book No. XIX, Series of 1990.

Complainant further alleged that her husband, Alberto Bernardo, could not have appeared and executed said Special

Power of Attorney before respondent on July 19, 1990 since her husband died on January 30, 1980 at the Pangasinan

Medical Center, as evidenced by a death certificate. Hence, when the Special Power of Attorney was executed, her

husband was dead for more than ten years.

Complainant also alleged that to recover her share of the property which was sold to a third party, she hired the

services of her counsel whom she promised to pay 25 percent (on a contingent basis) of the value of her share.

Respondent further averred that a living Alberto Bernardo appeared before him in Davao City and signed the Special

Power of Attorney at the time of its execution. He also stated that Pangasinan and Davao City are far apart; hence,

events happening in either places (alluding to the death of complainants husband, Alberto Bernardo) are not alwaysknown to everybody. Atty. Restauro prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

RULING:

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 acknowledgment executed


7/26

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.

However, the act of respondent does not warrant his disbarment or indefinite suspension. Considering all the

circumstances in this case, particularly the absence of any evidence of fraud involved, this Court finds a suspension of

six (6) months as notary public sufficient. Respondent, and for that matter, all notaries public, are hereby cautioned

to be very careful and diligent in ascertaining the true identities of the parties executing a document before them,

especially when it involves disposition of a property, as this Court will deal with such cases more severely in the future.

VICENTE FOLLOSCO and HERMILINA FOLLOSCO vs. ATTY. RAFAEL MATEO A.C. No. 6186. February 3, 2004

FACTS:

Complainants are the owners of a certain property (house and lot) located in Tanay, Rizal which was mortgaged to Dr.

Epitacio R. Tongohan for a loan of P50,000.00.

Pursuant to this transaction, several related documents were caused to be executed namely: (1) Sinumpaang

Kasunduan Salaysay Tungkol sa Lupang Sanlaan; (2) Dagdag na Paglilinaw Tungkol sa Lupang Sanlaan; (3)

Sinumpaang Salaysay; (4) Sinumpaang Pangako Tungkol sa Lupang Sanglaang; and (5) Promissory Note

(Sinumpaang Pangako) which were all notarized by herein respondent in his official capacity as notary public for the

Province of Rizal.

Claiming that the signatures appearing on the documents to be forged, complainants filed criminal complaints for

falsification of public documents against Dr. Tongohan, respondent Mateo and the instrumental witnesses which

complaints were docketed as I.S. Nos. 94-269 and 94-2064 of the Provincial Prosecutors Office of Rizal.

Furthermore the NBI found that the signature was really forged. By the use of this forged documents, new tax

declarations bearing Nos. 00-TN-001-3661 and 00-TN-001-3147 were issued in the name of Dr. Epitacio Tongohan

effectively canceling Tax Declaration Nos. 00-001-1158 and 001-3217 in the name of complainant Vicente Follosco.

Commissioner Magpayo, Jr. found respondent guilty of negligence in the performance of his duty as a notary public

and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for a period of three months with warning that repetitionof the same or similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more severely.

ISSUE: What are the responsibilities of a notary public?

Ruling:

It cannot be said that respondent acted in good faith in notarizing the questioned documents without requiring the

affiants to personally appear before him and ensuring that the signatures were indeed theirs. Respondents claim of

good faith cannot relieve him from the consequences of his reckless failure to comply with the dictates of the law. A

notary publics function should not be trivialized and a notary public must discharge his powers and duties which are

impressed with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity. A notary public should not notarize a document unless the

persons who signed the same are the very persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to thecontents and truth of what are stated therein. Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed

upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of

any. The Code of Professional Responsibility also commands him not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful conduct and to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. WHEREFORE, Atty.

Rafael Mateo is SUSPENDED from practice of law for three (3) months; his incumbent notarial commission, if any, is

REVOKED; and he is prohibited from being commissioned as notary public,for one year, effective immediately, with a

stern warning that repetition of the same or similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more severely.


8/26

PASTOR EDWIN VILLARIN, PACIANO DE VEYRA, SR., and BARTOLOME EVAROLO, SR., vs. ATTY. RESTITUTO

SABATE, JR., [A.C. No. 3324. February 9, 2000]

FACTS:

Atty. Restituto Sabate was a counsel in a case defending his clients, in the verification it shows that he was the one

who signed for the defendants, alleging that it was done in good faith and the word BY which sugge sts that he did

not in any manner make it appear that those persons signed in his presence; aside from the fact that his clients

authorized him to sign for and in their behalf, considering the distance of their place of residence to that of the

respondent and the reglementary period in filing said pleadings he had to reckon with.

Issue: Is the contentions of the respondent meritorious?

Ruling:

No. But while it would appear that in doing so, he acted in good faith, the fact remains that the same cannot be

condoned. He failed to state in the preliminary statements of said motion/answer that the three respondents were

represented by their designated attorneys-in-fact. Besides, having signed the Verification of the pleading, he cannot

swear that he appeared before himself as Notary Public.

The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements. That function

would be defeated if the notary public were one of the signatories to the instrument. For then, he would be interested

in sustaining the validity thereof as it directly involves himself and the validity of his own act. It would place him in an

inconsistent position, and the very purpose of the acknowledgment, which is to minimize fraud, would be thwarted.

A member of the bar who performs an act as 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 said notary public to attest

to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The acts of affiants cannot be delegated to anyone for what are

stated therein are facts they have personal knowledge of and swore to the same personally and not through any

representative. Otherwise, their representatives names should appear in the said documents as the ones who

executed the same and that is only the time they can affix their signatures and personally appear before the notary

public for notarization of said document.

As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent is mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties pertaining tohis office, such duties being dictated by public policy impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost

respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgement or jurat is sacrosanct. Simply put, such

responsibility is incumbent upon and failing therein, he must now accept the commensurate consequences of his

professional indiscretion.

That respondent acted the way he did because he was confronted with an alleged urgent situation is no excuse at all.

As an individual, and even more so as a member of the legal profession, he is required to obey the laws of the land at

all times. For notarizing the Verification of the Motion to Dismiss With Answer when three of the affiants thereof were

not before him and for notarizing the same instrument of which he was one of the signatories, he failed to exercise

due diligence in upholding his duty as a notary public.

WHEREFORE, for lack of diligence in the observance of the Notarial Law, respondent Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr. is

SUSPENDED from his Commission as Notary Public for a period of one (1) year.

MENA U. GERONA vs. ATTY. ALFREDO DATINGALING A.C. No. 4801 February 27, 2003

FACTS

It was alleged that respondent lawyer notarize a document entitled Consent to Quary purportedlt containing the

agreement between the complainant, her brother and sisters on hand, and Ronald Reagan Hernandez, represented

by Bayano Melo, on the other allowing the latter to enter or occupy a portion of their property in Batangas, when in


9/26

truth and in fact the complainant, her brother and sisters did not appear before the respondent. This nonappearance

by the complainant and party was evidenced by the individual daily time records of their work in Manila. It said that it

is clear from the evidence of the complainant that respondent has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility as

against the unconvincing explanation, silence and failure to file a rejoinder of the respondent. The IBP Board of

Governors approved the report with modifications. It endorsed the suspension of respondents commission as Notary

Public with disqualification from appointment as Notary Public for two(2) years from receipt of notice.

ISSUE

Whether or not the acts of the respondent constitute violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility where

penalty is in order?

HELD

The SC upheld the decision of the IBP as fully supported by evidence. Respondent failed to do his duty in requiring the

persons claiming to have executed the document to appear personally before him and to attest to the contents and

truth of what are stated in the document. The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly

authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place where the act is

done. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the

instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it, and acknowledged that the

same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under his official seal, if he is by law required to keep a

seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state. Respondents failure to controvert evidence as to the inconsistencies of

persons who appeared to have executed the document lent credence to complainants claim that the document is

fictitious.

ATTY. MINIANO B. DELA CRUZ vs. ATTY. ALEJANDRO P. ZABALA A.C. No. 6294, November 17, 2004

Facts:

Complainant averred that he was retained by a certain Demetrio C. Marero to finance and undertake the filing of a

Petition for the Issuance of a Second Duplicate Original of the Owners copy of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No.

4153, in the names of Sps. Pedro Sumulong and Cirila Tapales.

On May 20, 1997, complainant purchased the said property from Marero and had the title transferred to him and his

wife. The next day, complainant requested a certain Mrs. Adoracion Losloso and Mr. Nestor Aguirre to register the

title in the complainants name at the Assessors Office of Antipolo City. However, they were unable to do so because

the property was already registered in the name of Antipolo Properties, Inc.

On May 27, 1997, respondent Zabala notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale over the same land, executed by Cirila Tapales

and Pedro Sumulong in favor of the complainant and his wife.

Mr. Marero filed a Complaint for Reconveyance of Title of the land, subject of the Deed of Sale which was notarized

by respondent, with damages against the complainant and his wife. The Deed of Sale was the same document

Marero used when he filed a complaint for Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document before the Quezon CityProsecutors Office and in disbarment against the complainant.

To clear his name, complainant filed this complaint for disbarment against respondent. According to complainant,

respondent notarized an irregular document where one of the parties to the transaction was already dead, grossly

violating his oath as a notary public.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Alejandro P. Zabala was negligent in his conduct as a notary public.

Ruling:


10/26


who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein.

These acts of the affiants cannot be delegated because what are stated therein are facts they have personal

knowledge of and are personally sworn to. Otherwise, their representatives names should appear in the said

documents as the ones who executed the same.

The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements. By affixing his

notarial seal on the instrument, he converted the Deed of Absolute Sale, from a private document into a public

document. In doing so, respondent, in effect, proclaimed to the world that (1) all the parties therein personallyappeared before him; (2) they are all personally known to him; (3) they were the same persons who executed the

instruments; (4) he inquired into the voluntariness of execution of the instrument; and (5) they acknowledged

personally before him that they voluntarily and freely executed the same. As a lawyer commissioned to be a notary

public, respondent is mandated to discharge his sacred duties with faithful observance and utmost respect for the

legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat. Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent upon him, he

must now accept the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion. His 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.

DOMINADOR L. CABANILLA vs. ATTY. ANA LUZ B. CRISTAL-TENORIO A.C. No. 6139, November 11, 2003

Facts:

In February 1988, Dominador Cabanilla sold his right over a 34-square-meter portion of the said house to his neighbor,

Rodolfo Sabangan. Thereafter, Rodolfo brought an already-signed one-page Deed of Sale to Dominador for the

latters signature. Dominador affixed his signature above his typewritten name. When he reviewed the said deed,

however, Dominador noticed that contrary to the agreement, it appeared that he was relinquishing his rights not only

over the portion of the house thereon but also the lot where such portion of the house stood. Dominador, thus, made

notations at the bottom of the said deed and also wrote on the left margin of the deed the words Please change,

and initialed the same.

Dominador then returned the deed to Rodolfo. A few days after, Rodolfo gave Dominador a copy of the said deed

which was not revised as requested by the latter. Moreover, appended to the deed as page 2 thereof was anacknowledgment containing the names of the Cabanilla children, including Eddie Cabanilla, Johny Cabanilla, Raul

Cabanilla, Diosdado Cabanilla, Ferdinand Cabanilla and David Cabanilla. It appeared in the acknowledgment that

those listed therein were also vendors of the property.

On October 16, 1995, Dominador et al. executed a Joint Affidavit of Complaint for falsification of a document under

Article 171 in relation to Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code against Rodolfo and the respondent. In her Counter-

Affidavit, the respondent alleged, inter alia, that the parties to the Deed of Sale appeared before her and

acknowledged the authenticity of their signatures therein, and even showed their residence certificates which she

entered in her notarial register; and that after finding that everything was in order, she proceeded to notarize the

deed of sale which was prepared by the parties themselves. She also averred that she exercised due diligence in

ascertaining if the signatures appearing in the deed of sale were authentic and genuine; that she was not ahandwriting expert who could determine if the signatures appearing in the said document were forged or not; and

that she acted in good faith when she notarized the deed.

Issue: What is the effect of notarizing a falsified deed?

Ruling:

Under Section 1(a) of Act 2103, a notary public taking the acknowledgment in a document or instrument is mandated

to certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person

who executed it and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. To acknowledge before means to avow;


11/26

to own as genuine, to assert, to admit; and before means in front or preceding in space or ahead of. A party

acknowledging must appear before the notary public.


who executed and personally appeared before the said notary public to attest to the contents and truth of what are

stated therein. The presence of the parties to the deed making the acknowledgment will enable the notary public to

verify the genuineness of the signature of the affiant. A notary public is enjoined from notarizing a fictitious or

spurious document. The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal deed.

Clearly, the respondent violated her duty as a notary public. A notary public is mandated to discharge sacred duties

which are dictated by public policy and, as such, are impressed with public interest. The respondent miserably failed.

VICTORINA BAUTISTA vs. ATTY. SERGIO E. BERNABE, A.C. No. 6963 February 9, 2006

FACTS:

Complainant alleged that on January 3, 1998, respondent prepared and notarized a Magkasanib na Salaysay

purportedly executed by Donato Salonga and complainants mother, Basilia de la Cruz. Both affiants declared that a

certain parcel of land in Bigte, Norzagaray, Bulacan, was being occupied by Rodolfo Lucas and his family for more

than 30 years. Complainant claimed that her mother could not have executed the joint affidavit on January 3, 1998

because she has been dead since January 28, 1961.

In his Answer, respondent denied that he falsified the Magkasanib na Salaysay. He disclaimed any knowledge about

Basilias death. He alleged that before he notarized the document, he requested for Basilias presence and in her

absence, he allowed a certain Pronebo, allegedly a son-in-law of Basilia, to sign above the name of the latter as shown

by the word byon top of the name of Basilia. Respondent maintained that there was no forgery since the signature

appearing on top of Basilias name was the signature of Pronebo.

ISSUE: Can a notarized document be signed by?

Ruling:

A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same personswho executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The

presence of the parties to the deed will enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the

affiant.

ROSALINDA BERNARDO VDA DE ROSALES vs. ATTY. MARIO G. RAMOS [A.C. No. 5645. July 2, 2002]

FACTS:

Manuel A. Bernardo, brother of complainant Rosalinda Bernardo Vda. de Rosales, borrowed from Rosalinda the

Original Transfer Certificate of Title No. 194464 covering Lot No. 1-B-4-H in her name. The lot measures 112 square

meters and is located at the back of Manuel's house on Fabie Street, Paco, Metro Manila. On 25 November 1990

Rosalinda sold this lot to one Alfredo P. Castro. When she asked her brother Manuel to return her title he refused.

Rosalinda executed an Affidavit of Loss of her title and presented the affidavit to the Register of Deeds of Manila.

On 3 September 1991 the Register of Deeds informed Rosalinda that her title to the property was already transferred

to Manuel by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale she purportedly executed in favor of Manuel on 5 September 1990.

The document was notarized by respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos on 1 October 1990 and entered in his Notarial

Register as Doc. No. 388, Page No. 718, Book No. 10, Series of 1990. Rosalinda however denied having signed any

deed of sale over her property in favor of Manuel.


12/26

Respondent admitted in his Answer that he had affixed his signature on the purported Deed of Absolute Sale but

failed to enter the document in his Notarial Registry Book. He also admitted executing before the NBI on 12

September 1991 an affidavit regarding the matter. Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the complaint since

according to him he only inadvertently signed the purported Deed of Absolute Sale and/or that his signature was

procured through mistake, fraud, undue influence or excusable negligence, claiming that he simply relied on the

assurances of Manuel that the document would not be used for purposes other than a loan between brother and

sister, and that he affixed his signature thereon with utmost good faith and without intending to obtain personal gain

or to cause damage or injury to another.

ISSUE: Should the notarized documents be recorded?

RULING:

The notary public is further enjoined to record in his notarial registry the necessary information regarding the

document or instrument notarized and retain a copy of the document presented to him for acknowledgment and

certification especially when it is a contract. The notarial registry is a record of the notary public's official acts.

Acknowledged documents and instruments recorded in it are considered public documents. If the document or

instrument does not appear in the notarial records and there is no copy of it therein, doubt is engendered that the

document or instrument was not really notarized, so that it is not a public document and cannot bolster any claim

made based on this document. Considering the evidentiary value given to notarized documents, the failure of the

notary public to record the document in his notarial registry is tantamount to falsely making it appear that the

document was notarized when in fact it was not.

Fidel D. AqUINO vs. Atty. OSCAR MANESE [A.C. No. 4958. April 3, 2003]

FACTS:

Complainant alleges that, inter alia, he has since 1960 been tilling the land subject of the Deed of Absolute Sale as

tenant of the now deceased owner thereof, Luis M. Cardona; in 1975, the spouses Antonio and Fe Perez unlawfully

took possession of the land, thus spawning the filing of a case that reached the Court of Appeals which recognizedhim to be the lawful tenant; and on September 15, 1994, without his knowledge, the Deed of Absolute Sale was

purportedly executed on even date by the three heirs of Luis Cardona, including the already deceased Lilia Cardona, in

favor of Ma. Cita C. Perez, daughter of the spouses Perez, and was notarized by respondent.

ISSUE: What should the notary public be careful of?

RULING:

In the Acknowledgment in the deed, respondent affirmed that before him personally appeared said vendors

[including the late Lilia Cardona] whos (sic) personal circumstances are shown above below their names and

signatures, all known to [him] and to [him] known to be the same individual (sic) who executed th[e] instrument and

acknowledged to [him] that the same is their free act and voluntary deed.

The said acknowledgment notwithstanding, respondent asseverated in his Comment to the letter-complaint that he

is not expected to personally know every person who goes to him for notarization of documents. Such jaunty

indifference betrays his deplorable failure to heed the importance of the notarial act and observe with utmost care the

basic requirements in the performance of his duties as a notary public which include the ascertainment that the

persons who signed the document are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him.

EMELITA SOLARTE vs. ATTY. TEOFILO F. PUGEDA [A.C. No. 4751. July 31, 2000]


13/26

FACTS:

Complainant avers that respondent Pugeda could not have legally notarized a document to which he also acted as

witness. She also cites as irregular or anomalous the absence of the vendees signature in one of the deeds of sale.

Complainant claims that respondent and his wife are in fact administering the property at General Trias and they were

responsible for the wrongful partition of the property belonging to complainants kin. According to complainant, the

acts of respondent constitute gross misconduct.

Complainant alleges in particular that respondent participated in the fraudulent partition and sale of the property of

Catalino. She discovered the fraud only recently according to her, when she sought the titling of his fathers portion ofthe property. She now assails the validity of the partition made by Catalino and his children particularly since

Herminia was not a signatory thereto and the deeds of sale pertaining to the property.

ISSUES: Can the same notary public who notarized the document, sign as witness?

RULING:

"It appears that complainant was not a party to the documents which respondent notarized and witnessed. The

respondent cannot be faulted for failure of the National archives to provide complainant with copies of the requested

documents. Nowhere in the records is it shown that respondent and his wife had a hand in the partition and sale of

the properties. Further, there is no prohibition for a notary public to witness a document which he ratified nor for his

wife to sign as witness.

We agree with the foregoing recommendation of the IBP.

Nothing in the law prohibits a notary public from acting at the same time as witness in the document he notarized.

The only exception is when the document to be notarized is a will.

Complainant offered no proof, but only mere allegations, that (1) respondent was involved in the partition of the

subject property, and that (2) respondent employed fraud to effect such partition. Such a grave charge against a

member of the bar and former municipal judge needs concrete substantiation to gain credence. It could not prosper

without adequate proof.

REUBEN M. PROTACIO vs. ATTY. ROBERTO M. MENDOZA [Adm. Case No. 5764. January 13, 2003]

FACTS:

Complainant claimed that he did not sign the board resolution nor did he attend a board meeting of the corporation

on the date stated therein (March 30, 1998), and therefore the signature purporting to be his was a forgery. He alleged

that the Notarial Section of the Regional Trial Court of Manila had in fact certified that it did not have a copy of the

board resolution in question because respondent had not submitted his notarial report for March 1998. Furthermore,

according to complainant, the records of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) showed that Nobuyasu

Nemoto was out of the country on March 30, 1998, having left the Philippines on March 26, 1998 and having

returned only on March 31, 1998. Hence, complainant claimed, it was impossible for Nobuyasu Nemoto to haveattended the supposed board meeting on March 30, 1998 and to have signed the resolution on the same date.

Complainant charged that respondent knowingly and maliciously notarized the said board resolution without the

presence of the party allegedly executing it.

ISSUE: Can a Jurat be signed even if the notary public is not present?

RULING:

It is necessary that a party to any document notarized by a notary public appear in person before the latter and affirm

the contents and truth of what are stated in the document.] The importance of this requirement cannot be gainsaid.

The acknowledgement of a document is not an empty meaningless act. By it a private document is converted into a


14/26

public document, making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. For this reason, it behooves

every notary public to see to it that this requirement is observed and that formalities for the acknowledgment of

documents are complied with.

In this case, Nobuyasu Nemoto, who was allegedly a signatory to a resolution of a corporation, allegedly notarized by

respondent, could not have signed the document on March 30, 1998, the date indicated therein, since he was not then

in the Philippines. Respondents explanation that Nemotoactually signed the document on March 31, 1998, after

arriving from Japan, cannot be accepted. Documents must speak the truth if their integrity is to be preserved. That is

what a notary public vouches for when he states in the jurat that the parties have appeared before him at the time andin the place he (the notary public) states and that the document is then a free act and deed. It is for this reason that

public documents are given full faith and credit, at least as to their due execution.

Jonar Santiago vs. Atty. Edison V. Rafanan, A.C. No. 6252, October 5, 2004

Facts:

Atty. Edison V. Rafanan, was allegedly notarized several documents on different dates and failed to: a) make the

proper notation regarding the Community Tax Certificate (CTC) of the complainant; b) enter the details of the

notarized documents in the notarial register; and c) make and execute the certification and enter his PTR and IBP

numbers in the documents he had notarized.

On the other hand, Atty. Rafanan admitted having administered the oath but believed that non-notation of the

Resident Certificates as well as not entering the details of the notarized documents in the notarial register was

allowed. Notation of Resident Certificates are applied only to documents acknowledged by a notary public and was

not mandatory for affidavits related to cases pending before courts and other government offices. He further

asserted that this was a popular practice among notaries public in Nueva Ecija, some of whom were older

practitioners.

Issues:

What is the rule on registry of notarial documents?

Held:

The court ruled in the negative. The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of notaries public. They are

required to certify that the party to every document acknowledged before them has presented the proper residence

certificate (or exemption from the residence tax); and to enter its number, place of issue and date as part of such

certification. They are also required to maintain and keep a notarial register; to enter therein all instruments notarized

by them; and to give to each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before [them] a number corresponding

to the one in [their] register [and to state therein] the page or pages of [their] register, on which the same is recorded.

Failure to perform these duties would result in the revocation of their commission as notaries public.

These formalities are mandatory and cannot be simply neglected, considering the degree of importance and

evidentiary weight attached to notarized documents. Notaries public entering into their commissions are presumedto be aware of these elementary requirements.

It is intolerable that he did away with the basics of notarial procedure allegedly because others were doing so.

Being swayed by the bad example of others is not an acceptable justification for breaking the law.

Disbarment, however, cannot be granted considering the nature of the infraction and the absence of deceit on

the part of Atty. Rafanan. A fine of P3, 000 is imposed with a warning that similar infractions in the future will be dealt

with more severely.


15/26

Ma. Corazon D. Fulgencio vs. Atty. Bienvenido G. Martin, A.C. No. 3223, May 29, 2003

Facts:

This is an action against Atty. Bienvenido G. Martin for falsifying and notarizing two Documents of Sale.

On June 1, 1983, in Isabela, Basilan, respondent notarized two documents, a Deed of Absolute Sale over a parcel of

land and a Bill of Sale over a Toyota sedan, both supposedly executed by Kua Se Beng (Kua), complainants husband.

Complainant alleged that the two documents could not have been executed and notarized in Basilan by her husband

Kua, who died on July 5, 1983, because he was confined at the Makati Medical Center from May 30 to June 30, 1983.She also denied having affixed her signature on the first document.

On the other hand, respondent admitted that he prepared and notarized the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale and

Bill of Sale without the vendor Kua personally appearing before him. He asserted, however, that he prepared and

notarized the deeds upon the express request of Kua whom he considered as a trusted friend. He insisted that the

Kuas and complainants signature are genuine, he being acquainted with their signatures on account of his long years

of lawyering for Kua and their family corporation.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Martin violated Notarial Law.

Held:

Atty. Martin admitted that Kua did not appear before him when he notarized the deeds in Basilan but stated,

however, in the Acknowledgement portion of each of the documents that Kua, on the first day of June 1983,

personally appeared before [him]known to [him] and to [him] known to be the same person who signed and

executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledgedto him that the same is his free and voluntary act. He thus

made an untruthful statement, thus violating his oath as a lawyer that he shall not do any falsehood.

Further, Respondent also breached the injunction of the notarial law not to do any notarial act beyond the limits of his

jurisdiction.

Alfredo Bon vs. Atty. Victor S. Ziga and Atty. Antonio A. Arcangel, A.C. No. 5436, May 27, 2004

Facts:

According to the complainant, the Bons signed the Waiver and Quitclaim because of Atty. Zigas representation that

the document was merely a withdrawal of a previously executed Special Power of Attorney. As it turned out,

however, the document was a waiver in favor of Ziga of all the properties which the Bons inherited from their parents

and predecessors-in-interest.

Atty. Arcangels part, he explained that assuming that he notarized the Waiver and Quitclaim in the absence of

the signatories, his act is merely a violation of the Notarial Law but not a ground for disbarment. He further avers that

he was able to talk to Maria Bon and Rafael Bon-Canafe, both co-signatories to the document, over the phone. Maria

Bon and Rafael Bon-Canafe allegedly declared that they signed the Waiver and Quitclaim. The two, in fact, personally

delivered the document for notarization in his office. Thus, he posits that there was substantial compliance with theNotarial Law since a notary publics primordial undertaking is merely to ensure that the signatures on a document are

genuine. As long as they are so, the notary public can allegedly take the risk of notarizing the document although the

signatories are not present.

Issue: Whether or not Respondents fraudulently executed the Waiver and Quitclaim.

Held:

Atty. Ziga, on his part, is not culpable. The fact that Amalia and Angelina Bon are both high school graduates, while

Teresa Bon is a college graduate makes it difficult to believe that they were deceived into thinking that the contents


16/26

of the Waiver and Quitclaim, which is plainly worded, were other than what they themselves could have easily

ascertained from a reading of the document. The complaintagainst him is thus, dismissed for lack of merit.

Atty. Arcangel, however, in notarizing the Waiver and Quitclaim without requiring all the persons who executed the

document to personally appear before him and acknowledge that the same is their free act and deed, manifestly

breached his duty as a notary public.

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 notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into apublic document thus making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. 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 by a notary public and appended to a private

instrument. For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance

of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be

undermined.

Heinz R. Heck vs. Judge Anthony E. Santos, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657, February 23, 2004

Facts:

This is a disbarment case against Judge Anthony E. Santos, who retired on May 22, 2002, for allegedly violating the

Notarial Law before his appointment as judge, on April 11, 1989, or some twenty years ago.

The complaint alleged that Santos subscribed and forwarded, on a non-regular basis, notarized documents since

January 1980, when in fact, it was only until January 9, 1984, that he became a duly commissioned notary public. The

complaint further alleged that Judge Santos failed to forward his Notarial Register after the expiration of his

commission in December 1989.

Issue:

Can a retired judge perform notarial duties without commission?

Held:

The retirement or resignation of a judge will not preclude the filing thereafter of an administrative charge against him

for which he shall still be held answerable if found guilty. It is settled that a judge may be disciplined for acts

committed prior to his appointment to the judiciary and that an administrative complaint against a member of the

BAR does not prescribe.

The respondent did not object to the complaints evidence neither did he claim that he was commissioned as notary

public for the years 1980-1983, nor deny the accuracy of such. He merely answered that there was no proper recording

of the commissioned lawyers in the City of Cagayan de Oro nor of the submitted Notarized Documents/Notarial

Register.

Judge Santos is thus, found guilty of notarizing documents without the requisite notarial commission and is ordered

to pay the fine of P5, 000.00.

However, considering that the complaint against respondent was filed twenty-four (24) years after the commission of

the act complained of and that there was no private offended party who came forward and claimed to have been

adversely affected by the documents so notarized, the action for disbarment will not prosper.

Respondent, as a retired judge, deserved to enjoy the full measure of his well-earned retirement benefits.


17/26

Alice Gokioco vs. Atty. Rafael P. Mateo, A.C. No. 4179, November 11, 2004

Facts:

Alice Gokioco filed an Affidavit-Complaint alleging that: during the pre-trial conference of civil case Sps. Eustaquio

Gokioco and See Chua-Gokioco vs. Jennifer Gokioco, Sps. Mariano Gokioco and Alice Gokioco, they discovered that

the complaint in said case was subscribed and sworn to by See Chua-Gokioco before herein respondent, Atty. Mateo

on November 10, 1992. See Chua-Gokioco however, already died on October 7, 1992 as evidenced by the death

certificate issued by the local civil registrar.

Atty. Mateo admitted that although See Chua-Gokioco signed and subscribed the civil complaint at an earlier date, he

only entered the fact of the signing and subscribing of the said complaint much later, that is, on the date of the filing

of the said civil complaint. He purposely delayed the filing of the civil complaint against the herein complainant and

her family because he wanted to make sure that the parties had the opportunity to amicably settle the issues raised in

the civil complaint. Moreover, respondent averred that his office has no telephone and is about 70 kilometers from the

residence of the Gokioco family in Caloocan; he notarized and filed the complaint on November 10, 1992 without any

personal knowledge of the fact of death of Mrs. Gokioco.

Issue: What would be the effect of ante dating?

Held:

The notary public shall enter in such register, in chronological order, the nature of each instrument executed, sworn

to, or acknowledging the instrument. It cannot be stressed enough that notaries public should be truthful in carrying

out their functions. They must observe with the highest degree of care the basic requirements in the performance of

their duties in order to preserve the confidence of the public in the integrity of the notarial system. Courts, agencies

and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by notaries public appended to

instruments.

BATIC vs. GALAPON, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1239; JULY 19, 2005

FACTS:Regarding his act of notarization, respondent claims that he did not prepare the document and that his participation

was limited to its acknowledgment, for which the corresponding fee was collected by and paid to the clerk of court.

He says that he was constrained to notarize the document because the only notary public in Dulag, Leyte was not in

town and the vendor was compelled to go to him because the vendee was in a hurry. He adds that he at that time

sincerely believed that when no notary public is available, the Municipal Trial Courts may act as ex-officio notary

public, provided the fees shall be for the government. He finishes his argument by saying that now that there are two

notaries public in his municipality, he has refrained from notarizing any deed.

ISSUE: What is the limitation of notarial duties of the judges?

RULING:

the notarization of a Deed of Absolute Sale, it disagreed with the findings and recommendation of Investigating

Judge Gil that respondent judge should be exonerated. It reasoned that the rule on the power of the MTC and MCTC

judges to act as notaries public ex-officio has been established even before the issuance of Circular No. 1-90 dated 26

February 1990. It cited the cases of Borre v. Moya, and Penera v. Dalocanog, wherein the Court ruled that judges are

empowered to perform the functions of notaries public ex-officio, but such authority is limited to the notarization of

only those documents connected with the exercise of their official functions. It added that this instance not being the

first that respondent committed the infraction, having been found in A.M. No. MTJ-00-1294 (formerly OCA IPI No.

00-859-MTJ Horst Franz Ellert vs. Judge Galapon, Jr., July 31, 2000) to have engaged in unauthorized notarial

work, he should be fined the amount of Eleven Thousand Pesos (P11,000)


18/26

VICTORINO SIMON vs. JUDGE ALIPIO M. ARAGON, [A.M. No. MTJ-05-1576. February 03, 2005]

FACTS:

Complainant alleged that the respondent judge was engaged in unauthorized notarial practice having undertaken the

preparation and acknowledgment of private documents, contracts and other acts of conveyances which bore no

direct relation to the performance of his functions as a member of the judiciary.

Simon further averred that, contrary to the requirements of Circular No. 1-90, the documents notarized by the

respondent judge did not contain any certification attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in San Pablo,

Isabela. In support thereof, he attached several affidavits, deeds of absolute sale and other documents notarized by

the respondent judge from 1986 to 2000.

In his comment, respondent judge admitted that he notarized the documents annexed to the complaint, but

explained that he was constrained to do so as there was no lawyer or notary public in San Pablo, Isabela from 1983 to

1992. He clarified that, upon learning of Circular No. 1-90 sometime in 1993, he immediately and voluntarily desisted

from further notarizing private documents. He further claimed that he never profited from his acts of notarization

since the parties paid the notarial fees with the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of San Pablo, Isabela as evidenced by

a certification issued by the Clerk of Court of the First Municipal Circuit Trial Court of San Pablo-Sta. Maria, San Pablo,

Isabela.

Respondent judge maintained that he could not be considered as having violated Circular No. 1-90 during the period

1983 to February 25, 1990, since the said circular has not yet been promulgated. He argued that he could not be held

liable for violating a circular that is not yet in existence.

ISSUE: Did the respondent judge committed a violation?

RULING:

Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) judges are empowered to perform the function

of Notaries Public ex officio under Section 76 of Republic Act No. 296, as amended [otherwise known as the Judiciary

Act of 1948] and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code. But the Court hereby lays down the followingqualifications on the scope of this power:

MTC and MCTC judges may act as Notaries Public ex officio in the notarization of documents connected only with the

exercise of their official functions and duties [Borne v. Mayo, Adm. Matter No. 1765-CFI, October 17, 1980. 100 SCRA

314; Penera v. Dalocanog, Adm. Matter No. 2113-MJ, April 22, 1981, 104 SCRA 193]. They may not, as Notaries Public

ex officio, undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents, contracts and other acts of

conveyances which bear no direct relation to the performance of their functions as judges. The 1989 Code of Judicial

Conduct not only enjoins judges to regulate their extra-judicial activities in order to minimize the risk of conflict with

their judicial duties, but also prohibits them from engaging in the private practice of law [Canon 5 and Rule 5.07].

However, the Court taking judicial notice of the fact that there are still municipalities which have neither lawyers nornotaries public, rules that MTC and MCTC judges assigned to municipalities or circuits with no lawyers or notaries

public may, in the capacity as notaries public ex officio, perform any act within the competency of a regular notary

public: Provided, That: [1] all notarial fees charged be for the account of the Government and turned over to the

municipal treasurer (Lapena, Jr. v. Marcos, Adm. Matter No. 1969-MJ, June 29, 1982, 114 SCRA 572); and [2]

certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such

municipality or circuit.

For MTC and MCTC judges assigned to municipalities or circuits with no lawyers or notaries public to validly perform

any act of a regular notary public, two requisites must concur:


19/26

1. All notarial fees charged must be for the account of the Government and turned over to the municipal treasurer;

and

2. Certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such

municipality or circuit.

Undoubtedly, respondent judge acted beyond the scope of his authority as notary public ex officio when he notarized

the aforestated documents not in connection with the exercise of his functions and without complying with the

requirement of certification as to lack of a notary public within his municipality or circuit.

SPOUSES SANTUYO vs. ATTY. EDWIN A. HIDALGO, [A.C. No. 5838. January 17, 2005]

FACTS:

According to respondent, he once worked as a junior lawyer at Carpio General and Jacob Law Office where he was

asked to apply for a notarial commission. While he admitted that he notarized several documents in that office, these,

however, did not include the subject deed of sale. He explained that, as a matter of office procedure, documents

underwent scrutiny by the senior lawyers and it was only when they gave their approval that notarization was done.

He claimed that, in some occasions, the secretaries in the law firm, by themselves, would affix the dry seal of the

junior associates on documents relating to cases handled by the law firm. Respondent added that he normally

required the parties to exhibit their community tax certificates and made them personally acknowledge the

documents before him as notary public. He would have remembered complainants had they actually appeared before

him. While he admitted knowing complainant Editha Santuyo, he said he met the latters husband and co-

complainant only on November 5, 1997, or about six years from the time that he purportedly notarized the deed of

sale. Moreover, respondent stressed that an examination of his alleged signature on the deed of sale revealed that it

was forged; the strokes were smooth and mild. He suspected that a lady was responsible for forging his signature.

To further refute the accusations against him, respondent stated that, at the time the subject deed of sale was

supposedly notarized, on December 27, 1991, he was on vacation. He surmised that complainants must have gone to

the law office and enticed one of the secretaries, with the concurrence of the senior lawyers, to notarize the

document. He claimed he was a victim of a criminal scheme motivated by greed.

ISSUE: Can be the notary public be held liable for the acts of the forger?

RULING:

Considering that the responsibility attached to a notary public is sensitive respondent should have been more

discreet and cautious in the execution of his duties as such and should not have wholly entrusted everything to the

secretaries; otherwise he should not have been commissioned as notary public.

For having wholly entrusted the preparation and other mechanics of the document for notarization to the secretary

there can be a possibility that even the respondents signature which is the only one left for him to do can be done by

the secretary or anybody for that matter as had been the case herein.

As it is respondent had been negligent not only in the supposed notarization but foremost in having allowed the office

secretaries to make the necessary entries in his notarial registry which was supposed to be done and kept by him

alone; and should not have relied on somebody else.

Respondent Atty. Edwin A. Hidalgo is hereby found GUILTY of negligence in the performance of his duties as notary

public.


20/26

BENILDA M. MADDELA vs. ATTY. ROSALIE DALLONG-GALICINAO, [A.C. No. 6491. January 31, 2005]

FACTS:

The complainant attached to her affidavit-complaint a copy of a confidential letter-complaint of one Benjamin

Rilloraza dated 3 May 2001 addressed to Atty. Ma. Cristina Layusa of the Office of the Bar Confidant, opposing the

respondents admission to the Bar in view of her acts of notarizing documents outside the area of her commission.

Mr. Rilloraza claimed that the respondent, although not yet a lawyer, was issued a notarial commission for Kayapa or(Kasibu), Nueva Vizcaya. However, the respondent notarized documents in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, outside the

area of her commission. To prove his allegation, he attached to the said letter-complaint photocopies of a Deed of

Sale of Motor Vehicle dated 31 January 2001 and an Affidavit dated 3 May 2001, both indicating that they were

notarized by the respondent in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, and that the respondents commission as a Notary Public

was for Bayombong. Mr. Rilloraza likewise alleged that despite her husbands death, the respondent continued to

receive and encash for at least three months checks corresponding to her husbands salaries as Ex -Officio Sheriff of

the Office of the Clerk of Court of Nueva Vizcaya. He also pointed out that the respondent even continued to claim

the higher allowable deductions as a married individual despite the death of her husband. The respondent notarized

the document outside her area of commission.

ISSUES: Can a notary public notarize documents outside the jurisdiction of commission?

RULING:

We have declared on several occasions, that 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 notaries 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. It must be underscored that the

notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document, making that document

admissible in evidence without further proof of the authenticity thereof (Nunga v. Viray, A.C. No. 4758, 366 Phil. 155,

160 [1999]).

Thus, we are not satisfied with respondents explanation that she notarized documents outside of the area of her

notarial commission as a favor to her relatives and for free. Whether the respondent derived profit from her act ofnotarizing outside the area of her authority is of no moment. The fact remains that she notarized outside the area of

her commission. Considering, however, that her misconduct as a notary public was committed while she was not yet

a lawyer, she could not be disciplinarily dealt with as a lawyer. The penalty that should be meted to her should,

therefore, be as a notary public before she was admitted to the Bar. The penalty of fine would be a sufficient

sanction.

JUDGE GERVACIO A. LOPENA vs. ATTY. ARTEMIO P. CABATOS, [A.C. No. 3441. August 11, 2005]

FACTS:

As alleged, the respondent knowingly falsified a Deed of Donation purportedly executed by one Crispina Panis bynotarizing the same.

In the same Manifestation cum Motion, complainant informed that his two witnesses, Aniceta P. Tarle, a daughter of

the deceased Crispina Panis, and Ricafort (who, as reflected above, respondent claimed to have led him to believe

that the old womanpresented before him was Panis) had died

ISSUE: Did the responded not liable?

RULING:


21/26

That a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the same persons who

executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents of the truth of what are stated therein bears

reiterating. On pain of sounding like a broken record, this Court has repeatedly held that the purpose of the

injunction is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party in this

case Crispina Panis and to ascertain that the document is the partys free act of deed.[26]

Respondent having thus failed to faithfully discharge his sacred duties as a notary public, under the facts and

circumstances of the case, the revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification from being commissioned as

notary public for a period of One (1) Year is in order.

VICTOR NUNGA vs. ATTY. VENANCIO VIRAY, [A.C. No. 4758. April 30, 1999]

FACTS:

Complainant alleged that in May 1996, he was appointed by the board of directors of Masantol Rural Bank after his

fathers resignation as its president.

A few month[] thereafter, he allegedly discovered that one of the banks assets consisting of 250 squa re meters house

and lot in Kalookan City was sold without proper bidding by its manager Jesus B. Manansala to Jesus Carlo Gerard M.

Viray, a minor born February 2, 1969 during the transaction on May 22, 1987. The deed of absolute sale was notarized

by the respondent who is not only the father of the buyer minor but also a stockholder and legal counsel of the vendor

bank and was not duly commissioned as notary public as of that date.

A notarial documnet in favor of Crown Savings and Loan Association under entry number 1226 was allegedly entered

in the notarial registry of the Respondent for 1991 when he wasnt commissioned as notary public.

Respondent for his part alleged in his comment that complainant holds no position at the Masantol Rural Bank Inc.

[i]n 1987 and 1997, but is facing criminal charges for having plundered the said bank of millions of pesos and [for]

trespass to dwelling; while his father is facing a case before the Securities and Exchange Commission. The sale of the

lot by the Masantol Rural Bank Inc. to his son was allegedly done in good faith all the formalities required by law

[were] properly complied with and the complaint from all indications is a leverage in persuading him into a possible

compromise.

From 1965 to date Respondent alleged that he was always commissioned as notary public and the fact that

Pampanga is under several feet of floodwaters, he could not annex all the needed documents to support the

allegations. According to Respondent, there was no year in his practice of law that he was not commissioned as

notary public. In fact, in the alleged documents he had PTR for that purpose [, and] he would not [have obtained] a

commission without the PTR.

ISSUE: Did the respondent notarized without commission?

Ruling:

The respondents contention that he had a PTR for all the documents he prepared is only an indication that theProfessional Tax Receipt is a license for him to engage in the practice of his profession as a lawyer but not a

commission for him to act as notary public.

Inasmuch as Respondent was not able to counteract the averments of Complainant which were duly supported with

evidence[], it is apparent that Respondent violated the provisions of the notarial law by having affixed his official

signatures to the aforesaid documents with the intent to impart the appearance of notarial authenticity thereto when

in fact as of those dates 1987 and 1991 he was not commissioned as notary public.

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

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	denni-dominic-martinez-lepon
View:	226 times
Download:	0 times