21. Reyes v.

Gaa AM 1048 1995

Facts: A complaint for extortion was filed against Atty. Salvador Gaa. Thereafter, an entrapment was
conducted and the respondent's hands were found positive of the yellow florescent powder applied to the
marked money. Atty. Gaa denied the charge of extortion and retorted that the marked money was planted
by complainant but such contention is bereft of merit. Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) recommended that respondent be disbarred. Said recommendation was approved by the
IBP Board of Governors in its resolution.

Dispositive portion: The respondent is disbarred and his name is ordered stricken off from the Roll of
Attorneys.

Doctrine: When the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he denies the
charges; he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him and must show proof that he still
maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of him. Where the
misconduct of a lawyer as a government official is of such a character as to affect his qualification as a
lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a member of the bar on such
grounds 

The extortion committed by respondent constitutes misconduct as a public official, which also constitutes
a violation of his oath as a lawyer. The lawyer's oath imposes upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man
for money or malice. It serves as a source of his obligations and its violation is a ground for his
suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action.

22. Nadayag v. Grageda AC 3232 1994

Facts: Nadayag charged respondent Atty. A. Grageda, a practicing attorney and notary public in Iligan
City, with conduct unbecoming of a lawyer in connection with a "Pacto de Retro" transaction wherein
complainant was the vendee. In the complainant’s affidavit, it was alleged that Atty.Grageda prepared and
notarized a pacto de retro sale with Nadayag as the Vendee-a-Retro  using an Original Certificate of Land
Title stolen from the Office of the Register of Deeds as a result of which the complainant was swindled in
the amount of One hundred eight thousand pesos (P108,000.00) because the said land sold to her
by pacto de Retro was already sold ahead of time to another party, using the owner's duplicate copy of
the title. When the matter was brought to Atty. Jose A. Grageda, he simply answered that the title was all
right and that he told the complainant not to worry as he is an attorney and besides he knew very well
the Vendor-a- Retro whose business transactions, especially notarial matter, has been and in fact always
handled by him.

Dispositive portion: Accordingly, and as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, the Court
Resolved to SUSPEND respondent Atty. Jose A. Grageda from the practice of law for a period of three
(3) months commencing from receipt of this Resolution, with the warning that a repetition of the same or
any other misconduct will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this Resolution be spread on the
records of said respondent, with copies thereof furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and duly
circularized to all courts.

Doctrine: 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. Generally speaking, 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. To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to
lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the profession.

Generally, a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or
private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity, and good
demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. (Marcelo vs. Javier, Sr., supra).

In the case at bar, respondent should have been conscientious in seeing to it that justice permeated every
aspect of a transaction for which his services had been engaged, in conformity with the avowed duties of
a worthy member of the Bar. He should have fully explained the legal intricacies and consequences of the
subject transaction as would aid the parties in making an informed decision. Such responsibility was
plainly incumbent upon him, and failing therein, he must now face the commensurate consequences of his
professional indiscretion. After all, notarization is not an empty routine. Notarization of a private
document converts such document into a public one and renders it admissible in court without further
proof of its authenticity.

23. Nunga v. Viray AC 4758 1999

Facts: Victor D. Nunga, president of the Masantol Rural Bank filed a complaint for disbarment against
Atty. Venancio M. Viray on the ground of gross and serious misconduct for notarizing documents when
he was not commissioned to do so at the time the said documents were executed, including the Absolute
Deed of Sale of a foreclosed lot to his 18-year old son. Respondent alleged that he was always
commissioned as notary public and the fact that Pampanga is under several feet of floodwaters.
Certification issued by the Clerk of Court of Pampanga negated respondent’s allegation that he [had been]
commissioned as notary public since 1965. The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP Board of
Governors recommended that if respondent is presently commissioned as notary public, the same should
be revoked, and [he should] not be granted any commission as notary public up to December 31, 2002.

Dispositive portion: The Court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of Investigating
Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro, which the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
adopted and approved, but MODIFIES the penalty recommended by the said Board of Governors. As
modified, respondent ATTY. VENANCIO VIRAY is hereby BARRED from being commissioned as
notary public for THREE (3) years and his present commission, if any, is revoked, and SUSPENDED
from the practice of law also for THREE (3) years, effective upon receipt of a copy of this
Resolution.1âwphi1.nêt

Doctrine: By such misconduct as a notary public, the lawyer violated 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.

What aggravated respondent’s unlawful notarization in 1987 was the fact that the transaction involved
was in favor of his son, who was then only eighteen years old and, therefore, a minor.  Under Article 402
of the Civil Code, which was the governing law as of 22 May 1987 when the said transaction was made,
the age of majority was twenty-one years. Republic Act No. 6809, which reduced the age of majority to
eighteen years was approved only on 13 December 1989 and became effective two weeks after
publication in two newspapers of general circulation.

24. Villarin, et al. v. Sabate, Jr. AC 3324 2000

Facts: Atty. Restituto Sabate was a counsel in a case defending his clients, in the verification it shows
that he was the one who signed for the defendants, alleging that it was done in good faith and the word
“BY” which suggests that he did not in any manner make it appear that those persons signed in his
presence; aside from the fact that his clients authorized him to sign for and in their behalf, considering the
distance of their place of residence to that of the respondent and the reglementary period in filing said
pleadings he had to reckon with.

Dispositive portion: For lack of diligence in the observance of the Notarial Law, respondent Atty.
Restituto Sabate, Jr. is SUSPENDED from his Commission as Notary Public for a period of one (1) year.

Doctrine: 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 acts of affiants cannot
be delegated to anyone for what are stated therein are facts they have personal knowledge of and swore to
the same personally and not through any representative. Otherwise, their representative’s names should
appear in the said documents as the ones who executed the same and that is only the time they can affix
their signatures and personally appear before the notary public for notarization of said document.

As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent is mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties
pertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy impressed with public interest.
Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgement or jurat
is sacrosanct. Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent upon and failing therein, he must now accept
the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion.

25. Isenhardt v. Real AC 8254 2012

Facts: Atty. Real executed a Special Power Attorney (SPA) authorizing the complainant's brother to
mortgage her real property located in Antipolo City.  Complainant averred that she never appeared before
respondent.  She maintained that it was impossible for her to subscribe to the questioned document in the
presence of respondent. Complainant submitted that because of respondent's act, the property subject of
the SPA was mortgaged and later foreclosed by the Rural Bank of Antipolo City.

Dispositive portion: The notarial commission of respondent Atty. Leonardo M. Real is hereby
REVOKED. He is disqualified from reappointment 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 immediately. He is
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

Doctrine: The duties of a notary public is dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.It
is not a meaningless ministerial act of acknowledging documents executed by parties who are willing to
pay the fees for notarization. It is of no moment that the subject SPA was not utilized by the grantee for
the purpose it was intended because the property was allegedly transferred from complainant to her
brother by virtue of a deed of sale consummated between them. What is being penalized is respondent’s
act of notarizing a document despite the absence of one of the parties. By notarizing the questioned
document, he engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. 17 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 in notarized documents
will be undermined

26. Agbulos v. Viray AC 7350 2013

Facts: A complaint was filed before the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) by complainant Mrs.
Patrocinio V. Agbulos against respondent Atty. Roseller A. Viray for allegedly notarizing a document
denominated as Affidavit of Non-Tenancy in violation of the Notarial Law. The said affidavit was
supposedly executed by complainant, but the latter denies said execution and claims that the signature and
the community tax certificate (CTC) she allegedly presented are not hers. She further claims that the CTC
belongs to a certain Christian Anton. Complainant added that she did not personally appear before
respondent for the notarization of the document. She, likewise, states that respondent's client, Rolando
Dollente (Dollente), benefited from the said falsified affidavit as it contributed to the illegal transfer of a
property registered in her name to that of Dollente. In his Comment, respondent admitted having prepared
and notarized the document in question at the request of his client Dollente, who assured him that it was
personally signed by complainant and that the CTC appearing therein is owned by her. He, thus, claims
good faith in notarizing the subject document.

Dispositive portion: The Court finds respondent Atty. Roseller A. Viray GUILTY of breach of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the
Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one (1) year; REVOKES his incumbent commission,
if any; and PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years, effective
immediately. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with
more severely.

Doctrine: Notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but one invested with substantive
public interest. The notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document,
making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarized document is, by
law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this reason that a notary public must observe
with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties; otherwise, the publics
confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined.

Respondent’s failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only damage to those directly
affected by the notarized document but also in undermining the integrity of a notary public and in
degrading the function of notarization. He should, thus, be held liable for such negligence not only as a
notary public but also as a lawyer. The responsibility to faithfully observe and respect the legal solemnity
of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is more pronounced when the notary public is a lawyer
because of his solemn oath under the Code of Professional Responsibility to obey the laws and to do no
falsehood or consent to the doing of any. 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.

27. Flores v. Chua AC 4500 1999

Facts: Complainant Ban Hua U. Flores seeks the disbarment of respondent Atty. Enrique S. Chua, a
practicing lawyer and a notary public, in the City of Bacolod for various offenses amounting to
"malpractice, gross misconduct, violation of his lawyer's oath, the Code of Professional Conduct and
Responsibility, as well as the provisions of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. This involves
forgery of the signature on a Deed of Sale notarized by respondent Chua, misrepresentation, unlawful
advertisement, bribery and corruption, illegal tapping of conversations, perjury, forum shopping, and
filing a false suit misleading the clerk of court in order to evade the patment of docket fees.

Dispositive portion: Atty. Chua is guilty of grave misconduct rendering him unworthy of continuing
membership in the legal profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law and his
name stricken off of the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.

Doctrine: The role then of the notary public in this ritual cannot be taken lightly. Where the notary public
is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey the
laws and to do no falsehood or consent tot he doing of any. The Code of Professional Responsibility also
commands him not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and to uphold at all
times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. In Maligsa v. Cabanting, it is emphatically
pronounced that:

As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent is mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties
appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy impressed with public interest.
Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is
sacrosanct. Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent upon and failing therein, he must now accept the
commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion. By his effrontery of notarizing a fictitious or
spurious document, he has made a mockery of the legal solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment.

28. Imson-Souwelha v. Rondez AC 3961 1997

Facts: Complainant Souweha charged respondent Atty. Rondez of being a privy, or instrumental, in the
forgery of her signature appearing in the Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of her deceased parents
purportedly agreed upon by her father's (Anastacio Imson) two sets of children with his first and second
wives. She claimed that she could not have signed (nor has she authorized anybody to sign in her behalf)
said agreement as she was in the United States. Complainant Souweha thus accused respondent Atty.
Rondez, in having notarized the extrajudicial settlement despite her absence, of failing in his legal duties
and responsibilities and violating his lawyer's oath, by (1) causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; (2) attributing to persons
who have participated in any act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them; and (3)
making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.
Dispositive portion: The administrative case filed against respondent Atty. Teopisto Rondez is
DISMISSED.

Doctrine: The present case is a typical example of a practising lawyer whose family friends and at the
same time clients succumbed to a serious family feuds and litigations over the bounty which they
inherited from their predecessors. As a consequence of which the lawyer is caught between the cross-fire
of the factions that led to the filing of an administrative case against him under the belief that the problem
arose out of the fault of him. If respondent is to be faulted at all, it is simply because of his complete trust
and confidence on his clients whom the respondent never suspected would commit the grievous scheme
of misrepresenting themselves as the representatives of the complainant in the matter of the settlement
deed. The penalty of reprimand was imposed on respondent not on the basis of the acts complained of by
complainant involved in this case, but on account of the motu proprio finding of the investigating
commissioner that respondent is guilty of having represented the conflicting interests of the late
Anastacio Imson's two sets of children. This cannot be done without seriously violating the very
fundamental and constitutionally protected right of a person to be informed of the nature of the charge for
which he is being held accountable.

29. In re: Terrell GR 1203 1903 / 2 Phil. 266

Facts: Howard D. Terrell, an attorney-at-law, was ordered to show cause in the Court of First Instance, in
the city of Manila, why he should not be suspended as a member of the bar of the city of Manila for the
reasons:
First, that he had assisted in the organization of the "Centro Bellas Artes" Club, after he had been notified
that the said organization was made for the purpose of evading the law then in force in said city; and,
Secondly, for acting as attorney for said "Centro Bellas Artes" during the time of and after its
organization, which organization was known to him to be created for the purpose of evading the law.
Dispositive portion: It is directed that Atty. Howard D. Terrell be suspended from the practice of law for
a term of one year

Doctrine:

The promoting of organizations, with knowledge of their objects, for the purpose of violating or evading
the laws against crime constitutes such misconduct on the part of an attorney, an officer of the court, as
amounts to malpractice or gross misconduct in his office, and for which he may be removed or
suspended. (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 21.) The assisting of a client in a scheme which the attorney
knows to be dishonest, or the conniving at a violation of law, are acts which justify disbarment.
In this case, however, inasmuch as the defendant in the case of United States vs. Terrell was acquitted on
the charge of estafa, and has not, therefore, been convicted of crime, and as the acts with which he is
charged in this proceeding, while unprofessional and hence to be condemned, are not criminal in their
nature, we are of opinion that the ends of justice will be served by the suspension of said Howard D.
Terrell from the practice of law in the Philippine Islands for the term of one year from the 7th day of
February, 1903.

30. Donton v. Tansingco AC 6057 2006

Facts: The petitioner filed a criminal complaint for estafa thru falsification of a public document against
Duane O. Stier Emelyn A. Maggay and respondent, as the notary public who notarized the Occupancy
Agreement. Complainant averred that respondent's act of preparing the Occupancy Agreement, despite
knowledge that Stier, being a foreign national, is disqualified to own real property in his name, constitutes
serious misconduct and is a deliberate violation of the Code. Complainant prayed that respondent be
disbarred for advising Stier to do something in violation of Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and assisting Stier in carrying out a dishonest scheme.

Dispositive portion: Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco GUILTY of violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent Atty. Emmanuel O.
Tansingco from the practice of law for SIX MONTHS effective upon finality of this Decision.

Doctrine: A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client which will involve defiance
of the laws which he is bound to uphold and obey. 9 A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or
who connives in violating the law commits an act which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer.