JURATS

A jurat is used when the signer is swearing to the content of the document. A jurat also requires that the signer signs in the presence of the notary. Documents requiring a jurat must be signed in the Notary’s presence,
as dictated by the typical jurat wording, Subscribed (signed) and sworn to before me. In executing a jurat, a notary guarantees that the signer, personally appeared before the notary, was given an oath or affirmation by the notary, and
signed in the Notary’s presence.

While it is important for a notary to understand the difference between an acknowledgment and a jurat, notaries public are not allowed to determine which type of certificate a signer uses. To do so would be considered practicing law
without a license.

A notary can only ask the signer which form they prefer. If they don’t know, the notary will refer them to the source of the document for an answer.
An alternative for a signer who cannot ascertain which certificate to use would be to ask the notary to affix both types which is a perfectly acceptable request.

To summarize, the difference between a jurat vs acknowledgment is that the former is used primarily when dealing with sworn statements and the latter typically applies to documents that must be signed in front of an unbiased
independent witness the notary.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
An acknowledgement is used to verify the identity of the signer and to confirm that they signed the document. They are not swearing to the truthfulness or validity of the document, they are simply
acknowledging that they signed the document. An acknowledgment certificate indicates that the signer, personally appeared before the Notary,was identified by the Notary, and acknowledged to the Notary that the document was
freely signed.

Oaths and affirmation - When a witness is called to give evidence in a criminal proceeding, the first thing the court will do is to ask them whether they would like to take and “oath” or “affirmation”. This is a person stating that they will tell
the truth to the court.

Difference between an Oath and Affirmation

An oath is a verbal promise to tell the truth made while holding the Bible. A An affirmation has the same effect as an oath but does not use a religious text. Wording of the oath and affirmation Oath "I swear by Almighty God that the
evidence I shall give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

Affirmation "I solemnly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".If you have problems with literacy then let the court know. If you require an interpreter to give evidence,
then they will interpret the oath or affirmation for you.

Signature Witnessing - If a party to the agreement later says they did not sign, the person who witnessed the party signing can be called to confirm it. The witness can confirm that the specific person signed and that that was the
signature they made.

Copy Certifications - means a notarial act in which a notary certifies that a photocopy is an accurate copy of a document that is neither a public record nor publicly recorded. notarial act in which a notary (i) is presented with a document
that is not a public record; (ii) copies or supervises the copying of the document using a photographic or electronic copying process; (iii) compares the document to the copy; and (iv) determines that the copy is accurate and complete.

An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some competent
officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. It involves an extra step undertaken whereby the signor
actually declares to the notary that the executor of a document has attested to the notary that the same is
his/her own free act and deed. "It might be possible to construe the averment as a

A jurat is that part of an affidavit where the notary certifies that before him/her, the document was subscribed
and sworn to by the executor. Ordinarily, the language of the jurat should avow that the document was
subscribed and sworn before the notary public, while in this case,the notary public averred that he himself
"signed and notarized" the document. Possibly though, the word "ninotario" or "notarized" encompasses the
signing of and swearing in of the executors of the document, which in this case would involve the decedent and
the instrumental witnesses.

An acknowledgment refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion, Appears in person

before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument or document and is attested to
be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence
of identity Represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was
voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has
executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed,

A jurat refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: Appears in person before the notary public and
presents an instrument or document and is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public
through competent evidence of identity, Signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary, and Takes an
oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document.
A signature witnessing refers to a notarial act in which an individual on a single occasion, Appears in person before the notary
public and presents an instrument or document, and is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public
through competent evidence of identity as defined by and,Signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary
public

A copy certification refers to a notarial act in which a notary public, is presented with an instrument or document that is neither
a vital record, a public record, nor publicly recordable,Copies or supervises the copying of the instrument or document,
Compares the instrument or document with the copy, and Determines that the copy is accurate and complete

A disciplinary action is in reality an investigation by the court into the misconduct of its officer or an
examination into his character, Only the Supreme Court has the power to impose penalties for unethical
conduct against erring lawyers and the IBP will determine the recommended penalty subject for
approval by the Supreme court.
The filing of a disciplinary action does not prescribe despite the number of years lapsed.

Grounds for Discipline; In General (M.U.)

1. Gross misconduct or malpractice - Refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed by a
lawyer. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents
or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
2. Unprofessional conduct - That which is unbecoming a member of that profession. Gross misconduct,
malpractice, or unprofessional conduct, constitute grounds for disciplinary action

Misconduct before or incident to admission Broadly speaking,

the grounds for disbarment or suspension of a lawyer consist of those acts of misconduct committed before
and after his admission to practice. The acts of misconduct prior to admission include those which indicate
that at the time the lawyer took his oath, he did not possess the required qualifications for membership in the
bar.

Two requisites must concur before he may be suspended or disbarred for misconduct
committed before his admission:
The act imputed to him must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to
be reprehensible to a high degree and, The act charged must be established by clearly preponderance of
evidence

Misconduct committed outside Philippine jurisdiction If he commits misconduct outside Philippine

jurisdiction,

which is also a ground for disciplinary action under Philippine law, he may be suspended or disbarred in this
country.
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or other disciplinatory
agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground for his disbarment
or suspension if the basis of such action includes any of the acts hereinabove enumerated. The judgment or
order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be prima facie evidence of the ground for disbarment or
suspension

Liabilities of Lawyers
 - Civil Liability
- Client is prejudiced by lawyer’s negligence or misconduct
- Breach of fiduciary obligation
- Civil liability to third persons
- Libelous words in pleadings; violation of communication privilege
- Liability for costs of suit (treble costs) – when lawyer is made liable for insisting on
client’s patently unmeritorious case or interposing appeal merely to delay litigation
- Criminal Liability
- Prejudicing client through malicious breach of professional duty
- Revealing client’s secrets
- Representing adverse interests
- Introducing false evidence
- Misappropriating client’s funds (estafa)

Contempt of Court
a. Kinds of Contempt:

Direct – consists of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to interrupt or

obstruct the proceedings before the court or the administration of justice; punished summarily.
Indirect – one committed away from the court involving disobedience of or resistance to a lawful
writ, process, order, judgment or command of the court, or tending to belittle, degrade, obstruct,
interrupt or embarrass the court.

Civil- failure to do something ordered by the court which is for the benefit of a party.
Criminal – any conduct directed against the authority or dignity of the court.
b. Acts Constituting Contempt:
Misbehavior
Disobedience
Publication concerning pending litigation
Publication tending to degrade the court; disrespectful language in pleadings
Misleading the court or obstructing justice
Unauthorized practice of law
Belligerent attitude
Unlawful retention of client’s funds

Administrative Liabilities of lawyers

Main Objectives of Disbarment and Suspension:to compel the attorney to deal fairly and
honestly with his clients;to remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved
him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to the office of an
attorney;to punish the lawyer;to set an example or a warning for the other members of the bar;
to safeguard the administration of justice from incompetent and dishonest lawyers;to protect the
public

Characteristics of Disbarment Proceedings:

Neither a civil nor criminal proceedings;
Double jeopardy cannot be availed of in a disbarment proceeding;
It can be initiated motu propio by the SC or IBP. It can be initiated without a complaint;
It is imprescriptible;
Conducted confidentially;
It can proceed regardless of the interest of the lack thereof on the part of the complainant;
It constitutes due process.

Grounds for Disbarment or Suspension:

deceit;
malpractice or other gross misconduct in office;
grossly immoral conduct;
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
violation of oath of office;
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court;
corrupt or willful appearance as attorney for a party to case without authority to do so (Sec. 27,
Rule 138, RRC)

Procedure for Disbarment

Institution either by:
the Supreme Court, motu proprio, or
the IBP, motu proprio, or
upon verified complaint by any person
Six copies of the verified complaint shall be filed with the Secretary of the IBP or Secretary of
any of its chapter and shall be forwarded to the IBP Board of Governors.
Investigation by the National Grievance Investigators.
Submission of investigative report to the IBP Board of Governors.
Board of Governors decides within 30 days.
Investigation by the Solicitor-General
SC renders final decision for disbarment/suspension/dismissal.

Quantum of Proof Required: CLEAR, CONVINCING & SATISFACTORY evidence.

Burden of Proof:Rests on the COMPLAINANT, the one who instituted the suit

Officers authorized to investigate Disbarment cases:

Supreme Court
IBP through its Commission on Bar Discipline or authorized investigator
Office of the Solicitor General

Mitigating Circumstances in Disbarment:

Good faith in the acquisition of a property of the client subject of litigation (In re: Ruste, 70 Phil.
243)