Agaton vs.

atty sugui
Case Digest # 1

Ac No. 10592, April 3, 2019

 FACTS:
Atty. Sugui, a commissioned notary public notarized and Affidavit of a
certain Luz Rollon dated August 19, 2011. However, Agaton claims that Luz
Rollon never appeared before Atty. Sugui to swear to the Subject Affidavit
because Agaton further claims that Luz Rollon was out of the country from
February 2011 - December 2011–evidenced by a certification dated
December 8, 2012 issued by the Bureau of immigration. Moreover, it appears
that a Community Tax Certificate was presented to Atty. Sugui and that the
details of the same were not indicated in the Subject Affidavit.
 FACTS:
Atty. Sugui filed his comment dated March 18, 2015. For his defense, Atty.
Sugui claimed to have been burdened by numerous documents to sign. He
failed to notice the word “by” next to the signature of the person appearing
before him, who in presented an “identification card” as proof of identity.

In a resolution dated August 12, 2015, the court referred the case to the IBP
for investigation, report and recommendation. February 28, 2017, the IBP Bar
Discipline, through its Investigating Commissioner , issued a Report and
Recommendation in finding Atty. Sugui liable for violation of the 2004
Notarial Rules, ie. notarization despite the lack of appearance by the Affiant.
 ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Sugui is administratively liable for violation of
the 2004 Notarial Rules.
 LEGAL DOCTRINE:
The court ruled that Atty. Sugui is administratively liable for violation of the 2004 Notarial
Rules particularly Sec. 2, Rule IV. Moreover, the Jurat of the Subject Affidavit was based on
a mere CTC, which is not considered competent evidence of identity under 2004 Notarial
Rules. IBP-IC found that the respondent clearly failed to faithfully observed his duties as a
notary public because jurisprudence provides that a CTC/cedula is no longer considered as
valid and competent evidence of identity because it is not included in the list but also it does
not bear a photograph and signature of the person.

Repondent’s failure to properly perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only in
damage to those affected by the document but also undermining the integrity of notary public
and degrading the function of notarization. He should be held liable for such negligence, not
just as a notary public but also as a lawyer. Consistent with jurisprudence, he should be meted
out with modified penalty of immediate revocation of his notarial commission for a period of
2 years; a suspension from the practice of law for period of 6 years.
 LEGAL DOCTRINE:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the court finds respondent Atty. Lucas v.
Sugui GUILTY of violating the Rules of Notarial Practice of 2004. Accordingly, the
court hereby suspends him from the practice of law for a period of 6 months
effective immediately upon receipt of this Resolution; revokes his incumbent
resolution as notary public if any and disqualifies him being commissioned as a
notary public for 2 years. He is further warned that repetition of the same offense or
acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
 Presentation Link
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1p9mj5jQcy2NAnfz0TsKKJcGYHaTh9-QR
q23zA6fhkIo/edit?usp=sharing