Ruling:
5. A. Efigenia M. Tenoso v. Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez
A.C. No. 8384. April 11, 2013. En Banc (Leonen, J.)
Facts:
Efigenia M. Tenoso filed a complaint against Atty. Anselmo
S. Echanez, who engaged as a notary public in Cordon,
Isabela, without having been properly commissioned by the
RTC of Santiago City, Isabela.
This alleged act violates Rule III of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02- 8-13-SC). To support her
allegations, complainant attached the following documents
to her pleadings:
a. Two documents signed and issued by RTC Santiago
City Executive Judge Efren M. Cacatian bearing the
names of commissioned notaries public within the
territorial jurisdiction of the RTC of Santiago City for
the years 2006 to 2007 and 2007 to 2008. Atty.
Echanez’ name does not appear on either list;
b. Copies of ten documents that appear to have been
notarized by Atty. Echanez in the years 2006, 2007,
and 2008; and
c. A copy of a certification issued by Judge Cacatian
stating that a joint affidavit notarized by Atty. Echanez
in 2008 could not be "authenticated as to his seal and
signature as no Notarial Commission was issued upon
him at the time of the document's notarization."
On the other hand, Atty. Echanez denied the aforesaid
allegations. In his two-page Answer, Atty. Echanez stated,
"I have never been notarizing any document or pleadings"
and added that he has "never committed any
malpractice, nor deceit nor have violated [the] lawyers (sic)
oath". Likewise, he said that the allegations were
“preposterous, full of lies, politically motivated and . . .
meant to harass or intimidate [him]". Also, he surmised that
the documents annexed to the Affidavit-Complaint were
"tampered and adulterated", or that "[s]omebody might
have forged [his] signature". He failed to attend the
mandatory conference and likewise failed to file his
Position Paper.
Investigating Commissioner Atty. Salvador B. Hababag
recommended that Atty. Echanez be suspended from the
practice of law for 6 months and disqualified from being
commissioned as a notary public for 2 years for violating
Rules 1.011 and 10.012 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The IBP Board of Governors affirmed with
modifications to increase the penalty of suspension 1 year.
Atty. Echanez did not file a Motion for Reconsideration or
any other subsequent pleading.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Echanez is guilty of engaging in
notarial practice without a notarial commission.
1 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
2 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.
Yes. The Supreme Court held that Atty. Echanez is guilty
of engaging in notarial practice without a notarial
commission.
In this case, Tenoso presented evidence supporting her
allegation that respondent had notarized various
documents in Cordon, Isabela from 2006 to 2008 and that
name of Atty. Echanez does not appear on the list of
notaries public commissioned by the RTC of Santiago City,
Isabela for the years 2006 to 2007 and 2007 to 2008.
To this, Atty. Echanez failed to present evidence to rebut
complainant's allegations.
The Court emphasized that the duties of notaries public are
dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.
In misrepresenting himself as a notary public, Atty.
Echanez exposed party-litigants, courts, other lawyers and
the public to the perils of ordinary documents posing as
public instruments.
5. B. ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY LABORATORY HIGH
SCHOOL (SLU-LHS) FACULTY v ATTY. ROLANDO C.
DELA CRUZ.
FACTS:
• This is a disbarment case filed by the Faculty
members and Staff of the Saint Louis University-
Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) against Atty.
Rolando C. Dela Cruz, principal of SLU-LHS.
Predicated on the following grounds:
1. Gross Misconduct - it appears that there is a
pending criminal case for child abuse
allegedly committed by him against a high
school student; a pending administrative case
for his alleged unprofessional and unethical
acts of misappropriating money supposedly
for the teachers; and the pending labor case
filed by SLU-LHS Faculty, on alleged illegal
deduction of salary by respondent.
2. Grossly Immoral Conduct – In contracting a
second marriage despite the existence of his
first marriage;
3. ) Malpractice - In notarizing documents
despite the expiration of his commission,
• The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP), for investigation, report and
recommendation.
• The Commissioner Arcery Pacheco
recommended the penalty of suspension for 2
years. One year for Gross Immoral Conduct and
another year for Malpractice.
• The IBP Board of Governors, approved and
adopted the recommendation of Commissioner
Pacheco.
RULING:
• The court adopted the findings but with
modification on the imposed penalty it opined that
the practice of law is not a right but a privilege
bestowed by the State on those who show that
they possess the qualifications required by law for
the conferment of such privilege. Membership in
the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A
lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law
only during good behavior, and he can be
deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and
declared by judgment of the court after
opportunity to be heard has been afforded him.
Without invading any constitutional privilege or
right, an attorney’s right to practice law may be
resolved by a proceeding to suspend, based on
conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to
exercise the duties and responsibilities of an
attorney.
In the case at bar, Respondent was already a member
of the Bar when he contracted the bigamous second
marriage in 1989, having been admitted to the Bar in
1985. As such, he cannot feign ignorance of the
mandate of the law that before a second marriage
may be validly contracted, the first and subsisting
marriage must first be annulled by the appropriate
court. This clearly constitute an Immoral Conduct.
As to the charge of misconduct for having
notarized several documents during the years
1988-1997 after his commission as notary public
had expired, respondent humbly admitted having
notarized certain documents despite his
knowledge that he no longer had authority to do
so. He, however, alleged that he received no
payment in notarizing said documents.
It has been emphatically stressed that notarization
is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. On
the contrary, it is invested with substantive public
interest, such that only those who are qualified or
authorized may act as notaries public.
Notarization of a private document converts the
document into a public one making it admissible in
court without further proof of its authenticity. A
notarial document is by law entitled to full faith
and credit upon its face and, for this reason,
notaries public must observe with the 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.
The requirements for the issuance of a commission as
notary public must not be treated as a mere casual
formality. The Court has characterized a lawyer’s act
of notarizing documents without the requisite
commission to do so as "reprehensible, constituting as
it does not only malpractice but also x x x the crime of
falsification of public documents."
The Court had occasion to state that where the
notarization of a document is done by a member of
the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no
authorization or commission to do so, the offender
may be subjected to disciplinary action or one,
performing a notarial act without such commission is a
violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws, more
specifically, the Notarial Law.
Thus the court increases his penalty for a
period of two (2) years, and another two (2)
years for notarizing documents despite the
expiration of his commission or a total of four
(4) years of suspension.
5. C. HEINZ R. HECK vs. JUDGE ANTHONY E. SANTOS
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657. February 23, 2004. EN BANC.
CALLEJO, SR., J
FACTS:
This is a disbarment case filed by Heinz R. Heck
on March 21, 2001. The complainant alleged that prior to
the respondent's appointment as RTC judge on April 11,
1989, he violated the notarial law wherein Judge Santos,
was not duly commissioned as notary public until January
9, 1984 but still subscribed and forwarded (on a non-
regular basis) notarized documents to the Clerk of Court VI
starting January 1980 uncommissioned until the 9th of
January 1984.
Heck prayed to order Judge Santos to be
disbarred, to forfeit retirement benefits, to prohibit practice
of law and to pay all cost of the administrative charges.
The complainant submitted a certification from
Clerk of Court pf Misamis Oriental.
In his Answer dated June 13, 2001, the
respondent judge categorically denied the charges against
him. He also submitted a certification from Clerk of Court
to prove that there was no proper recording of the
commissioned lawyers in the City of Cagayan de Oro as
well as the submitted notarized documents/notarial
register. He further averred that the complainant has never
been privy to the documents notarized and submitted by
the respondent before the office of the Clerk of Court of the
Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, nor his rights
prejudiced on account of the said notarized documents and
therefore not the proper party to raise the said issues.
The Office of the Court Administrator
recommending the need to resort to a full-blown
investigation to determine the veracity of the parties'
assertions.
The Investigating Justice Edgardo P. Cruz made
the following recommendation: “It is recommended that [i]
respondent (who retired on May 22, 2002) be found guilty
of violation of the Notarial Law by (a) notarizing documents
without commission; (b) tardiness in submission of notarial
reports; and (c) non- forwarding of his notarial register to
the Clerk of Court upon expiration of his commission; and
[ii] that for these infractions, he be suspended from the
practice of law and barred from being commissioned as
notary public, both for one year, and his present
commission, if any, be revoked.”
According to the Investigating Justice, the
respondent did not adduce evidence in his defense, while
the complainant presented documentary evidence to
support the charges
ISSUE:
May a retired judge charged with notarizing documents
without the requisite notary commission more than twenty
years ago be disciplined therefor?
RULING:
YES. The fact that a judge has retired or has otherwise
been separated from the service does not necessarily
divest the Court of its jurisdiction to determine the veracity
of the allegations of the complaint, pursuant to its
disciplinary authority over members of the bench. As we
held in Gallos v. Cordero, “The jurisdiction that was ours at
the time of the filing of the administrative complaint was not
lost by the mere fact that the respondent had ceased in
office during the pendency of his case. The Court retains
jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent public
official innocent of the charges or declare him guilty
thereof. A contrary rule would be fraught with injustice and
pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications . . . If
innocent, respondent public official merits vindication of his
name and integrity as he leaves the government which he
has served well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to
receive the corresponding censure and a penalty proper
and imposable under the situation.”
However, recognizing "the proliferation of unfounded or
malicious administrative or criminal cases against
members of the judiciary for purposes of harassment," we
issued A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC which took effect on
November 3, 2003; Thus, in order for an administrative
complaint against a retiring or retired judge or justice to be
dismissed outright, the following requisites must concur: (1)
the complaint must have been filed within six months from
the compulsory retirement of the judge or justice; (2) the
cause of action must have occurred at least a year before
such filing; and, (3) it is shown that the complaint was
intended to harass the respondent.
In this case, the Administrative Complaint dated
March 21, 2001 was received by the Office of the Court
Administrator on March 26, 2001. The respondent retired
compulsorily from the service more than a year later, or on
May 22, 2002. Likewise, the ground for disbarment or
disciplinary action alleged to have been committed by the
respondent did not occur a year before the respondent's
separation from the service. Furthermore,the instant
complaint was not prima facie shown to be without merit
and intended merely to harass the respondent. Clearly,
therefore, the instant case does not fall within the ambit of
the foregoing resolution.
It is settled that a judge may be disciplined for acts
committed prior to his appointment to the judiciary. In fact,
even the new Rule itself recognizes this, as it provides for
the immediate forwarding to the Supreme Court for
disposition and adjudication of charges against justices and
judges before the IBP, including those filed prior to their
appointment to the judiciary. It need not be shown that the
respondent continued the doing of the act or acts
complained of; it is sufficient that the evidence on record
supports the charge on the respondent, considering the
gravity of the offense.
It must be remembered that notarization is not an
empty, meaningless, routinary act. On the contrary, it is
invested with substantive public interest, such that only
those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries
public. Notarization by a notary public converts a private
document into a public one, making it admissible in
evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its
authenticity and due execution. The requirements for the
issuance of a commission as notary public must not be
treated as a mere casual formality. The Court has
characterized a lawyer's act of notarizing documents
without the requisite commission therefore as
"reprehensible, constituting as it does not only malpractice,
but also the crime of falsification of public documents." For
such reprehensible conduct, the Court has sanctioned
erring lawyers by suspension from the practice of law,
revocation of the notarial commission and disqualification
from acting as such, and even disbarment.
In this case, the respondent did not object to the
complainant's formal offer of evidence, prompting the
Investigating Justice to decide the case on the basis of the
pleadings filed. Neither did he claim that he was
commissioned as notary public for the years 1980 to 1983,
nor deny the accuracy of the first certification. The
respondent merely alleged in his answer that "there was no
proper recording of the commissioned lawyers in the City of
Cagayan de Oro nor of the submitted Notarized
Documents/Notarial Register." The respondent in this case
was given an opportunity to answer the charges and to
controvert the evidence against him in a formal
investigation. When the integrity of a member of the bar is
challenged, it is not enough that he deny the charges; he
must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against
him.
The qualification of good moral character is a
requirement which is not dispensed with upon admission to
membership of the bar. This qualification is not only a
condition precedent to admission to the legal profession,
but its continued possession is essential to maintain one's
good standing in the profession. The rule is settled that a
lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct,
even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it
shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity or good demeanor. Possession of good moral
character is not only a prerequisite to admission to the bar
but also a continuing requirement to the practice of law.
Pursuant to the foregoing, there can be no other conclusion
than that an administrative complaint against an erring
lawyer who was thereafter appointed as a judge, albeit filed
only after twenty-four years after the offending act was
committed, is not barred by prescription. 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. 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 who
notarizes documents without the requisite authority
therefor.
The supreme penalty of 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. A tempering of justice is mandated in this case,
considering that the complaint against the respondent was
filed twenty-four years after the commission of the act
complained of; that there was no private offended party
who came forward and claimed to have been adversely
affected by the documents so notarized by the respondent;
and, the fact that the respondent is a retired judge who
deserves to enjoy the full measure of his well-earned
retirement benefits. The Court finds that a fine of P5,000.00
is justified in this case.
5. D. MILA VIRTUSIO VS ATTY. GRENALYN V.
VIRTUSIO
September 5, 2012
Abad, J.
FACTS:
• Mila filed a complaint for disbarment against her
husband’s distant relative, Atty Virtusio, alleging that Atty
Virtusio persuaded her to buy a house and lot at North
Olympus Subdivision in Novaliches, with Stateland as
the developer. Mila agreed for Atty Virtusio to use her
personal checks in paying the seller with Mila
reimbursing her. Under this arrangement, Mila gave a
total of 440K to Atty. Virtusio.
• To her surprise, however, Mila began receiving letters
from Stateland, demanding that she make good the
dishonored checks that it got. Atty Virtusio assured her
that she would take care of the problem.
• Mila, for fear of losing the property, directed to stateland
and found out that her arrearages had come close to
200K. In order not to lose the property, Mila and her
husband decided to settle their overdue obligation with
money they borrowed at high interest
• Mila further alleged that Atty. Virtusio declined to return
to her the money the latter misappropriated despite
demand. Only when Mila threatened to file a case
against her did Atty. Virtusio agree to pay her by
executing a deed of sale in her favor covering her Mazda
car. Despite the sale, Atty. Virtusio refused to give up the
car.
• Mila filed a replevin case against Atty. Virtusio. However,
Atty. Virtusio had managed to register the car in her
children’s name and sold it to a third person. Mila filed a
case of estafa against Atty. Virtusio apart from the
present disbarment case.
• Mila claimed that Atty. Virtusio engaged in conduct that
discredits the legal profession, all in violation of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, rendering her unfit to
remain a member of the bar.
• The Court also referred the case to the IBP for
investigation, report, and recommendation.
• The IBP Investigating Commissioner reported having
found that Atty. Virtusio appropriated portions of the
money that Mila gave her for payment to Stateland, thus
evidencing her moral unfitness to practice the profession.
• The Commissioner recommended the imposition of the
penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law
with a two-year disqualification from reappointment as
Notary Public, given that she had notarized documents
despite the expiration of her notarial commission.
• Atty. Virtusio said that she committed no intentional
wrongs and that she was but a victim of circumstances.
Although she admitted using Mila’s money rather than
pay Stateland with it, she explained that, having been
busy attending to her sick son in Manila, she failed to
monitor her check disbursements, entrusting it to an
office staff.
• Atty. Virtusio averred that she and Mila entered into a
verbal agreement whereby she would pay her P
200,000.00, with P 87,500.00 up front, in exchange for
Mila’s dismissal of all her actions. Atty. Virtusio claimed
that it obliterated her liabilities, given that she
substantially settled her obligations to Mila.
• Further, the charges against her were not born of some
professional relation between Mila and her. She had
acted as an accommodation party, allowing Mila to make
use of her personal checks to facilitate the purchase of a
property from Stateland. And, assuming that it has a
bearing on her professional conduct, the same does not
amount to grossly immoral conduct since she owned up
to her responsibilities and exerted tireless effort to settle
her accounts.
• Atty. Virtusio claimed that she should not be penalized
for violation of the notarial law since this offense did not
form part of the original complaint to which she was
required to respond. At any rate, she merely committed
an oversight. She had religiously renewed her notarial
commission yearly. When she notarized the questioned
documents, she believed in good faith that she had
renewed her notarial commission.
ISSUE: Whether or not the IBP erred in finding Atty Virtusio
guilty of grave misconduct in her dealings with Mila and in
notarizing documents without a renewed commission
HELD:
Violation of Notarial Practice Rules
• Although the IBP discovered this violation of the notarial
law only in the course of the proceedings and was not a
subject matter of Mila s complaint, it cannot close its
eyes to the same.
• Her defense is that she thought that she had renewed
her commission. Such is unsubstantial. She could not
have missed the fact that she did not renew her notarial
commission for 2 years, considering that she said that
she had been renewing her commission yearly from
1995 to 2005.
• A lawyer who notarizes a document without a proper
commission violates his lawyer’s oath to obey the
law. He makes it appear that he is commissioned when
he is not. He thus indulges in deliberate falsehood that
the lawyer’s oath forbids.
• As she had notarized only 2 documents, her suspension
from notarial practice for 1 year is adequate.
• That Mila had agreed after some financial settlement to
withdraw her complaint against Atty. Virtusio cannot
exempt the latter from the prescribed sanction. She has
 outraged the country s professional code and this
demands a measure of justice.
Gross misconduct (not related)
• Atty Virtusio is guilty of gross misconduct that warrants
her suspension for one year from the practice of law.
• She admitted misusing the money that Mila entrusted to
her for payment to Stateland. She lost track of her
finances and mixed up her office funds with her personal
funds. She tried to borrow money from a third person to
cover it up.
• She cannot absolve herself of liability by claiming that
she failed to attend to her finances because she had to
look after a sick child. If this were so, she could have
easily rectified her mistake by using her other funds.
• To cover up her fault, she executed a Deed of Sale
covering her car in Mila’s favor rather than return the
money. However, she withheld possession of the car and
transferred its registration in the name of her children.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD
THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall
he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
5. E. VICTORINA BAUTISTA vs. ATTY. SERGIO E.
BERNABE
A.C. No. 6963 February 9, 2006
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J
Facts:
• Complainant alleged that on January 3, 1998,
respondent prepared and notarized a Magkasanib
na Salaysay purportedly executed by Donato
Salonga and complainant’s mother, Basilia de la
Cruz. Both affiants declared that a certain parcel
of land in Bigte, Norzagaray, Bulacan, was being
occupied by Rodolfo Lucas and his family for
more than 30 years. Complainant claimed that her
mother could not have executed the joint affidavit
on January 3, 1998 because she has been dead
since January 28, 1961.
• Respondent denied that he falsified the
Magkasanib na Salaysay. He disclaimed any
knowledge about Basilia’s death. He alleged that
before he notarized the document, he requested
for Basilia’s presence and in her absence, he
allowed a certain Pronebo, allegedly a son-in-law
of Basilia, to sign above the name of the latter as
shown by the word "by" on top of the name of
Basilia.
• Respondent maintained that there was no forgery
since the signature appearing on top of Basilia’s
name was the signature of Pronebo.
• Respondent filed a manifestation attaching thereto
the affidavit of desistance of complainant which
reads in part:
Ako na si, VICTORINA BAUTISTA CAPA, x x x matapos
makapanumpa ng naaayon sa batas ay malaya at
kusang loob na nagpapahayag ng mga sumusunod:
1. Na ako ang siyang tumatayong nagrereklamo laban
kay Abogado, SERGIO EXQUIVEL BERNABE, sa isang
kaso sa Tanggapan ng Integrated Bar of the Philippines
na may Blg. CBD CASE NO. 04-1371;
2. Na ang nasabing habla ay hindi ko kagustuhan
sapagkat iyon ay pinapirmahan lamang sa akin ni
ELISEO OLOROSO at ng kanyang Abogado na si Atty.
MARCIAL MORFE MAGSINO at sa katunayan hindi ako
nakaharap sa Notaryo Publiko na si Abogado CARLITOS
C. VILLARIN;
3. Na ang pagpapapirma sa akin ay isang panlilinlang
at ako ay ginawang kasangkapan para sirain ang
magandang pangalan nitong si Abogado SERGIO
ESQUIVEL BERNABE;
4. Na dahil sa ganitong pangyayari, aking hinihiling sa
Tanggapan ng Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
na ang reklamo ko laban sa nasabing Abogado SERGIO
ESQUIVEL BERNABE ay mapawalang bisa.
• The IBP suspended the respondent from
practicing law for 1 month and revoked his notarial
commission for a period of 1 year.
Issue: Whether respondent violated the Notarial Practices Act.
(YES)
Ruling:
• The records sufficiently established that Basilia
was already dead when the joint affidavit was
prepared on January 3, 1998. Respondent’s
alleged lack of knowledge of Basilia’s death does
not excuse him. It was his duty to require the
personal appearance of the affiant before affixing
his notarial seal and signature on the instrument.
• A notary public should not notarize a document
unless the persons who signed the same are the
very same persons who executed and personally
appeared before him to attest to the contents and
truth of what are stated therein. The presence of
the parties to the deed will enable the notary
public to verify the genuineness of the signature of
the affiant.
• By affixing his signature and notarial seal on the
instrument, he led us to believe that Basilia
personally appeared before him and attested to
the truth and veracity of the contents of the
affidavit when in fact it was a certain Pronebo who
signed the document.
• Respondent’s conduct is fraught with dangerous
possibilities considering the conclusiveness on the
due execution of a document that our courts and
the public accord on notarized documents.
Respondent has clearly failed to exercise utmost
diligence in the performance of his function as a
notary public and to comply with the mandates of
the law.
• Respondent was also remiss in his duty when he
allowed Pronebo to sign in behalf of Basilia. A
member of the bar who performs an act as a
notary public should not notarize a document
unless the persons who signed the same are the
very same persons who executed and personally
appeared before him.
• The acts of the affiants cannot be delegated to
anyone for what are stated therein are facts of
which they have personal knowledge. They
should swear to the document personally and not
through any representative. Otherwise, their
representative’s name should appear in the said
documents as the one who executed the same.
That is the only time the representative can affix
his signature and personally appear before the
notary public for notarization of the said
document. Simply put, the party or parties who
executed the instrument must be the ones to
personally appear before the notary public to
acknowledge the document.
• The notarial commission of respondent Atty.
Sergio E. Bernabe, is REVOKED. He is
DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as Notary
Public for a period of two years. He is also
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period
of one year, effective immediately.