Notarial duties — Note the various ways by which the Notarial Rules Judgments of default were eventually rendered
rendered against Rudex in the first
are violated.
A.C. No. 6677               June 10, 2014
EUPROCINA I. CRISOSTOMO, MARILYN L. SOLIS, EVELYN
MARQUIZO, ROSEMARIE BALATUCAN, MILDRED BATANG,
MARILEN MINERALES, and MELINDA D. SIOTING, Complainants,
vs.
ATTY. PHILIP Z. A. NAZARENO, Respondent.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
For the Court's resolution is an administrative complaint  filed by
1
complainants Euprocina I. Crisostomo (Crisostomo), Marilyn L. Solis
(Solis), Evelyn Marquizo (Marquizo), Rosemarie Balatucan (Balatucan),
Mildred Batang (Batang), Marilen Minerales (Minerales), and Melinda D.
Sioting (Sioting) against respondent Atty. Philip Z. A. Nazareno (Atty.
Nazareno), charging him with making false declarations in the
certifications against forum shopping subject of this case in disregard of
Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, and malpractice as a notary
public in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Facts
Sometime in 2001, complainants individually purchased housing units
(subject properties) in Patricia South Villa Subdivision, Anabu-II, Imus,
Cavite, from Rudex International Development Corp. (Rudex).  In view of
2
several inadequacies and construction defects  in the housing units and
3
the subdivision itself, complainants sought the rescission of their
respective contracts to sell before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB), seeking the refund of the monthly amortizations they
had paid.  The first batch of rescission cases was filed by herein
4
complainants Sioting  on May 24, 2002, and Crisostomo  and
5 6
Marquizo  on June 10, 2002, while the second batch of rescission cases
7
was filed by complainants Balatucan  on March 3, 2003, Solis  and
8 9
Ederlinda M. Villanueva  (represented by Minerales) on May 12, 2003,
10
and Batang  on July 29, 2003. In all the foregoing rescission cases,
11
Rudex was represented by herein respondent Atty. Nazareno.
batch of rescission cases.  Sometime in August 2003, Rudex filed three
12
(3) petitions for review  before the HLURB assailing the same. In the
13
certifications against forum shopping attached to the said petitions,
Rudex, through its President Ruben P. Baes, and legal counsel Atty.
Nazareno, stated that it has not commenced or has knowledge of any
similar action or proceeding involving the same issues pending before
any court, tribunal or agency  – this, notwithstanding the fact that Rudex,
14
under the representation of Atty. Nazareno, previously filed an ejectment
case on September 9, 2002 against Sioting and her husband, Rodrigo
Sioting (Sps. Sioting), before the Municipal Trial Court of Imus, Cavite
(MTC). 15
On January 29, 2004, Rudex, again represented by Atty. Nazareno, filed
another complaint  against Sps. Sioting before the HLURB for the
16
rescission of their contract to sell and the latter’s ejectment, similar to its
pending September 9, 2002 ejectment complaint. Yet, in the certification
against forum shopping attached thereto executed by the Head of its
Credit and Collection department, Norilyn D. Unisan,  Rudex declared
17
that it has not commenced or is not aware of any action or proceeding
involving the same issues pending before any court, tribunal or
agency.  The said certification was notarized by Atty. Nazareno himself.
18 19
On April 1, 2004, six (6) similar complaints  for rescission of contracts to
20
sell and ejectment, plus damages for non-payment of amortizations due,
were filed by Atty. Nazareno, on behalf of Rudex, against the other
complainants before the HLURB. The certifications against forum
shopping attached thereto likewise stated that Rudex has not
commenced or has any knowledge of any similar pending action before
any court, tribunal or agency. 21
On February 21, 2005, complainants jointly filed the present
administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Nazareno, claiming
that in the certifications against forum shopping attached to the
complaints for rescission and ejectment of Rudex filed while Atty.
Nazareno was its counsel, the latter made false declarations therein that
no similar actions or proceedings have been commenced by Rudex or
remained pending before any other court, tribunal or agency when, in
fact, similar actions or proceedings for rescission had been filed by herein
complainants before the HLURB against Rudex and Atty. Nazareno, and
an ejectment complaint was filed by Rudex, represented by Atty.
Nazareno, against Sps. Sioting. In addition, complainants asserted that
Atty. Nazareno committed malpractice as a notary public since he only
assigned one (1) document number (i.e., Doc. No. 1968) in all the
certifications against forum shopping that were separately attached to the
six (6) April 1, 2004 complaints for rescission and ejectment.
22
Despite notice, Atty. Nazareno failed to file his comment and refute the
administrative charges against him.23
In the interim, the HLURB, in the Resolutions dated April 14, 2005  and
24
May 12, 2005,  dismissed Rudex’s complaints for rescission and
25
ejectment  on the ground that its statements in the certifications against
26
forum shopping attached thereto were false due to the existence of
similar pending cases in violation of Section 5,Rule 7 of the Rules of
Court.
The IBP’s Report and Recommendation
In a Report and Recommendation  dated March 8, 2012, Integrated Bar
27
of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero
recommended the suspension of Atty. Nazareno for a period of six (6)
months for his administrative violations.
The Investigating Commissioner found, among others, that there were
unassailable proofs that the certification against forum shopping attached
to Rudex’s ejectment complaint against Sps. Sioting had been
erroneously declared, considering that at the time Rudex filed the said
complaint in September 2002, Sps. Sioting’s rescission complaint against
Rudex, filed on May 24, 2002, was already pending. Hence, it was
incumbent upon Rudex to have declared its existence, more so, since
both complaints involve the same transaction and essential facts, and a
decision on the rescission complaint would amount to res judicata on the
ejectment complaint.  In this relation, the Investigating Commissioner
28
observed that Atty. Nazareno cannot claim innocence of his omission
since he was not only Rudex’s counsel but the notarizing officer as well.
Having knowingly made false entries in the subject certifications against
forum shopping, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that Atty.
Nazareno be held administratively liable and thereby penalized with six
(6) months suspension. 29
In a Resolution  dated April 15, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors
30
adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and
Recommendation, but modified the recommended penalty from a
suspension of six (6) months to only one (1) month.
The Issue Before the Court
The essential issue in this case is whether or not Atty. Nazareno should
be held administratively liable and accordingly suspended for a period of
one (1) month.
The Court’s Ruling
The Court affirms the IBP’s findings with modification as to the penalty
imposed.
Separate from the proscription against forum shopping  is the violation of
31
the certification requirement against forum shopping, which was
distinguished in the case of Sps. Ong v. CA  as follows:
32
The distinction between the prohibition against forum shopping and the
certification requirement should by now be too elementary to be
misunderstood. To reiterate, compliance with the certification against
forum shopping is separate from and independent of the avoidance of the
act of forum shopping itself. There is a difference in the treatment
between failure to comply with the certification requirement and violation
of the prohibition against forum shopping not only in terms of imposable
sanctions but also in the manner of enforcing them. The former
constitutes sufficient cause for the dismissal without prejudice to the filing
of the complaint or initiatory pleading upon motion and after hearing,
while the latter is a ground for summary dismissal thereof and for direct
contempt. x x x.33
Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, the submission of false
entries in a certification against forum shopping constitutes indirect or
direct contempt of court, and subjects the erring counsel to the
corresponding administrative and criminal actions, viz.:
Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The plaintiff or
principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory
pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed
thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore
commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in
any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is
such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present
status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or
similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that
fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by
mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be
cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise
provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false
certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall
constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the
corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party
or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the
same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall
constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative
sanctions. (Emphases supplied)
In the realm of legal ethics, said infraction may be considered as a
violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (Code) which read as follows:
CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY
THE LAWS OF THE LANDAND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND
LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
xxxx
CANON 10 – A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD
FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be
misled by any artifice.
In this case, it has been established that Atty. Nazareno made false
declarations in the certifications against forum shopping attached to
Rudex’s pleadings, for which he should be held administratively liable.
Records show that Atty. Nazareno, acting as Rudex’s counsel, filed, in
August 2003, petitions for review assailing the judgments of default
rendered in the first batch of rescission cases without disclosing in the
certifications against forum shopping the existence of the ejectment case
it filed against Sps. Sioting which involves an issue related to the
complainants’ rescission cases. Further, on January 29, 2004, Rudex,
represented by Atty. Nazareno, filed a complaint for rescission and
ejectment against Sps. Sioting without disclosing in the certifications
against forum shopping the existence of Sioting’s May 24, 2002
rescission complaint against Rudex as well as Rudex’s own September
9, 2002 ejectment complaint also against Sps. Sioting. Finally, on April 1,
2004,Atty. Nazareno, once more filed rescission and ejectment
complaints against the other complainants in this case without disclosing
in the certifications against forum shopping the existence of
complainants’ own complaints for rescission.
Owing to the evident similarity of the issues involved in each set of cases,
Atty. Nazareno – as mandated by the Rules of Court and more
pertinently, the canons of the Code – should have truthfully declared the
existence of the pending related cases in the certifications against forum
shopping attached to the pertinent pleadings. Considering that Atty.
Nazareno did not even bother to refute the charges against him despite
due notice, the Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the IBP’s
resolution on his administrative liability.  However, as for the penalty to
1âwphi1
be imposed, the Court deems it proper to modify the IBP’s finding on this
score.
In Molina v. Atty. Magat,  a penalty of six (6) months suspension from the
34
practice of law was imposed against the lawyer therein who was shown
to have deliberately made false and untruthful statements in one of his
pleadings. Given that Atty. Nazareno’s infractions are of a similar nature,
but recognizing further that he, as may be gleaned from the foregoing
discussion, had repetitively committed the same, the Court hereby
suspends him from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
Separately, the Court further finds Atty. Nazareno guilty of malpractice as
a notary public, considering that he assigned only one document number
(i.e., Doc. No. 1968) to the certifications against forum shopping attached
to the six (6) April 1, 2004 complaints for rescission and ejectment
despite the fact that each of them should have been treated as a
separate notarial act. It is a standing rule that for every notarial act, the
notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of the notarization,
among others, the entry and page number of the document notarized,
and that he shall give to each instrument or document executed, sworn
to, or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his
register.  Evidently, Atty. Nazareno did not comply with the foregoing
35
rule.
Worse, Atty. Nazareno notarized the certifications against forum
shopping attached to all the aforementioned complaints, fully aware that
they identically asserted a material falsehood, i.e., that Rudex had not
commenced any actions or proceedings or was not aware of any pending
actions or proceedings involving the same issues in any other forum. The
administrative liability of an erring notary public in this respect was clearly
delineated as a violation of Rule 1.01,Canon 1 of the Code in the case of
Heirs of the Late Spouses Villanueva v. Atty. Beradio,  to wit:
36
Where admittedly the notary public has personal knowledge of a false
statement or information contained in the instrument to be notarized, yet
proceeds to affix his or her notarial seal on it, the Court must not hesitate
to discipline the notary public accordingly as the circumstances of the
case may dictate. Otherwise, the integrity and sanctity of the notarization
process may be undermined and public confidence on notarial
documents diminished. In this case, respondent’s conduct amounted to a
breach of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
requires lawyers to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the
law and legal processes. Respondent also violated Rule 1.01 of the Code
which proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral,
or deceitful conduct.  (Emphasis supplied)
37
In said case, the lawyer who knowingly notarized a document containing
false statements had his notarial commission revoked and was
disqualified from being commissioned as such for a period of one (1)
year. Thus, for his malpractice as a notary public, the Court is wont to
additionally impose the same penalties of such nature against him.
However, due to the multiplicity of his infractions on this front, coupled
with his willful malfeasance in discharging the office, the Court deems it
proper to revoke his existing commission and permanently disqualify him
from being commissioned as a notary public. Indeed, respondent ought to
be reminded that: 38
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 a public 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 he
acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private
instrument.
xxxx
When a notary public certifies to the due execution and delivery of the
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. Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is
placed upon him by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do
no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. Failing in this, he must
accept the consequences of his unwarranted actions.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Philip Z. A. Nazareno is found GUILTY
of making false declarations in the certifications against forum shopping
subject of this case, as well as malpractice as a notary public.
Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
one (1) year, effective upon his receipt of this Decision, with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with
more severely. Further, he is PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED from
being commissioned as a notary public and, his notarial commission, if
currently existing, is hereby REVOKED.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to
be appended to respondent's personal record as attorney.  Likewise,
1âwphi1
copies shall be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all
courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
A.C. No. 6470               July 8, 2014
MERCEDITA DE JESUS, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. JUVY MELL SANCHEZMALIT, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
SERENO, CJ:
Before the Court is a disbarment complaint filed by Mercedita De Jesus
(De Jesus) against respondent Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchez-Malit (Sanchez-
Malit) on the following grounds: grave misconduct, dishonesty,
malpractices, and unworthiness to become an officer of the Court.
THE FACTS OF THE CASE
In the Affidavit-Complaint  filed by complainant before the Office of the
1 same property in which complainant was represented as the property’s
Bar Confidant on 23 June 2004, she alleged that on 1 March 2002,
respondent had drafted and notarized a Real Estate Mortgage of a public
market stall that falsely named the former as its absolute and registered
owner. As a result, the mortgagee sued complainant for perjury and for
collection of sum of money. She claimed that respondent was a
consultant of the local government unit of Dinalupihan, Bataan, and was
therefore aware that the market stall was government-owned. Prior
thereto, respondent had also notarized two contracts that caused
complainant legal and financial problems. One contract was a lease
agreement notarized by respondent sometime in September 1999 without
the signature of the lessees. However, complainant only found out that
the agreement had not been signed by the lessees when she lost her
copy and she asked for another copy from respondent. The other
contract was a sale agreement over a property covered by a Certificate of
Land Ownership Award (CLOA) which complainant entered into with a
certain Nicomedes Tala (Tala) on 17 February 1998. Respondent drafted
and notarized said agreement, but did not advise complainant that the
property was still covered by the period within which it could not be
alienated.
In addition to the documents attached to her complaint, complainant
subsequently submitted three Special Powers of Attorney (SPAs)
notarized by respondent and an Affidavit of Irene Tolentino (Tolentino),
complainant’s secretary/treasurer. The SPAs were not signed by the
principals named therein and bore only the signature of the named
attorneyin-fact, Florina B. Limpioso (Limpioso). Tolentino’s Affidavit
corroborated complainant’s allegations against respondent.2
On 4 August 2004, the Second Division of the Supreme Court issued a
Resolution requiring respondent to submit her comment on the Complaint
within ten (10) days from receipt of notice.
3 notarized in the principal’s place of residence.
In her Comment,  respondent explained thatthe mortgage contract was
4 An exchange of pleadings ensuedafter respondent submitted her
prepared in the presence of complainant and that the latter had read it
before affixing her signature. However, complainant urgently needed the
loan proceeds so the contract was hastily done. It was only copied from a
similar file in respondent’s computer, and the phrase "absolute and
registered owner" was inadvertently left unedited. Still, it should not be a
cause for disciplinary action, because complainant constructed the
subject public market stall under a "Build Operate and Transfer" contract
with the local government unit and, technically, she could be considered
its owner. Besides, there had been a prior mortgage contract over the
absolute owner, but she did not complain. Moreover, the cause of the
perjury charge against complainant was not the representation ofherself
as owner of the mortgaged property, but her guarantee that it was free
from all liens and encumbrances. The perjury charge was even
dismissed, because the prosecutor found that complainant and her
spouse had, indeed, paid the debt secured with the previous mortgage
contract over the same market stall.
With respect to the lease agreement, respondent countered that the
document attached to the Affidavit-Complaint was actually new. She gave
the court’s copy of the agreement to complainant to accommodate the
latter’s request for an extra copy. Thus, respondent prepared and
notarized a new one, relying on complainant’s assurance that the lessees
would sign it and that it would be returned in lieu of the original copy for
the court. Complainant, however, reneged on her promise.
As regards the purchase agreement of a property covered by a CLOA,
respondent claimed that complainant was an experienced realty broker
and, therefore, needed no advice on the repercussions of that
transaction. Actually, when the purchase agreement was notarized,
complainant did not present the CLOA, and so the agreement mentioned
nothing about it. Rather, the agreement expressly stated that the property
was the subject of a case pending before the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB); complainant was thus notified of
the status of the subject property. Finally, respondent maintained that the
SPAs submitted by complainant as additional evidence wereproperly
notarized. It can be easily gleaned from the documents that the attorney-
in-fact personally appeared before respondent; hence,the notarization
was limited to the former’s participation in the execution ofthe document.
Moreover, the acknowledgment clearly stated that the document must be
Comment. After her rejoinder, complainant filed an Urgent Ex-
ParteMotion for Submission of Additional Evidence.  Attached thereto
5
were copies of documents notarized by respondent, including the
following: (1) an Extra Judicial Deed of Partition which referred to the
SPAs naming Limpioso as attorney-in-fact; (2) five SPAs that lacked the
signatures of either the principal or the attorney-in-fact; (3) two deeds of
sale with incomplete signatures of the parties thereto; (4) an unsigned
Sworn Statement; (5) a lease contract that lacked the signature of the
lessor; (6) five unsigned Affidavits; (7) an unsigned insurance claim form
(Annual Declaration by the Heirs); (8) an unsigned Invitation Letter toa
potential investor in Japan; (9) an unsigned Bank Certification; and
(10)an unsigned Consent to Adoption.
After the mandatory conference and hearing, the parties submitted their
respective Position Papers.  Notably, respondent’s Position Paper did not
6
tackle the additional documents attached to complainant’s Urgent Ex
ParteMotion.
THE FINDINGS OF THE IBP
In his 15 February 2008 Report, IBP Investigating Commissioner Leland
R. Villadolid, Jr. recommended the immediate revocation of the Notarial
Commission of respondent and her disqualification as notary public for
two years for her violation of her oath as such by notarizing documents
without the signatures of the parties who had purportedly appeared
before her. He accepted respondent’s explanations with respect to the
lease agreement, sale contract, and the three SPAs pertaining to
Limpioso. However, he found that the inaccurate crafting of the real
estate mortgage contract was a sufficient basis to hold respondent liable
for violation of Canon 18  and Rule 18.03  of the Code of Professional
7 8
Responsibility. Thus, he also recommended that she besuspended from
the practice of law for six months. 9
The IBP Board of Governors, inits Resolution No. XVIII-2008-245 dated
22 May 2008, unanimously adopted and approved the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, with the
modification that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for
one year.10
Respondent filed her first Motion for Reconsideration  and Second
11
Motion for Reconsideration.  She maintained that the additional
12
documents submitted by complainant were inadmissible, as they were
obtained without observing the procedural requisites under Section 4,
Rule VI of Adm. No. 02-08-13 SC (2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice).  Moreover, the Urgent Ex ParteMotion of complainant was
13
actually a supplemental pleading, which was prohibited under the rules of
procedure of the Committee on Bar Discipline; besides, she was not the
proper party to question those documents. Hence, the investigating
commissioner should have expunged the documents from the records,
instead of giving them due course. Respondent also prayed that
mitigating circumstances be considered, specifically the following:
absence of prior disciplinary record; absence of dishonest or selfish
motive; personal and emotional problems; timely goodfaith effort to make
restitution or to rectify the consequences of her misconduct; full and free
disclosure to the disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward the
proceedings; character or reputation; remorse; and remoteness of prior
offenses.
The IBP Board of Governors, inits Resolution No. XX-2012-119 dated 10
March 2012, deniedrespondent’s motion for reconsideration for lack of
substantial reason to justify a reversal of the IBP’s findings.
14
Pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, Director for Bar Discipline
Pura Angelica Y. Santiago – through a letter addressed to then acting
Chief Justice Antonio T. Carpio – transmitted the documents pertaining to
the disbarment Complaint against respondent. 15
THE COURT’S RULING
After carefully reviewing the merits of the complaint against respondent
and the parties’ submissions in this case, the Court hereby modifies the
findings of the IBP.
Before going into the substance of the charges against respondent, the
Court shall first dispose of some procedural matters raised by
respondent.
Respondent argues that the additional documents submitted in evidence
by complainant are inadmissible for having been obtained in violation of
Section 4, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. A comparable
argument was raised in Tolentino v. Mendoza,  in which the respondent
16
therein opposed the admission of the birth certificates of his illegitimate
children as evidence of his grossly immoral conduct, because those
documents were obtained in violation Rule 24, Administrative Order No.
1, Series of 1993.  Rejecting his argument, the Court reasoned as
17
follows:
Section 3, Rule 128 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that
"evidence is admissible when it isrelevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law or these rules." There could be no dispute that the
subject birth certificates are relevant to the issue. The only question,
therefore, is whether the law or the rules provide for the inadmissibility of
said birth certificates allegedly for having been obtained in violation of
Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993.
Note that Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 only
provides for sanctions against persons violating the ruleon confidentiality
of birth records, but nowhere does itstate that procurement of birth
records in violation of said rule would render said records inadmissible in
evidence. On the other hand, the Revised Rules of Evidence only
provides for the exclusion of evidence if it is obtained as a result of illegal
searches and seizures. It should be emphasized, however, that said rule
against unreasonable searches and seizures is meant only to protect a
person from interference by the government or the state. In People vs.
Hipol, we explained that: The Constitutional proscription enshrined in the
Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the relation between a private
individual and another individual. It governs the relationship between the
individual and the State and its agents. The Bill of Rights only tempers
governmental power and protects the individual against any aggression
and unwarranted interference by any department of government and its
agencies. Accordingly, it cannot be extended to the acts complained of in
this case. The alleged "warrantless search" made by Roque, a co-
employee of appellant at the treasurer's office, can hardly fall within the
ambit of the constitutional proscription on unwarranted searches and
seizures.
Consequently, in this case where complainants, as private individuals,
obtained the subject birth records as evidence against respondent, the
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply.
Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 and the
Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide for the exclusion from
evidence of the birth certificates inquestion, said public documents are,
therefore, admissible and should be properly taken into consideration in
the resolution of this administrative case against respondent. 18
Similarly, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Law contain no provision declaring
the inadmissibility of documents obtained in violation thereof. Thus, the
IBP correctly consideredin evidence the other notarized documents
submitted by complainant as additional evidence.
Respondent’s argument that the Urgent Ex-ParteMotion of complainant
constitutes a supplemental pleading must fail as well. As its very name
denotes, a supplemental pleading only serves to bolster or adds
something to the primary pleading. Its usual office is to set up new facts
which justify, enlarge or change the kind of relief with respect to the same
subject matter as the controversy referred to in the original
complaint.  Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Urgent Ex-Parte
19
Motion filed by complainant was a supplemental pleading. One of her
charges against respondent is that the latter notarizedincomplete
documents, as shown by the SPAs and lease agreement attached to the
Affidavit-Complaint. Complainant is not legally barred from submitting
additional evidence to strengthen the basis of her complaint.
Going now into the substance of the charges against respondent, the
Court finds that she committed misconduct and grievously violated her
oath as a notary public.
The important role a notary public performs cannot be overemphasized.
The Court has repeatedlystressed that notarization is not an empty,
meaningless routinary act, but one invested with substantive public
interest. Notarization converts a private document into a public document,
making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity.
Thus, a notarized document is, by law, entitled tofull faith and credit upon
its face. It is for this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost
care the basic requirements in the performance of his notarial duties;
otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document
would be undermined. 20
Where the notary public admittedly has personal knowledge of a false
statement or information contained in the instrument to be notarized, yet
proceeds to affix the notarial seal on it, the Court must not hesitate to
discipline the notary public accordingly as the circumstances of the case
may dictate. Otherwise, the integrity and sanctity of the notarization
process may be undermined, and public confidence in notarial
documents diminished.  In this case, respondent fully knew that
21
complainant was not the owner of the mortgaged market stall. That
complainant comprehended the provisions of the real estate mortgage
contractdoes not make respondent any less guilty. If at all, it only
heightens the latter’s liability for tolerating a wrongful act. Clearly,
respondent’s conduct amounted to a breach of Canon 1  and Rules 22
1.01  and 1.02  of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
23 24
Respondent’s explanation about the unsigned lease agreement executed
by complainant sometime in September 1999  is incredulous. If, indeed,
25
her file copy of the agreement bore the lessees’ signatures, she could
have given complainant a certified photocopy thereof. It even appears
that said lease agreement is not a rarityin respondent’s practice as a
notary public. Records show that on various occasions from 2002 to
2004, respondent has notarized 22 documents that were either unsigned
or lacking signatures of the parties. Technically, each document maybe a
ground for disciplinary action, for it is the duty of a notarial officer to
demand that a document be signed in his or her presence. 26
A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who
signed it are the very same ones who executed it and who personally
appeared before the said notary public to attest to the contents and truth
of what are stated therein.  Thus, in acknowledging that the parties
27
personally came and appeared before her, respondent also violated Rule
10.01  of the Code of Professional Responsibility and her oath as a
28
lawyer that she shall do no falsehood.  Certainly, respondent is unfit to
29
continue enjoying the solemn office of a notary public. In several
instances, the Court did not hesitate to disbar lawyers who were found to
be utterly oblivious to the solemnity of their oath as notaries public.  Even
30
so, the rule is that disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of
misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer
as an officer of the court and the Court will not disbar a lawyer where a
lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end.  The blatmt
31
disregard by respondent of her basic duties as a notary public warrants
the less severe punishment of suspension from the practice of law and
perpetual disqualification to be commissioned as a notary public.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchez-Malit is found guilty
of violating Canon 1 and Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 10.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility as well as her oath as notary public. Hence,
she is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE YEAR effective
immediately. Her notarial commission, if still existing, is IMMEDIATELY
REVOKED and she is hereby PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from
being commissioned as a notary public.
Let copies of this Resolution be entered into the personal records of
respondent as a member of the bar and furnished to the Bar Confidant,
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Court Administrator for
circulation to all courts of the country for their information and guidance.
A.C. No. 7184               September 17, 2014
FELIPE B. ALMAZAN, SR., Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. MARCELO B. SUERTE-FELIPE, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
This is an administrative case against respondent Atty. Marcelo B.
Suerte-Felipe (respondent) for malpractice as a notary public, among
others.
The Facts
In a Complaint  dated April 27, 2006, complainant Felipe B. Almazan, Sr.
1
(complainant) charged respondent, previously of the Public Attorney's
Office,  for malpractice and gross negligence in the performance of his
2
duty as a notary public and/or lawyer, alleging that the latter, despite not
having been registered as a notary public for the City of Marikina,
notarized the acknowledgment of the document entitled "Extra judicial
Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Juliana P. Vda. De
Nieva"  dated "25th day of 1999" (subject document), stating that he is a
3
"notary public for and in the City of Marikina."  Said document was one of
4
the attachments to the Amended Complaint  dated August 14, 2003 filed
5
in Civil Case No. 03-849-MK entitled "Esperanza Nieva Dela Cruz[(as
represented by respondent)] v. Brita T. Llantada[(as represented by
complainant)]." To prove his claim, complainant attached a
Certification  dated May 26, 2005 issued by the Office of the Clerk of
6
Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City, certifying that
per the court’s record, respondent is not a commissioned notary public for
the Cityof Marikina from March 30, 1994 to the date of issuance. In a
Resolution  dated July 5, 2006, the Court required respondent to file his
7
Comment  which he eventually submitted on February 13, 2007 after
8
proper service. In said pleading, respondent admitted that he indeed
notarized the acknowledgment of the subject document but denied that
he was not commissioned as a notary public at that time.  To prove his
9
defense, he attached a Certification  dated August 23, 2006 issued by
10
the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Pasig City, certifying the
fact of his appointment as notary public for the City of Pasigand in the
Municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and Mandaluyong for the
years 1998-1999 under Appointment No. 98.  Further, respondent, thru
11
the comment, incorporated his own administrative complaint against
complainant for malpractice and harassment of a fellow lawyer in view of
the filing of the instant administrative case against him.
12
In response, complainant filed a Reply  dated April 26, 2007 asserting
13
that he has the legitimate rightto file the administrative complaint against
respondent for his unlawful act of notarization, which is not an act of
harassment as respondent claims. He alsodraws attention to the fact that
the subject document was incompletely dated and yet notarized by
respondent.  In a Resolution  dated July 11, 2007, the Court,inter alia,
14 15
referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report, and recommendation. Eventually, both parties
appeared during the mandatory conference held on April 30, 2008. 16
The Report and Recommendation of the IBP
In a Report and Recommendation  dated September 22, 2008, the IBP
17
Investigating Commissioner foundrespondent guilty for violating the
Notarial Law and the lawyer’s oath, reasoning that he could not notarize
the acknowledgment of the subject document inMarikina City as it was
outside the territorial limits of his jurisdiction. To this end, the
Investigating Commissioner pointed out that in the acknowledgment of
the subject document, it was categorically stated that respondent is a
notary public for and in the City of Marikina, Province ofRizal, of which he
was not, hence, violating the Notarial Law. Moreover,respondent likewise
violated the lawyer’s oath, specifically its mandate for lawyers, to obey
the laws and do no falsehood. 18
In view of the foregoing, it was thus recommended that respondent be
suspended for a period of two (2) years from the practice of law.
However, since it does not appear that he was still commissioned as a
notary public, the Investigating Commissioner did not recommend that he
be disqualified as such. 19
In a Resolution  dated October 9, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors
20
adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner with modification, decreasing the penalty of
suspension to one (1) year, with immediate revocation of notarial
commission if presently commissioned, and disqualification from being
commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.
On reconsideration,  the IBP Board of Governors, in a Resolution  dated
21 22
March 8, 2014, modifiedthe penalty stated in its previous resolution,
imposing, instead, the penalty ofreprimand with warning, and
disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for the
decreased period of one (1) year.
The Issue Before the Court
The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be
held administratively liable.
The Court’s Ruling
The Court concurs with the findings of the IBP except as to the penalty.
As the Investigating Commissioner correctly observed, respondent, who
himself admitted that he was commissioned as notary public only in the
City of Pasig and the Municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and
Mandaluyong for the years 1998-1999, could not notarize the subject
document’s acknowledgment in the City ofMarikina, as said notarial act is
beyond the jurisdiction of the commissioning court, i.e.,the RTC of Pasig.
The territorial limitation of a notary public’s jurisdiction is crystal clear
from Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice:  Sec. 11.
23
Jurisdiction and Term– A person commissioned as notary public may
perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the
commissioning courtfor a period of two (2) years commencing the first
day of January of the year in which the commissioning court is made,
unless either revoked or the notary public has resigned under these
Rules and the Rules of Court. (Emphasis supplied)
Said principle is equally echoed in the Notarial Law found in Chapter 12,
Book V, Volume I of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, as
amended,  of which Section 240, Article II states:
24
Sec. 240. Territorial jurisdiction. – The jurisdiction of a notary public in a
province shall be co-extensive with the province. The jurisdiction of a
notary public in the City of Manila shall be co-extensive with said city. No
notary shall possess authority to doany notarial act beyond the limits of
his jurisdiction. (Emphases supplied)
For misrepresenting in the said acknowledgment that he was a notary
public for and in the City of Marikina, when it is apparent and, in fact,
uncontroverted that he was not, respondent further committed a form of
falsehood which is undoubtedly anathemato the lawyer’s oath.
Perceptibly, said transgression also runs afoul of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that "[a] lawyer as well as Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
six (6) months, effective upon his receipt of this Resolution, with a
In the case of Tan Tiong Bio v. Atty. Gonzales,  citing Nunga v. Atty.
25 STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same orsimilar acts will be
Viray,  the Court instructively expounded on infractions similar to that of
26 dealt with more severely. He is likewise DISQUALIFIED from being
respondent: commissioned as a notary public for a period of one (1) year and his
notarial commission, if currently existing, is hereby REVOKED.
While seemingly appearing to be a harmless incident, respondent’s act of
notarizing documents in a place outside of or beyond the authority Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant,
granted by his notarial commission, partakes of malpractice of law and to be appended to respondent's personal record as attorney. Further, let
falsification. While perhaps not on all fours because of the slight copies of this Resolution be furnished the Integrated Bar of the
dissimilarity inthe violation involved, what the Court said in Nunga v. Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator, which is directed to
Virayis very much apropos: Where the notarization of a document is done circulate them to all the courts in the country for their information and
by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization guidance.
or commission todo so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary
action. For one, performing a notarial [act] without such commission is a
violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the In re: Order of Judge Madamba, A.C. No. 10119, 11 November 2014
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 false hood, which the lawyer’s oath similarly
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."
A.C. No. 8103               December 3, 2014
It cannot be over-emphasized that notarization isnot an empty,
meaningless, routinary act. Far from it.  Notarization is invested with ATTY. AURELIO C. ANGELES, JR., PROVINCIAL LEGAL OFFICER,
BATAAN CAPITOL, BALANGA CITY, BATAAN, Complainant,
1âwphi1

substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or
authorized may act as notaries public. Hence, the requirements for the vs.
issuance of a commission as notary public are treated with a formality ATTY. RENATO C. BAGAY, Respondent.
definitely more than casual.  (Emphases supplied)
27

DECISION
With respondent’s liability herein established, and considering further the
attendant circumstances of this case, take for instance, that he is a first MENDOZA, J.:
time offender and that he had already acknowledged his
wrongdoings,  the Court finds that suspension for a period of six (6)
28 Subject of this disposition is the September 28, 2013 Resolution  or the
1

months  from the practice of law would suffice as a penalty. In addition,

29
he is disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for a period
of one (1) year and, his notarial commission, if currently existing, is
hereby revoked. 30
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe is found
GUILTY of malpractice as a notary public,and violating the lawyer’s oath
IBP Board of Governors which reads:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously
ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner xxx and finding the recommendation fully
supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules
and considering the Respondent guilty of negligence in the performance
of his notarial duty, Atty. Renato C. Bagay's Notarial Commission is
hereby immediately REVOKED. Further, he is DISQUALIFIED from
reappointment as Notary Public for two (2) years.
It appears from the records that this case stemmed from the letter,  dated
2
June 11, 2008, submitted by Atty. Aurelio C. Angeles, Jr. (Atty. Angeles,
Jr.),the Provincial Legal Officer of Bataan, to Hon. Remigio M. Escalada,
Jr. (Executive Judge), Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
Bataan against Atty. Renato C. Bagay (respondent), for his alleged
notarization of 18 documents at the time he was out of the country from
March 13, 2008 to April 8, 2008. The notarized documents were as
follows:
1. Deed of Donation executed by and between Renato Macalinao
and Loida C. Macalinao and Trisha Katrina Macalinao, notarized
on April 3, 2008;
2. Deed of Donation executed by and between Renato S. Sese
and Sandy Margaret L. Sese, notarized on March 25, 2008;
3. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Josefina A.
Castro married to Eduardo Samson and Thelma Medina and
Gina Medina notarized on April 3, 2008;
4. Deed of Absolute Sale executedby Rowena Berja, notarized on
March 17, 2008;
5. Deed of Donation executed by and between Crispulo
Rodriguez and Luisa Rodriguez Jorgensen, notarized on April 8,
2008;
6. Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights
executed by the wife and sons of Rodrigo Dy Jongco, notarized
March 19, 2008;
7. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Sps. Rolando
and Nelia Francisco and Violeta Hernandez, notarized on April 3,
2008;
8. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Josefina
Baluyot and Carmelita Padlan, notarized on April 3, 2008;
9. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Gregorio Limcumpao and
Simeona Limcumpao, notarized on March 27, 2008;
10. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Sps.
Eusebio and Libertad Bacricio and Carlos Tamayo married to
Teresa Tamayo notarized on March 18, 2008;
11. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Natividad S.
Consengco and Sps. Gilvert and Johanna Gervacio, notarized
March 18, 2008;
12. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between the Rural
Bank of Pilar and Mila Gatdula, notarized on April 2, 2008;
13. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Natividad
Cosengco and Sps. Jay and Helen Zulueta, notarized on March
18, 2008;
14. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Cipriano and Salvacion
Violago, notarized on April 1, 2008;
15. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Sahara Management and
Development Corporation, notarized on March 26, 2008;
16. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Danilo
Arellano, Luzviminda Ramos and Sps. Fernando and Agnes
Silva, notarized on March 18, 2008;
17. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Vicente
Banzon married to Elizabeth Banzon and Sps. Dommel and
Crystal Lima, notarized on April 2, 2008; and
18. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Marilyn T.
Casupanan and Dominador M. Manalansan notarized on March
14, 2008.
These documents were endorsed to the Provincial Legal Office by the
Provincial Treasurer who had information that they were notarized while
respondent was outside the country attending the Prayer and Life
Workshop in Mexico. The letter contained the affidavits of the persons
who caused the documents to be notarized which showed a common
statement that they did not see respondent sign the documents himself
and it was either the secretary who signed them or the documents
cameout of the office already signed. Upon verification with the Bureau of
Immigration, it was found out that a certain Renato C. Bagay departed
from the country on March 13, 2008 and returned on April 8, 2008. The
copy of the Certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration was also
attached to the letter.
3
The Executive Judge referred the matter to the IBP, Bataan Chapter, and
the latter endorsed the same to the IBP National Office for appropriate
action. The latter endorsed it to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD).
When CBD Director Alicia Risos-Vidal (Atty. Risos-Vidal) required Atty.
Angeles, Jr. to formalize the complaint, the latter replied on September
30, 2008 stating, among others, that his June 11, 2008 Letter was not
intended to be a formal complaint but rather "a report on, and
endorsement of, public documents by Atty. Bagay while he was out of the
country,"  and that any advice on how to consider or treat the documents
4 Notarial Practice.
concerned would be welcome.
On December 3, 2008, Atty. Risos-Vidal opted to endorse the matter to
the Office of the Bar Confidant for appropriate action.
5 prerogative authority as notary public, the Investigating Commissioner
This Court, in its Resolution,  dated February 2, 2009, resolved to note
6
the letter of Atty. Angeles, Jr., dated September 30,2008, and require
respondent to comment on the said letter. In his comment,  dated 27
7
March 2009, respondent claimed that he was not aware that those were
documents notarized using his name while he was out of the country.
Upon his own inquiry, he found out that the notarizations were done by
his secretary and without his knowledge and authority. The said secretary
notarized the documents without realizing the import of the notarization
act. Respondent apologized to the Court for his lapses and averred that
he had terminated the employment of his secretary from his office.
The Court then referred the case tothe IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation. When the case was called for mandatory conference
on September 16, 2009, only respondent appeared. Atty. Angeles filed a
manifestation reiterating his original position and requesting that his
attendance be excused.  The mandatory conference was terminated and
8
the parties were directed to file their respective position papers. Only
respondent submitted a position paper,  to which he added that for 21
9
years that he had been practicing law, he acted as a notary public without
any blemish on record dutifully minding the rules of the law profession
and notarial practice.
The Report and Recommendation  of Atty. Felimon C. Abelita III (Atty.
10
Abelita III)as Investigating Commissioner found that the letter of Atty.
Angeles, Jr., dated June11, 2008, was not verified, that most of the
attachments were not authenticated photocopies and that the comment of
respondent was likewise not verified. Atty. Abelita III, however, observed
that respondent’s signature on his comment appeared to be strikingly
similar to the signatures in most of the attached documents which he
admitted were notarized in his absence by his office secretary.He
admitted the fact that there were documents that were notarized while he
was abroad and his signature was affixed by his office secretary who was
not aware of the import of the act. Thus, by his own admission, it was
established that by his negligence in employing an office secretary who
had access to his office, his notarial seal and records especially
pertaining to his notarial documents without the proper training,
respondent failed to live up to the standard required by the Rules on
Finding respondent guilty of negligence in the performance of his notarial
duty which gave his office secretary the opportunity to abuse his
recommended the immediate revocation of respondent’s commission as
notary public and his disqualification to be commissioned as such for a
period of two (2) years.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the said
recommendation in its Resolution,  dated September 28, 2013.
11
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration  of the said resolution of
12
the IBP. He contended that by admitting and owning up to what had
happened, but without any wrongful intention, he should be merited with
leniency. Moreover, he claimed that he only committed simple negligence
which did not warrant such harsh penalty.
On May 4, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors denied the motion for
reconsideration of respondent stating:
RESOLVED to DENY Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration, there
being no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the Commission and
the resolution subject of the motion, it being a mere reiteration of the
matters which had already been threshed out and taken into
consideration. Thus, Resolution No. XX-2013-85 dated September 28,
2013 is hereby affirmed.13
On August 1, 2014, the Director for Bar Discipline endorsed the May 4,
2014 Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors to the Office of the Chief
Justice for appropriate action.
The sole issue to resolve in this case is whether the notarization of
documents by the secretary of respondent while he was out of the
country constituted negligence.
The Court answers in the affirmative.
Respondent admitted in his commentand motion for reconsideration that
the 18 documents were notarized under his notarial seal by his office
secretary while he was out of the country. This clearly constitutes
negligence considering that respondent is responsible for the acts of his
secretary. Section 9 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that
a "Notary Public" refers to any person commissioned to perform official
acts under these Rules. A notary public’s secretary is obviously not
commissioned to perform the official acts of a notary public. Respondent
cannot take refuge in his claim that it was his secretary’s act which he did
not authorize. He is responsible for the acts of the secretary which he
employed. He left his office open to the public while leaving his secretary
in charge. He kept his notarial seal and register within the reach of his
secretary, fully aware that his secretary could use these items to notarize
documents and copy his signature. Such blatant negligence cannot be
countenanced by this Court and it is far from being a simple negligence.
There is an inescapable likelihood that respondent’s flimsy excuse was a
mere afterthought and such carelessness exhibited by him could be a
conscious act of what his secretary did.
Respondent must fully bear the consequence of his negligence. A person
who is commissioned as a notary public takes full responsibility for all the
entries in his notarial register.  He cannot relieve himself of this
14
responsibility by passing the buck to his secretary.
As to his plea of leniency, the Court cannot consider it. Respondent
claims that for the 21 years that he has been practicing law, he acted as
a notary public without any blemish and this was his first and only
infraction. His experience, however, should have placed him on guard
and could have prevented possible violations of his notarial duty. By his
sheer negligence, 18 documents were notarized by an unauthorized
person and the public was deceived. Such prejudicial act towards the
public cannot be tolerated by this Court. Thus, the penalty of revocation
of notarial commission and disqualification from reappointment as Notary
Public for two (2) years is appropriate.
Because of the negligence of respondent, the Court also holds him liable
for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).His failure
to solemnly perform his duty as a notary public not only damaged those
directly affected by the notarized documents but also undermined the
integrity of a notary public and degraded the function of notarization. He
should, thus, be held liable for such negligence not only as a notary
public but also as a lawyer.  Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver
15
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.  Respondent violated Canon 9 of the CPR which requires lawyers
16
not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law. Due
to his negligence that allowed his secretary to sign on his behalf as
notary public, he allowed an unauthorized person to practice law. By
leaving his office open despite his absence in the country and with his
secretary in charge, he virtually allowed his secretary to notarize
documents without any restraint.
Respondent also violated his obligation under Canon 7 of the CPR, which
directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession. The people who came into his office while he was away,
were clueless as to the illegality of the activity being conducted therein.
They expected that their documents would be converted into public
documents. Instead, they later found out that the notarization of their
documents was a mere sham and without any force and effect. By
prejudicing the persons whose documents were notarized by an
unauthorized person, their faith in the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession was eroded.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, an additional
penalty of suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months is in
order.
Respondent should remember that a notarial commission is a privilege
and a significant responsibility. It is a privilege granted only to those who
are qualified to perform duties imbued with public interest. As we have
declared on several occasions, 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 notary
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.
17
It must be underscored that notarization by a notary public converts a
private document into a public document, making that document
admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Thus,
notaries pub! ic must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in
the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in
the integrity of pub! ic instruments would be undermined. 18
Let this serve as a reminder to the members of the legal profession that
the Court will not take lightly complaints of unauthorized acts of
notarization, especially when the trust and confidence reposed by the
public in our legal system hang in the balance.
WHEREFORE, the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines is ADOPTED with MODIFICATION.  Finding Atty. Renato C.
1âwphi1
Bagay grossly negligent in his duty as a notary public, the Court
REVOKES his notarial commission and DISQUALIFIES him from being
commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years. The Court
also SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for three (3) months
effective immediately, with a WARNING that the repetition of a similar
violation will be dealt with even more severely.
EN BANC
A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC, January 21, 2015
RE: VIOLATION OF RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This case stemmed from three (3) letter-complaints for
Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice endorsed to the Office of
the Bar Confidant (OBC) for appropriate action. The first letter-
complaint,1 dated March 2, 2009, was filed by the commissioned
notaries public within and for the jurisdiction of Lingayen,
Pangasinan, namely, Atty. Butch Cardinal Torio, Atty. Nepthalie
Pasiliao, Atty. Dominique Evangelista, and Atty. Elizabeth C.
Tugade (complainants) before the Executive Judge of the
Regional Trial Court, Lingayen, Pangasinan (RTC-Lingayen)
against Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. (Atty. Siapno) for notarizing
documents without a commission.
In their letter, complainants alleged that Atty. Siapno was
maintaining a notarial office along Alvear Street East, Lingayen,
Pangasinan, and was performing notarial acts and practices in
Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City without the requisite
notarial commission. They asserted that Atty. Siapno was never
commissioned as Notary Public for and within the jurisdiction of
Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City. Instead, he applied and
was commissioned to perform notarial functions by Executive
Judge Anthony Sison of the RTC, San Carlos City, Pangasinan
from March 22, 2007 to December 31, 2008. His notarial
commission, however, was never renewed upon expiration.
Complainants presented evidence supporting their allegations
such as the pictures of Atty. Siapno’s law office in Lingayen,
Pangasinan; and documents to prove that Atty. Siapno
performed acts of notarization in Lingayen, Natividad and
Dagupan City, to wit: (1) Addendum to Loan and Mortgage
Agreement2 showing that the Promissory Note was notarized
before Atty. Siapno in Lingayen, Pangasinan in 2007; (2) Deed
of Absolute Sale,3 dated January 24, 2008, notarized in
Natividad, Pangasinan; (3) Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested
Persons Re: Given Name and Date of Birth, 4 dated January 6,
2009, notarized in Dagupan City; and (4) Acknowledgement of
Debt,5 dated January 24, 2008, notarized in Dagupan City.
Complainants also averred that Atty. Siapno had delegated his
notarial authority to his secretaries, Mina Bautista (Bautista)
and Mary Ann Arenas (Arenas), who wrote legal instruments
and signed the documents on his behalf.
On March 17, 2009, the RTC-Lingayen forwarded the said letter-
complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)6 which,
in turn, indorsed the same to the OBC.
The second letter-complaint7 was filed by Audy B. Espelita
(Espelita) against Atty. Pedro L. Santos (Atty. Santos). It
alleged that in 2008, Espelita lost his driver’s license and he
executed an affidavit of loss which was notarized by Atty.
Santos. The said affidavit, however, was denied for
authentication when presented before the Notarial Section in
Manila because Atty. Santos was not commissioned to perform complainants shows that Atty. Siapno indeed maintained a law
notarial commission within the City of Manila. office in Lingayen, Pangasinan, just beside the law office of one
of the complainants, Atty. Elizabeth Tugade. It was also proven
The third letter-complaint8 came from a concerned citizen that Atty. Siapno notarized several instruments with an expired
reporting that a certain Atty. Evelyn who was holding office at notarial commission outside the territorial jurisdiction of the
Room 402 Leyba Bldg., 381 Dasmariñas Street, Sta. Cruz, commissioning court. Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on
Manila, had been notarizing and signing documents for and on Notarial Practice provides that:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

behalf of several lawyers. Jurisdiction and Term – A person commissioned as notary public
may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial
In its Resolution,9 dated June 9, 2009, the Court directed the jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2)
Executive Judge of the RTC-Lingayen to conduct a formal years commencing the first day of January of the year in which
investigation on the complaint against Atty. Siapno and the commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked or the notary
Executive Judge Reynaldo G. Ros (Judge Ros) of the RTC-Manila public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.
to conduct a formal investigation on the alleged violation of the Under the rule, only persons who are commissioned as notary
Notarial Law by Atty. Santos, and the illegal activities of a public may perform notarial acts within the territorial
certain Atty. Evelyn, and thereafter, to submit a report and jurisdiction of the court which granted the commission. Clearly,
recommendation thereon. Atty. Siapno could not perform notarial functions in Lingayen,
Natividad and Dagupan City of the Province of Pangasinan since
Re: Complaint against Atty. Siapno he was not commissioned in the said places to perform such
act.
With regard to the complaint against Atty. Siapno, the Executive
Judge conducted a hearing wherein the complainants affirmed Time and again, this Court has stressed that notarization is not
the allegations in their letter-complaint. For his part, Atty. an empty, meaningless and routine act. It is invested with
Siapno denied the accusations and averred that the law office in substantive public interest that only those who are qualified or
Lingayen, Pangasinan, was not his and that Bautista and Arenas authorized may act as notaries public. 12 It must be emphasized
were not his secretaries.10 that the act of notarization by a notary public converts a private
document into a public document making that document
In her Report and Recommendation, 11 the Executive Judge admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A
found that Atty. Siapno was issued a notarial commission within notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon
the jurisdiction of Lingayen, Pangasinan, from January 20, 2003 its face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe with
to December 31, 2004 and February 8, 2005 to December 3, utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their
2006. His commission, however, was cancelled on June 8, 2006 duties.
and he was not issued another commission thereafter. The
Executive Judge found Atty. Siapno to have violated the 2004 By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission
Rules on Notarial Commission when he performed notarial from the court, Atty. Siapno violated not only his oath to obey
functions without commission and recommended that he be the laws particularly the Rules on Notarial Practice but also
fined in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
proscribes all lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
The Court agrees with the findings of the Executive Judge but immoral or deceitful conduct and directs them to uphold the
not to the recommended penalty. integrity and dignity of the legal profession, at all times. 13
A review of the records and evidence presented by
In a plethora of cases, the Court has subjected lawyers to this decision.
disciplinary action for notarizing documents outside their
territorial jurisdiction or with an expired commission. In the WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. is
case of Nunga v. Viray,14 a lawyer was suspended by the Court hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years
for three (3) years for notarizing an instrument without a and BARRED PERMANENTLY from being commissioned as
commission. In Zoreta v. Simpliciano,15 the respondent was Notary Public, effective upon his receipt of a copy of this
likewise suspended from the practice of law for a period of two decision.
(2) years and was permanently barred from being
commissioned as a notary public for notarizing several Let copies of this decision be furnished all the courts of the land
documents after the expiration of his commission. In the more through the Office of the Court Administrator, the Integrated
recent case of Laquindanum v. Quintana,16 the Court suspended Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant, and be
a lawyer for six (6) months and was disqualified from being recorded in the personal files of the respondent.
commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years
because he notarized documents outside the area of his With respect to the complaints against Atty. Pedro L. Santos
commission, and with an expired commission. and a certain Atty. Evelyn, the Clerk of Court is ordered to RE-
DOCKET them as separate administrative cases. The Executive
Considering that Atty. Siapno has been proven to have Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Manila, is ordered to conduct
performed notarial work in Ligayen, Natividad and Dagupan City a formal investigation on the matter and to submit his Report
in the province of Pangasinan without the requisite commission, and Recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of a
the Court finds the recommended penalty insufficient. Instead, copy of this decision.
Atty. Siapno must be barred from being commissioned as
notary public permanently and suspended from the practice of
law for a period of two (2) years.
Relampagos v. Lagunay, A.C. No. 10703, 09 February 2015
Re: Complaints against Atty. Santos and Atty. Evelyn

In a letter,17 dated July 29, 2013, Judge Ros informed the Court

that he could not have complied with the June 9, 2009 and
March 18, 2015
August 4, 2009 orders of the Court because he was no longer
the Executive Judge of the RTC-Manila at that time. To date, no
A.C. No. 10695
formal investigation has been conducted on the alleged violation
of Atty. Santos and the reported illegal activities of a certain
CRESCENCIANO M. PITOGO, Complainant,
Atty. Evelyn.
vs.
ATTY. JOSELITO TROY SUELLO, Respondent.
With respect to the complaints against Atty. Santos and a
certain Atty. Evelyn, the Clerk of Court is ordered to RE-
RESOLUTION
DOCKET the same as separate administrative cases.
LEONEN, J.:
The incumbent Executive Judge of the RTC-Manila, whether
permanent or in acting capacity, is ordered to conduct a formal
investigation on the matter and to submit his Report and Crescenciano M. Pitogo (Pitogo) purchased a motorcycle from EMCOR,
Inc. However, EMCOR, Inc. allegedly failed to cause the registration of
Recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of copy of
the motorcycle under his name. Pitogo, thus, filed a Civil Complaint Trial Court. He requested Suello to certify the authenticity and veracity of
before the Regional Trial Court against EMCOR, Inc. 1
the three (3) documents he obtained from the Land Transportation
Office.  He wanted to determine if the documents were duly notarized by
8

The motorcycle was eventually registered in Pitogo' s name based on Suello or were merely fabricated.  Pitogo did not receive a reply from
9

three (3) documents notarized by respondent Atty. Joselito Troy Suello Suello.10

(Suello).  The documents indicate that they are registered in Suello' s

2

notarial register as follows:
1. Deed of Assignment between Maria P.
Ponce / Rogelio Ponce and EMCOR, Inc.
On September 10, 2009, Pitogo filed his Affidavit-Complaint against
Suello before the Cebu Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Pitogo alleges that there were discrepancies between the three (3)
Doc. No.
documents notarized by Suello and Suello’s entries in his notarial
436;
register. 11

Book No. 83;

Page No.
88; Specifically, Pitogo claims that Suello’s notarial register showed that the
Series of above entries pertain to the following documents:
2009 3

a. Doc. No. 436: Deed of Absolute Sale of Mr. Roel D. Rago; 12

2. Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage Doc. No.

between Maria P. Ponce and Mariza G. Ono-on 437, b. Doc. No. 437: Deed of Absolute Sale of Mrs. Conchita Pitogo
Page No. Tautho;13

88;
Book No. 83,
c. Doc. No. 235: Contract to Sell of BF Property Development
Series of
Corporation. 14

2009 4

3. Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage Doc. No. In his Answer to the Affidavit-Complaint, Suello denies having notarized
between Mariza G. Ono-on and Crescenciano 235; the three (3) documents obtained from the Land Transportation
M. Pitogo Page No. Office.  He denies the allegation that he disowned the documents.  He
15 16

85; admits that he certified the documents as true copies. 17

Book No. 83;

Series of In his Position Paper, Suello explains that it was his secretary who
2009 5
certified Pitogo’s documents on August 3, 2009.  Pitogo called Suello the
18

next day to ask for a certification.  When he advised Pitogo that he can
19

get it at his office after verifying the documents, Pitogo informed him that
his secretary already certified them as true copies.  Suello told Pitogo
20

that his secretary was not given such authority. 21

Pitogo obtained a copy of the three (3) documents from the Land
Transportation Office, Danao City, Cebu. On August 3, 2009, he went to
Suello’s office to have them certified. Pitogo claims that when he called Suello also claims that Pitogo threatened to file an administrative case
Suello the next day to tell him about the importance of these documents against him if he did not issue a certification stating whether the
to his civil case, Suello "disowned the documents."  Suello instead
6 documents were really notarized by him or were fabricated.  According to
22

ordered his secretary to give Pitogo a copy of his notarial register.

7 Suello, Pitogo needed the certification that the three (3) documents used
to register the motorcycle under his name were fabricated so he could
claim 1.7 million in damages for EMCOR, Inc.’s alleged non-registration
In the letter dated August 7, 2009, Pitogo reiterated to Suello that the
of his motorcycle.  Pitogo’s claim against EMCOR, Inc. was apparently
23

documents were important in his civil case pending before the Regional
mooted by the registration of the motorcycle under his name.
On January 10, 2012, Commissioner Hector B. Almeyda of the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
recommended Suello’s suspension from the active practice of law for six
(6) months, as well as the revocation of his commission as a notary
public. He also recommended Suello’s disqualification as notary public for
two (2) years.24
On April 15, 2013, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of
Governors issued the Resolution adopting and approving the findings of
Commissioner Almeyda’s recommendation but further recommended to
increase the penalty of disqualification as notary public to four (4) years,
thus:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously
ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled
case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the
recommendation fully supported by evidence on record and the
applicable laws and rules and considering respondent violated the Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Joselito
Troy Suello’s Notarial Commission is hereby REVOKED immediately if
presently commissioned and DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as
Notary Public for four (4) years.  (Emphasis in the original)
25
Suello filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the April 15, 2013 Integrated
Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors Resolution based on the
ground that the penalty imposed on him was excessive:
1. That the sanction imposed is excessive. The respondent realizes that
the mere existence of those documents with his notarization makes him
inevitably answerable for them. Regardless how unaware he may be of
how these came about, he is still the only one to answer for them. Not the
complainant and not any party who may have access to his office
implements to do this. It made him aware of the need review his
procedure to avoid these mistakes. Respondent however finds the
sanction against him is much too excessive and respectfully invokes the
following, to wit:
A.This is the first infraction lodged against him in his 15
years of practice.
B.The respondent is not in bad faith and has no dishonest
or selfish motive.
C.There is no actual or potential injury caused to any
private party;
26
Suello also apologized for his oversight:
2. That substantial justice has not been done. The respondent completely
understands that this matter only pertains to him and his liability and not
about anybody or anything else. His indignation distracted him to the
mistaken belief that the complainant’s dubious motives would not merit
his complaint attention because he did not come with clean hands. After
being properly reminded, the respondent realizes his mistake and
respectfully apologizes for his oversight to this Honorable Commission.
The respondent finds it however grossly unjust that he is imposed with
such sanction for resisting to accommodate and be a part of the
unscrupulous undertaking sought to be accomplished motivating the
complaint which is much bigger wrong. 27
On May 3, 2014, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors
issued the Resolution partially granting Suello’s Motion for
Reconsideration, thus:
RESOLVED to DENY Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration, there
being no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the Commission and
the resolution subject of the motion, it being a mere reiteration of the
matters which had already been threshed out and taken into
consideration under Resolution No. XX-2013- 416 dated April 15, 2013.
However the Board DEEMED it judicious to reduce the penalty imposed
on Atty. Joselito Troy Suello from DISQUALIFICATION from
reappointment as Notary Public from four (4) years to two (2) years. The
IMMEDIATE REVOCATION of his Notarial Commission, if existing, under
said Resolution stands.  (Emphasis in the original)
28
After reviewing the case records and considering the parties’
submissions, this court adopts the findings of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Board of Governors in its May 3, 2014 Resolution but
modifies the penalties imposed upon respondent Atty. Joselito Troy
Suello.1âwphi1
Respondent is administratively liable for his negligence in keeping and
maintaining his notarial register. Recording every notarial act in the
notarial register is required under Rule VI the Notarial Rules,  thus:
29
Sec. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. – (a) For every notarial act, the
notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of the notarization
the following:
(1)The entry number and page number;
(2)The date and time of day of the notarial act;
(3)The type of notarial act;
(4)The title or description of the instrument, document or
proceeding;
(5)The name and address of each principal;
(6)The competent evidence of identity as defined by these
Rules if the signatory is not personally known to the
notary;
(7)The name and address of each credible witness
swearing to or affirming the person’s identity;
(8)The fee charged for the notarial act;
(9)The address where the notarization was performed if
not in the notary’s regular place of work or business; and
(10)Any other circumstance the notary public may deem
of significance or relevance.
....
(e) The notary public shall give to each instrument or document executed,
sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the
one in his register, and shall also state on the instrument or document the
page/s of his register on which the same is recorded. No blank line shall
be left between entries.
Failure to properly record entries in the notarial register is also a ground
for revocation of notarial commission:
SECTION 1. Revocation and Administrative Sanctions. – . . . .
(b) In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of, or
impose appropriate administrative sanctions upon, any notary public who:
....
(2) fails to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register
concerning his notarial acts[.]30
Notarial acts give private documents a badge of authenticity that the
public relies on when they encounter written documents and engage in
written transactions. Hence, all notaries public are duty-bound to protect
the integrity of notarial acts by ensuring that they perform their duties with
utmost care. This court explained in Bote v. Judge Eduardo: 31
A notarial register is prima facie evidence of the facts there stated. It has
the presumption of regularity and to contradict the veracity of the entry,
evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant.
...
....
. . . Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested
with such substantial public interest that only those who are qualified or
authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private
document into a public document, making that document admissible in
evidence without further proof of its authenticity. For this reason, notaries
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. 32
Hence, when respondent negligently failed to enter the details of the
three (3) documents on his notarial register, he cast doubt on the
authenticity of complainant’s documents. He also cast doubt on the
credibility of the notarial register and the notarial process. He violated not
only the Notarial Rules but also the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which requires lawyers to promote respect for law and legal processes. 33
Respondent also appears to have committed a falsehood in the pleadings
he submitted. In his Answer to complainant’s Affidavit-Complaint,
respondent claimed that he certified complainant’s documents as true
copies.  Later, in his Position Paper, he passed the blame to his
34
secretary.  This violates the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
35
prohibits lawyers from engaging in dishonest and unlawful conduct. 36
Respondent’s secretary cannot be blamed for the erroneous entries in
the notarial register. The notarial commission is a license held personally
by the notary public. It cannot be further delegated. It is the notary public
alone who is personally responsible for the correctness of the entries in
his or her notarial register.  Respondent’s apparent remorse may
37
assuage the injury done privately, but it does not change the nature of the
violation.
1âwphi1
Besides, respondent’s remorse was displayed after a penalty was
recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of
Governors. It was not motivated by a realization of a wrong committed on
an individual but only by a desire to temper the penalty. It came too late.
In Agadan, et al. v. Atty. Kilaan,  the same violations of Notarial Rules
38
and Code of Professional Responsibility were meted with the penalty of
one-year suspension of notarial commission and three-month suspension
from the practice of law.  We find the same penalties proper under the
39
circumstances.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Joselito Troy Suello GUILTY of
violating Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Accordingly, he
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months and
is STERNLY WARNED that any similar violation will be dealt with more
severely. His notarial commission is immediately revoked if presently
commissioned. He is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as
notary public for one (1) year.
A.C. No. 10132
HEIRS OF PEDRO ALILANO represented by DAVID
ALILANO, Complainants,
vs.
ATTY. ROBERTO E. EXAMEN,Respondent .
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before us is a complaint  for disbarment filed before the Integrated Bar of
1
the Philippines (IBP) by the heirs of Pedro Alilario against Atty. Roberto
E. Examen for misconduct and malpractice for falsifying documents and
presenting these as evidence in court thus violating the Lawyer's
Oath,  Canons 1,  10  and 19,  and Rules 1.01,  1.02,  10.01,  and
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
19.01  of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
9
Pedro Alilano and his wife, Florentina, were the holders of Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-23261 covering a 98,460 sq. m. parcel of
land identified as Lot No. 1085 Pls-544-D located in Paitan, Esperanza,
Sultan Kudarat. Pedro and Florentina died on March 6, 1985 and October
11, 1989, respectively.
It appears that on March 31, 1984 and September 12, 1984 Absolute
Deeds of Sale  were executed by the Spouses Alilano in favor of Ramon
10
Examen and his wife, Edna. Both documents were notarized by
respondent Atty. Roberto Examen, brother of the vendee. Sometime in
September 1984, Spouses Examen obtained possession of the property.
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.  It was during this proceeding
11
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
12
that Atty. Examen, based on Barretto v. Cabreza,  violated the notarial
13
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
14
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
15
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.
16
In its Report and Recommendation,  the IBP Commission on Bar
17
Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Examen liable for breach of the Notarial Law
and introducing false Absolute Deeds of Sale before court proceedings. It
stated that there was ample evidence to support the complainants’
contention that the Spouses Alilano did not voluntarily and knowingly
convey their property, i.e. denials under oath by attesting witnesses and
NBI Report by Handwriting Expert Jennifer Dominguez stating that Pedro
Alilano’s signature in the September 1984 Absolute Deed of Sale was
significantly different from the specimen signatures. It also noted that
Ramon Examen’s residence certificate number, date and place of issue
were also falsified since the residence certificate actually belonged to
Florentina Pueblo. It thus recommended that the penalty of disbarment
be imposed.
The IBP Board of Governors (BOG) in its June 26, 2007
Resolution  adopted the IBP CBD’s report but modified the penalty to
18
suspension from the practice of law for a period of two years and a
suspension of Atty. Examen’s Notarial Commission for a period of two
years.
Atty. Examen moved for reconsideration. In its Notice of Resolution, the
IBP BOG denied the motion for reconsideration. It also modified the
penalty imposed to suspension from the practice of law for a period of
one year and disqualification from re-appointment as Notary Public for a
period of two years.
19
We agree with the IBP that Atty. Examen is administratively liable and
hereby impose a modified penalty.
In disbarment cases the only issue that is to be decided by the Court is
whether the member of the bar is fit to be allowed the privileges as such
or not.  It is not therefore the proper venue for the determination of
20
whether there had been a proper conveyance of real property nor is it the
proper proceeding to take up whether witnesses’ signatures were in fact
forged.
NO PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS FOR
ACTS OF ERRING MEMBERS OF THE BAR
In Frias v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada,  the Court En Banc opined that there
21
can be no prescription in bar discipline cases. It pointed out this has been
the policy since 1967 with the Court’s ruling in Calo, Jr. v. Degamo  and 22
reiterated in Heck v. Santos  where we had the chance to state:
23
If the rule were otherwise, members of the bar would be emboldened to
disregard the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact
that as long as no private complainant would immediately come forward,
they stand a chance of being completely exonerated from whatever
administrative liability they ought to answer for. It is the duty of this Court
to protect the integrity of the practice of law as well as the administration
of justice. No matter how much time has elapsed from the
time of the commission of the act complained of and the time of the
institution of the complaint, erring members of the bench and bar cannot
escape the disciplining arm of the Court. This categorical pronouncement
is aimed at unscrupulous members of the bench and bar, to deter them
from committing acts which violate the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, or the Lawyer’s Oath. x x x
Thus, even the lapse of considerable time from the commission of the
offending act to the institution of the administrative complaint will not
erase the administrative culpability of a lawyer…. (Italics supplied) 24
We therefore ruled in Frias, that Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of
Procedure of the IBP CBD was void and had no legal effect for being
ultra vires and thus null and void.25
This ruling was reiterated in the more recent case of Bengco v.
Bernardo,  where the Court stated that putting a prescriptive period on
26
administrative cases involving members of the bar would only serve to
embolden them to disregard the very oath they took as lawyers,
prescinding from the fact that as long as no private complainant would
immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being completely
exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer
for.
Atty. Examen’s defense of prescription therefore is of no moment and
deserves scant consideration.
THE SPANISH NOTARIAL LAW OF 1889 WAS REPEALED BY THE
REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1917
Prior to 1917, governing law for notaries public in the Philippines was the
Spanish Notarial Law of 1889. However, the law governing Notarial
Practice is changed with the passage of the January 3, 1916 Revised
Administrative Code, which took effect in 1917. In 2004, the Revised
Rules on Notarial Practice  was passed by the Supreme Court.
27
In Kapunan, et al. v. Casilan and Court of Appeals,  the Court had the
28
opportunity to state that enactment of the Revised Administrative Code
repealed the Spanish Notarial Law of 1889. Thus:
It is petitioners’ contention that Notary Public Mateo Canonoy, who was
related to the parties in the donation within the fourth civil degree of
affinity, was, under Articles 22 and 28 of the Spanish Notarial Law,
incompetent and disqualified to authenticate the deed of donation
executed by the Kapunan spouses in favor of their daughter Concepcion
Kapunan Salcedo. Said deed of donation, according to petitioners,
became a mere private instrument under Article 1223 of the old Civil
Code, so that under the ruling laid down in the case of Barretto vs.
Cabreza (33 Phil., 413), the donation was inefficacious. The appellate
court, however, in the decision complained of held that the Spanish
Notarial Law has been repealed with the enactment of Act No. 496. We
find this ruling to be correct. In the case of Philippine Sugar Estate vs.
Poizart (48 Phil., 536), cited in Vda. de Estuart vs. Garcia (Adm. Case
No. 212, prom. February 15, 1957), this Court held that "The old Spanish
notarial law and system of conveyance was repealed in the Philippines
and another and different notarial law and system became the law of the
land with the enactment of Act No. 496."  (Emphasis supplied)
29
In this case, the heirs of Alilano stated that Atty. Examen was prohibited
to notarize the absolute deeds of sale since he was related by
consanguinity within the fourth civil degree with the vendee, Ramon. The
prohibition might have still applied had the applicable rule been the
Spanish Notarial Law. However, following the Court’s ruling in Kapunan,
the law in force at the time of signing was the Revised Administrative
Code, thus, the prohibition was removed. Atty. Examen was not
incompetent to notarize the document even if one of the parties to the
deed was a relative, his brother. As correctly observed by the IBP CBD:
At the time of notarization, the prevailing law governing notarization was
Sections 231-259, Chapter 11 of the Revised Administrative Code and
there was no prohibition on a notary public from notarizing a document
when one of the interested parties is related to the notary public within
the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or second degree of affinity. 30
Note must be taken that under 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule IV,
Section 3(c), a notary public is disqualified among others to perform the
notarial act if he is related by affinity or consanguinity to a principal within
the fourth civil degree, to wit:
SEC. 3. Disqualifications. – A notary public is disqualified from performing
a notarial act if he:
xxxx
(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by
affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree.
That Atty. Examen was not incompetent to act as a notary public in the
present case does not mean that he can evade administrative liability
under the CPR in conjunction with the provisions of the Notarial Law.
NOTARIES PUBLIC MUST PERFORM
THEIR DUTIES DILIGENTLY AND
WITH UTMOST CARE
In Nunga v. Atty. Viray,  this Court stated:
31
…[N]otarization 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. A notarial document is by law entitled to
full faith and credit upon its face. For this reason, notaries public must
observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of
their duties.  (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
32
Thus under the prevailing law at the time of notarization it was the duty of
the notary public to comply with the requirements of the Notarial
Law.  This includes the duty under Chapter 11, Section 251 of the
1âwphi1
Revised Administrative Code:
SEC. 251. Requirement as to notation of payment of cedula [residence]
tax. – Every contract, deed, or other document acknowledged before a
notary public shall have certified thereon that the parties thereto have
presented their proper cedula [residence] certificates or are exempt from
the cedula [residence] tax, and there shall be entered by the notary public
as a part of such certification the number, place of issue, and date of
each cedula [residence] certificate as aforesaid.
Under Chapter 11, Section 249 of the Revised Administrative Code
provided a list of the grounds for disqualification:
SEC. 249. Grounds for revocation of commission. – The following
derelictions of duty on the part of a notary public shall, in the discretion of
the proper judge of first instance, be sufficient ground for the revocation
of his commission:
xxxx
(f) The failure of the notary to make the proper notation regarding cedula
certificates.
xxxx
In Soriano v. Atty. Basco,  the Court stated that notaries public are
33
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.  (Emphasis supplied)
34
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.  Atty. Examen interposes that he was in good faith in that it was
35
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.  Good faith
36
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  .
37
Atty. Examen posits that the failure of a notary to make the proper
notation of cedulas can only be a ground for disqualification and not the
proper subject for a disbarment proceeding. We disagree.
In violating the provisions of the Notarial Law, Atty. Examen also
transgressed the his oath as a lawyer, provisions of the CPR and Section
27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which provides:
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court;
grounds therefor. – A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful
order of a superior court, or for corruptly and willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
By his negligent act of not checking the work of his secretary and merely
perfunctorily notarizing documents, it cannot be said that he upheld legal
processes thus violating Canon 1 of the CPR. Neither can it be said that
he promoted confidence in the legal system. If anything, his acts serve to
undermine the functions of a diligent lawyer. He thus ran afoul Rule 1.02
With respect to the penalty imposed, given that Atty. Examen not only
failed to uphold his duty as a notary public but also failed to uphold his
lawyer’s oath and ran afoul the provisions of the CPR, the Court deems it
proper to suspend Atty. Examen from the practice of law for a period of
two years following this Court’s decision in Caalim-Verzonilla v. Pascua.46

of the CPR. We cannot stress enough that as a lawyer, respondent is

expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto E. Examen is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for TWO (2) YEARS. In addition,
SEC. 241. Powers of notary public. – Every notary public shall have his present notarial commission, if any, is hereby REVOKED, and he is
power to administer all oaths and affirmations provided for by law, in all DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary public for a period of two
matters incident to his notarial office, and in the execution of affidavits, (2) years from finality of this Decision. He is further WARNED that any
depositions, and other documents requiring an oath, and to receive the similar act or infraction in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
proof or acknowledgment of all writings relating to commerce or
navigation, such as bills of sale bottomries, mortgages, and Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant
hypothecations of ships, vessels, or boats, charter parties of to be appended to respondent’s personal record as an attorney, the
affreightments, letters of attorney, deeds, mortgages, transfers and
assignments of land or buildings, or an interest therein, and such other Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Department of Justice and all courts
writings as are commonly proved or acknowledged before notaries; to act in the country for their information and guidance.
as a magistrate, in the writing of affidavits or depositions, and to make
declarations and certify the truth thereof under his seal of office,
concerning all matters done by him by virtue of his office. profession and
refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and
confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of the legal
profession.  A lawyer’s mandate includes thoroughly going over
38

documents presented to them typed or transcribed by their secretaries. 39 A.C. No. 10303               April 22, 2015

The Court notes that the case between the parties is not the first that JOY A. GIMENO, Complainant,
reached this Court. In Edna Examen and Roberto Examen v. Heirs of vs.
Pedro Alilano and Florentina Pueblo,  Atty. Examen and his sister-in-law
40 ATTY. PAUL CENTILLAS ZAIDE, Respondent.
questioned via a petition for certiorari  the propriety of three Court of
41

Appeals’ Resolutions relating to a case involving Lot No. 1085 Pls-544-D DECISION
this time with respect to its fruits. There the Court of Appeals (CA) after
giving Atty. Examen 90 days to file his appellant’s brief, denied a second BRION, J.:
motion for extension of time merely on the basis of a flimsy reason that
he had misplaced some of the transcript of the witnesses’ testimonies. We review Resolution No. XX-2011-264  of the Board of Governors of the
1

The CA did not find the reason of misplaced transcript as good and Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in CBD Case No. 07-2069, which
sufficient cause to grant the extension pursuant to Section 12,  Rule 44
42
imposed on Atty. Paul Centillas Zaide (Atty. Zaide) the penalty of one-
of the Revised Rules of Court. It stated that it was a "flimsy and lame year suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial
excuse to unnecessarily delay the proceedings."  The CA was of the
43
commission, if existing, and two years suspension from being
opinion that defendant-appellant’s, herein respondent, motion was "a commissioned as a notary public, for violation of the 2004 Rules on
mockery of the procedural rules."  This Court denied the petition for
44
Notarial Practice (Notarial Practice Rules). 2

various procedural defects.45

The Case
On August 8, 2007, complainant Joy A. Gimeno (Cimeno) filed a
complaint  with the IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline, charging Atty.
3
Zaide with: (1) usurpation of a notary public's office; (2) falsification;
(3) use of intemperate, offensive and abusive language; and (4) violation
of lawyer-client trust.
In her complaint, Gimeno alleged that even before Atty. Zaide's
admission  to the Bar and receipt  of his notarial commission, he had
4 5
notarized a partial extrajudicial partition with deed of absolute sale on
March 29, 2002.  She also accused Atty. Zaide of making false and
6
irregular entries in his notarial registers.
7
Gimeno further submitted that she was Atty. Zaide's former client. She
engaged the services of his law firm Zaragoza-Makabangkit-Zaide Law
Offices (ZMZ) in an annulment of title case that involved her husband and
her parents-in-law.
Despite their previous lawyer-client relationship, Atty. Zaide still appeared
against her in the complaint for estafa and violation of RA 3019  that one
8
Priscilla Somontan (Somontan) filed against her with the Ombudsman.
Gimeno posited that by appearing against a former client, Atty. Zaide
violated the prohibition against the representation of conflicting clients'
interests.  Lastly, Gimeno contended that Atty. Zaide called her a
9
"notorious extortionist" in the same administrative complaint that
Somontan filed against her.  In another civil case where she was not a
10
party, Gimeno observed that Atty. Zaide referred to his opposing counsel
as someone suffering from "serious mental incompetence" in one of his
pleadings.  According to Gimeno, these statements constitute
11
intemperate, offensive and abusive language, which a lawyer is
proscribed from using in his dealings.
In his answer  dated September 13, 2007,Atty. Zaide argued that he did
12
not notarize the March 29, 2002 partial extrajudicial partition. As it
appeared on the notarial page of this document, his notarial stamp and
falsified signature were superimposed over the typewritten name of Atty.
Elpedio Cabasan, the lawyer who actually notarized this document.  Atty.13
Zaide claimed that Gimeno falsified his signature to make it appear that
he notarized it before his admission to the Bar.
On the alleged falsification of his notarial entries, Atty. Zaide contended
that he needed to simultaneously use several notarial registers in his
separate satellite offices in order to better cater to the needs of his clients
and accommodate their growing number.  This explains the irregular and
14
non-sequential entries in his notarial registers.
Further, Atty. Zaide argued that Gimeno was never his client since she
did not personally hire him as her counsel. Gimeno engaged the services
of ZMZ where he previously worked as an associate. The real counsel of
Gimeno and her relatives in their annulment of title case was Atty. Leo
Montalban Zaragoza, one of ZMZ's partners.  On this basis, the
15
respondent should not be held liable for representing conflicting clients'
interests.
Finally, he denied that he used any intemperate, offensive, and abusive
language in his pleadings. 16
The IBP Proceedings
On October 4, 2007, the IBP CBD issued an order setting the case for
mandatory conference.  After this, both parties were required to submit
17
their position papers.
In his report and recommendation  dated May 18, 2010, Commissioner
18
Pedro A. Magpayo, Jr. (Commissioner Magpayo) found Atty. Zaide
administratively liable for violating the Notarial Practice Rules,
representing conflicting interests, and using abusive and insulting
language in his pleadings.
He noted that Atty. Zaide violated Section 1(a) and 1(b), Rule VI of the
Notarial Practice Rules when he maintained several active notarial
registers in different offices. These provisions respectively require a
notary public to "keep, maintain, protect and provide for lawful inspection,
a chronological official register of notarial acts consisting of a
permanently bound book with numbered papers" and to "keep only one
active notarial register at any given time."  However, Commissioner
19
Magpayo opined that Atty. Zaide should not be held administratively
liable for usurping a notary public's office. The investigating
commissioner noted that the evidence presented on this issue is not
enough to prove that Atty. Zaide signed and notarized the March 29,
2002 partial extrajudicial partition even after his admission to the Bar and
receipt of his notarial commission. 20
Commissioner Magpayo also found that the evidence presented proved
that Gimeno was indeed Atty. Zaide's former client. He disagreed with
Atty. Zaide's defense that Gimeno only hired ZMZ but did not personally
hire him to defend them in their annulment of title case. The retainer of a
law firm is equivalent to the retainer of all its lawyers.  But despite this
21
previous attorney-client relationship, the investigating commissioner
noted that Atty. Zaide should not be held liable for representing conflicting
interests since the annulment of title case is totally unrelated to the
Ombudsman complaint that Somontan filed against Gimeno through Atty.
Zaide.
Finally, the investigating commissioner noted that Atty. Zaide used
intemperate, offensive, and abusive language when he called Gimeno a
"notorious extortionist" in one of his pleadings.  For violating the Notarial
22
Practice Rules, Commissioner Magpayo recommended that Atty. Zaide
be suspended for three months, and for another six months for employing
abusive and insulting language. 23
The IBP Board of Governors' Findings
In its November 19, 2011 resolution, the IBP Board of Governors (Board)
opined that the evidence on record fully supports the findings of the
investigating commissioner. However, the Board modified the
recommended penalty and imposed instead the penalty of one year
suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, if
existing, and two years suspension from being commissioned as a notary
public.
24
Atty. Zaide sought for the reconsideration  of the Board's November 19,
25
2011 resolution but this was also denied in its subsequent June 21, 2013
resolution.26
The Court's Ruling
The Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors' findings and
recommended penalty, and accordingly confirms them.
For an orderly disposition of the case, we shall discuss each of the main
issues that the parties identified.
Violation of the Notarial Practice Rules
a. Usurpation of a notarial office
As the investigating commissioner found, Gimeno did not present any
concrete evidence to show that Atty. Zaide notarized the March 29, 2002
partial extrajudicial partition prior to his admission to the Bar and receipt
of his notarial commission.
It appears that this document originally carried the name of one Atty.
Elpedio Cabasan, as notary public.  Atty. Zaide's signature and notarial
1âwphi1
stamp that bears his name, roll number, PTR number, IBP number, and
the expiration date of his notarial commission, were merely superimposed
over Atty. Cabasan's typewritten name.
Notably, Atty. Zaide admitted that the details stamped on the document
are his true information. However, he denied that he personally stamped
and signed the document. In fact, this document never appeared in
his notarial register and was never included in his notarial report for
the year 2002. He contended that Gimeno falsified his signature and
used his notarial stamp to make it appear that he was the one who
notarized it.
This Court notes that at the time the document was purportedly
notarized, Atty. Zaide's details as a lawyer and as a notary public had
not yet existed. He was admitted to the Bar only on May 2, 2002;
thus, he could not have obtained and used the exact figures
pertaining to his roll number, PTR number, IBP number and the
expiration date of his notarial commission, prior to this date,
particularly on March 29, 2002.
This circumstance, coupled with the absence of any evidence supporting
Gimeno's claim such as a witness to the alleged fictitious notarization,
leads us to the conclusion that Atty. Zaide could not have notarized the
document before his Bar admission and receipt of his notarial
commission.
We can only conclude that his professional details, which were only
generated after his Bar admission, were stamped on the March 29, 2002
document. How this happened is not clear from the evidence before us.
b. Maintaining different notarial registers in separate notarial offices
We find that Atty. Zaide violated the Notarial Practice Rules by
maintaining different notarial registers in several offices. Because of this
practice, the following notarized documents had been irregularly
numbered and entered:
 Document 27
Date Doc. No. Page Book practice of leaving blank spaces in the notarial register to allow the
antedating of notarizations.
ecial Power of Attorney 6/20/05 273 55 18 2005
cretary's Certificate 10/28/05 226 46 18 In these lights, we cannot accept Atty. Zaide's explanation that he
2005
needed to maintain several active notarial registers in separate offices so
idavit of Quitclaim 10/31/05 272 55 18 2005
he could accommodate the increasing number of his clients requiring his
idavit of Loss 4/17/06 54 11 25 notarial services.
2006
idavit of Two Disinterested 4/17/06 310 61 25 2006
This Court stresses that a notary public should not trivialize his functions
as his powers and duties are impressed with public interest.  A notary
30

rsons public's office is not merely an income-generating venture. It is a public

tition for Issuance of Owner's 4/17/06 72 15 25 duty that each lawyer who has been privileged to receive a notarial
2006
commission must faithfully and conscientiously perform.
plicate copy
Atty. Zaide should have been acutely aware of the requirements of his
idavit of Parental Consent 4/19/06 461 93 23 2006
notarial commission. His flagrant violation of Section 1, Rule VI of the
nfirmation of Sale 4/21/06 283 56 25 Notarial Practice Rules is not merely a simple and excusable negligence.
2006
It amounts to a clear violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
ed of Absolute Sale 4/27/06 304 60 25 2006
Responsibility, which provides that "a lawyer [should] uphold the
constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and
Section 1(a), Rule VI of the Notarial Practice Rules provides that "a legal processes."
notary public shall keep, maintain, protect and provide for lawful
inspection as provided in these Rules, a chronological official notarial Representing conflicting interests
register of notarial acts consisting of a permanently bound book with
numbered pages." The same section further provides that "a notary The investigating commissioner properly noted that Atty. Zaide should not
public shall keep only one active notarial register at any given time."  On
28
be held liable for representing conflicting clients' interests.
this basis, Atty. Zaide's act of simultaneously keeping several active
notarial registers is a blatant violation of Section 1, Rule VI.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides:
The Notarial Practice Rules strictly requires a notary public to maintain
only one active notarial register and ensure that the entries in it are
Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
chronologically arranged. The "one active notarial register" rule is in place
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
to deter a notary public from assigning several notarial registers to
1âwphi1

different offices manned by assistants who perform notarial services on

his behalf. In Aniñon v. Sabitsana,  the Court laid down the tests to determine if a
31

lawyer is guilty of representing conflicting interests between and among

his clients.
Since a notarial commission is personal to each lawyer, the notary public
must also personally administer the notarial acts  that the law authorizes
29

him to execute. This important duty is vested with public interest. Thus, One of these tests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would
no other person, other than the notary public, should perform it. prevent the full discharge of a lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and
loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing
in the performance of that duty.32

On the other hand, entries in a notarial register need to be in

chronological sequence in order to address and prevent the rampant
Another test is whether a lawyer would be called upon in the new relation
to use against a former client any confidential information acquired
through their connection or previous employment. 33
Applying these tests, we find no conflict of interest when Atty. Zaide
appeared against Gimeno, his former law firm's client.
The lawyer-client relationship between Atty. Zaide and Gimeno ceased
when Atty. Zaide left ZMZ. Moreover, the case where Gimeno engaged
ZMZ's services is an entirely different subject matter and is not in any
way connected to the complaint that Somontan filed against Gimeno with
the Ombudsman.
The prior case where Gimeno hired ZMZ and where Atty. Zaide
represented her family pertained to the annulment of a land title.
Somontan was never a party to this case since this only involved
Gimeno's relatives. On the other hand, the case where Atty. Zaide
appeared against Gimeno involved Somontan's Ombudsman complaint
against Gimeno for her alleged mishandling of the funds that Somontan
entrusted to her, and for Gimeno's alleged corruption as an examiner in
the Register of Deeds of Iligan City. Clearly, the annulment of title case
and the Ombudsman case are totally unrelated.
There was also no double-dealing on the part of Atty. Zaide because at
the time Somontan engaged his services, he had already left ZMZ. More
importantly, nothing in the record shows that Atty. Zaide used against
Gimeno any confidential information which he acquired while he was still
their counsel in the annulment of title case.
Under these circumstances, Atty. Zaide should not be held liable for
violating the prohibition against the representation of conflicting interests.
Use of intemperate, offensive and
abusive language in professional
dealings
The prohibition on the use of intemperate, offensive and abusive
language in a lawyer's professional dealings, whether with the courts, his
clients, or any other person, is based on the following canons and rules of
the Code of Professional Responsibility:
Canon 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and
candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Canon 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by
others.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or
menacing language or behavior before the Courts. (emphasis supplied)
As shown in the record, Atty. Zaide,in the reply that he drafted in the
Ombudsman case, called Gimeno a "notorious extortionist."  And in 34
another case, Gimeno observed that Atty. Zaide used the following
demeaning and immoderate language in presenting his comment against
his opposing counsel:
Her declaration in Public put a shame, DISGRACE, INDIGNITY AND
HUMILIATION in the whole Justice System, and the Department of
Justice in particular, where the taxpayers paid for her salary over her
incompetence and poor performance as a prosecutor...This is a clear
manifestation that the Public prosecutor suffers serious mental
incompetence as regard her mandate as an Assistant City
Prosecutor.  (emphasis supplied)
35
This clearly confirms Atty. Zaide's lack of restraint in the use and choice
of his words - a conduct unbecoming of an officer of the court.
While a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage,
such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive
language. Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be
emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, and illuminating
but not offensive.
36
On many occasions, the Court has reminded the members of the Bar to
abstain from any offensive personality and to refrain from any act
prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or a witness. In keeping
with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's language even in his
pleadings, must be dignified.37
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to ADOPT the
recommended penalty of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines. Atty. Paul Centillas Zaide is found GUILTY of violating
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and for using intemperate, offensive
and, abusive language in violation of Rule 8.01, Canon 8 and Rule 11.03,
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His notarial
commission, if existing, is hereby REVOKED, and he is declared
DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period
of two (2) years. He is also SUSPENDED for one (1) year from the
practice of law.