1
fraud, undue influence or excusable negligence, claiming that
SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 5645. July 2, 2002
ROSALINDA BERNARDO VDA DE ROSALES, complainant,
vs. ATTY. MARIO G. RAMOS, respondent.
DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
This complaint for disbarment was filed in behalf of
complainant Rosalinda Bernardo Vda. de Rosales by the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) against respondent
Atty. Mario G. Ramos for violation of Act No. 2711 of
the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, Title IV, Ch.
11, otherwise know as the Notarial Law, particularly Secs.
245 and 246 thereof.
In September 1990 Manuel A. Bernardo, brother of
complainant Rosalinda Bernardo Vda. de Rosales, borrowed
from Rosalinda the Original Transfer Certificate of Title No.
194464 covering Lot No. 1-B-4-H in her name. The lot
measures 112 square meters and is located at the back of
Manuel's house on Fabie Street, Paco, Metro Manila. On 25
November 1990 Rosalinda sold this lot to one Alfredo P.
Castro. When she asked her brother Manuel to return her title
he refused.
On 22 October 1990 Rosalinda executed an Affidavit of
Loss of her title and presented the affidavit to the Register of
Deeds of Manila.
On 3 September 1991 the Register of Deeds informed
Rosalinda that her title to the property was already
transferred to Manuel by virtue of a Deed of Absolute
Sale she purportedly executed in favor of Manuel on 5
September 1990. The document was notarized by respondent
Atty. Mario G. Ramos on 1 October 1990 and entered in his
Notarial Register as Doc. No. 388, Page No. 718, Book No.
10, Series of 1990. Rosalinda however denied having signed
any deed of sale over her property in favor of Manuel.
On 3 September 1991 Rosalinda filed with the NBI a
complaint for falsification of public document against her
brother Manuel. The NBI invited respondent Atty. Ramos for
questioning. The complaint alleged among others that on 12
September 1991 Atty. Mario G. Ramos executed an affidavit
before the NBI admitting that when Manuel presented the
purported Deed of Absolute Sale to him for notarization, he
(Atty. Ramos) found some defects in the document and that
complainant Rosalinda was not around. The NBI Questioned
Documents Division also compared Rosalinda's signature
appearing in the Deed of Absolute Sale with samples of her
genuine signature, and found that the signature in the
purported Deed of Absolute Sale and her genuine signatures
were not written by one and the same person.
On 5 October 1992 the NBI transmitted its findings to the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila with the
recommendation that Manuel and Atty. Ramos be prosecuted
for Falsification of Public Document under Art. 172 in relation
to Art. 171 of The Revised Penal Code, and that Atty. Ramos
be additionally charged with violation of the Notarial Law.
The NBI also transmitted to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD)
photocopies of the NBI investigation report and its annexes,
and a verified complaint[1 for disbarment signed by
Rosalinda. The CBD received the records on 5 October 1992.
On the same date, the CBD through Commissioner Victor C.
Fernandez directed respondent to submit an answer to the
complaint within fifteen (15) days from notice.
Respondent admitted in his Answer[2 that he had affixed his
signature on the purported Deed of Absolute Sale but failed to
enter the document in his Notarial Registry Book. He also
admitted executing before the NBI on 12 September 1991 an
affidavit regarding the matter. Respondent prayed for the
dismissal of the complaint since according to him he only
inadvertently signed the purported Deed of Absolute
Sale and/or that his signature was procured through mistake,
he simply relied on the assurances of Manuel that the
document would not be used for purposes other than a loan
between brother and sister, and that he affixed his signature
thereon with utmost good faith and without intending to
obtain personal gain or to cause damage or injury to another.
The CBD set the case for hearing on 3 March 2000, 28 April
2000, 16 June 2000 and 5 October 2000. Complainant never
appeared. The records show that the notices sent to her
address at 1497 Fabie Street, Paco, Manila, were returned
unclaimed.[3
On 26 January 2002 the IBP Board of Governors approved the
report and recommendation of the CBD through
Commissioner Fernandez that the case against respondent be
dismissed in view of complainant's failure to prosecute and for
lack of evidence on record to substantiate the
complaint.[4 The Investigating Commissioner found that the
notices sent to complainant were returned unclaimed with the
annotation "moved out," and that she did not leave any
forwarding address, and neither did she come to the CBD to
inquire about the status of her case. From these actuations,
he concluded that complainant had lost interest in the further
prosecution of this case,[5 and so recommended its dismissal.
We cannot wholly agree with the findings and
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. It is
clear from the pleadings before us that respondent violated
the Notarial Law in failing to register in his notarial book the
deed of absolute sale he notarized, which fact respondent
readily admitted.
The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of a
notary public. It requires him to keep a notarial register
where he shall record all his official acts as notary,[6 and
specifies what information with regard to the notarized
document should be entered therein.[7 Failure to perform this
duty results in the revocation of his commission as notary
public.[8
The importance attached to the act of notarization cannot be
overemphasized. 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.[9 Notarization converts a private document
into a public document thus making that document admissible
in evidence without further proof of its authenticity.[10 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.[11
For this reason notaries public must observe with utmost care
the basic requirements in the performance of their
duties.[12 Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the
integrity of this form of conveyance would be
undermined.[13 Hence 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.[14 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.[15
The notary public is further enjoined to record in his notarial
registry the necessary information regarding the document or
instrument notarized and retain a copy of the document
presented to him for acknowledgment and certification
especially when it is a contract.[16 The notarial registry is a
record of the notary public's official acts. Acknowledged
documents and instruments recorded in it are considered
public documents. If the document or instrument does not
appear in the notarial records and there is no copy of it
therein, doubt is engendered that the document or instrument
was not really notarized, so that it is not a public document
and cannot bolster any claim made based on this document.
Considering the evidentiary value given to notarized
documents, the failure of the notary public to record the
document in his notarial registry is tantamount to falsely
making it appear that the document was notarized when in
fact it was not.

We take note of respondent's admission in his Answer that he
had affixed his signature in the purported Deed of Absolute
Sale but he did not enter it in his notarial registry. This is
clearly in violation of the Notarial Law for which he must be
disciplined.
Respondent alleges that he merely signed the Deed of
Absolute Sale inadvertently and that his signature was
procured through mistake, fraud, undue influence or
excusable negligence as he relied on the assurances of
Manuel A. Bernardo, a kababayan from Pampanga, that the
document would not be used for any illegal purpose.
We cannot honor, much less give credit to this allegation.
That respondent notarized the document out of sympathy for
his kababayan is not a legitimate excuse. It is appalling that
respondent did away with the basics of notarial procedure in
order to accommodate the alleged need of a friend and client.
In doing so, he displayed a decided lack of respect for the
solemnity of an oath in a notarial document. He also exhibited
his clear ignorance of the importance of the office of a notary
public. Not only did he violate the Notarial Law, he also did so
without thinking of the possible damage that might result
from its non-observance.
The principal function of a notary public is to authenticate
documents. When a notary public certifies to the due
execution and delivery of the document under his hand and
seal he gives the document the force of evidence. Indeed,
one of the purposes of requiring documents to be
acknowledged before a notary public, in addition to the
solemnity which should surround the execution and delivery
of documents, is to authorize such documents to be given
without further proof of their execution and
delivery.[17 Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver
responsibility is placed upon him by reason of his solemn oath
to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the
doing of any.[18 Failing in this, he must accept the
consequences of his unwarranted actions.
From his admissions we find that Atty. Mario G. Ramos failed
to exercise the due diligence required of him in the
performance of the duties of notary public. We do not agree
however that his negligence should merit disbarment, which
is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction. Disbarment
should never be imposed unless it is evidently clear that the
lawyer, by his serious misconduct, should no longer remain a
member of the bar. Removal from the bar should not really
be decreed when any punishment less severe - reprimand,
temporary suspension or fine - would accomplish the end
desired.[19 Under the circumstances, imposing sanctions
decreed under the Notarial Law and suspension from the
practice of law would suffice.
WHEREFORE, for lack of diligence in the observance of the
Notarial Law, the commission of respondent Atty. Mario G.
Ramos as Notary Public, if still existing, is REVOKED and
thereafter Atty. Ramos should be DISQUALIFIED from
reappointment to the office of Notary Public.
Respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos is also SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective
immediately. He is DIRECTED to report to this Court his
receipt of this Decision to enable it to determine when his
suspension shall have taken effect.
The Clerk of Court of this Court is DIRECTED to immediately
circularize this Decision for the proper guidance of all
concerned.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 6294. November 17, 2004]
ATTY. MINIANO B. DELA CRUZ, complainant, vs. ATTY.
ALEJANDRO P. ZABALA, respondent.
RESOLUTION
QUISUMBING, J.:
In his Letter-Complaint for Disbarment filed before the Committee on
Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, complainant
Atty. Miniano B. Dela Cruz charged respondent, Atty. Alejandro P.
Zabala, for violating his oath as a notary public.
Complainant alleged that respondent notarized with unknown
witnesses, a fake deed of sale allegedly executed by two dead people,
2
in gross violation of his oath as a Commissioned Notary Public in
Quezon City.[1]
Complainant averred that he was retained by a certain Demetrio C.
Marero last December 21, 1996, to finance and undertake the filing of
a Petition for the Issuance of a Second Duplicate Original of the
Owner’s copy of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 4153, in the
names of Sps. Pedro Sumulong and Cirila Tapales before the Regional
Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 72. The court issued an Order
approving the said petition on March 10, 1997.[2]
On May 20, 1997, complainant purchased the said property from
Marero and had the title transferred to him and his wife. OCT No. 4153
was then cancelled and replaced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
No. 330000.[3]
The next day, complainant requested a certain Mrs. Adoracion Losloso
and Mr. Nestor Aguirre to register the title in the former’s name at the
Assessor’s Office of Antipolo City. However, they were unable to do
so because the property was already registered in the name of
Antipolo Properties, Inc., under TCT No. N-107359.[4]
On May 27, 1997, respondent notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale over
the land covered by OCT No. 4153, executed by Cirila Tapales and
Pedro Sumulong in favor of the complainant and his wife.[5]
On December 9, 1997, Mr. Marero filed a Complaint for Reconveyance
of Title of the land, subject of the Deed of Sale which was notarized by
respondent, with damages against the complainant and his wife. The
Deed of Sale was the same document Marero used when he filed a
complaint for Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document docketed as
I.S. No. 98-16357 before the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office and in a
disbarment case docketed as Adm. Case No. 4963 against
complainant.[6]
Purportedly, to clear his name, complainant filed this complaint for
disbarment against respondent. According to complainant, respondent
notarized an irregular document where one of the parties to the
transaction was already dead, grossly violating his oath as a notary
public.[7]
The IBP then required the respondent to file his answer to the said
allegations.
Respondent, in his Answer alleged that as a notary, he did not have to
go beyond the documents presented to him for notarization. In notarial
law, he explains, the minimum requirements to notarize a document
are the presence of the parties and their presentation of their
community tax certificate. As long as these requirements are met, the
documents may be notarized. Furthermore, he adds, when he
notarized the Deed of Sale, he had no way of knowing whether the
persons who appeared before him were the real owners of the land or
were merely poseurs.[8]
Thereafter, the parties were ordered to appear before the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline on July 31, 2001 and August 21, 2001,
and required to submit their position papers.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, in its Report dated September
29, 2003, recommended that respondent be reprimanded for violating
Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.[9] The allegations
with respect to the prayer for disbarment were recommended for
dismissal for insufficiency of evidence. The Commissioner held that
complainant failed to establish by convincing proof that respondent had
to be disbarred because of his notarial negligence. The alleged
failures of respondent did not indicate a clear intent to engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, according to the
Commission’s Report.
Noteworthy, however, respondent did not deny that he notarized the
cited Deed of Sale under the circumstances alleged by complainant. It
appears that there was negligence on respondent’s part which, in our
view, is quite serious. Thus, we cannot conclude that he did not violate
the Notarial Law,[10] and our rules regarding Notarial Practice.[11] Nor
could we agree that, as recommended by the IBP, he should only be
reprimanded. At least his commission as Notary Public should be
revoked and for two years he should be disqualified from being
commissioned as such.
The IBP noted that on its face, the Deed of Sale was not executed by
the purported vendee and that only Pedro Sumulong appeared and
executed the deed even though the property was co-owned by Pedro
Sumulong and Cirila Tapales. In addition, a copy of the title was not
attached to the said Deed of Sale when it was presented for
notarization. The aforementioned circumstances should have alerted
respondent. Given the ease with which community tax certificates are
obtained these days, respondent should have been more vigilant in
ascertaining the identity of the persons who appeared before him.
We have empathically stressed that notarization is not an empty,
meaningless routinary act. It is invested with substantive public
interest. It must be underscored that the notarization by a notary
public converts a private document into a public document, making that
document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity
thereof. A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit
upon its face. For this reason, a notary 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.[12]
Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 provides,
. . .
(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an
officer duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgments
of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The
notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the
person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that
he is the same person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his
free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under his official seal, if
he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so
state. [Emphasis ours.]
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 the truth
of what are stated therein. These acts of the affiants cannot be
delegated because what are stated therein are facts they have
personal knowledge of and are personally sworn to. Otherwise, their
representative’s names should appear in the said documents as the
ones who executed the same.[13]
The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any
illegal or immoral arrangements.[14] By affixing his notarial seal on the
instrument, he converted the Deed of Absolute Sale, from a private
document into a public document. In doing so, respondent, in effect,
proclaimed to the world that (1) all the parties therein personally
appeared before him; (2) they are all personally known to him; (3) they
were the same persons who executed the instruments; (4) he inquired
into the voluntariness of execution of the instrument; and (5) they
acknowledged personally before him that they voluntarily and freely
executed the same.[15] As a lawyer commissioned to be a notary
public, respondent is mandated to discharge his sacred duties with
faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an
oath in an acknowledgment or jurat.[16] Simply put, such responsibility
is incumbent upon him, he must now accept the commensurate
consequences of his professional indiscretion. His act of certifying
under oath an irregular Deed of Absolute Sale without ascertaining the
identities of the persons executing the same constitutes gross
negligence in the performance of duty as a notary public.
WHEREFORE, this Court finds respondent Atty. Alejandro P. Zabala
GUILTY of gross negligence in his conduct as a notary public. His
notarial commission, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED and he is
DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a
period of two (2) years. He is DIRECTED to report the date of his
receipt of this Resolution to the Court within five (5) days from such
receipt. Further, he is ordered to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be
subject to disciplinary action as a member of the Bar.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to all the courts of the land
as well as the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the
Bar Confidant. Let this Resolution be also made of record in the
personal files of the respondent.
FIRST DIVISION
A.C. No. 5281 February 12, 2008
MANUEL L. LEE, petitioner,
vs.
ATTY. REGINO B. TAMBAGO, respondent.
RESOLUTION
CORONA, J.:
In a letter-complaint dated April 10, 2000, complainant Manuel L. Lee
charged respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago with violation of the
Notarial Law and the ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a
spurious last will and testament.
In his complaint, complainant averred that his father, the decedent
Vicente Lee, Sr., never executed the contested will. Furthermore, the
spurious will contained the forged signatures of Cayetano Noynay and
Loreto Grajo, the purported witnesses to its execution.
In the said will, the decedent supposedly bequeathed his entire estate
to his wife Lim Hock Lee, save for a parcel of land which he devised to
Vicente Lee, Jr. and Elena Lee, half-siblings of complainant.
The will was purportedly executed and acknowledged before
respondent on June 30, 1965.1 Complainant, however, pointed out that
the residence certificate2 of the testator noted in the acknowledgment
of the will was dated January 5, 1962.3 Furthermore, the signature of
3
the testator was not the same as his signature as donor in a deed of
donation4 (containing his purported genuine signature). Complainant
averred that the signatures of his deceased father in the will and in the
deed of donation were "in any way (sic) entirely and diametrically
opposed from (sic) one another in all angle[s]."5
Complainant also questioned the absence of notation of the residence
certificates of the purported witnesses Noynay and Grajo. He alleged
that their signatures had likewise been forged and merely copied from
their respective voters’ affidavits.
Complainant further asserted that no copy of such purported will was
on file in the archives division of the Records Management and
Archives Office of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts
(NCCA). In this connection, the certification of the chief of the archives
division dated September 19, 1999 stated:
Doc. 14, Page No. 4, Book No. 1, Series of 1965 refers to an
AFFIDAVIT executed by BARTOLOME RAMIREZ on June
30, 1965 and is available in this Office[’s] files.6
Respondent in his comment dated July 6, 2001 claimed that the
complaint against him contained false allegations: (1) that complainant
was a son of the decedent Vicente Lee, Sr. and (2) that the will in
question was fake and spurious. He alleged that complainant was "not
a legitimate son of Vicente Lee, Sr. and the last will and testament was
validly executed and actually notarized by respondent per affidavit 7 of
Gloria Nebato, common-law wife of Vicente Lee, Sr. and corroborated
by the joint affidavit8 of the children of Vicente Lee, Sr., namely Elena
N. Lee and Vicente N. Lee, Jr. xxx."9
Respondent further stated that the complaint was filed simply to harass
him because the criminal case filed by complainant against him in the
Office of the Ombudsman "did not prosper."
Respondent did not dispute complainant’s contention that no copy of
the will was on file in the archives division of the NCCA. He claimed
that no copy of the contested will could be found there because none
was filed.
Lastly, respondent pointed out that complainant had no valid cause of
action against him as he (complainant) did not first file an action for the
declaration of nullity of the will and demand his share in the
inheritance.
In a resolution dated October 17, 2001, the Court referred the case to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.10
In his report, the investigating commissioner found respondent guilty of
violation of pertinent provisions of the old Notarial Law as found in the
Revised Administrative Code. The violation constituted an infringement
of legal ethics, particularly Canon 111 and Rule 1.0112 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).13 Thus, the investigating
commissioner of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended
the suspension of respondent for a period of three months.
The IBP Board of Governors, in its Resolution No. XVII-2006-285
dated May 26, 2006, resolved:
[T]o ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and
APPROVED, with modification, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the
above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as
Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully supported
by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules,
and considering Respondent’s failure to comply with the
laws in the discharge of his function as a notary public, Atty.
Regino B. Tambago is hereby suspended from the practice
of law for one year and Respondent’s notarial commission
is Revoked and Disqualified from reappointment as Notary
Public for two (2) years.14
We affirm with modification.
A will is an act whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities
prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of his
estate, to take effect after his death.15 A will may either be notarial or
holographic.
The law provides for certain formalities that must be followed in the
execution of wills. The object of solemnities surrounding the execution
of wills is to close the door on bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution
of wills and testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity. 16

A notarial will, as the contested will in this case, is required by law to
be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself. In addition, it
should be attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses
in the presence of the testator and of one another.17
The will in question was attested by only two witnesses, Noynay and
Grajo. On this circumstance alone, the will must be considered
void.18 This is in consonance with the rule that acts executed against
the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except
when the law itself authorizes their validity.
The Civil Code likewise requires that a will must be acknowledged
before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses.19 The
importance of this requirement is highlighted by the fact that it was
segregated from the other requirements under Article 805 and
embodied in a distinct and separate provision.20
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 signatory
actually declares to the notary public that the same is his or her own
free act and deed.21 The acknowledgment in a notarial will has a two-
fold purpose: (1) to safeguard the testator’s wishes long after his
demise and (2) to assure that his estate is administered in the manner
that he intends it to be done.
A cursory examination of the acknowledgment of the will in question
shows that this particular requirement was neither strictly nor
substantially complied with. For one, there was the conspicuous
absence of a notation of the residence certificates of the notarial
witnesses Noynay and Grajo in the acknowledgment. Similarly, the
notation of the testator’s old residence certificate in the same
acknowledgment was a clear breach of the law. These omissions by
respondent invalidated the will.
As the acknowledging officer of the contested will, respondent was
required to faithfully observe the formalities of a will and those of
notarization. As we held in Santiago v. Rafanan:22
The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of
notaries public. They are required to certify that the party to
every document acknowledged before him had presented
the proper residence certificate (or exemption from the
residence tax); and to enter its number, place of issue and
date as part of such certification.
These formalities are mandatory and cannot be disregarded,
considering the degree of importance and evidentiary weight attached
to notarized documents.23 A notary public, especially a lawyer,24 is
bound to strictly observe these elementary requirements.
The Notarial Law then in force required the exhibition of the residence
certificate upon notarization of a document or instrument:
Section 251. Requirement as to notation of payment of
[cedula] residence tax. – Every contract, deed, or other
document acknowledged before a notary public shall have
certified thereon that the parties thereto have presented their
proper [cedula] residence certificate or are exempt from the
[cedula] residence tax, and there shall be entered by the
notary public as a part of such certificate the number, place
of issue, and date of each [cedula] residence certificate as
aforesaid.25
The importance of such act was further reiterated by Section 6 of the
Residence Tax Act26 which stated:
When a person liable to the taxes prescribed in this Act
acknowledges any document before a notary public xxx it
shall be the duty of such person xxx with whom such
transaction is had or business done, to require the exhibition
of the residence certificate showing payment of the
residence taxes by such person xxx.
In the issuance of a residence certificate, the law seeks to establish the
true and correct identity of the person to whom it is issued, as well as
the payment of residence taxes for the current year. By having allowed
decedent to exhibit an expired residence certificate, respondent failed
to comply with the requirements of both the old Notarial Law and the
Residence Tax Act. As much could be said of his failure to demand the
exhibition of the residence certificates of Noynay and Grajo.
On the issue of whether respondent was under the legal obligation to
furnish a copy of the notarized will to the archives division, Article 806
provides:
4
Art. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary
public by the testator and the witness. The notary public
shall not be required to retain a copy of the will, or file
another with the office of the Clerk of Court. (emphasis
supplied)
Respondent’s failure, inadvertent or not, to file in the archives division
a copy of the notarized will was therefore not a cause for disciplinary
action.
Nevertheless, respondent should be faulted for having failed to make
the necessary entries pertaining to the will in his notarial register. The
old Notarial Law required the entry of the following matters in the
notarial register, in chronological order:
1. nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or
acknowledged before him;
2. person executing, swearing to, or acknowledging the
instrument;
3. witnesses, if any, to the signature;
4. date of execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the
instrument;
5. fees collected by him for his services as notary;
6. give each entry a consecutive number; and
7. if the instrument is a contract, a brief description of the
substance of the instrument.27
In an effort to prove that he had complied with the abovementioned
rule, respondent contended that he had crossed out a prior entry and
entered instead the will of the decedent. As proof, he presented a
photocopy of his notarial register. To reinforce his claim, he presented
a photocopy of a certification28 stating that the archives division had no
copy of the affidavit of Bartolome Ramirez.
A photocopy is a mere secondary evidence. It is not admissible unless
it is shown that the original is unavailable. The proponent must first
prove the existence and cause of the unavailability of the
original,29 otherwise, the evidence presented will not be admitted.
Thus, the photocopy of respondent’s notarial register was not
admissible as evidence of the entry of the execution of the will because
it failed to comply with the requirements for the admissibility of
secondary evidence.
In the same vein, respondent’s attempt to controvert the certification
dated September 21, 199930 must fail. Not only did he present a mere
photocopy of the certification dated March 15, 2000;31 its contents did
not squarely prove the fact of entry of the contested will in his notarial
register.
Notaries public must observe with utmost care32 and utmost fidelity the
basic requirements in the performance of their duties, otherwise, the
confidence of the public in the integrity of notarized deeds will be
undermined.33
Defects in the observance of the solemnities prescribed by law render
the entire will invalid. This carelessness cannot be taken lightly in view
of the importance and delicate nature of a will, considering that the
testator and the witnesses, as in this case, are no longer alive to
identify the instrument and to confirm its contents.34 Accordingly,
respondent must be held accountable for his acts. The validity of the
will was seriously compromised as a consequence of his breach of
duty.35
In this connection, Section 249 of the old Notarial Law provided:
Grounds for revocation of commission. — The following
derelictions of duty on the part of a notary public shall, in the
discretion of the proper judge of first instance, be sufficient
ground for the revocation of his commission:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) The failure of the notary to make the proper entry or
entries in his notarial register touching his notarial acts in the
manner required by law.

xxx xxx xxx
(f) The failure of the notary to make the proper notation
regarding cedula certificates.36
These gross violations of the law also made respondent liable for
violation of his oath as a lawyer and constituted transgressions of
Section 20 (a), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court37 and Canon 138 and
Rule 1.0139 of the CPR.
The first and foremost duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines, uphold the Constitution and obey the laws
of the land.40 For a lawyer is the servant of the law and belongs to a
profession to which society has entrusted the administration of law and
the dispensation of justice.41
While the duty to uphold the Constitution and obey the law is an
obligation imposed on every citizen, a lawyer assumes responsibilities
well beyond the basic requirements of good citizenship. As a servant of
the law, a lawyer should moreover make himself an example for others
to emulate.42 Being a lawyer, he is supposed to be a model in the
community in so far as respect for the law is concerned. 43
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. 44 A breach
of these conditions justifies disciplinary action against the erring
lawyer. A disciplinary sanction is imposed on a lawyer upon a finding
or acknowledgment that he has engaged in professional
misconduct.45 These sanctions meted out to errant lawyers include
disbarment, suspension and reprimand.
Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction.46 We have
held in a number of cases that the power to disbar must be exercised
with great caution47 and should not be decreed if any punishment less
severe – such as reprimand, suspension, or fine – will accomplish the
end desired.48 The rule then is that 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.49
Respondent, as notary public, evidently failed in the performance of
the elementary duties of his office. Contrary to his claims that he
"exercised his duties as Notary Public with due care and with due
regard to the provision of existing law and had complied with the
elementary formalities in the performance of his duties xxx," we find
that he acted very irresponsibly in notarizing the will in question. Such
recklessness warrants the less severe punishment of suspension from
the practice of law. It is, as well, a sufficient basis for the revocation of
his commission50 and his perpetual disqualification to be commissioned
as a notary public.51
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago is hereby found
guilty of professional misconduct. He violated (1) the Lawyer’s Oath;
(2) Rule 138 of the Rules of Court; (3) Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility; (4) Art. 806 of the Civil Code and
(5) the provisions of the old Notarial Law.
Atty. Regino B. Tambago is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for one year and his notarial commission REVOKED. Because he
has not lived up to the trustworthiness expected of him as a notary
public and as an officer of the court, he
is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary
public.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to all the courts of the land,
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Bar
Confidant, as well as made part of the personal records of respondent.
SO ORDERED.
SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 7781 September 12, 2008
DOLORES L. DELA CRUZ, MILAGROS L. PRINCIPE,
NARCISA L. FAUSTINO, JORGE V. LEGASPI, and JUANITO
V. LEGASPI, complainants,
vs.
ATTY. JOSE R. DIMAANO, JR., respondent.
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
5
In their complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Jose R.
Dimaano, Jr., Dolores L. Dela Cruz, Milagros L. Principe, Narcisa L.
Faustino, Jorge V. Legaspi, and Juanito V. Legaspi alleged that on
July 16, 2004, respondent notarized a document denominated
as Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate with Waiver of
Rights purportedly executed by them and their sister, Zenaida V.L.
Navarro. Complainants further alleged that: (1) their signatures in this
document were forged; (2) they did not appear and acknowledge the
document on July 16, 2004 before respondent, as notarizing officer;
and (3) their purported community tax certificates indicated in the
document were not theirs.
According to complainants, respondent had made untruthful
statements in the acknowledgment portion of the notarized document
when he made it appear, among other things, that complainants
"personally came and appeared before him" and that they affixed their
signatures on the document in his presence. In the process,
complainants added, respondent effectively enabled their sister,
Navarro, to assume full ownership of their deceased parents’ property
in Tibagan, San Miguel, Bulacan, covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title No. T-303936 and sell the same to the Department of Public
Works and Highways.
In his answer, respondent admitted having a hand in the preparation of
the document in question, but admitted having indeed notarized it. He
explained that "he notarized [the] document in good faith relying on
the representation and assurance of Zenaida Navarro that the
signatures and the community tax certificates appearing in the
document were true and correct." Navarro would not, according to
respondent, lie to him having known, and being neighbors of, each
other for 30 years. Finally, respondent disclaimed liability for any
damage or injury considering that the falsified document had been
revoked and canceled.
In his Report and Recommendation, the Investigating Commissioner
of the Office of the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP), found the following as established: (1) the
questioned document bore the signatures and community tax
certificates of, and purports to have been executed by, complainants
and Navarro; (2) respondent indeed notarized the questioned
document on July 16, 2004; (3) complainants did not appear and
acknowledge the document before respondent on July 16, 2004; (4)
respondent notarized the questioned document only on Navarro’s
representation that the signatures appearing and community tax
certificates were true and correct; and (5) respondent did not ascertain
if the purported signatures of each of the complainants appearing in
the document belonged to them.
The Commission concluded that with respondent’s admission of
having notarized the document in question against the factual
backdrop as thus established, a clear case of falsification and violation
of the Notarial Law had been committed when he stated in the
Acknowledgment that:
Before me, on this 16th day of July 16, 2004 at Manila,
personally came and appeared the above-named persons
with their respective Community Tax Certificates as
follows:
xxxx
who are known to me to be the same persons who executed
the foregoing instrument and they acknowledge to me that
the same is their own free act and deed. x x x
For the stated infraction, the Commission recommended, conformably
with the Court’s ruling in Gonzales v. Ramos,1 that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year; that his notarial
commission, if still existing, be revoked; and that he be disqualified
for reappointment as notary public for two (2) years. On September
28, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XVIII-
2007-147, adopting and approving the report and recommendation of
the Commission.
We agree with the recommendation of the Commission and the
premises holding it together. It bears reiterating that notaries public
should refrain from affixing their signature and notarial seal on a
document unless the persons who signed it are the same individuals
who executed and personally appeared before the notaries public to
attest to the truth of what are stated therein, for under Section 1 of
Public Act No. 2103 or the Notarial Law, an instrument or document
shall be considered authentic if the acknowledgment is made in
accordance with the following requirements:
(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary
public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country
 6

to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents in

the place where the act is done. The notary public or the
officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the
person acknowledging the instrument or document is
known to him and that he is the same person who executed
it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed.
The certificate shall be made under his official seal, if he is
by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate
shall so state.2

Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the

document in question, notaries public would be unable to verify the
genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to
ascertain that the document is the party’s free act or
deed.3 Furthermore, notaries public are required by the Notarial Law
to certify that the party to the instrument has acknowledged and
presented before the notaries public the proper residence certificate (or
exemption from the residence certificate) and to enter its number,
place, and date of issue as part of certification.4 Rule II, Sec. 12 of
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice5 now requires a party to the
instrument to present competent evidence of identity. Sec. 12
provides:

Sec. 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, such as but not limited to, passport, driver’s
license, Professional Regulations Commission ID,
National Bureau of Investigation clearance, police
clearance, postal ID, voter’s ID, Barangay certification,
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) e-card,
Social Security System (SSS) card, Philhealth card, senior
citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration
(OWWA) ID, OFW ID, seaman’s book, alien certificate of
registration/immigrant certificate of registration,
government office ID, certificate from the National
Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons (NCWDP),
Department of Social Welfare and Development
certification [as amended by A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC dated
February 19, 2008]; 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.

One last note. Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated

to discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, such duties being
dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. It must
be remembered that notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act,
for notarization converts a private document to a public instrument,
making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary
proof of its authenticity and due execution.6 A notarized document is
by law entitled to full credit upon its face and it is for this reason that
notaries public must observe the basic requirements in notarizing
documents. Otherwise, the confidence of the public on notorized
documents will be eroded.

WHEREFORE, for breach of the Notarial Law, the notarial

commission of respondent Atty. Jose R. Dimaano, Jr., if still existing,
is REVOKED. He is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as
notary public for a period of two (2) years and SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon receipt
of a copy of this Decision, with WARNING that a repetition of the
same negligent act shall be dealt with more severely.

Let all the courts, through the Office of the Court Administrator, as
well as the IBP and the Office of the Bar Confidant, be notified of this
Decision and be it entered into respondent’s personal record.

SO ORDERED.