LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS REVIEW

GROUP 5: FILCRO ON NOTARIAL AND

DOCUMENTARY MALPRACTICE

SUBMITTED BY:

Dalanon, Xyza Zyra

Marzan, Fatima Mae

Pablo, Jason Kervy

Vinluan, Mara Alexander

SUBMITTED TO:
Former DOLE Undersecretary Josephus B. Jimenez
 EN BANC
[A.C. NO. 6486 : September 22, 2004]
EMMA T. DANTES, v. ATTY. CRISPIN G. DANTES.

FACTS:

In an Affidavit-Complaint filed with the IBP, Emma T. Dantes, sought the disbarment of her
husband, Atty. Crispin G. Dantes on the ground of immorality, abandonment, and violation of
professional ethics and law. Complainant alleged that respondent is a philanderer. Respondent
purportedly engaged in illicit relationships with two women, one after the other, and had
illegitimate children with them. From the time respondent's illicit affairs started, he failed to
give regular support to complainant and their children, thus forcing complainant to work abroad
to provide for their children's needs. Complainant pointed out that these acts of respondent
constitute a violation of his lawyer's oath and his moral and legal obligation to be a role model
to the community.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline issued an Order requiring respondent to submit his
answer to the Affidavit-Complaint. Respondent submitted his Answer. Though admitting the
fact of marriage with the complainant and the birth of their children, respondent alleged that
they have mutually agreed to separate 18 years before after complainant had abandoned him in
their Balintawak residence and fled to San Fernando, Pampanga. Respondent claimed that
when complainant returned after eighteen years, she insisted that she be accommodated in the
place where he and their children were residing. Thus, he was forced to live alone in a rented
apartment. Respondent further alleged that he sent their children to the best school he could
afford and provided for their needs. He even bought two lots in Pampanga for his sons, Dandelo
and Dante, and gave complainant adequate financial support even after she had abandoned him
in 1983. Respondent asserted that complainant filed this case in order to force him to remit
70% of his monthly salary to her.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Dantes should be disbarred from the practice of law.

LAW OF THE CASE:

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Canon 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession,
and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.
CASE HISTORY:

IBP conducted its investigation and hearings on the complaint. Complainant presented her
evidence, both oral and documentary, to support the allegations in her Affidavit-Complaint. In
an Order, respondent was deemed to have waived his right to cross-examine complainant, after
he failed to appear during the scheduled hearings despite due notice. He, however, submitted
his Comment/Opposition to the Complainant's Formal Offer of Evidence with Motion to
Exclude the Evidence from the Records of the Proceedings.

Subsequently, respondent submitted a Motion to Adopt Alternative Dispute Resolution

Mechanism. Respondent's motion was denied because it was filed after the complainant had
already presented her evidence. Respondent was given a final chance to present his evidence
on. Instead of presenting evidence, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion
to Dismiss, which was likewise denied for being a prohibited pleading under the Rules of
Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline. Respondent submitted his Position Paper.
The IBP submitted to us through the Office of the Bar Confidant its Report and Resolution.
IBP recommended that the respondent be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.

RULING: YES. Atty. Crispin G. Dantes is hereby DISBARRED and his name is ORDERED
STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.

The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so
willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable
members of the community. To be the basis of disciplinary action, the lawyer's conduct must
not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a
criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such
scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.24

It should be noted that the requirement of good moral character has three ostensible purposes,
namely: (i) to protect the public; (ii) to protect the public image of lawyers; and (iii) to protect
prospective clients. A writer added a fourth: to protect errant lawyers from themselves.

Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar
but also throughout their legal career, in order to maintain their good standing in this exclusive
and honored fraternity. They may be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred for any
misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in
moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.

Undoubtedly, respondent's acts of engaging in illicit relationships with two different women
during the subsistence of his marriage to the complainant constitutes grossly immoral conduct
warranting the imposition appropriate sanctions. Complainant's testimony, taken in
conjunction with the documentary evidence, sufficiently established respondent's commission
of marital infidelity and immorality. Evidently, respondent had breached the high and exacting
moral standards set for members of the law profession. He has made a mockery of marriage
which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.
The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and only in a clear case of
misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the
Court and as a member of the bar. Where a lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, could
accomplish the end desired, disbarment should never be decreed. However, in the present case,
the seriousness of the offense compels the Court to wield its power to disbar as it appears to be
the most appropriate penalty.

OPINION:

I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court. A lawyer should be disbarred from the practice
of law for immoral conduct because it adversely reflects his fitness to practice law. The practice
of law is a privilege given only to those who possess or continue to possess good moral conduct.
The act of a lawyer engaging in illicit relationship disregarded the sanctity of his marriage
which is protected by the Constitution and affirmed by laws. Thus, a lawyer, upon taking the
oath of office, has the obligation to protect them.
 A. C. No. 2040 March 4, 1998
IMELDA A. NAKPIL, Complainant, vs. ATTY. CARLOS J. VALDES, Respondent.

FACTS:

Jose Nakpil and Carlos Valdes were friends since the 1950s. Due to their friendship, respondent
(CPA-lawyer) became the business consultant, lawyer and accountant of the Nakpils. In 1965,
Jose Nakpil became interested in purchasing a summer residence in Moran St. , Baguio City.
For lack of funds, he requested respondent to purchase the Moran property for him. They
agreed that respondent would keep the property in thrust for the Nakpils until the latter could
buy it back. Pursuant to the agreement, respondent obtained 2 loans from a bank, in the amounts
of P65, 000 and P75, 000, which he used to purchase and renovate the property. Title was then
issued in respondent’s name. Nakpils occupied the summer house.

When Jose Nakpil died in 1973, respondent acted the legal counsel and accountant of Jose’s
widow. Respondent’s law firm, Carlos J. Valdes & Assoc. handled the proceeding for the
settlement of Jose’s estate. Ownership of the Moran property became an issue in the intestate
proceedings. Respondent excluded the Moran property from the inventory of Jose’s estate. He
transferred his title to the Moran property to his company, Caval Realty Corporation.
Complainant sought to recover Moran property by filing with the them CFI Baguio an action
for reconveyance with damages. During the pendencey of the action for reconveyance,
complainant filed this administrative case to disbar the respondent.

ISSUE:

1.   WON respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

2.   WON respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests.

LAW OF THE CASE:

•   Grounds for Disbarment

•   Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

CASE HISTORY:

In 1980 Resolution, disbarment complaint was deferred for further action until the
resolution for reconveyance between the parties involving the issue of ownership by the then
CFI Baguio. Complainant moved for reconsideration on the ground that the issue of ownership
pending with the CFI was not prejudicial to her complaint which involved an entirely different
issue, i.e., the unethical acts of respondent as a CPA-lawyer. In 1983, the CFI of Baguio
dismissed the action for reconveyance. The trial court ruled that respondent held the Moran
property in trust for the Nakpils but found that complainant waived her right over it. On appeal,
the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. The appellate court held that respondent was the
absolute owner of the Moran property. The Decision was elevated to this Court.
RULING: Respondent ATTY. CARLOS J. VALDES guilty of misconduct.

1.   YES.

In violation of the trust agreement, respondent claimed absolute ownership over the property
and refused to sell the property to complainant after the death of Jose Nakpil. Respondent
initially acknowledged and respected the trust nature of the Moran property. Respondent
exercised bad faith in transferring the property to his family corporation. Respondent’s act of
excluding Moran property resulted in lack of fidelity to the cause of his client (Canon 17). If
he truly believed that it was his, he should have formally presented his claim in the intestate
proceedings instead of transferring it to his own company and concealing it from complainant.
His misuse of his legal expertise to deprive his client of the Moran property is clearly unethical.
To make things worse, respondent through his accounting firm, charged two loans against the
estate as liability for the purchase and renovation of the property he claimed for himself.

2.   YES.

As a general rule, an attorney cannot represent adverse interests. However, as an exception,

representation of conflicting interests may be allowed where the parties consent to the
representation, after full disclosure of the facts. Disclosure alone is not enough for the clients
must give their informed consent to such representation. The lawyer must explain to his clients
the nature and extent of conflict and possible adverse effect must be thoroughly understood by
his clients.

In the present case, there is no question that the interests of the estate and that of its creditors
are adverse to each other. Respondent denied that he represented complainant in the intestate
proceedings. He points out that it was one Atty Percival Cendana, who filed the case in court.
However, that is beside the point. Respondent acted as counsel and accountant of complainant
after the death of Jose Nakpil. When he transferred the Moran property to his corporation, the
intestate proceedings was still pending in court. His defense that complainant knew that his
law firm was legal counsel of the estate and that his accounting form was the auditor of both
the estate and the two claimants against it was not taken by the Court. There is nothing in the
records to show that respondent or his law firm explained the legal situation and its
consequences to complainant.

Respondent is a CPA-lawyer actively participating in both professions. He is the senior partner

in his law and accounting firms. Complainant is not charging respondent with breach of ethics
for being the common accountant of the estate and the two creditors. He is charged for allowing
his accounting firm to represent two creditors of the estate, and at the same time allowing his
law firm to represent the estate in the proceedings where these claims were presented.

OPINION:

I agree with the decision of the Court. Lawyers should always act in a manner that would
promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. It is well-settled that the
relationship between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature and demands utmost
fidelity and good faith. Therefore, if a lawyer fall short to observe this duty, he may be
suspended or disbarred from the legal profession.
 RIZALINA L. GEMINA v. ATTY. ISIDRO S. MADAMBA
A.C. No. 6689, 24 August 2011 SECOND DIVISION (Brion, J.)

FACTS:

Gemina charged Atty. Madamba with deceit, malpractice and gross negligence. Gemina
alleged that she is an heir of the registered owner of several parcels of land located in Laoag
City. These parcels of land were unlawfully sold in connivance with Atty. Madamba. The
documents pertaining to the transactions over these lands were notarized by Atty. Madamba
either without the presence of the affiants or with their forged signatures. She alleges that, by
notarizing documents through false representations, without the signatories personally present
before him as required under the Notarial Law, Atty. Madamba should be held guilty of
dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Philippine Bar.

Later on, Atty. Madamba admitted the allegations made by the opposing party on the
notarization of the subject documents, but denied any participation in the sale and transfer of
the lands covered by the documents. He claimed that it was his secretary who prepared and
drafted the documents and that his only participation was to affix his signature on the
documents; he reasoned that he was already 82 years old and insulin dependent, so he had no
more time to prepare documents and enter documents in his notarial register. He begged for
leniency and consideration from the Court, and asked for forgiveness for his inadvertent acts.
He apologized and committed himself not to repeat these misdeeds.

ISSUE:

Should Atty. Madamba be disciplined?

LAW APPLICABLE:

2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE

CASE HISTORY:

The IBP Commissioner submitted to the IBP Board of Governors the Report and
Recommendation, recommending the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. The IBP
Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation. The High court
disagreed with the findings of the Commissioner.

RULING:

YES. From Atty. Madamba’s own admissions, it cannot be doubted that he is guilty of the
charges against him.

His admissions show that he had notarized documents without reading them and without
ascertaining what the documents purported to be. Because he completely entrusted to his
secretary the maintenance of his Notarial Register, inaccuracies resulted in the entry of the
notarial acts in his Notarial Register.

A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most common of which are
the acknowledgement and affirmation of documents or instruments. In the performance of
these notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the significance of the notarial seal
affixed on documents: it converts a document from a private to a public instrument, after which
it may be presented as evidence without need for proof of its genuineness and due execution.
Thus, notarization should not be treated as an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. A notary
public exercises duties calling for carefulness and faithfulness. Notaries must inform
themselves of the facts they certify to; most importantly, they should not take part or allow
themselves to be part of illegal transactions.

OPINION:

I agree with the ruling in this case, the respondent’s failure to make the proper entry or entries
in his Notarial Register of his notarial acts, his failure to require the presence of a principal at
the time of the notarial acts, and his failure to identify a principal on the basis of personal
knowledge by competent evidence are grounds for the revocation of a lawyer’s commission as
a notary public as provided by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He cannot simply ask the
court for leniency by reason of his age and sickness, the rules should be observed properly.

Moreover, the Notarial Law and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, require a duly
commissioned notary public to make the proper entries in his Notarial Register and to refrain
from committing any dereliction or any act which may serve as cause for the revocation of his
commission or the imposition of administrative sanctions, this is what Atty. Madamba failed
to do, hence an administrative sanction shall be given to him.
 ATTY. FLORITA S. LINCO v. ATTY. JIMMY D. LACEBAL
A.C. No. 7241, 17 October 2011, THIRD DIVISION, (Peralta, J.)

FACTS:

Linco claimed that she is the widow of the late Atty. Alberto Linco (Atty. Linco), the registered
owner of a parcel of land in Rizal. Linco alleged that Lacebal, a notary public, notarized a deed
of donation allegedly executed by her husband in favor of a minor. The notarial
acknowledgment thereof also stated that Atty. Linco and the mother of the donee, allegedly
personally appeared before Lacebal on July 30, 2003, despite the fact that Linco’s husband
died on July 29, 2003.

Consequently, by virtue of the purported deed of donation, the Register of Deeds of Antipolo
City cancelled her late husband’s title and issued a new title in the name of the minor.

ISSUE:

Did Lacebal violate the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility?

LAW APPLICABLE:

2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE

CASE HISTORY:

Linco filed an administrative complaint and claimed that Lacebal's reprehensible act in
connivance with Toledo was not only violative of her and her children's rights but also in
violation of the law and his duty as a notary public.

RULING:

Yes, Atty. Lacebal violated the rules on notarial practice and CPR.

Atty. Linco was already dead when Lacebal notarized the deed of donation. Lacebal likewise
admitted that he knew that Atty. Linco died a day before he notarized the said deed. Lacebal
also notarized the document after the lapse of more than 20 days from July 8, 2003, when he
was allegedly asked to notarize the deed of donation. The sufficient lapse of time from the time
he last saw Atty. Linco should have put him on guard and deterred him from proceeding with
the notarization of the deed of donation. However, Lacebal chose to ignore the basics of notarial
procedure. The fact that Lacebal previously appeared before him in person does not justify his
act of notarizing the deed of donation, considering the affiant's absence on the very day the
document was notarized. In the notarial acknowledgment of the deed of donation, Lacebal
attested that Atty. Linco personally came and appeared before him on July 30, 2003. Yet
obviously, Atty. Linco could not have appeared before him on July 30, 2003, because the latter
died on July 29, 2003.

Clearly, Lacebal made a false statement and violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal
solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct.
OPINION:

I agree with the ruling of the court. It is settled principle 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. A notarial document is by law
entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.

Lacebal should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very
same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and
truth of what are stated therein. By doing such act, he violated the things that he upheld and
promised to do, hence he should be reprimanded for his actions.
 Coquia v. Laforteza
A.C. No. 9364 February 8, 2017

FACTS:

Atty. Laforteza was a former Clerk of Court of Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 68,
Lingayen, Pangasinan. Coquia alleged that on January 7, 2009, while in office as clerk of court,
Atty. Laforteza conspired with Clemente Solis (Clemente) to falsify two (2) documents, to wit:
(1) an Agreement between Clemente Solis and Flordeliza Coquia, and the (2) Payment
Agreement executed by Flordeliza Coquia, and subsequently notarized the said documents.
Coquia claimed that the documents were forged to make it appear that on the said date,
she subscribed and sworn to the said documents before Atty. Laforteza when in truth and in
fact on the said date and time, she was attending to her classes at the Centro Escolar University
in Manila as evidenced by the certified true copy of the Centro Escolar University Faculty
Daily Time Record.
Coquia asserted that under the law, Atty. Laforteza is not authorized to administer oath
on documents not related to his functions and duties as Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 68,
Lingayen, Pangasinan. Thus, the instant complaint for disbarment for conduct unbecoming of
a lawyer due to the unauthorized notarization of documents relative to Civil Case No. 18943.
Atty. Laforteza, in his comment, denied the allegations and recalled that on January 7,
2009, while attending to· his work, fellow court employee, Luzviminda Solis (Luzviminda),
wife of Clemente, with other persons, came to him. He claimed that Luzviminda introduced
said persons to him as the same parties to the subject documents. Luzviminda requested him to
subscribe the subject documents as proof of their transaction considering that they are blood
relatives. Atty. Laforteza claimed that he hesitated at first and even directed them to seek the
services of a notary public but they insisted for his assistance and accommodation. Thus, in
response to the exigency of the situation and thinking in all good faith that it would also serve
the parties' interest having arrived at a settlement, Atty. Laforteza opted to perform the
subscription of the jurat. He, however, insisted that at that time of subscription, after
propounding some questions, he was actually convinced that the persons who came to him are
the same parties to the said subject documents.
Atty. Laforteza likewise denied that there was conspiracy or connivance between him
and the Solis'. He pointed out that other than the subject documents and Coquia's bare allegation
of conspiracy, no evidence was presented to substantiate the same. Atty. Laforteza lamented
that he was also a victim of the circumstances with his reliance to the representations made
before him. He invoked the presumption of regularity and extended his apology to this Court
should his act as a subscribing officer be deemed improper.
During the mandatory conference, both parties agreed that Atty. Laforteza is authorized
to administer oaths. However, as to the requirement to establish the identity of the parties, Atty.
Laforteza admitted that he does not personally know both Coquia and Clemente, and he merely
relied on Luzviminda and Loma Viray, who are known to him as fellow court employees, to
establish the identities of the parties. He likewise admitted that Coquia did not sign the
documents in his presence and that someone present on the said date allegedly owned the
signature of Coquia as hers.

ISSUE:
Did Atty. Laforteza commit any violation of the Notarial Law?
LAW:
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice

CASE HISTORY:

On October 11, 2012, the Court resolved to refer the instant case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
In its Report and Recommendation dated December 18, 2013, the IBP-Commission on
Bar Discipline (CED) recommended that the instant complaint be dismissed for lack of
sufficient evidence.
However, in a Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-818 dated October 11, 2014, the
IBP-Board of Governors resolved to reversed and set aside the Report and Recommendation
of the IBP-CBD, and instead reprimanded and cautioned Atty. Laforteza to be careful in
performing his duties as subscribing officer.

RULING:

Yes. The Supreme Court concurred with the findings of the IBP-Board of Governors, except
as to the penalty and ruled as follows: Atty. Emmanuel E. Laforteza's notarial commission, if
there is any, is REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary
public for a period of one (1) year. He is likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of
the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

In this case, it is undisputed that Atty. Laforteza failed to comply with the rules of notarial law.
He admitted that he notarized a pre-signed subject document presented to him. He also
admitted his failure to personally verify the identity of all parties who purportedly signed the
subject documents and who, as he claimed, appeared before him on January 7, 2009 as he
merely relied upon the assurance of Luzviminda that her companions are the actual signatories
to the said documents. In ascertaining the identities of the parties, Atty. Laforteza contented
himself after propounding several questions only despite the Rules' clear requirement of
presentation of competent evidence of identity such as an identification card with photograph
and signature. Such failure to verify the identities of the parties was further shown by the fact
that the pertinent identification details of the parties to the subject documents, as proof of their
identity, were lacking in the subject documents' acknowledgment portion. Atty. Laforteza even
affixed his signature in an incomplete notarial certificate. From the foregoing, it can be clearly
concluded that there was a failure on the part of Atty. Laforteza to exercise the due diligence
required of him as a notary public ex-officio.

Notarization of documents ensures the authenticity and reliability of a document. Notarization

of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders it admissible in
court without further proof of its authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies and the public
at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and
appended to a private instrument. Notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it
engages public interest in a substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires
preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing
upon the public and the courts and administrative offices generally.
Hence, 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 him to attest to the
contents and truth of what are stated therein. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the
notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to
ascertain that the document is the party's free act and deed.

Opinion:
I agree to the ruling. Notarized documents have the presumption of regularity thus the Supreme
Court must be quick to strike down erring notaries in order to uphold such presumption.
 Villaflores-Puza v. Arellano
A.C. No. 11480 June 20, 2017

Facts:
Complainant was the defendant in a case for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by her
husband, Ernesto Puza (Puza), who was represented by respondent as his counsel. On July 21,
2005, Puza, through respondent, filed his formal offer of evidence, which included some
affidavits of witnesses notarized by him.
In the aforesaid affidavits, it was indicated that respondent was issued a notarial commission
in Mandaluyong City. Upon inquiry, however, complainant discovered that he was never
issued a notarial commission in Mandaluyong City. In support thereof, she attached a
Certification, issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Mandaluyong City, attesting that he was not a commissioned notary public in said city.
Respondent Atty. Arellano did not file any answer nor participated in the hearings.

Issue:
Should Atty. Arellano be punished for notarizing a document without being a commissioned
notary?

Law:
2004 Notarial Practice

Case History:
In her Report and Recommendation, dated February 10, 2016, Commissioner Villanueva-
Maala recommended respondent's suspension from the practice of law for aperiod of five (5)
years. She stressed that respondent's failure to answer the complaint against him, in spite of
due notice and order to attend the scheduled hearings, illustrated his flouting resistance to the
lawful orders of the court, which deserves disciplinary action. In addition, Commissioner
Villanueva-Maala noted that notarizing documents without a notarial commission constituted
gross misconduct and deserved to be punished.
In its February 25, 2016 Resolution, the IBP-BOG adopted and approved with
modification the recommendation of Commissioner Villanueva-Maala.

Ruling:
Yes. The Court agreesd with the IBP-BOG but modified the penalty imposed.

Any transgression of the notarial rules should not be treated trivially but must be punished
accordingly to preserve the integrity of notarization. Under the rules, only persons who are
commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of
the court which granted the commission.

In the present case, it was sufficiently established that respondent was without a notarial
commission when he notarized the affidavits he offered in evidence. This was supported by the
certification issued by the R TC of Mandaluyong City that from January 1998 until August
2005, respondent was never commissioned as a notary public. A lawyer who notarizes
documents without a valid notarial commission is remiss in his professional duties and
responsibilities.
Further, it is noteworthy that respondent did not even attempt to answer the accusations against
him. He failed to comply with the orders of the investigating commissioner and he did not
attend the scheduled hearings. On this ground alone, respondent could have been penalized
more heavily because he was bound to comply with all the lawful directives of the IBP, not
only because he is a member, but more importantly because the IBP is the Court-designated
investigator of his case.

Thus, the Court agrees with the suspension meted against respondent. In addition, he should
be forever barred from being commissioned a notary public all over the Philippines after
exhibiting conduct, which renders him unfit to perform the sacred duties of a notary public.
Respondent deliberately performed notarial acts despite full knowledge that he was never
commissioned as a notary in Mandaluyong City.

Opinion:
I agree with the ruling. Atty. Arellano’s apathy and silence further bolsters the fact that he was
guilty.
 Anudon vs. Atty. Arturo B. Cefra
A.C No. 5842
February 10, 2015

FACTS:

On August 12, 1998, Atty. Cefra notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale4 over a land covered by
TCT No. 69244. The names of Johnny Anudon (Johnny), Alfonso Anudon (Alfonso), Benita
Anudon-Esguerra (Benita), and complainants Jimmy and Juanita appeared as vendors, while
the name of Celino Paran, Jr. (Paran) appeared as the vendee.

Jimmy and Juanita claimed that the Deed of Absolute Sale was falsified. They alleged that they
did not sign the Deed of Absolute Sale. Moreover, they did not sign it before Atty. Cefra.6 The
National Bureau of Investigation’s Questioned Documents Division certified that Jimmy and
Juanita’s signatures were forged.

In addition to the forgery of their signatures, Jimmy and Juanita stated that it was physically
impossible for their brothers and sister, Johnny, Alfonso, and Benita, to sign the Deed of
Absolute Sale. Johnny and Benita were in the United States on the day the Deed of Absolute
Sale was executed, while Alfonso was in Cavite.

Due to the forgery of the Deed of Absolute Sale, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, with
Jimmy and Juanita as witnesses, filed a case of falsification of public document against Atty.
Cefra and Paran.

ISSUE:

WON Atty. Cefra is guilty of Notarial Malpractice

LAW OF THE CASE:

Notarization Act. No. 2013

CASE HISTORY:

Complainants Jimmy Anudon (Jimmy) and Juanita Anudon (Juanita) are brother- and sister-
in-law.1 Complainants and Jimmy’s brothers and sister co-own a 4,446-square-meter parcel of
land located in Sison, Pangasinan covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
69244.2 Respondent Atty. Arturo B. Cefra (Atty. Cefra) is a distant relative of Jimmy and
Juanita. He was admitted to the bar in 1996. He practices law and provides services as notary
public in the Municipality of Sison, Pangasinan.

Ruling:

The Court PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as a notary

public. Respondent is also STERNLY WARNED that more severe penalties will be imposed
for any further breach of the Canons in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Aside from Atty. Cefra’s violation of his duty as a notary public, Atty. Cefra is also guilty of
violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This canon requires "[a] lawyer
[to] uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
processes." He contumaciously delayed compliance with this court’s order to file a Comment.
As early as September 19, 2001, this court already required Atty. Cefra to comment on the
Complaint lodged against him. Atty. Cefra did not comply with this order until he was arrested
by the National Bureau of Investigation. Atty. Cefra only filed his Comment on January 15,
2008, more than seven years after this court’s order. Atty. Cefra’s actions show utter disrespect
for legal processes.

The act of disobeying a court order constitutes violation of Canon 1158 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to "observe and maintain the respect due
to the courts[.]"

Under Rule 138, Section 27, paragraph 159 of the Rules of Court, "wilful disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court" constitutes a ground for disbarment or suspension from the
practice of law. Atty. Cefra’s disobedience to this court’s directive issued in 2001 was not
explained even as he eventually filed his Comment in2008. Clearly, his disobedience was
willful and inexcusable. Atty. Cefra should be penalized for this infraction.

Opinion:

I agree to the decision of the Supreme Court. Lawyer shall always uphold the uphold the
Constitution and obey the laws of the land. The act of Atty. Cefra is against the law and
unethical. He must always follow the rules on notarial practice because the document will
considered as public document once he notarized it.
 Heirs of Alilano vs. Atty. Roberto Examinen

A.C No. 10132

March 24, 2015

FACTS:

On January 12, 2002, the heirs of Alilano filed a suit for recovery of possession before the
Regional Trial Court of Sultan Kudarat against Edna Examen and Atty. Roberto Examen.11 It
was during this proceeding that Atty. Examen introduced into evidence the March 31, 1984
and September 12, 1984 Absolute Deeds of Sale.

On November 15, 2003, the heirs of Alilano filed this complaint alleging that Atty. Examen,
based on Barretto v. Cabreza, violated the notarial law when he notarized the absolute deeds
of sale since a notary public is prohibited from notarizing a document when one of the parties
is a relative by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree or affinity within the second civil
degree. It is also alleged that Atty. Examen notarized the documents knowing that the cedula
or residence certificate number used by Ramon Examen was not actually his but the residence
certificate number of Florentina. Atty. Examen also falsely acknowledged that the two
witnesses personally appeared before him when they did not. Lastly, it is alleged that despite
knowing the infirmities of these documents, Atty. Examen introduced these documents into
evidence violating his oath as a lawyer and the CPR.

In his defense, Atty. Examen pointed out that there was no longer any prohibition under the
Revised Administrative Code for a notary public to notarize a document where one of the
parties is related to him by consanguinity and affinity. With regard to the use of Florentina’s
residence certificate as Ramon’s, Atty. Examen said that he was in good faith and that it was
office practice that the secretary type details without him personally examining the output. In
any event, he reasoned that the use of another’s residence certificate is not a ground for
disbarment and is barred by prescription based on IBP Resolution No. XVI-2004-13 dated
January 26, 2004 where it was proposed that the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar
Discipline Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Section 1, Rule VIII, be revised to include a
prescription period for professional misconduct: within two years from the date of the act.

ISSUE:

Is Atty. Examinen guilty of malpractice?

Law of the Case:

2004 Rules on Notarial Practice

Case History:

On January 12, 2002, the heirs of Alilano filed a suit for recovery of possession before the
Regional Trial Court of Sultan Kudarat against Edna Examen and Atty. Roberto Examen.11 It
was during this proceeding that Atty. Examen introduced into evidence the March 31, 1984
and September 12, 1984 Absolute Deeds of Sale.

Ruling:

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto E. Examen is hereby SUSPENDED from the

practice of law for TWO (2) YEARS. In addition, his present notarial commission, if any, is
hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary public for a
period of two (2) years from finality of this Decision. He is further WARNED that any similar
act or infraction in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

In Soriano v. Atty. Basco, the Court stated that notaries public are required to follow formalities
as these are mandatory and cannot be simply neglected. Thus, the Notarial Law requires them
to certify that a party to the instrument acknowledged before him has presented the proper
residence certificate (or exemption from the residence certificate) and to enter its number, place
of issue and date as part of the certification. Failure to perform his duties results in the
revocation of a notary’s commission. The Court said:

As a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, respondent is mandated to discharge with fidelity

the sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy and
impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity
of an oath in an acknowledgment are sacrosanct. He cannot simply disregard the requirements
and solemnities of the Notarial Law.

Here, based on the submission of the complainants, it is clear that the residence certificate
number used by Ramon Examen and as notarized by Atty. Examen in both Absolute Deeds of
Sale was not in fact the residence certificate of Ramon but Florentina’s residence certificate
number.35 Atty. Examen interposes that he was in good faith in that it was office practice to
have his secretary type up the details of the documents and requirements without him checking
the correctness of same.

A notary public must discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed with public interest,
with accuracy and fidelity.36 Good faith cannot be a mitigating circumstance in situations since
the duty to function as a notary public is personal. We note that the error could have been
prevented had Atty. Examen diligently performed his functions: personally checked the
correctness of the documents. To say that it was his secretary’s fault reflects disregard and
unfitness to discharge the functions of a notary public for it is he who personally acknowledges
the document. He was behooved under Section 251, Chapter 11 of the Revised Administrative
Code to check if the proper cedulas were presented and inspect if the documents to be
acknowledged by him reflected the correct details. This Court cannot stress enough that
notarization is not a routinary act. It is imbued with substantive public interest owing to the
public character of his duties.
Opinion:

I agree to the decision of the Court. The duty of the notary public is imbued with public interest
owing to the public the character of his duties. He must also follow the Canons and be ethical
in his dealings with his clients.