You are on page 1of 2

cannot be held liable.

If the notary public knows the affiants

personally, he need not require them to show their valid
identification cards. But Atty. Revilla, Jr. is not without fault
No. 9514, Apr. 10, 2013 J. Villarama, Jr.
for failing to indicate such fact in the "jurat" of the
FACTS complaint-affidavit. No statement was included therein that
he knows the three affiants personally. Atty.
Atty. Revilla, Jr. notarized a complaint-affidavit signed by
Heneraline Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas-Pedrosa and Elmer Revilla, Jr.’s violation of the disqualification rule under
Alvarado. Heneraline and Herezaline are sisters of Atty. Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on
Revilla, Jr.'s wife, while Elmer is a houseboy of the
Notarial Practice is not a sufficient ground to disbar him.
Brosas’s Family. Jandoquile complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. is Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not commit any deceit, malpractice, gross
disqualified to perform the notarial act per Sec 3c, Rule IV of misconduct or gross immoral conduct, or any other serious
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, viz: ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court. Atty. Revilla, Jr., was just REPRIMANDED and
“ DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public,
or from performing any notarial act if he is presently
Notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if
commissioned as a notary public, for a period of three (3)
he is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant,
or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within
the fourth civil degree


Jandoquile also complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not Facts: In January 2004, Lazareto and his family engaged the
require the three affiants in the complaint-affidavit to show respondent's services (the respondent was a member of the
their valid identification cards. Hence, this complaint for law office Jaromay Baylon Acorda Landrito & Associates to
disbarment against Atty. Revilla Jr. handle the extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Lazareto's
father who died intestate. They agreed to set the deadline for
Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not deny but admitted Jandoquile’s the filing of the extrajudicial settlement action on May 26,
material allegations. 2004, to enable the family to avail of a P100,000.00 deduction
in estate taxes They also agreed that titles to a parcel of
He submits that his act is not a ground for disbarment. He conjugal land (Lots B & E) at Tomas Mapua St., Sta. Cruz,
also says that he acts as counsel of the three affiants; thus, Manila, left by the deceased, be transferred to Lazareto's
he should be considered more as counsel than as a notary mother, Cleotilde D. Lazareto.On July 17, 2008, the IBP Board
public when he notarized their complaint-affidavit. He did of Governors passed Resolution No. XVIII-2008-347approving,
not require the affiants to present valid identification cards with modification, Comm. Inocencio's recommendation. The
since he knows them personally. board suspended respondent from the practice of law for one
month, for his failure to comply with his obligation towards
ISSUE: Lazareto and his family.The respondent argued that in the
light of Comm. Inocencio's finding that he did not act in bad
Whether or not notarizing a document of relatives within faith in dealing with Lazareto and the fact that he had
the fourth civil degree of affinity and, at the same time, not returned the TCT of Lot E and substantially all of the amounts
requiring them to present valid identification cards is a paid to him, substantial justice, fairness and equity demand
ground for disbarment that the case be dismissed

Issues: (1) whether respondent was negligent in handling the

HELD Atty. Revilla, Jr. violated the disqualification rule under legal matter entrusted to him; and (2) whether respondent
acted in bad faith in dealing with complainant Lazareto and
Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
his family
Given the clear provision of the disqualification rule, it
behooved upon Atty. Revilla, Jr. to act with prudence and Held: Yes and yes. After an objective examination of the facts
should have refused notarizing the document. and the evidence, we find the dismissal of the case
unacceptable, notwithstanding Lazareto's affidavit of
The court didn’t agree with Atty. Revilla’s
desistance and his silence with respect to said dismissal. The
proposition that he should be considered more as a counsel IBP Board of Governors misappreciated the gravity and the
of the affiants than as notary public, when he notarized the scope of the respondent's breach of his contractual obligation
complaint-affidavit. The notarial certificate at the bottom with Lazareto and his family. He had been negligent in
carrying out the task entrusted to him by Lazareto and his
of the complaint-affidavit shows his signature as a notary
family as found by Comm. Inocencio, a clear violation of the
public, with a notarial commission valid until December 31,
Code of Professional Responsibility. He had been grossly
2012. He cannot therefore claim that he signed it as counsel dishonest with respect to certain actions he claimed he had
of the three affiants. On the second charge, Atty. Revilla, Jr. taken in relation to his task.According to the Supreme Court,
the respondent should be made to answer for his dishonest
dealings with Lazareto and his family, as well as for his
negligence in the handling of the task Lazareto had entrusted
to him. We say this notwithstanding the layman Lazareto's
desistance, as the respondent's action was a transgression not
only of what is due Lazareto as a client but also of the
profession and the nation that expect its lawyers to live up to
the highest standards of performance in this noble profession.