- NEW BEGINNING -

MALIGSA v CATANTING, 272 SCRA 408 (1997)

GONZALES v Atty. PADIERNOS, 573 SCRA 164 (2008)
Per Curiam:
FACTS:
FACTS:
Three documents for sale, subdivision and affidavit of non-
On May 5, 1992, a Deed of Quitclaim was purportedly executed
tenancy over a parcel of land measuring 141,497 square meters
by one Irene Maligsa in favor of Juanito Abaoag over a parcel of
of mango land covered by TCT NT-29578 in Jaen, Nueva Ecija
land located in Cablong, Pangasinan. The subject document was
were presented to Atty. Padiernos for notarization, and transferred
notarized by respondent on the same date. The document was
to certain Asterio, Estrella and Rodolfo Gonzales. These
apparently used as evidence against complainant in a pending
documents were allegedly all signed and executed by Gonzales,
case before the RTC B 45 in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, quieting of
the complainant. Gonzales claims that all of these signatures were
title with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
forged because at the time of their notarization, she was in the
and/or temporary restraining order plus damages.
United States. Moreover, one of the vendees also attested that
she was in the US as well at the time of the notarization. Hence,
The complainant alleges that the Deed of Quitclaim could have
Gonzales sought for the disbarment of the respondent.
not been executed and notarized on May 5, 1992, because the
affiant Irene Maligsa died on April 21, 1992 or sixteen (16) days
In his answer, Atty. Padiernos avers that while he admits that he
earlier. Moreover, Irene Maligsa could have not signed the
notarized the documents, he denied the charges of false
document because she “never knew how to write as she uses the
certification claiming that in a case (which he failed to cite), the
thumb mark in every transaction she entered”.
Court held that it is not necessary for notaries public to know the
signatories personally, provided that he/she signed in the
Hence, Atty. Arsenio Cabanting is charged by the complainant for
presence of the Notary, alleging that they are the same persons
disbarment with conduct unbecoming a lawyer for certifying under
who signed the names.
oath a Deed of Quitclaim. On March 11, 1996, the Court required
respondent to comment on the complaint but the latter failed to
Subsequently, complaint amended her complaint. This time, she
comply despite service upon him of Resolution together with copy
charged respondent with gross negligence and failure to express
of the complaint. Subsequently, the Court considered
the care required by law in the performance of his duties as a
respondent’s failure to file his comment as a waiver of his rights to
notary republic, resulting in the loss of the aforesaid property.
do so and directed the case submitted for decision.
ISSUE:
Quite importantly, this was not the first time that respondent has
been involved in an act of malpractice in violation of his oath as a
W/N Atty. Padiernos violated the rules on notarial practice for
lawyer and the Canons of Professional Responsibility. In a
which he should be penalized.
consolidated administrative cases of Valencia v Cabanting, the
Court suspended respondent for 6 months from practicing law for
HELD:
purchasing his client’s property which was still the subject of a
pending certiorari proceeding contrary to the prohibition stated in
YES. The Court suspended Atty. Padiernos for 3 months from the
the CC and Canons of Prof. Ethics.
practice of law and his notarial commission was revoked. Through
his negligence in the performance of his duty as a notarial public
ISSUE:
resulted in the loss of property of an unsuspecting private citizen.
Respondent eroded the complainant’s and public’s confidence in
W/N the respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law
the notarial system. Atty. Padiernos breached Canon 1 of the
for conduct unbecoming a lawyer for certifying under oath a DQ.
Code of Professional Responsibility which requires lawyers to
uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
HELD:
respect for the law and legal processes as well as Rule 1.01 of the
same Code which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful,
YES. The Court ruled that Atty. Arsenio Cabanting is guilty of
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
grave misconduct rendering him unworthy of his continued
membership in the legal profession. Consequently, he is ordered
A notarial document is, on its face and by authority of law, entitled
DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name stricken off
to full faith and credit. For this reason, notaries public must
the Roll of Attorneys effective immediately.
observe utmost care in complying with the formalities intended to
ensure the integrity of the notarized document and the act or acts
A lawyer commissioned as notary public is mandated to subscribe
it embodies. A notary public is duty bound to require the person
to the sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties being
executing the documents to be personally present, and to swear
dictated by public policy impressed with public interest. Faithful
before him that he is the person named in the document and is
observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of an oath
voluntarily and freely executing the act mentioned in the
is an acknowledgment or JURAT IS SACROSANCT.
document.
By his imprudence of notarizi9ng a fictitious or spurious document,
he has made a mockery of the legal solemnity of the oath in an
Acknowledgement.

A Quitclaim Deed is a legal instrument which states that a person

is giving up his interest in a real property. It offers little protection
to the person receiving the interest, so it is most often used
between family members who have already established trust.
ESPINOSA v OMAÑA, A.C. No. 9081, October 12, 2011
CARPIO, J.:
FACTS:
In 1997, Espinosa and his wife Elena Marantal sought Omaña’s
legal advice on whether they could legally live separately and
dissolve their marriage solemnized on July 23, 1983. Omaña then
prepared a document entitled “KASUNDUAN NG
PAGHIHIWALAY” in Gumaca Quezon. Marantal and Espinosa,
fully convinced of the validity of the contract dissolving their
marriage, started implementing its terms and conditions. Part of
the document showed that two of their children Ariel, and Aiza, 14
and 11 years old respectively chose to be with their father,
Espinosa, while the youngest, Aldrin, 10 YO chose to be with her
mother, Marantal. And since Ariel and Aiza are studying presently
they will temporarily living with their mother while finishing their
studies. However, Marantal eventually took custody of all their
children and took possession of most of the property they acquired
during their union.
Espinosa sought the advice of his fellow employee, complainant
Glindo, a law graduate, who informed him that the contract
executed by Omaña was invalid. They then hired the services of
a lawyer to file a complaint against Omaña before the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBP).
Respondent denied that she prepared the contract. She admitted
that Espinosa went to see her and requested for the notarization
of the contract but she told him that it was illegal. Respondent
alleged that Espinosa returned the next day while she was out of
the office and manage to persuade her part-time office staff to
notarize the document. Her office staff forged her signature and
notarized the contract. Omaña presented Marantal’s
“SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY” to support her allegation and to
show that the complaint was instigated by Glindo. Omaña further
presented a letter of apology from her staff, Arlene Dela Peña,
acknowledging that she notarized the document without Omaña’s
knowledge, consent and authority. Espinosa later submitted a
“KARAGDAGANG SALAYSAY” stating among others that Omaña
was not in her office when the contract was notarized.
The IBP-CBP stated that Espinosa’s desistance did not put an end
to the proceedings. The IBP-CBD found that Omaña violated Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. The former then recommended that
the latter be suspended for one year from the practice of law and
for two years as a notary public, which the IBP Board of Governors
adopted and approved,
ISSUE:
W/N Respondent violated the Canon of Professional
Responsibility in the notarization of Marantal and Espinosa’s
KASUNDUAN NG PAGHIHIWALAY.
HELD:
YES. The Court ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution of the
conjugal partnership without judicial approval is void. A Notary
public should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the
family by encouraging the separation of the spouses and
extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal partnership, which is exactly
what Omaña did in this case.
The Court annot accept Omaña’s allegation that it was her part-
time office staff who notarized the contract. The Court agreed with
the IBP-CBD that Omaña herself notarized the contract. Even if it
were true that it was her part-time staff who notarized the contract,
it only showed Omaña’s negligence in doing her notarial duties.
ESPINOSA v OMAÑA, A.C. No. 9081, October 12, 2011
CAALIM-VERZONILLA v PASCUA,
A.C. No. 6655 October 11, 2011
EN BANC
FACTS:
Complainant alleged that Atty. Pascua prepared and notarized two
Deeds of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Deceased Lope
Caalim with Sale one for the value of P250,000.00 and the other with
the value of P1,000,000.00. Both were signed by the surviving spouse
of Lope together with his children Virginia and Marivinia. Both
contained the same parties as well have identical registration
numbers, page numbers and book numbers. Virginia alleged that the
deeds were false and simulated as Marivinia did not know how to write
and she was confined in the Cagayan Valley Medical Center at the
date it was allegedly signed. Atty. Pascua responded by admitting to
having prepared and notarized both documents but denied any
irregularity. He claimed that the vendee and the complainant went to
his house and asked to prepare a deed of sale for the parcel of land
of Lope located in Claveria, Cagayan and that the selling price was
P1M. He then typed and notarized the deed in which he gave copies
to both parties. He then stated that the parties asked who will should
the taxes involved in the transaction and he replied by saying that the
vendee will shoulder it. Later, the parties returned to his house and
pleaded that he prepare a new deed with a reduced selling price of
P250K which he did out of humane and compassionate disposition.
He used the same document number, page number and book number
because he reasoned that the second deed supplanted the first. In a
resolution the Court referred the case to the IBP for an investigation,
report and recommendation. Commissioner Fernando reported that
after investigation, the respondent was administratively liable for
participation to defraud the government and recommended his
suspension from the practice of law and of his notarial commission.
The IBP Board of Governor approved the report and recommended
the suspension for the practice of law of respondent for two years as
well as suspension of his notarial commission for two years.
ISSUE:
W/N Respondent should be disbarred for allegedly falsifying a public
document and evading the payment of correct taxes through the use
of falsified documents
HELD:
YES. By the account of Atty. Pascua of the execution and notarization
of the subject deeds there is a clear basis for disciplining him as a
member of the bar and as a notary public. He did not deny preparing
the first deed with the value of P1M. He also did not deny that due to
pleas of the parties he was moved by his “humane and compassionate
disposition” to prepare a new deed with a value of P250K in order to
reduce the tax liabilities of the parties. With this admission he abetted
to deprive the Government the right to collect the correct tax due. He
violated Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Atty. Pascua executed and notarized the second deed despite the
knowledge of its illegal purpose. His desire to accommodate his clients
will not absolve him, who as a member of the bar, should have stood
his ground and not yielded to the pleas of the parties. He should have
been more prudent and remained steadfast to his oath not to commit
no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any.
Respondent not only assisted the parties to an activity against the law
but he also showed disrespect to his oath in the Acknowledgement of
the deed. By notarizing the deed, even if the document was fraudulent,
he gave it full faith and credit upon its face. Moreover, the duty of a
notary public as per Rule 4, Section 4 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice, is to refuse any notarial act if he has good reason that the
transaction is unlawful or immoral.
Atty. Pascua was reprimanded by the Supreme Court by suspending
him from the practice of law for 2 years and his notarial commission
was revoked. He is further disqualified from reappointment as a notary
public for 2 years.