LEGAL FORMS 2021-2022

3E CASE DIGEST

AGATON v. ATTY. LUCAS V. SUGUI,

AC No. 10592, April 3, 2019

FACTS

Complainant Napoleon R. Agaton filed a complaint for disbarment against

respondent Atty. Lucas V. Sugui for violating the 2004 Notarial Rules. The facts show that
Atty. Sugui, a commissioned notary public notarized an Affidavit of a certain Luz Rollon.
However, complainant Agaton claims that Luz Rollon never appeared before Atty. Sugui
to swear to the Subject Affidavit. Moreover, it appears that a community tax certificate
(CTC) was presented as evidence of identity but the details of the same were not
indicated in the Subject Affidavit. Complainant Agaton further claims that Luz Rollon could
not have possibly appeared before Atty. Sugui’s notary because she was out of the
country during the date of the notarization as evidenced by a Certification issued by the
Bureau of Immigration.

Atty. Sugui posits that he acted in good faith. He claimed to have been plagued by
numerous documents that he failed to notice that it wasn’t Luz Rollon who signed the
Subject Affidavit and appeared before his notary.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline issued a report finding Atty. Sugui liable for
violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules. Acting on the report, the IBP Board of Governors
adopted the findings of the commission finding Atty. Sugui guilty of the violation of the
2004 Notarial Rules.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Sugui is administratively liable for violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules (YES)

RULING

The Court affirmed the recommendation of the IBP.

It found the argument of Atty. Sugui that he was burdened by numerous documents
waiting for his signature and that there were a number of people waiting in line was
unacceptable.

Citing Section 2(b) of the Notarial Rules, which states that:

SEC. 2. Prohibitions. —
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to
the instrument or document —
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
 (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary
public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.

It was determined by the IBP that the document was notarized by Atty. Sugui without the
personal appearance of Luz Rollon.

The jurat of the Subject Affidavit was based on a mere CTC which is not among those
considered as competent evidence of identity under the Rules.

In a recent case decided by the SC, it was ruled that “a community tax certificate or cedula
is no longer considered as a valid and competent evidence of identity because
1. it is not included in the list of competent evidence of identity under the
Rules;
2. it does not bear the photograph and signature of the person appearing
before notaries public which the Rules deem as the more appropriate and
competent means by which they can ascertain the person’s identity.

The Court has held that notarization is not a purposeless ministerial act; by converting an
otherwise private instrument into a public one, notarization is imbued with public interest
and therefore authorized officers are bound to observe utmost diligence in the
performance of their duties as such.

Based on the established facts, it is clear that Atty. Sugui is liable for violating the
mandatory provisions of the 2004 Notarial Rules.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds respondent Atty. Lucas V. Sugui
GUILTY of violating the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004. Accordingly, the Court hereby:
SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective
immediately upon receipt of this Resolution; REVOKES his incumbent commission as
notary public, if any; and DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as a notary public
for a period of two (2) years. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same offense
or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
 PROTACIO v. MENDOZA
Adm. Case No. 5764, January 13, 2003, 395 SCRA 10.

It is necessary that a party to any document notarized by a notary public appear in person
before the latter and affirm the contents and truth of what are stated in the document. The
importance of this requirement cannot be gainsaid. The acknowledgement of a document
is not an empty meaningless act. By it a private document is converted into a public
document, making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. For this
reason, it behooves every notary public to see to it that this requirement is observed and
that formalities for the acknowledgment of documents are complied with.

FACTS

Complainant claimed that he did not sign the board resolution nor did he attend a
board meeting of the corporation on the date stated therein (March 30, 1998), and
therefore the signature purporting to be his was a forgery. He alleged that the Notarial
Section of the Regional Trial Court of Manila had in fact certified that it did not have a
copy of the board resolution in question because respondent had not submitted his
notarial report for March 1998. Furthermore, according to complainant, the records of the
Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) showed that Nobuyasu Nemoto was out of
the country on March 30, 1998, having left the Philippines on March 26, 1998 and having
returned only on March 31, 1998. Hence, complainant claimed, it was impossible for
Nobuyasu Nemoto to have attended the supposed board meeting on March 30, 1998 and
to have signed the resolution on the same date. Complainant charged that respondent
knowingly and maliciously notarized the said board resolution without the presence of the
party allegedly executing it.

ISSUE

Can a Jurat be signed even if the notary public is not present?

RULING:

It is necessary that a party to any document notarized by a notary public appear in

person before the latter and affirm the contents and truth of what are stated in the
document.] The importance of this requirement cannot be gainsaid. The
acknowledgement of a document is not an empty meaningless act. By it a private
document is converted into a public document, making it admissible in court without
further proof of its authenticity. For this reason, it behooves every notary public to see to
it that this requirement is observed and that formalities for the acknowledgment of
documents are complied with.

In this case, Nobuyasu Nemoto, who was allegedly a signatory to a resolution of a

corporation, allegedly notarized by respondent, could not have signed the document on
March 30, 1998, the date indicated therein, since he was not then in the Philippines.
Respondent’s explanation that Nemoto actually signed the document on March 31, 1998,
after arriving from Japan, cannot be accepted. Documents must speak the truth if their
integrity is to be preserved. That is what a notary public vouches for when he states in
the jurat that the parties have appeared before him at the time and in the place he (the
notary public) states and that the document is then a free act and deed. It is for this
reason that public documents are given full faith and credit, at least as to their due
execution.
 NADAYAG v. GRAGEDA,
A.C. No. 3232 September 27, 1994

A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
The trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients require in the attorney a high
standard and appreciation of his duty to his clients, his profession, the courts and the
public. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty
and fair dealing.

FACTS

Nadayag filed an administrative charge against Atty. Grageda in connection with

a transaction wherein Nadayag was a vendee in a pacto de retro sale. It was alleged by
Nadayag that Atty. Grageda notarized a pacto de retro sale using a stolen Original
Certificate of Title of Land. It was further alleged by Nadayag that the property in question
was further sold to another party using the owner’s duplicate copy of the title. Atty.
Grageda argued, among others, that he inspected the title and found that the said title
was clear and that there was nothing to be concerned about the title. Upon investigation,
the IBP found that there is a basis for disciplining the respondent, stating that Atty.
Grageda should have sensed foul play when the said OCT was not under the custody of
the Registry of Deeds.

ISSUE

Whether or not Atty. Grageda should be disciplined.

RULING: YES

IBP RULING

IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found reasons for disciplining Atty. Grageda.
Atty. Grageda should have sensed foul-play or irregularity when the title presented to him
is the Original Certificate of Title (OCT), as the Registry of Deeds has the sole custody of
such. In addition, even if the OCT is a Photostat copy, it has no certification by the
Register of Deeds. Thus, as a lawyer, Atty. Grageda should have been alerted of the
irregularities and notified Nadayag. The IBP mentioned that a lawyer should properly
advice its clients and go beyond being a notary public to giving legal advice.

SC RULING

The Court suspended Atty. Grageda from the practice of law for a period of three
(3) months, with the warning that a repetition of the same or any other misconduct will be
dealt with more severely. The Court ruled that a lawyer can do honor to the legal
profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts, and to
his clients. Thus, lawyers should not lessen in any degree the confidence reposed to
them.
In this case, Atty. Grageda should have fully explained to Nadayag the possibilities
and consequences of the subject transaction as these explanations would bring an
informed decision. Thus, as Atty. Grageda failing to explain the legal possibilities of an
OCT being out in the custody and safekeeping of the Register of Deeds brought him
commensurate consequences.
 JUDGE LAQUINDANUM v. ATTY. NESTOR Q. QUINTANA
A.C. No. 7936, June 29, 2009

FACTS

Atty. Quintana was issued a notarial commission within the territorial jurisdiction of
Cotabato City. Judge Laquindanum of the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Cotabato
filed an administrative case against Atty. Quintana for performing notarial functions in
Midsayap, Cotabato, which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court
that issued his notarial commission for Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao,
Midsayap being part of the Province of Cotabato and the city within the province of
Cotabato is Kidapawan City and not Cotabato City. She alleged that because executive
judges are required to closely monitor the activities of notaries public within the territorial
bounds of their jurisdiction, she wrote a letter to Atty. Quintana directing him to stop
notarizing documents within the territorial jurisdiction of Midsayap, Cotabato. However,
Atty. Quinatana continuously performed notarial functions in Midsayap, Cotabato.
During the investigation by the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), Judge Laquindanum
further alleges the following:

1. Atty. Quinatana notarized a document despite one of the signatories’ death prior
to the notarization;
2. Atty. Quintana’s wife performed notarial acts whenever he was out of the office;
and
3. Atty. Quintana continued to notarize documents despite expiration and non-
renewal of his notarial commission.

Atty. Quintana’s Defenses:

1. He did not violate any provision of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice because
he practices his legal profession in Midsayap;
2. He is a lawyer of good moral standing, he could practice his legal profession in
the entire Philippines; and
3. Judge Laquindanum singles him out because she questioned his affiliation with
the IBP Cotabato City Chapter and Judge Laquindanum required him to be a member
of IBP Kidapawan City Chapter.

The OBC found the arguments raised by Atty. Quintana without merit and recommended
that Atty. Quintana be disqualified from being appointed as a notary public for two years
and that if his notarial commission still exists, the same should be revoked for two (2)
years.

ISSUE
WON Respondent violated the Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing documents
beyond the limits of his authority.
RULING

YES. We adopt the findings of the OBC. However, we find the penalty of
suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months and revocation and suspension of
Atty. Quintana's notarial commission for two (2) years more appropriate considering the
gravity and number of his offenses.

After a careful review of the records and evidence, there is no doubt that Atty.
Quintana violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional
Responsibility when he committed the following acts: (1) he notarized documents outside
the area of his commission as a notary public; (2) he performed notarial acts with an
expired commission; (3) he let his wife notarize documents in his absence; and (4) he
notarized a document where one of the signatories therein was already dead at that time.

The act of notarizing documents outside one’s area of commission is not to be

taken lightly. Aside from being a violation of Sec. 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice, it also partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. Notarizing documents
with an expired commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws, more
specifically, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Since the public is deceived into
believing that he has been duly commissioned, it also amounts to indulging in deliberate
falsehood, which the lawyer's oath proscribes. Notarizing documents without the
presence of the signatory to the document is a violation of Sec. 2(b)(1), Rule IV of the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
and the lawyer’s oath which unconditionally requires lawyers not to do or declare any
falsehood. Finally, Atty. Quintana is personally accountable for the documents that he
admitted were signed by his wife. He cannot relieve himself of liability by passing the
blame to his wife. He is, thus, guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the
unauthorized practice of law.

All told, Atty. Quintana fell miserably short of his obligation under Canon 7 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

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 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 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.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the notarial commission of Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana, if still existing,
is hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as notary
public for a period of two (2) years. He is also SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
six (6) months effective immediately, with a WARNING that the repetition of a similar
violation will be dealt with even more severely. He is DIRECTED to report the date of his
receipt of this Decision to enable this Court to determine when his suspension shall take
effect.

NOTES:
Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides, thus:
"Jurisdiction and Term – A person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial
acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period
of two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the year in which the
commissioning court is made, unless earlier revoked [or] the notary public has resigned
under these Rules and the Rules of Court.

In the case of Lingan v. Calubaquib et al., Adm. Case No. 5377, June 15, 2006 the Court
held, thus:
"A notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register; He cannot
relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the buck to their (sic) secretaries"
Sec. 2, (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides, thus[:]
"A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the
instrument or document (1) is not in the notary’s presence personally at the time of the
notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules."
Clearly, in notarizing a Deed of Donation without even determining the presence or
qualifications of affiants therein, respondent only shows his gross negligence and
ignorance of the provisions of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
 JUDGE LAQUINDANUM v. ATTY. NESTOR Q. QUINTANA
A.C. No. 7936, June 29, 2009

FACTS

According to the complainant, the Bons signed the Waiver and Quitclaim because
of Atty. Ziga’s representation that the document was merely a withdrawal of a previously
executed Special Power of Attorney. As it turned out, however, the document was a
waiver in favor of Ziga of all the properties which the Bons inherited from their parents
and predecessors-in-interest.

Atty. Arcangel’s part, he explained that assuming that he notarized the Waiver and
Quitclaim in the absence of the signatories, his act is merely a violation of the Notarial
Law but not a ground for disbarment. He further avers that he was able to talk to Maria
Bon and Rafael Bon-Canafe, both co-signatories to the document, over the phone. Maria
Bon and Rafael Bon-Canafe allegedly declared that they signed the Waiver and
Quitclaim. The two, in fact, personally delivered the document for notarization in his
office.

Thus, he posits that there was substantial compliance with the Notarial Law since
a notary public’s primordial undertaking is merely to ensure that the signatures on a
document are genuine. As long as they are so, the notary public can allegedly take the
risk of notarizing the document although the signatories are not present.

ISSUE

Whether or not Respondents fraudulently executed the Waiver and Quitclaim.

RULING

Atty. Ziga is not liable for fraud, intimidation, stealth and deception. The Waiver
and Quitclaim itself is plainly worded, making it hard to believe that it could be
misconstrued by the Bons, who are high school graduates and a college graduate. It is
presumed that one who signs a contract knows its contents have been applied. More
significantly, the Bons have not filed the appropriate action to set aside the Waiver and
Quitclaim for almost 4 years after its execution.

However, the Court finds Atty. Arcangel breached his duty as a notary public when
he notarized the Waiver and Quitclaim without requiring all the persons who executed the
document to personally appear before him and acknowledge that the same is their free
act and deed. Arcangel admits this but posits that he talked to the Bons over the phone
where they promised to bring the document to him. Arcangel claims that there was
substantial compliance with the Notarial Law.
 Arcangel seems to be laboring under a misguided understanding of the basic
principles of the Notarial Law. 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 rely upon the
acknowledgement executed by a notary public. For this reason, notaries public 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.

Thus, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the signatories
personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated
therein. 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.

From his admission, the Court finds Arcangel failed to exercise due diligence in
upholding his duty as a notary public. However, his transgression does not warrant
disbarment. Citing Ocampo v. Yrreverre, the Court, taking note of the remorseful attitude
of the respondent who was found guilty of breach of the notarial law for notarizing a
document in the absence of the signatories, revoked his notarial commission for a period
of two (2) years and suspended him from the practice of law for six (6) months. Atty.
Arcangel was given the same penalty.
 PASTOR EDWIN VILLARIN, PACIANO DE VEYRA, SR., and BARTOLOME
EVAROLO, SR. v. ATTY. RESTITUTO SABATE, JR.
A.C. No. 3324, 2000 February 9, SECOND DIVISION (Buena, J.)

The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral
arrangements. That function would be defeated if the notary public were one of the
signatories to the instrument. For then, he would be interested in sustaining the validity
thereof as it directly involves himself and the validity of his own act. It would place him in
an inconsistent position, and the very purpose of the acknowledgment, which is to
minimize fraud, would be thwarted.

FACTS

Complainants Pastor Edwin Villarin, Paciano de Veyra, Sr. and Bartolome Evarolo,
Sr., filed a complaint against Paterno Diaz et al. before the Securities and Exchange
Commission in Davao City. Respondents in the SEC case filed their “Motion to Dismiss
with Answer to Villarin to the Securities and Exchange Commission” prepared and
notarized by Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr.

Complainants alleged that the signature of Paterno Diaz was not his but Lilian Diaz’
and the signatures of Levi Pagunsan and Alejandro Bofetiado was Atty. Sabate Jr.’s
signature. It was also made to appear by Sabate Jr. that said persons participated in the
act when they did not do so.

Sabate’s Answer as a defense alleged that Paterno Diaz, Levi Pagusnan and
Alejandro Bofetiado swore to the correctness of the allegation through their authorized
representatives and Sabate Jr. manifested by the word “By” which preceded every
signature of said representatives. Respondent alleged that on the strength of the said
authorizations, he notarized the document. In addition, he alleged that in signing for and
on behalf of his client Pagunsan and Bofetiado, his signature was preceded by the word
“By” which suggests that he did not in any manner make it appear that those persons
signed in his presence. He further alleged that the complaint is malicious and anchored
only on evil motives because he is a lawyer defending his client.

The Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

recommended that Sabate, Jr. be suspended from his Commission for a period of 6
months. The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted the
recommendation.

ISSUE

Whether or not Sabate, Jr. failed to exercise due diligence in upholding his duty as
a notary public.
RULING

YES. The Supreme Court ruled that while it would appear that in doing so, he acted
in good faith, the fact remains that the same cannot be condoned. He failed to state in
the preliminary statements of said motion/answer that the three respondents were
represented by their designated attorneys-in-fact. Besides, having signed the Verification
of the pleading, he cannot swear that he appeared before himself as Notary Public.
The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral
arrangements. That function would be defeated if the notary public were one of the
signatories to the instrument. For then, he would be interested in sustaining the validity
thereof as it directly involves himself and the validity of his own act. It would place him in
an inconsistent position, and the very purpose of the acknowledgment, which is to
minimize fraud, would be thwarted.

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 said notary public to attest to the contents and
truth of what are stated therein.

The reason that the respondent acted the way he did because he was confronted
with an alleged urgent situation is no excuse at all. As an individual, and even more so
as a member of the legal profession, he is required to obey the laws of the land at all
times.
 SPS. SANTUYO v. ATTY. HIDALGO
A.C. No. 5838, January 17, 2005

FACTS

Spouses Benjamin Santuyo and Editha Santuyo (Complainant) accused

respondent Atty. Edwin A. Hidalgo of serious misconduct and dishonesty for breach of
his lawyer's oath and the notarial law. Sps. Santuyo (Complainants) purchased a parcel
of land covered by a deed of sale. The deed of sale was allegedly notarized by respondent
lawyer and was entered in his notarial register as Doc. No. 94 on Page No. 19 in Book
No. III, Series of 1991.

Complainant spouses averred that about six years after the date of notarization,
they had a dispute with one Danilo German over the ownership of the land. The case was
estafa through falsification of a public document. During the trial of the case, German
presented in court an affidavit executed by Atty. Hidalgo denying the authenticity of his
signature on the deed of sale.

Allegations of the Complainant

The spouses allegedly forged his notarial signature on said deed. According to
complainants,respondent overlooked the fact that the disputed deed of sale contained all
the legal formalities of a duly notarized document, including an impression of respondent's
notarial dry seal.

Not being persons who were learned in the technicalities surrounding a notarial
act, spouses contended that they could not have forged the signature of herein
respondent. They added that they had no access to his notarial seal and notarial register,
and could not have made any imprint of respondent's seal or signature on the subject
deed of sale or elsewhere.

Allegations of the Respondents.

Respondent denied the allegations against him. He denied having notarized any
deed of sale covering the disputed property. According to respondent, he once worked
as a junior lawyer at Carpio General and Jacob Law Office where he was asked to apply
for a notarial commission.

While he admitted that he notarized several documents in that office, these,

however, did not include the subject deed of sale. He explained that, as a matter of office
procedure, documents underwent scrutiny by the senior lawyers and it was only when
they gave their approval that notarization was done.
He claimed that, in some occasions, the secretaries in the law firm, by themselves, would
affix the dry seal of the junior associates on documents relating to cases handled by the
law firm.
 Respondent added that he normally required the parties to exhibit their community
tax certificates and made them personally acknowledge the documents before him as
notary public. He would have remembered complainants had they actually appeared
before him.

While he admitted knowing complainant Editha Santuyo, he said he met the latter's
husband and complainant only on November 5, 1997, or about six years from the time
that he purportedly notarized the deed of sale.

Moreover, respondent stressed that an examination of his alleged signature on the

deed of sale revealed that it was forged; the strokes were smooth and mild. He suspected
that a lady was responsible for forging his signature.To further refute the accusations
against him, respondent stated that, at the time the subject deed of sale was supposedly
notarized, on December 27, 1991, he was on vacation.

He surmised that complainants must have gone to the law office and enticed one of
the secretaries, with the concurrence of the senior lawyers, to notarize the document. He
claimed he was a victim of a criminal scheme motivated by greed.

Procedural History:
The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
report and recommendation.
In a reports it submitted to the Court, the IBP noted that the alleged forged signature of
respondent on the deed of sale was different from his signatures in other documents he
submitted during the investigation of the present case. However, it ruled that respondent
was also negligent because he allowed the office secretaries to perform his notarial
functions, including the safekeeping of his notarial dry seal and notarial register.

ISSUE

WON respondent lawyer should be suspended from his notarial services for his
negligence in performing notarial duties (YES)

RULING

In finding the respondent guilty of negligence, the court reasoned that considering
that the responsibility attached to a notary public is sensitive respondent should have
been more discreet and cautious in the execution of his duties as such and should not
have wholly entrusted everything to the secretaries; otherwise, he should not have been
commissioned as notary public. For having wholly entrusted the preparation and other
mechanics of the document for notarization to the secretary there can be a possibility that
even the respondent's signature which is the only one left for him to do can be done by
the secretary or anybody for that matter as had been the case herein.
SAINT LOUISE UNIVERSITY LABORATORY HIGH SCHOOL FACULTY AND STAFF
v. ATTY. DELA CRUZ
A.C. No. 6010, August 28, 2006

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: gross misconduct, gross
immoral conduct, and malpractice.

The gross misconduct ground was raised because from the records of the case, it
appears that there is a pending criminal case for child abuse allegedly committed by him
against a high school student filed before the Prosecutor’s Office of Baguio City; a
pending administrative case filed by the Teachers, Staff, Students and Parents before an
Investigating Board created by SLU for his alleged unprofessional and unethical acts of
misappropriating money supposedly for the teachers; and the pending labor case filed by
SLU-LHS Faculty before the NLRC, Cordillera Administrative Region, on alleged illegal
deduction of salary by respondent. The gross immoral conduct on the other hand was
predicated on the fact that the respondent contracted a second marriage despite the
existence of his first marriage. And lastly, the malpractice stemmed from respondent
notarizing multiple documents despite the expiration of his commission.

According to complainant, respondent was legally married to Teresita Rivera on

May 1982 at Tuba, Benguet, before the then Honorable Judge Tomas W. Macaranas. He
thereafter contracted a subsequent marriage with one Mary Jane Pascua, before the
Honorable Judge Guillermo Purganan. On 4 October 1994, said second marriage was
subsequently annulled for being bigamous.

On the charge of malpractice, complainant alleged that respondent deliberately

subscribed and notarized certain legal documents on different dates from 1988 to 1997,
despite expiration of respondent’s notarial commission on 31 December 1987. A
Certification dated 25 May 1999 was issued by the Clerk of Court of Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Baguio City, to the effect that respondent had not applied for commission as
Notary Public for and in the City of Baguio for the period 1988 to 1997. Also, in his
comment, respondent, denied the charges of child abuse, illegal deduction of salary and
others which are still pending before the St. Louis University (SLU), National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Prosecutor’s Office. He did not discuss anything
about the allegations of immorality in contracting a second marriage and malpractice in
notarizing documents despite the expiration of his commission.

During the IBP Conference, respondent, on his part, expressly admitted his second
marriage despite the existence of his first marriage, and the subsequent
nullification of the former. He also admitted having notarized certain documents
 during the period when his notarial commission had already expired. However, he
offered some extenuating defenses such as good faith, lack of malice and noble
intentions in doing the complained acts.

ISSUE

Whether or not, respondent should be suspended. (YES.)

RULING

The SC found the recommendation of the IBP to fault respondent well taken, except as
to the penalty contained therein.

I. As to the issue of contracting a second marriage while his first marriage is still
subsisting, the SC imposed a 2-year penalty against Atty. Dela Cruz.
The SC found that respondent’s act constitutes immoral conduct. Given the facts,
the SC did not find said act to be grossly immoral. The sanction of disbarment was found
to be unduly harsh and imposed only a penalty of 2 years suspension.

II. As to the charge of misconduct for having notarized several documents during
the years 1988-1997 after his commission as notary public had expired, the SC
imposed a 2-year suspension on Atty. Dela Cruz.

Respondent humbly admitted having notarized certain documents despite the

knowledge that he no longer has authority to do so but he alleged that he received no
payment for notarizing those documents.

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 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 the crime of falsification of public documents." 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. Also, by making it appear that
he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging
in deliberate falsehood, 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." By acting as a notary public without
the proper commission to do so, the lawyer likewise violates Canon 7 of the same Code,
which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession.

Penalty imposed is four (4) years of suspension.

 TABAS v. ATTY MANGIBIN
A.C. No. 5602; 3 February 2004; SECOND DIVISION, (Quisimbing, J.)

A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same
is the very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to
the contents and truth of matters stated in the document. The purpose of this requirement
is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the
acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act and deed.
It was respondent who prepared the questioned discharge of real estate mortgage, which
he subsequently notarized. Hence he had adequate opportunity to verify the identity of
Lilia Castillejos. Not only did he have to interview her regarding her personal
circumstances, but also he had to interview her regarding the background of the deed of
real estate mortgage to be cancelled. Apparently, respondent merely took the word of
Lilia Castillejos that she was Hilda Tabas and did not realize the need to require her to
present other forms of identification. Such neglect is inexcusable.

FACTS

Hilda Tabas alleged that Atty. Bonifacio Mangibin committed forgery. One
Anastacia Galvan from La Union mortgaged to Tabas a real property to secure a loan.
The deed of mortgage of real property was duly registered with the Office of the Register
of Deeds in La Union and annotated with tax declaration. However, one Lilia Castillejos
false representing herself as Tabas went to Mangibin and asked him to prepare a
discharge of said mortgaged; the latter notarized it. Galvan mortgaged the property with
Rural Bank.

Tabas alleged that when she knew of this incident, she immediately informed Atty.
Mangibin that her signature in the Discharge was a forgery. But to no avail and even
threatened to sue Tabas.

In Mangibin’s answer, he admitted that the discharge was a forgery, but denies
liability for he was in good faith. He added that he cannot be faulted for relying on the
CTC bearing Tabas’s name presented by Castillejo as it was beyong the realm of his duty
to investigate the identity of persons before him.

IBP warned Mangibin to be more careful in preparing legal instruments in the

future. Bar Confidant recommended the 1-year suspension of Mangibin due to his gross
negligence.

ISSUE

Is Mangibin laible for violating the Notarial Law?

RULING
 YES. Mangibin showed serious lack of due care as a notary public. Because of his
carelessness, respondent failed to notice the glaring difference in the signature of
mortgagee in the deed of real estate mortgage from her purported signature in the
questioned discharge of real estate mortgage.

Time and again, the Court has emphasized that notarization is not an empty,
meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that
only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. It converts a
private 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.
Courts, administrative agencies, and the public at large must be able to rely upon the
acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument.

For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public
in the integrity of public instruments would be undermined. A notary public should not
notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very same
person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents
and truth of matters stated in the document. The purpose of this requirement is to
enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging
party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act and deed.

It was respondent who prepared the questioned discharge of real estate mortgage,
which he subsequently notarized. Hence, he had adequate opportunity to verify the
identity of Lilia Castillejos. Not only did he have to interview her regarding her personal
circumstances, but also he had to interview her regarding the background of the deed of
real estate mortgage to be cancelled. Apparently, respondent merely took the word of
Lilia Castillejos that she was Hilda Tabas and did not realize the need to require her to
present other forms of identification. Such neglect is inexcusable.

Further, by notarizing the Discharge of Real Estate Mortgage without ascertaining

the identity of the signatory, respondent lawyer acted with reckless disregard of his
professional duties and responsibilities. He caused grave injury to the complainant. He
also undermined the confidence of the public on notarial documents. Hence, he breached
Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to promote
respect for the law and legal processes as well as to uphold the Constitution and obey
the laws of the land.
 HERNANIE P. DANDOY v. ATTY. ROLAND G. EDAYAN
A.C. No. 12084, June 06, 2018

FACTS

In a verified letter-complaint filed by herein petitioner Hernanie P. Dandoy

(Dandoy), he alleged that on October 17, 2006, Atty. Roland G. Edayan (respondent)
notarized: (a) a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by his father, Jacinto S.
Dandoy (Jacinto), in favor of a certain Antoine Cyrus C. Garzo (Garzo) granting the latter
authority to offer as collateral two (2) parcels of land located in San Juan, Siquijor; and
(b) a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Real Estate (Deed) of Dandoy's late
grandmother, Eutiquia Sumagang, wherein his father was also one of the parties.
According to Dandoy, Jacinto could not have been present before respondent on October
17, 2006 because he passed away on July 13, 1999. He added that, through the SPA
and the Deed, Garzo was able to execute a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage on behalf of
Jacinto and Felipe Dandoy (Felipe), Dandoy's uncle, to secure a P400,000.00 loan. The
mortgage was foreclosed to the great prejudice of Dandoy and his siblings.

Respondent admitted to having notarized the two (2) documents, but claimed that
he verified the identities of the signatories thereto through their residence certificates. He
narrated that on the said date, Jacinto and Felipe came to his office and asked him to
draft and notarize the SPA and the Deed. Felipe confirmed the identity of Jacinto in the
same manner that the witnesses to the documents, who were likewise present at that
time, confirmed the identities of the two. Atty. Edayan contends that while residence
certificates are not mentioned in the list of competent evidence of identity enumerated
under Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (2004 Notarial Rules),
these are still necessary for the proper execution of the notarial act as it is still prescribed
by various laws, i.e., Commonwealth Act No. 465, the Notarial Law, and the Local
Government Code.

IBP Investigating Commissioner (IBP-IC) found respondent administratively liable

for failure to comply with the 2004 Notarial Rules but did not hold him administratively
liable for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the above report and recommendation of the IBP-
IC. Dissatisfied, respondent sought reconsideration, which the IBP denied in a Resolution,
hence this petition.

ISSUE
Whether or not the IBP correctly found respondent liable for violation of the 2004 Notarial
Rules. – YES

RULING

The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a notary public should not
notarize a document unless the signatory to the document is in the notary's presence
personally at the time of the notarization, and personally known to the notary public or
otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity.

Section 12. Competent Evidence of Identity.- The phrase "competent evidence of identity"
refers to the identification of an individual based on:
(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing
the photograph and signature of the individual; or
(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument,
document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who
personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is
privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows the
individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification. (Emphases
and underscoring supplied)

In this case, respondent was remiss in the faithful observance of his duties as a
notary public when he failed to confirm the identity of the person claiming to be Jacinto
through the competent evidence of identity required by the 2004 Notarial Rules.
Jurisprudence provides that a community tax certificate or cedula is no longer considered
as a valid and competent evidence of identity not only because it is not included in the list
of competent evidence of identity under the Rules; but more so, it does not bear the
photograph and signature of the persons appearing before them, which the Rules deem
as the more appropriate and competent means by which notaries public can ascertain the
person's identity. Had respondent been more circumspect in performing his duties as
notary public and asked for the photograph-and-signature-bearing identification
document required by the 2004 Notarial Rules, he would have immediately discovered
that the person before him was not the person whom he purports to be. All told, by
accepting the residence certificates presented by the person who claimed to be Jacinto
as evidence of identity, respondent made it appear that Jacinto personally appeared
before him and subscribed the SPA and the Deed in violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules
and to the detriment of Dandoy and his siblings.

Moreover, the statements made by the witnesses to the documents as regards the
identity of the persons who claimed to be Felipe and Jacinto and those made by the
person purporting to be Felipe as regards the latter do not comply with the 2004 Notarial
Rules' requirements on competent evidence of identity. Section 12 clearly states that the
credible witness/es making the oath – as to the identity of the individual subscribing the
document must: not be a privy to the document, etc.; personally know/s the individual
subscribing; and, must either be (a) personally known to the notary public, or (b) must
show to the notary public a photograph-and-signature-bearing identification document. In
this case, Felipe and Garzo were both privies to the document, and the records are bereft
of any evidence showing that the other witnesses to the document had shown to
respondent the documentary identification which the 2004 Notarial Rules require.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds respondent Atty. Roland G. Edayan (respondent)
GUILTY of violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court resolves to: SUSPEND him from the
practice of law for one (1) year; REVOKE his incumbent commission as a notary public,
if any; and, PROHIBIT him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.
 VALENTINO C. LEANO v. ATTY. HIPOLITO C. SALATAN
A.C. No. 12551, July 08, 2020

FACTS

Complainant’s Position
Petitioner Leano alleged that he was the defendant in the case of Spouses Tabudlo vs.
Leano filed by Atty. Salatan, his counsel before the RTC of Santiago City for specific
performance with damages.
He claims that in said case, Atty. Salatan introduced an affidavit of Teresita Cauilan into
evidence before the trial court. However, upon close scrutiny, it bore several defects on
the face of the document itself; namely:
a. The document had no date of execution;
b. Teresita’s competent proof of identity was left blank in the document; and,
c. Atty. Salatan’s Mandatory Continuing Legal Education compliance was not
indicated therein.

Moreover, petitioner stated that such affidavit does not appear in Atty. Salatan’s notarial
register as evidenced by the certificate issued by the Clerk of Court of Santiago City.
Respondent’s Position

Atty. Salatan explained in his Comment that the failure to record the affidavit in his notarial
register was not deliberate but an error by his staff. He stated that it was the respondent’s
office clerk that was tasked with the mechanical act of doing the entry and the assigning
of the docket numbers in the Notarial Register as testified to by respondent’s two former
office personnel. Furthermore, he averred that respondent was not personally involved
nor did he participate in the mechanical act of listing documents even as he kept on
reminding his office staff to record completely all the notarial acts in the Notarial Register
in accordance with Section 2, Rule 6 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

ISSUE

Whether or not Atty. Salatan violated the Notarial Rules when he notarized Teresita’s
Affidavit.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, finding Atty. Salatan administratively
liable for violation of the Notarial Rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Aside
from the physical presence of the affiant during the notarization of a document, the Rules
require the presentation of a competent evidence of the affiant’s identity if he or she is
not personally known to the notary public.

Moreover, under Section 5(b) of Rule 4, a notary public shall not affix his official signature
or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete. Although competent proof of Teresita’s
identity had been left blank on the face of the document itself, Atty. Salatan nonetheless
affixed his official signature and seal on the certificate of her affidavit. He merely claimed
that he had ascertained that the affiant was the same person executing the document but
failed to explain why the competent evidence of identity was not indicated. There was
neither an allegation that Teresita was known to Atty. Salatan to dispense with the
presentation of her competent evidence of identity.

The Court also found that the notarization of the subject affidavit was not recorded
in Atty. Salatan’s notarial register, which therefore is a violation of Section 2(a), Rule 6 of
he Notarial Rules.

It is settled that a notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his
notarial register. His delegation of his notarial function of recording entries in his notarial
register to his office clerk is in itself a clear violation of the Notarial Rules and Rule 9.01,
Canon 9 of the CPR.