1
FIRST DIVISION document was incompletely dated and yet notarized by
A.C. No. 7184               September 17, 2014
FELIPE B. ALMAZAN, SR., Complainant,
vs. ATTY. MARCELO B. SUERTE-FELIPE, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
This is an administrative case against respondent Atty. Marcelo
B. Suerte-Felipe (respondent) for malpractice as a notary public,
among others.
The Facts
In a Complaint1 dated April 27, 2006, complainant Felipe B.
Almazan, Sr. (complainant) charged respondent, previously of
the Public Attorney's Office,2 for malpractice and gross
negligence in the performance of his duty as a notary public
and/or lawyer, alleging that the latter, despite not having been
registered as a notary public for the City of Marikina, notarized
the acknowledgment of the document entitled "Extra judicial
Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Juliana P. Vda. De
Nieva"3 dated "25th day of 1999" (subject document), stating
that he is a "notary public for and in the City of Marikina." 4 Said
document was one of the attachments to the Amended
Complaint5 dated August 14, 2003 filed in Civil Case No. 03-
849-MK entitled "Esperanza Nieva Dela Cruz[(as represented
by respondent)] v. Brita T. Llantada[(as represented by
complainant)]." To prove his claim, complainant attached a
Certification6 dated May 26, 2005 issued by the Office of the
Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina
City, certifying that per the court’s record, respondent is not a
commissioned notary public for the Cityof Marikina from March
30, 1994 to the date of issuance. In a Resolution7 dated July 5,
2006, the Court required respondent to file his Comment8 which
he eventually submitted on February 13, 2007 after proper
service. In said pleading, respondent admitted that he indeed
notarized the acknowledgment of the subject document but
denied that he was not commissioned as a notary public at that
time.9 To prove his defense, he attached a Certification 10 dated
August 23, 2006 issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court of
the RTC of Pasig City, certifying the fact of his appointment as
notary public for the City of Pasigand in the Municipalities of
Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and Mandaluyong for the years 1998-
1999 under Appointment No. 98.11 Further, respondent, thru the
comment, incorporated his own administrative complaint against
complainant for malpractice and harassment of a fellow lawyer
in view of the filing of the instant administrative case against
him.12
In response, complainant filed a Reply13 dated April 26, 2007
asserting that he has the legitimate rightto file the administrative
complaint against respondent for his unlawful act of
notarization, which is not an act of harassment as respondent
claims. He alsodraws attention to the fact that the subject
As the Investigating Commissioner correctly observed,
respondent.14 In a Resolution15 dated July 11, 2007, the
Court,inter alia, referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
Eventually, both parties appeared during the mandatory
conference held on April 30, 2008.16
The Report and Recommendation of the IBP
In a Report and Recommendation17 dated September 22, 2008,
the IBP Investigating Commissioner foundrespondent guilty for
violating the Notarial Law and the lawyer’s oath, reasoning that
he could not notarize the acknowledgment of the subject
document inMarikina City as it was outside the territorial limits
of his jurisdiction. To this end, the Investigating Commissioner
pointed out that in the acknowledgment of the subject document,
it was categorically stated that respondent is a notary public for
and in the City of Marikina, Province ofRizal, of which he was
not, hence, violating the Notarial Law. Moreover,respondent
likewise violated the lawyer’s oath, specifically its mandate for
lawyers, to obey the laws and do no falsehood.18
In view of the foregoing, it was thus recommended that
respondent be suspended for a period of two (2) years from the
practice of law. However, since it does not appear that he was
still commissioned as a notary public, the Investigating
Commissioner did not recommend that he be disqualified as
such.19
In a Resolution20 dated October 9, 2008, the IBP Board of
Governors adopted and approved the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner with
modification, decreasing the penalty of suspension to one (1)
year, with immediate revocation of notarial commission if
presently commissioned, and disqualification from being
commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.
On reconsideration,21 the IBP Board of Governors, in a
Resolution22 dated March 8, 2014, modifiedthe penalty stated in
its previous resolution, imposing, instead, the penalty
ofreprimand with warning, and disqualification from being
commissioned as a notary public for the decreased period of one
(1) year.
The Issue Before the Court
The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent
should be held administratively liable.
The Court’s Ruling
The Court concurs with the findings of the IBP except as to the
penalty.
respondent, who himself admitted that he was commissioned as
notary public only in the City of Pasig and the Municipalities of
Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and Mandaluyong for the years 1998-
1999, could not notarize the subject document’s
acknowledgment in the City ofMarikina, as said notarial act is
beyond the jurisdiction of the commissioning court, i.e.,the RTC
of Pasig. The territorial limitation of a notary public’s
jurisdiction is crystal clear from Section 11, Rule III of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice:23 Sec. 11. Jurisdiction and Term– A
person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts
in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the
commissioning courtfor a period of two (2) years commencing
the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning
court is made, unless either revoked or the notary public has
resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court. (Emphasis
supplied)
Said principle is equally echoed in the Notarial Law found in
Chapter 12, Book V, Volume I of the Revised Administrative
Code of 1917, as amended,24 of which Section 240, Article II
states:
Sec. 240. Territorial jurisdiction. – The jurisdiction of a notary
public in a province shall be co-extensive with the province. The
jurisdiction of a notary public in the City of Manila shall be co-
extensive with said city. No notary shall possess authority to
doany notarial act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction.
(Emphases supplied)
For misrepresenting in the said acknowledgment that he was a
notary public for and in the City of Marikina, when it is apparent
and, in fact, uncontroverted that he was not, respondent further
committed a form of falsehood which is undoubtedly
anathemato the lawyer’s oath. Perceptibly, said transgression
also runs afoul of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides that "[a] lawyer shall
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct."
In the case of Tan Tiong Bio v. Atty. Gonzales, 25 citing Nunga
v. Atty. Viray,26 the Court instructively expounded on
infractions similar to that of respondent:
While seemingly appearing to be a harmless incident,
respondent’s act of notarizing documents in a place outside of or
beyond the authority granted by his notarial commission,
partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. While perhaps
not on all fours because of the slight dissimilarity inthe violation
involved, what the Court said in Nunga v. Virayis very much

apropos: 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 todo so, the offender may be
subjected to disciplinary action. For 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. Then, too,
by making it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is
not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in
deliberate false hood, 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."
It cannot be over-emphasized that notarization isnot an empty,
meaningless, routinary act. Far from it. Notarization is invested
with substantive public interest, such that only those who are
qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Hence, the
requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public
are treated with a formality definitely more than
casual.27 (Emphases supplied)
With respondent’s liability herein established, and considering
further the attendant circumstances of this case, take for
instance, that he is a first time offender and that he had already
acknowledged his wrongdoings,28 the Court finds that
suspension for a period of six (6) months29 from the practice of
law would suffice as a penalty. In addition, he is disqualified
from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of one
(1) year and, his notarial commission, if currently existing, is
hereby revoked.30
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe is
found GUILTY of malpractice as a notary public,and violating
the lawyer’s oath as well as Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, effective
upon his receipt of this Resolution, with a STERN WARNING
that a repetition of the same orsimilar acts will be dealt with
more severely. He is likewise DISQUALIFIED from being
commissioned as a notary public for a period of one (1) year and
his notarial commission, if currently existing, is hereby
REVOKED.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant, to be appended to respondent's personal record as
attorney. Further, let copies of this Resolution be furnished the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court
Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all the
courts in the country for their information and guidance.
2
SO ORDERED.
EN BANC
A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC, January 21, 2015
RE: VIOLATION OF RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This case stemmed from three (3) letter-complaints for Violation
of Rules on Notarial Practice endorsed to the Office of the Bar
Confidant (OBC) for appropriate action. The first letter-
complaint,1 dated March 2, 2009, was filed by the commissioned
notaries public within and for the jurisdiction of Lingayen,
Pangasinan, namely, Atty. Butch Cardinal Torio, Atty. Nepthalie
Pasiliao, Atty. Dominique Evangelista, and Atty. Elizabeth C.
Tugade (complainants) before the Executive Judge of the
Regional Trial Court, Lingayen, Pangasinan (RTC-Lingayen)
against Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. (Atty. Siapno) for notarizing
documents without a commission.
In their letter, complainants alleged that Atty. Siapno was
maintaining a notarial office along Alvear Street East, Lingayen,
Pangasinan, and was performing notarial acts and practices in
Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City without the requisite
notarial commission. They asserted that Atty. Siapno was never
commissioned as Notary Public for and within the jurisdiction of
Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City. Instead, he applied and
was commissioned to perform notarial functions by Executive
Judge Anthony Sison of the RTC, San Carlos City, Pangasinan
from March 22, 2007 to December 31, 2008. His notarial
commission, however, was never renewed upon expiration.
Complainants presented evidence supporting their allegations
such as the pictures of Atty. Siapno’s law office in Lingayen,
Pangasinan; and documents to prove that Atty. Siapno
performed acts of notarization in Lingayen, Natividad and
Dagupan City, to wit: (1) Addendum to Loan and Mortgage
Agreement2 showing that the Promissory Note was notarized
before Atty. Siapno in Lingayen, Pangasinan in 2007; (2) Deed
of Absolute Sale,3 dated January 24, 2008, notarized in
Natividad, Pangasinan; (3) Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested
Persons Re: Given Name and Date of Birth,4 dated January 6,
2009, notarized in Dagupan City; and (4) Acknowledgement of
Debt,5 dated January 24, 2008, notarized in Dagupan City.
Complainants also averred that Atty. Siapno had delegated his
notarial authority to his secretaries, Mina Bautista (Bautista) and
Mary Ann Arenas (Arenas), who wrote legal instruments and
signed the documents on his behalf.
On March 17, 2009, the RTC-Lingayen forwarded the said
letter-complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA)6 which, in turn, indorsed the same to the OBC.
The second letter-complaint7 was filed by Audy B. Espelita
(Espelita) against Atty. Pedro L. Santos (Atty. Santos). It alleged
that in 2008, Espelita lost his driver’s license and he executed an
affidavit of loss which was notarized by Atty. Santos. The said
affidavit, however, was denied for authentication when
presented before the Notarial Section in Manila because Atty.
Santos was not commissioned to perform notarial commission
within the City of Manila.
The third letter-complaint8 came from a concerned citizen
reporting that a certain Atty. Evelyn who was holding office at
Room 402 Leyba Bldg., 381 Dasmariñas Street, Sta. Cruz,
Manila, had been notarizing and signing documents for and on
behalf of several lawyers.
In its Resolution,9 dated June 9, 2009, the Court directed the
Executive Judge of the RTC-Lingayen to conduct a formal
investigation on the complaint against Atty. Siapno and
Executive Judge Reynaldo G. Ros (Judge Ros) of the RTC-
Manila to conduct a formal investigation on the alleged violation
of the Notarial Law by Atty. Santos, and the illegal activities of
a certain Atty. Evelyn, and thereafter, to submit a report and
recommendation thereon.
Re: Complaint against Atty. Siapno
With regard to the complaint against Atty. Siapno, the Executive
Judge conducted a hearing wherein the complainants affirmed
the allegations in their letter-complaint. For his part, Atty.
Siapno denied the accusations and averred that the law office in
Lingayen, Pangasinan, was not his and that Bautista and Arenas
were not his secretaries.10
In her Report and Recommendation,11 the Executive Judge
found that Atty. Siapno was issued a notarial commission within
the jurisdiction of Lingayen, Pangasinan, from January 20, 2003
to December 31, 2004 and February 8, 2005 to December 3,
2006. His commission, however, was cancelled on June 8, 2006
and he was not issued another commission thereafter. The
Executive Judge found Atty. Siapno to have violated the 2004
Rules on Notarial Commission when he performed notarial
functions without commission and recommended that he be
fined in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).
The Court agrees with the findings of the Executive Judge but
not to the recommended penalty.
A review of the records and evidence presented by complainants
shows that Atty. Siapno indeed maintained a law office in
Lingayen, Pangasinan, just beside the law office of one of the
complainants, Atty. Elizabeth Tugade. It was also proven that
Atty. Siapno notarized several instruments with an expired
notarial commission outside the territorial jurisdiction of the

commissioning court. Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice provides that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
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 is made, unless earlier revoked or the
notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of
Court.
Under the rule, only persons who are commissioned as notary
public may perform notarial acts within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court which granted the commission. Clearly,
Atty. Siapno could not perform notarial functions in Lingayen,
Natividad and Dagupan City of the Province of Pangasinan
since he was not commissioned in the said places to perform
such act.
Time and again, this Court has stressed that notarization is not
an empty, meaningless and routine act. It is invested with
substantive public interest that only those who are qualified or
authorized may act as notaries public.12 It must be emphasized
that the act of notarization by a notary public converts a private
document into a public document making that document
admissible in evidence without further proof of 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
utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their
duties.
By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission
from the court, Atty. Siapno violated not only his oath to obey
the laws particularly the Rules on Notarial Practice but also
Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which proscribes all lawyers from engaging in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and directs them to
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, at all
times.13
In a plethora of cases, the Court has subjected lawyers to
disciplinary action for notarizing documents outside their
territorial jurisdiction or with an expired commission. In the case
of Nunga v. Viray,14 a lawyer was suspended by the Court for
three (3) years for notarizing an instrument without a
commission. In Zoreta v. Simpliciano,15 the respondent was
likewise suspended from the practice of law for a period of two
(2) years and was permanently barred from being commissioned
as a notary public for notarizing several documents after the
expiration of his commission. In the more recent case
of Laquindanum v. Quintana,16 the Court suspended a lawyer for
six (6) months and was disqualified from being commissioned
as notary public for a period of two (2) years because he
notarized documents outside the area of his commission, and
3
with an expired commission.
Considering that Atty. Siapno has been proven to have
performed notarial work in Ligayen, Natividad and Dagupan
City in the province of Pangasinan without the requisite
commission, the Court finds the recommended penalty
insufficient. Instead, Atty. Siapno must be barred from being
commissioned as notary public permanently and suspended from
the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.
Re: Complaints against Atty. Santos and Atty. Evelyn
In a letter,17 dated July 29, 2013, Judge Ros informed the Court
that he could not have complied with the June 9, 2009 and
August 4, 2009 orders of the Court because he was no longer the
Executive Judge of the RTC-Manila at that time. To date, no
formal investigation has been conducted on the alleged violation
of Atty. Santos and the reported illegal activities of a certain
Atty. Evelyn.
With respect to the complaints against Atty. Santos and a certain
Atty. Evelyn, the Clerk of Court is ordered to RE-DOCKET the
same as separate administrative cases.
The incumbent Executive Judge of the RTC-Manila, whether
permanent or in acting capacity, is ordered to conduct a formal
investigation on the matter and to submit his Report and
Recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of copy of
this decision.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years
and BARRED PERMANENTLY from being commissioned as
Notary Public, effective upon his receipt of a copy of this
decision.
Let copies of this decision be furnished all the courts of the land
through the Office of the Court Administrator, the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant, and be
recorded in the personal files of the respondent.
With respect to the complaints against Atty. Pedro L. Santos and
a certain Atty. Evelyn, the Clerk of Court is ordered to RE-
DOCKET them as separate administrative cases. The Executive
Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Manila, is ordered to conduct
a formal investigation on the matter and to submit his Report
and Recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of a
copy of this decision.
SO ORDERED.
EN BANC
A.C. No. 7036               June 29, 2009
JUDGE LILY LYDIA A. LAQUINDANUM, Complainant,
vs. ATTY. NESTOR Q. QUINTANA, Respondent.
DECISION
PUNO, CJ.:
This administrative case against Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana (Atty.
Quintana) stemmed from a letter1 addressed to the Court filed by
Executive Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum (Judge
Laquindanum) of the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap,
Cotabato requesting that proper disciplinary action be imposed
on him for performing notarial functions in Midsayap, Cotabato,
which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning
court that issued his notarial commission, and for allowing his
wife to do notarial acts in his absence.
In her letter, Judge Laquindanum alleged that pursuant to A.M.
No. 03-8-02-SC, executive judges are required to closely
monitor the activities of notaries public within the territorial
bounds of their jurisdiction and to see to it that notaries public
shall not extend notarial functions beyond the limits of their
authority. Hence, she wrote a letter2 to Atty. Quintana directing
him to stop notarizing documents within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Cotabato
(which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the
commissioning court that issued his notarial commission for
Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao) since certain
documents3 notarized by him had been reaching her office.
However, despite such directive, respondent continuously
performed notarial functions in Midsayap, Cotabato as
evidenced by: (1) the Affidavit of Loss of ATM Card4 executed
by Kristine C. Guro; and (2) the Affidavit of Loss of Driver’s
License5 executed by Elenita D. Ballentes.
Under Sec. 11, Rule III6 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,
Atty. Quintana could not extend his notarial acts beyond
Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao because
Midsayap, Cotabato is not part of Cotabato City or the Province
of Maguindanao. Midsayap is part of the Province of Cotabato.
The City within the province of Cotabato is Kidapawan City,
and not Cotabato City.
Judge Laquindanum also alleged that, upon further investigation
of the matter, it was discovered that it was Atty. Quintana’s wife
who performed notarial acts whenever he was out of the office
as attested to by the Joint Affidavit7 executed by Kristine C.
Guro and Elenita D. Ballentes.
In a Resolution dated February 14, 2006,8 we required Atty.
Quintana to comment on the letter of Judge Laquindanum.
In his Response,9 Atty. Quintana alleged that he filed a petition
for notarial commission before Branch 18, Regional Trial Court,

Midsayap, Cotabato. However, the same was not acted upon by
Judge Laquindanum for three weeks. He alleged that the reason
for Judge Laquindanum’s inaction was that she questioned his
affiliation with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Cotabato City Chapter, and required him to be a member of IBP
Kidapawan City Chapter and to obtain a Certification of
Payments from the latter chapter. Because of this, he opted to
withdraw his petition. After he withdrew his petition, he claimed
that Judge Laquindanum sent a clerk from her office to ask him
to return his petition, but he did not oblige because at that time
he already had a Commission for Notary Public10 issued by
Executive Judge Reno E. Concha of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 14, Cotabato City.
Atty. Quintana lamented that he was singled out by Judge
Laquindanum, because the latter immediately issued notarial
commissions to other lawyers without asking for so many
requirements. However, when it came to him, Judge
Laquindanum even tracked down all his pleadings;
communicated with his clients; and disseminated information
through letters, pronouncements, and directives to court clerks
and other lawyers to humiliate him and be ostracized by fellow
lawyers.
Atty. Quintana argued that he subscribed documents in his office
at Midsayap, Cotabato; and Midsayap is part of the Province of
Cotabato. He contended that he did not violate any provision of
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, because he was equipped
with a notarial commission. He maintained that he did not act
outside the province of Cotabato since Midsayap, Cotabato,
where he practices his legal profession and subscribes
documents, is part of the province of Cotabato. He claimed that
as a lawyer of good moral standing, he could practice his legal
profession in the entire Philippines.
Atty. Quintana further argued that Judge Laquindanum had no
authority to issue such directive, because only Executive Judge
Reno E. Concha, who issued his notarial commission, and the
Supreme Court could prohibit him from notarizing in the
Province of Cotabato.
In a Resolution dated March 21, 2006,11 we referred this case to
the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for investigation, report
and recommendation.
12
In the February 28, 2007 Hearing  before the OBC presided by
Atty. Ma. Crisitina B. Layusa (Hearing Officer), Judge
Laquindanum presented a Deed of Donation,13 which was
notarized by Atty. Quintana in 2004.14 Honorata Rosil appears as
one of the signatories of the document as the donor’s wife.
4
However, Honorata Rosil died on March 12, 2003, as shown by
the Certificate of Death15 issued by the Civil Registrar of
Ibohon, Cotabato.
Judge Laquindanum testified that Atty. Quintana continued to
notarize documents in the years 2006 to 2007 despite the fact
that his commission as notary public for and in the Province of
Maguindanao and Cotabato City had already expired on
December 31, 2005, and he had not renewed the same. 16 To
support her claim, Judge Laquindanum presented the following:
(1) Affidavit of Loss [of] Title17 executed by Betty G. Granada
with subscription dated April 8, 2006 at Cotabato City; (2)
Certificate of Candidacy18 of Mr. Elias Diosanta Arabis with
subscription dated July 18, 2006; (3) Affidavit of Loss [of]
Driver’s License19 executed by Anecito C. Bernabe with
subscription dated February 20, 2007 at Midsayap, Cotabato;
and (4) Affidavit of Loss20 executed by Santos V. Magbanua
with subscription dated February 22, 2007 at Midsayap,
Cotabato.
For his part, Atty. Quintana admitted that all the signatures
appearing in the documents marked as exhibits of Judge
Laquindanum were his except for the following: (1) Affidavit of
Loss of ATM Card21 executed by Kristine C. Guro; and (2)
Affidavit of Loss of Driver’s License22 executed by Elenita D.
Ballentes; and (3) Affidavit of Loss23 executed by Santos V.
Magbanua. He explained that those documents were signed by
his wife and were the result of an entrapment operation of Judge
Laquindanum: to let somebody bring and have them notarized
by his wife, when they knew that his wife is not a lawyer. He
also denied the he authorized his wife to notarize documents.
According to him, he slapped his wife and told her to stop doing
it as it would ruin his profession.
Atty. Quintana also claimed that Judge Laquindanum did not act
on his petition, because he did not comply with her requirements
for him to transfer his membership to the Kidapawan Chapter,
wherein her sister, Atty. Aglepa, is the IBP President.
On the one hand, Judge Laquindanum explained that she was
only performing her responsibility and had nothing against Atty.
Quintana. The reason why she did not act on his petition was
that he had not paid his IBP dues,24 which is a requirement
before a notarial commission may be granted. She told his wife
to secure a certification of payment from the IBP, but she did
not return.
This was denied by Atty. Quintana, who claimed that he
enclosed in his Response the certification of good standing and
payments of his IBP dues. However, when the same was
examined, there were no documents attached thereto. Due to
oversight, Atty. Quintana prayed that he be given time to send
them later which was granted by the Hearing Officer.
Finally, Atty. Quintana asked for forgiveness for what he had
done and promised not to repeat the same. He also asked that he
be given another chance and not be divested of his privilege to
notarize, as it was the only bread and butter of his family.
On March 5, 2007, Atty. Quintana submitted to the OBC the
documents25 issued by the IBP Cotabato City Chapter to prove
that he had paid his IBP dues.
In a Manifestation26 dated March 9, 2007, Judge Laquindanum
submitted a Certification27 and its entries show that Atty.
Quintana paid his IBP dues for the year 2005 only on January 9,
2006 per Official Receipt (O.R.) No. 610381. Likewise, the
arrears of his IBP dues for the years 1993, 1995, 1996, and 1998
to 2003 were also paid only on January 9, 2006 per O.R. No.
610387. Hence, when he filed his petition for notarial
commission in 2004, he had not yet completely paid his IBP
dues.
In its Report and Recommendation,28 the OBC recommended
that Atty. Quintana be disqualified from being appointed as a
notary public for two (2) years; and that if his notarial
commission still exists, the same should be revoked for two (2)
years. The OBC found the defenses and arguments raised by
Atty. Quintana to be without merit, viz:
Apparently, respondent has extended his notarial acts in
Midsayap and Kabacan, Cotabato, which is already outside his
territorial jurisdiction to perform as Notary Public.
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.
Under the rule[,] respondent may perform his notarial acts
within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning
Executive Judge Concha, which is in Cotabato City and the
[P]rovince of Maguindanao only. But definitely he cannot
extend his commission as notary public in Midsayap or Kabacan
and in any place of the province of Cotabato as he is not

commissioned thereat to do such act. Midsayap and Kabacan are
not part of either Cotabato City or [P]rovince of Maguindanao
but part of the province of North Cotabato. Thus, the claim of
respondent that he can exercise his notarial commission in
Midsayap, Cotabato because Cotabato City is part of the
province of Cotabato is absolutely devoid of merit. xxxx
Further, evidence on record also shows that there are several
documents which the respondent’s wife has herself notarized.
Respondent justifies that he cannot be blamed for the act of his
wife as he did not authorize the latter to notarize documents in
his absence. According to him[,] he even scolded and told his
wife not to do it anymore as it would affect his profession.
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"
A person who is commissioned as a notary public takes full
responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register.
Respondent cannot take refuge claiming that it was his wife’s
act and that he did not authorize his wife to notarize documents.
He is personally accountable for the activities in his office as
well as the acts of his personnel including his wife, who acts as
his secretary.
Likewise, evidence reveals that respondent notarized in 2004 a
Deed of Donation (Rollo, p. 79) wherein, (sic) Honorata Rosel
(Honorata Rosil) one of the affiants therein, was already dead at
the time of notarization as shown in a Certificate of Death
(Rollo, p.80) issued by the Civil Registrar General of Libungan,
Cotabato.
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. xxxx
5
Furthermore, respondent claims that he, being a lawyer in good
standing, has the right to practice his profession including
notarial acts in the entire Philippines. This statement is barren of
merit.
While it is true that lawyers in good standing are allowed to
engage in the practice of law in the Philippines.(sic) However,
not every lawyer even in good standing can perform notarial
functions without having been commissioned as notary public as
specifically provided for under the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice. He must have submitted himself to the commissioning
court by filing his petition for issuance of his notarial (sic)
Notarial Practice. The commissioning court may or may not
grant the said petition if in his sound discretion the petitioner
does not meet the required qualifications for [a] Notary Public.
Since respondent herein did not submit himself to the procedural
rules for the issuance of the notarial commission, he has no
reason at all to claim that he can perform notarial act[s] in the
entire country for lack of authority to do so.
Likewise, contrary to the belief of respondent, complainant
being the commissioning court in Midsayap, Cotabato has the
authority under Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
to monitor the duties and responsibilities including liabilities, if
any, of a notary public commissioned or those performing
notarial acts without authority in her territorial jurisdiction. 29
xxxx
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.30 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.31 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,32 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.
That Atty. Quintana relies on his notarial commission as the sole
source of income for his family will not serve to lessen the
penalty that should be imposed on him. On the contrary, we feel
that he should be reminded that a notarial commission should
not be treated as a money-making venture. It is a privilege
granted only to those who are qualified to perform duties
imbued with public interest. 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.33
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.

Let a copy of this decision be entered in the personal records of
respondent as a member of the Bar, and copies furnished the Bar
Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Court
Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.
EN BANC
A.C. No. 500             September 27, 1967
TAHIMIK RAMIREZ, petitioner,
vs. ATTY. JAIME S. NER, respondent.
MAKALINTAL, J.:
This is a proceeding for disbarment.
Respondent Jaime S. Ner, a member of the Philippine Bar, is
charged with violation of his oath as lawyer and as notary public
for having notarized a deed of sale of a motor vehicle the
acknowledgment clause whereof recited falsely that both the
vendor and the vendee personally appeared before him.
The evidence shows that on April 5, 1960 respondent's office
mate and friend, Atty. Gavino Abaya, Jr. presented to him for
notarization a duly prepared and typed deed of sale of Abaya's
car. The acknowledgment clause reads:
BEFORE ME, personally appeared GAVINO ABAYA, JR. with
Residence Certificate No. A-141180 issued on January 5, 1960
at Manila and EDWARDO I. REYES with Residence Certificate
No. A-5092784 issued on February 1, 1960 at Quezon City,
known to me to be the same persons who executed the foregoing
instrument and acknowledge that the same is their free act and
deed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and
seal this 5th day of April, 1960 in the City of Manila,
Philippines.
The signatures of Abaya, as vendor, and of his witness were
duly affixed and acknowledged by them before respondent. But
the alleged vendee and another witness were not then presented.
Respondent was prevailed upon to notarize the deed on Abaya's
promise that he would not part with a single copy thereof but
would only show it to the buyer whom he promised to bring to
respondent's office the next day not only to execute and
acknowledge the document, together with another witness, but
also to pay the consideration therefor in respondent's presence.
However, in the afternoon of the same day Abaya informed
respondent that his car object of the proposed sale had been
stolen by Reyes and his companions, together with all the copies
of the notarized deed, the certificate of registration of the car,
and the certificate of tax payment. Respondent thereupon
annotated in the corresponding entry in his notarial register the
remarks "stolen and cancelled."
6
Meanwhile, on the strength of the stolen deed of sale and
certificate of registration of the motor vehicle, the supposed
vendee was able to obtain from the Cavite City branch of the
Motor Vehicles Office — now Land Transportation
Commission — a new certificate of registration in his name.
Reyes subsequently sold the car to herein petitioner, who now
claims that he bought the car in good faith, relying principally
on the apparent authenticity of the deed of sale purporting to
vest ownership of the motor vehicle in Reyes, which deed had
been notarized by respondent.
Later on a criminal information for qualified theft (Crim. Case
No. 5146-P) was filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal
against the alleged perpetrators. Included as defendants were
Reyes and Ramirez, the subsequent purchaser. Reyes was found
guilty and sentenced accordingly, while Ramirez was acquitted
on grounds of reasonable doubt.
It was during the trial of the above-mentioned criminal case that
respondent admitted having notarized the deed of sale
notwithstanding the fact that the vendee did not appear before
him, much less affixed his signature to the document in his
presence. In defense respondent maintains that his having signed
and affixed his notarial seal did not complete the act of
notarization, since it was still necessary that the vendee should
appear to sign and acknowledge the instrument. In other words,
respondent submits that in affixing his signature and notarial
seal to the instrument, which was admittedly incomplete, he did
not violate his oath as lawyer nor transgress any law so as to
warrant disciplinary action.
We believe it is unnecessary to consider respondent's contention
as to the incompleteness of the instrument. It may be true that
the subsequent unauthorized signature of the supposed vendee
did not convert the instrument into a validly notarized one. But
what is material insofar as this proceeding is concerned is the
fact that respondent did sign and affix his notarial seal on a
document which on its face and by respondent's own admission
was incomplete, certifying thereby that the vendee had
personally appeared before him and acknowledged having
executed the same. Had it not been for the notarized deed of sale
the motor vehicle could not have possibly been registered in the
name of the vendee and could not have been subsequently
conveyed by him to petitioner, who relied upon the apparent
regularity of the transaction. It was respondent's ill-advised act
which afforded an unscrupulous third party the opportunity to
consummate and give an appearance of legality to an illegal
purpose. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and
credit upon its face, and for this reason notaries public must
observe the utmost care to comply with the elementary
formalities in the performance of their duties. Otherwise the
confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of
conveyancing would be undermined.
All too often, in the name of friendship a notary public
unwittingly lends the authority of his signature and notarial seal
to an incomplete instrument. He assumes his act to be harmless,
little realizing that he may thereby facilitate the commission of
fraud by others.
We held once "that a member of the bar who performs an act as
a notary public of a disgraceful or immoral character may be
held to account by the Court even to the extent of disbarment."
(In re Rusiana, Adm. Case No. 270, May 29, 1959.) Withal, we
believe that the act committed by respondent here is not serious
enough to justify disbarment. It merely suggests lack of caution,
not culpable malpractice or immorality, and does not merit the
penalty of either suspension or disbarment.
A reprimand, as recommended by the Solicitor General, would
be sufficient to impress upon respondent the heavy
responsibility he assumes as a lawyer and as a notary public,
especially considering that he was honest enough to admit, in
the trial of the criminal case, the irregularity of the procedure he
followed.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, respondent is hereby
reprimanded and admonished to be more careful hereafter, upon
pain of being dealt with more severely by this Court.
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 225696, April 08, 2019
ATTY. BERNARDO T. CONSTANTINO, PETITIONER, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
For a notary public to be found guilty of falsifying a notarial
will, the prosecution must prove that he or she has falsified or
simulated the signatures of the testator or the instrumental
witnesses to make it appear that they participated in the
execution of the document when they did not.
This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the
January 19, 2016 Decision2 and June 9, 2016 Resolution3 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 36327. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court November 28, 2013
Judgment4 finding Atty. Bernardo T. Constantino (Atty.
Constantino) guilty of falsification of a public document under
Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
On May 27, 2008, an Information was filed against Atty.
Constantino and Teresita C. Saliganan (Saliganan), charging

them with falsification of a public document. 5 The Information
read:
That on or about September 9, 2001 in the City of Laoag,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, ATTY. BERNARDO
CONSTANTINO taking advantage of his being a notary public
for Laoag City and Ilocos Norte, together with TERESITA C.
SALIGANAN, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping
each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously cause to appear in the LAST WILL AND
TESTAMENT executed by Severino C. Cabrales in favor of the
accused TERESITA C. SALIGANAN, known as Doc. No.
15909, Page No. 71, Book No. XXXI, Series of 2001 of the
Notarial Register of Atty. BERNARDO CONSTANTINO, a
notary public for Laoag City and Province of Ilocos Norte, that
SEVERINO C. CABRALES participated in the execution of the
LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT, when in fact he did not so
participate, and making it appear that the testator Severino
Cabrales and the attesting witnesses, Dr. Eliezer Asuncion,
Mary Balintona and Dr. Justino Balintona acknowledge the Last
Will and Testament before Atty. Bernardo Constantino while in
truth they never appeared to acknowledge the same. 6
On June 13, 2008, warrants of arrest were issued against Atty.
Constantino and Saliganan. On September 24, 2008, Atty.
Constantino filed a Motion for Recognizance in Lieu of Bail as
he was unable to post the required bond of P24,000.00.7
In its October 28, 2008 Order, the Regional Trial Court denied
the Motion. Atty. Constantino, through his wife Editha, was able
to post bail on August 23, 2010. Saliganan, however, remained
at large.8
On arraignment, Atty. Constantino pleaded not guilty to the
crime charged. Thus, trial on the merits ensued. 9
According to the prosecution, sometime in June 1998, Severino
Cabrales (Severino), the father of Saliganan, suffered a stroke
and was rushed to the hospital, where he was confined for two
(2) weeks. When he was discharged, he returned to the family
home in Laoag City. There, Saliganan stayed and took care of
Severino until his death on December 6, 2003.10
On February 8, 2005, a Petition for Probate of Severino's alleged
Last Will and Testament was filed before the Regional Trial
Court of Laoag City.
7
Upon learning of the probate proceedings, Fernando Cabrales
(Fernando), a son of Severino, secured a copy of the purported
Last Will and Testament. He claimed that the signature in the
document was not Severino's. The document was notarized by
Atty. Constantino and registered in Book No. 31, Page No. 71 of
Atty. Constantino's Notarial Register, series of 2001. The
witnesses who signed it were Rosalinda Cu (Cu), Dr. Justino
Balintona and his wife Mary Balintona (the Balintona Spouses),
and Dr. Eliezer John Asuncion (Dr. Asuncion).11
The Joint Acknowledgment in the Last Will and Testament read:
JOINT ACKNOWLEDGMENT
BEFORE ME, a notary public for and in the City of Laoag,
Philippines, this 9th day of September, 2001, personally
appeared:
The testator, SEVERINO CABRALES, with Community Tax
Certificate No. 06002287 dated January 2, 2001, issued in Laoag
City;
Witness, DR. JUSTINO G. BALINTONA, with Community
Tax Certificate No. _____ dated _____[;]
Witness, MRS. MARY B. BALINTONA, with Community Tax
Certificate No. 06030819 dated April 10, 2001[;]
Witness, DR. ELIEZER ASUNCION, with Community Tax
Certificate No. 08214902 dated January 6, 2001;
Witness, MRS. ROSALINDA F. CU, with Community Tax
Certificate No. 06022789 dated 03, 18, 2001 [;] (sic)
All known to me to be the same persons who signed the
foregoing will, the first as testator and the last four as
instrumental witnesses, and they respectively acknowledged to
me that they signed the same as their own free act and deed.
This Will consists of three (3) pages, including this page of the
acknowledgment, and has been signed on the left hand margin
of the first and third pages and above their respective names on
the second page, by the testator and his witnesses and sealed
with my notarial seal.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand the, [sic]
month, year and place above written.
[sgd]
BERNARDO T.
CONSTANTINO
Notary Public12
Fernando immediately spoke to Dr. Asuncion, who told him that
Rene Ferrer, Jr. (Ferrer), Saliganan's son-in-law, had gone to his
clinic and asked him to sign the document. Dr. Asuncion did as
asked, having known Ferrer as a member of his motorcycle club.
He also told Fernando that only he, Ferrer, and some patients
were present when he signed the document.13
In his defense, Atty. Constantino alleged that Severino had been
of sound mind and could walk with a cane when he started
visiting Atty. Constantino to prepare his Last Will and
Testament. Atty. Constantino had advised him to bring a listing
of his assets and properties, with which Severino complied. 14
Atty. Constantino further alleged that when he asked Severino
why he was executing a will, Severino told him that he wanted
his only child, Saliganan, to have his properties since Fernando
was going around claiming to be his son. Atty. Constantino
claimed that Severino had also admitted promising to bequeath
Fernando all his properties in Solsona, Ilocos Norte, provided
that Saliganan approve of it.15
Atty. Constantino further narrated that in the morning of
September 9, 2001, he brought three (3) typed copies of the Last
Will and Testament to Severino's house for signing. Together in
the room were Severino, Atty. Constantino, his wife Editha and
son Bernard Christian, the Balintona Spouses, Cu, Saliganan,
and one (1) other person.16
Atty. Constantino stated that Severino's hands were trembling as
he attempted to sign the first page of the document, so he asked
Saliganan to hold his wrist to sign all three (3) copies. The three
(3) instrumental witnesses present—the Balintona Spouses and
Cu—then signed the document, after which Atty. Constantino
affixed his signature. Upon seeing a stamp pad nearby, Atty.
Constantino asked Severino if he would like to place his
thumbmark on the documents. Severino agreed and again asked
Saliganan to assist him.17
Addressing the absence of Dr. Asuncion, whose name was
indicated as an instrumental witness, Atty. Constantino assured
Severino that only three (3) witnesses were needed for the
document. He then allegedly instructed Severino to leave the
document as it was and "not make any erasures or crossing-out
on it [in] order not to make it dirty."18 Atty. Constantino took a
copy of the document and gave the other two (2) to Severino. 19
On his way out, Atty. Constantino alleged that Saliganan took
his copy of the document, telling him that Dr. Asuncion had
already arrived. Sometime later, Saliganan returned the copy,
but Atty. Constantino stated that he did not check if Dr.
Asuncion had signed it.20
In its November 28, 2013 Judgment,21 the Regional Trial Court
found Atty. Constantino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
falsification of a public document under Article 171(2) of the
Revised Penal Code. It pointed out that while only a photocopy
of the allegedly falsified document was presented, the parties
nonetheless did not dispute its execution.22 The trial court,
however, found that the prosecution failed to establish that

Severino had not been of sound mind when the Last Will and
Testament was executed.23
Nonetheless, the trial court found Atty. Constantino liable for
making it appear that Dr. Asuncion appeared before him and
witnessed the execution of the Last Will and Testament. It ruled
that Atty. Constantino should have been aware of the legal
consequences to leaving Dr. Asuncion's name on the document
despite his absence.24
Likewise, the trial court cited the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice, which prohibited notaries public from notarizing
incomplete documents or false information. It pointed out that
removing Dr. Asuncion's name from the document was easy and
could have been accomplished within minutes. Thus, it did not
give credence to Atty. Constantino's defense that he instructed
Severino not to make any markings on the document.25
Moreover, the trial court considered Atty. Constantino's failure
to immediately surrender to authorities as indicative of his guilt,
as he only posted bail two (2) years after warrants of arrest had
been issued.26
The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court Judgment
read:
WHEREFORE, the accused Atty. Bernardo Constantino is
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification of
Public Document under Article 171 (2) of the Revised Penal
Code and is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from
two years of prision correccional as minimum to eight years and
one day of prision mayor as maximum. He is also ordered to
pay a fine of three thousand pesos (P3,000.00). Costs against the
said accused.
SO ORDERED.27
Atty. Constantino appealed before the Court of Appeals. 28
In its January 19, 2016 Decision,29 the Court of Appeals
affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court.
Agreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeals found that
Atty. Constantino could have easily removed Dr. Asuncion's
name if he believed in good faith that only three (3) witnesses
were needed. Instead, the Court of Appeals pointed out that
Atty. Constantino made it appear as if Dr. Asuncion were
present before him as a witness. It also noted his testimony that
he knew Dr. Asuncion would still want to sign the document,
which was why he gave his copy to Saliganan. It held that Atty.
Constantino should have checked the copy when it was returned
to him.30
8
The Court of Appeals, likewise, affirmed the trial court's finding
that Atty. Constantino's failure to immediately surrender was a
manifestation of his guilt, as he had no persuasive reason to do
so.31
Atty. Constantino moved for reconsideration, but his Motion
was denied in the Court of Appeals June 9, 2016
Resolution.32 Hence, he filed this Petition.33
Petitioner claims that it would have been difficult for him to
remove Dr. Asuncion's name at the time of signing. Due to his
muscular dystrophy, he had to be accompanied by his wife and
two (2) sons to climb to the second floor of the house.
Additionally, there was no typewriter, clerk, or typist in
Severino's house for the corrections to be done. Petitioner also
alleges that he wanted the notarization to be made in Severino's
residence to honor the testator's wish. Then and there, he asserts,
he notarized the document to avoid going up the steep stairway
again.34
Petitioner argues that precisely due to his physical condition, he
has relied on his secretary to file the office documents. As such,
he was not able to check the Last Will and Testament when
Saliganan returned it to his secretary. While he admits that he
had been negligent for failing to cross out Dr. Asuncion's name
in the document, he asserts that it should not be taken against
him, but on Dr. Asuncion, who admitted to signing the
document without reading it.35
Petitioner, likewise, explains that his failure to immediately
surrender was due to his failing health and his wife being abroad
to take care of their two (2) daughters. He alleges that as
litigation had started in 2008, Saliganan assured him on the
phone not to worry as she was trying to settle the case as a
family misunderstanding, which was why he did not pay
attention to the case.36
The Office of the Solicitor General, on the other hand, claims
that petitioner raises questions of fact improper in a Rule 45
petition.37 Maintaining that there was no error in the finding of
guilt, it asserts that all the elements of the crime of falsification
of a public document under Article 171 (2) of the Revised Penal
Code were duly proven by the evidence on record.38 However, it
requests that this Court impose with leniency any penalty it will
have ruled due to petitioner's advanced age and physical
condition.39
In rebuttal, petitioner contends that there are recognized
exceptions to Rule 45 that apply to this case, considering that his
conviction was "overtly based on conjectures, presumptions[,]
and speculations, not proof beyond reasonable doubt[.]"40
The issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the
prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner
Atty. Bernardo T. Constantino was guilty of falsifying a public
document under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
Before this issue can be passed upon, however, this Court must
first address the procedural question of whether the Petition
presents questions of fact not cognizable in a petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
I
The Constitution guarantees that an accused is presumed
innocent until the contrary is proven.41 Thus, every conviction
requires no less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Rule 133,
Section 2 of the Rules of Court provides:
SECTION 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal
case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is
shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of
error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is
required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in
an unprejudiced mind.
The burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Guilt must be
founded on the strength of the prosecution's evidence, not on the
weakness of the defense.42 Reasonable doubt on the evidence
presented will result in an acquittal. In People v. Capili:43
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed to overcome the
presumption of innocence. Accused-appellant's guilt must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt[;] otherwise, the Court would
be left without any other recourse but to rule for acquittal.
Courts should be guided by the principle that it would be better
to set free ten men who might be probably guilty of the crime
charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not
commit.44
In criminal cases, courts must evaluate the evidence in relation
to the elements of the crime charged. Thus, the finding of guilt is
always a question of fact.45
The Petition before this Court, however, is one filed under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court. Rule 45 mandates that only questions
of law may be raised in a petition for review on
certiorari.46 Thus, this Court generally gives great respect to the
factual findings of the trial court, which had the opportunity to

observe the witnesses' demeanor during trial and assess their
testimonies.47
Considering that criminal cases involve the constitutional right
to liberty and the constitutional guarantee of the presumption of
innocence, appeals of criminal cases before this Court are not
necessarily treated in the same manner as appeals in civil cases.
In Ferrer v. People:48
It is a well-settled rule that an appeal in a criminal case throws
the whole case wide open for review and that it becomes the
duty of the Court to correct such errors as may be found in the
judgment appealed from, whether they are assigned as errors or
not.49
Appeals of criminal cases confer upon the reviewing court full
jurisdiction and render it competent to examine the records,
revise the judgment from which an appeal arose, increase the
penalty, and cite the appropriate penal law provision. 50
Thus, this Court may still review the factual findings of the trial
court "if it is not convinced that [such findings] are conformable
to the evidence of record and to its own impressions of the
credibility of the witnesses."51 Significant facts and
circumstances may have been overlooked, which, if properly
considered, could affect the result of the case. 52
Here, however, the factual findings are not disputed. Severino
executed a Last Will and Testament on September 9, 2001,
which was notarized by petitioner. The Joint Acknowledgment
indicated that the Balintona Spouses, Cu, and Dr. Asuncion were
all present as witnesses and personally appeared before
petitioner. This makes it appear that Dr. Asuncion signed the
document in the presence of petitioner when, in reality, he did
not. It was later discovered that Dr. Asuncion signed it after it
had been notarized. Neither party disputes this sequence of
events.
The prosecution's theory, however, is that a falsity in a public
document occurred because petitioner failed to delete Dr.
Asuncion's name in the Joint Acknowledgment. Petitioner's
main defense, on the other hand, is that he ordered the testator,
Severino, not to delete Dr. Asuncion's name. This Court is, thus,
confronted with the legal question of whether petitioner, as a
notary public, falsified a public document, punishable under
Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code, when he failed to
delete Dr. Asuncion's name in the Joint Acknowledgment upon
notarization.
II
9
Before one can be held criminally liable for falsification of
public documents, it is essential that the document allegedly
falsified is a public document.
Public documents are defined in Cacnio v. Baens53 as "those
instruments authorized by a notary public or by a competent
public official with all the solemnities required by law[.]" 54 By
this definition, any notarized document is considered a public
document.
Rule 132, Section 19 of the Rules of Court, however, provides:
SECTION 19. Classes of documents. — For the purpose of their
presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts
of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals,
and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a
foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except
last wills and testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private
documents required by law to be entered therein.
All other writings are private. (Emphasis supplied)
Notarization confers a public character upon private documents
so that, for the purposes of admissibility in court, no further
evidence is required to prove the document's authenticity. 55 The
notary public swears to the truth of the document's contents and
its due execution. In Antillon v. Barcelon:56
The principal function of a notary public is to authenticate
documents. When a notary public certifies the due execution and
delivery of a document under his hand and seal he thereby gives
such a document the force of evidence.
....
Indeed, one of the very 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 in
evidence without further proof of their execution and delivery. 57
Thus, notaries public are cautioned to take due care in notarizing
documents to ensure the public's confidence in notarized
documents. In Ramirez v. Ner:58
A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit
upon its face, and for this reason notaries public must observe
the utmost care to comply with the elementary formalities in the
performance of their duties. Otherwise the confidence of the
public in the integrity of this form of conveyancing would be
undermined.59
Under the Rules on Evidence, notarized documents are clothed
with the presumption of regularity; that is, that the notary public
had the authority to certify the documents as duly executed. A
last will and testament, however, is specifically excluded from
the application of Rule 132, Section 19 of the Rules of Court.
This implies that when the document being presented as
evidence is a last will and testament, further evidence is
necessary to prove its due execution, whether notarized or not.
A last will and testament is a "species of conveyance whereby a
person is permitted, with the formalities prescribed by law, to
control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate after his
death."60 A notarial will is one that is "acknowledged before a
notary public by a testator and the attesting
witnesses[.]"61 Moreover, Article 806 of the Civil Code
provides:
ARTICLE 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a
notary public by the testator and the witnesses. 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.
This acknowledgment is embodied in an attestation clause at the
end of the instrument. An attestation clause, in Caneda v. Court
of Appeals,62 is:
. . . that part of an ordinary will whereby the attesting witnesses
certify that the instrument has been executed before them and to
the manner of the execution of the same. It is a separate
memorandum or record of the facts surrounding the conduct of
execution and once signed by the witnesses, it gives affirmation
to the fact that compliance with the essential formalities required
by law has been observed. It is made for the purpose of
preserving in a permanent form a record of the facts that
attended the execution of a particular will, so that in case of
failure of the memory of the attesting witnesses, or other
casualty, such facts may still be proved.63
By this definition, the formalities required by law to prove a
notarial will's authenticity do not pertain to the notarization, but
to the attestation and subscription of the testator and the
attesting witnesses. In Caneda, this Court further explained:

[T]he subscription of the signatures of the testator and the
attesting witnesses is made for the purpose of authentication and
identification, and thus indicates that the will is the very same
instrument executed by the testator and attested to by the
witnesses.
Further, by attesting and subscribing to the will, the witnesses
thereby declare the due execution of the will as embodied in the
attestation clause. The attestation clause, therefore, provides
strong legal guaranties for the due execution of a will and to
insure the authenticity thereof. As it appertains only to the
witnesses and not to the testator, it need be signed only by them.
Where it is left unsigned, it would result in the invalidation of
the will as it would be possible and easy to add the clause on a
subsequent occasion in the absence of the testator and the
witnesses.64
Hence, an authentic attestation clause must not only contain the
names of the instrumental witnesses. Mere mention of their
names in the attestation clause will not accurately represent the
fact of their attestation and subscription. Instead, the
instrumental witnesses must also sign the instrument before it is
notarized by the notary public.
Here, petitioner was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violating Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code. The
provision reads:
ARTICLE 171. Falsification by Public Officer, Employee or
Notary or Ecclesiastic Minister. — The penalty of prisión
mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed
upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking
advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by
committing any of the following acts:
....
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act
or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate [.]
There is falsification of a public document when the public
document is simulated "in a manner so as to give it the
appearance of a true and genuine instrument, thus, leading
others to errors as to its authenticity[.]"65 Moreover, "[w]hat is
punished in falsification of public document is principally the
undermining of the public faith and the destruction of truth as
solemnly proclaimed therein."66
10
When a notary public falsifies a public document, his or her act
effectively undermines the public's trust and reliance on
notarized documents as evidence. Thus, he or she is held
criminally liable for the offense when the falsity committed
leads others to believe the document was authentic when it is
not.
In falsification of public documents under Article 171(2) of the
Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must prove that these
elements exist:
1. That the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary
public.
2. That he takes advantage of his official position.
3. That he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that
persons have participated in any act or proceeding.
4. That such person or persons did not in fact so participate in
the proceeding.67
Here, the first element has already been proven since both the
prosecution and the defense stipulate that petitioner is a notary
public. The second element is presumed when the alleged falsity
committed by the notary public pertains to the notarization,
since only notaries public have the duty and authority to notarize
documents.
Thus, the elements that remain to be proven by the prosecution
are: (1) that petitioner falsified a document "by causing it to
appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding";
and (2) that "such person or persons did not in fact so participate
in the proceeding."68
The due execution of a notarized will is proven through the
validity of its attestation clause. The prosecution must prove that
either the testator could not have authored the instrument, or the
instrumental witnesses had no capacity to attest to the due
execution of the will. This requires that the notary public must
have falsified or simulated the signatures appearing on the
attestation clause.
Here, petitioner was found to have falsely certified in the Joint
Acknowledgment that Dr. Asuncion was an instrumental witness
to the execution of Severino's Last Will and Testament since he
did not sign it in petitioner's presence.
The trial court and the Court of Appeals, however, disregarded
one crucial detail from its finding of facts: Dr. Asuncion signed
the Joint Acknowledgment after it was notarized by petitioner.
Based on the findings of the trial court, at the time petitioner
notarized the Last Will and Testament, only three (3) witnesses
had signed it. The trial court, however, did not make any finding
that petitioner had falsified the participation of the three (3)
witnesses who attested and subscribed to its due execution. It
likewise found that Dr. Asuncion signed the document at the
urging of Saliganan's son-in-law, Ferrer, and that petitioner
seemed unaware that Dr. Asuncion later signed the document.
Dr. Asuncion also admitted that his signature was genuine and
that he was aware of what he was signing.
Since Dr. Asuncion did not sign the Joint Acknowledgment
before it was notarized, he cannot be considered as having
attested and subscribed to its due execution at the time of its
notarization. Thus, when petitioner certified that the persons
who attested and subscribed to the document were present
before him, there could have been no falsity. It was not
petitioner who made it appear that Dr. Asuncion participated in
the execution of the Joint Acknowledgment, but Ferrer and Dr.
Asuncion himself. Petitioner, therefore, must be acquitted.
Nonetheless, while petitioner's acts may be inadequate to find
him criminally liable, he may still be liable for administrative
sanctions.
Petitioner's failure to cross out Dr. Asuncion's name when he
notarized the Joint Acknowledgment has allowed Dr. Asuncion
to still sign the document despite not having participated in its
due execution. This is the mischief being guarded against in
disallowing notaries public to notarize incomplete documents.
Rule XI, Section l(b)(9), in relation to Rule IV, Section 569 of the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, states:
RULE XI
Revocation of Commission and Disciplinary Sanctions
SECTION 1. Revocation and Administrative Sanctions. — . . .
(b) In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the commission
of, or impose appropriate administrative sanctions upon, any
notary public who: . . .
(9) executes a false or incomplete certificate under Section 5,
Rule IV[.]
To be sure, the incidents here occurred in 2001, or before the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice was promulgated. While the
previous Notarial Law70 did not contain a provision on false and
incomplete certificates, this Court has already cautioned notaries
public from notarizing incomplete documents even before the
applicability of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. In Bote v.
Eduardo:71

Respondent [notary public] was . . . negligent when he notarized
the deed with unfilled spaces and incomplete entries, making
uncertified and fraudulent insertions easy to accomplish.
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is
invested with such substantial public interest that only those
who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.
Notarization converts a private document into a public
document, making that document admissible in evidence
without further proof of its authenticity. For this reason, notaries
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.72
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The January 19,
2016 Decision and June 9, 2016 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 36327 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Petitioner Atty. Bernardo T. Constantino
is ACQUITTED of the crime of falsification of a public
document, and the bail bond posted for his provisional liberty is
ordered canceled.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar
Confidant for the filing of the appropriate administrative action.
SO ORDERED.
SECOND DIVISION
February 8, 2017
A.C. No. 9364
[Formerly CBD Case No.13-3696]
FLORDELIZA E. COQUIA, Complainant
vs. ATTY. EMMANUEL E. LAFORTEZA, Respondent
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Before us is a Petition for Disbarment dated February 6, 4012
filed by Flordeliza E. Coquia1 (Coquia) against respondent Atty.
Emmanuel E. Laforteza (Atty. Laforteza), docketed as A.C. No.
9364, for Conduct Unbecoming of a Lawyer due to the
unauthorized notarization of documents relative to Civil Case
No. 18943.2
Atty. Laforteza was a former Clerk of Court of Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 68, Lingayen, Pangasinan, having
assumed office in November 17, 2004 until January 31,
2011.3 On February 1, 2011, Atty. Laforteza transferred to the
Department of Justice.4
In her Complaint, Coquia alleged that on January 7, 2009, while
in office as clerk of court, Atty. Laforteza conspired with
Clemente Solis (Clemente) to falsify two (2) documents, to wit:
(1) an Agreement between Clemente Solis and Flordeliza
Coquia,5 and the (2) Payment Agreement executed by Flordeliza
Coquia, and subsequently notarized the said documents. Coquia
11
claimed that the documents were forged to make it appear that
on the said date, she subscribed and sworn to the said documents
before Atty. Laforteza when in truth and in fact on the said date
and time, she was attending to her classes at the Centro Escolar
University in Manila as evidenced by the certified true copy of
the Centro Escolar University Faculty Daily Time Record for
the period of December 16, 2008 to January 14, 2009.6
Coquia asserted that under the law, Atty. Laforteza is not
authorized to administer oath on documents not related to his
functions and duties as Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 68,
Lingayen, Pangasinan. Thus, the instant complaint for
disbarment for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.
On January 12, 2012, the Office of the Bar Confidant referred
the complaint to Atty. Cristina B. Layusa, Deputy Clerk of
Court and Bar Confidant, Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme
Court, for appropriate action.7
On March 19, 2012, the Court resolved to require Atty.
Laforteza to comment on the complaint against him. 8
In compliance, Atty. Laforteza submitted his Comment9 dated
July 2, 2012 where he denied the allegations in the complaint.
Atty. Laforteza recalled that on January 7, 2009, while attending
to· his work, fellow court employee, Luzviminda
Solis (Luzviminda), wife of Clemente, with other persons, came
to him. He claimed that Luzviminda introduced said persons to
him as the same parties to the subject documents. Luzviminda
requested him to subscribe the subject documents as proof of
their transaction considering that they are blood relatives. Atty.
Laforteza claimed that he hesitated at first and even directed
them to seek the services of a notary public but they insisted for
his assistance and accommodation. Thus, in response to the
exigency of the situation and thinking in all good faith that it
would also serve the parties' interest having arrived at a
settlement, Atty. Laforteza opted to perform the subscription of
the jurat. He, however, insisted that at that time of subscription,
after propounding some questions, he was actually convinced
that the persons who came to him are the same parties to the said
subject documents.10
Atty. Laforteza likewise denied that there was conspiracy or
connivance between him and the Solis'. He pointed out that
other than the subject documents and Coquia's bare allegation of
conspiracy, no evidence was presented to substantiate the same.
Atty. Laforteza lamented that he was also a victim of the
circumstances with his reliance to the representations made
before him. He invoked the presumption of regularity and
extended his apology to this Court should his act as a
subscribing officer be deemed improper.11
In a Joint-Affidavit12 dated July 2, 2012 of Clemente and
Luzviminda, both denied to have connived or conspired with
Atty. Laforteza in the preparation and execution of the subject
documents. They narrated that Atty. Laforteza in fact initially
refused to grant their request to notarize the subject documents
but they were able to convince him to assist them in the interest
of justice. Clemente insisted that he was one of the signatories in
the said documents and that he has personal knowledge that the
signature of Coquia inscribed in the same documents are her true
signatures having seen her affixed her signatures. 13
On October 11, 2012, the Court resolved to refer the instant case
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
report and recommendation.14
During the mandatory conference, both parties agreed that Atty.
Laforteza is authorized to administer oaths. However, as to the
requirement to establish the identity of the parties, Atty.
Laforteza admitted that he does not personally know both
Coquia and Clemente, and he merely relied on Luzviminda and
Loma Viray, who are known to him as fellow court employees,
to establish the identities of the parties. He likewise admitted
that Coquia did not sign the documents in his presence and that
someone present on the said date allegedly owned the signature
of Coquia as hers.15
In its Report and Recommendation16 dated December 18, 2013,
the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CED) recommended
that the instant complaint be dismissed for lack of sufficient
evidence.
However, in a Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-818 dated
October 11, 2014, the IBP-Board of Governors resolved to
reversed and set aside the Report and Recommendation of the
IBP-CBD, and instead reprimanded and cautioned Atty.
Laforteza to be careful in performing his duties as subscribing
officer.17
We concur with the findings of the IBP-Board of Governors,
except as to the penalty.

In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against
lawyers, the quantum of proof required is clearly preponderant
evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant.18 In the absence of cogent proof, bare allegations
of misconduct cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity
in the performance of official functions.19
In the instant case, We find that Coquia failed to present clear
and preponderant evidence to show that Atty. Laforteza had
direct and instrumental participation, or was in connivance with
the Solis' in the preparation of the subject documents. While it
may be assumed that Atty. Laforteza had a hand in the
preparation of the subject documents, We cannot give
evidentiary weight to such a supposition in the absence of any
evidence to support it. The Court does not thus give credence to
charges based on mere suspicion and speculation. 20
As to the allegation of unauthorized notarization:
As early as the case of Borre v. Moya,21 this Court had already
clarified that the power of ex officio notaries public have been
limited to notarial acts connected to the exercise of their official
functions and duties.
Consequently, the empowerment of ex officio notaries public to
perform acts within the competency of regular notaries public -
such as acknowledgments, oaths and affirmations, jurats,
signature witnessing, copy certifications, and other acts
authorized under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice - is now
more of an exception rather than a general rule. They may
perform notarial acts on such documents that bear no relation to
their official functions and duties only if (1) a certification is
included in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any
other lawyer or notary public in the municipality or circuit; and
(2) all notarial fees charged will be for the account of the
government and turned over to the municipal treasurer. No
compliance with these two requirements are present in this case.
In the instant case, it is undisputed that Atty. Laforteza notarized
and administered oaths in documents that had no relation to his
official function. The subject documents, to wit: (1) an
Agreement between Clemente Solis and Flordeliza Coquia, 22
and the (2) Payment Agreement executed by Flordeliza
Coquia, are both private documents which are unrelated to Atty.
Laforteza's official functions. The civil case from where the
subject documents originated is not even raffled in Branch 68
where Atty. Laforteza was assigned. While Atty. Laforteza serve
as notary public ex officio and, thus, may notarize documents or
administer oaths, he should not in his ex officio capacity take
part in the execution of private documents bearing no relation at
all to his official functions.
12
Under the provisions of Section 4123 (as amended by Section 2
of R. A. No. 673324) and Section 24225 of the Revised
Administrative Code, in relation to Sections G,26 M27 and
N,28 Chapter VIII of the Manual for Clerks of Court, Clerks of
Court are notaries public ex officio, and may thus notarize
documents or administer oaths but only when the matter is
related to the exercise of their official functions. 29 In Exec.
Judge Astorga v. Solas,30 the Court ruled that clerks of court
should not, in their ex-officio capacity, take part in the execution
of private documents bearing no relation at all to their official
functions. Notarization of documents that have no relation to the
performance of their official functions is now considered to be
beyond the scope of their authority as notaries public ex
officio. Any one of them who does so would be committing an
unauthorized notarial act, which amounts to engaging in the
unauthorized practice of law and abuse of authority.
As to the Violation of Notarial Law:
We likewise agree and adopt the findings of the IBP-Board of
Governors which found Atty. Laforteza to have violated the
Notarial Law.
In this case, it is undisputed that Atty. Laforteza failed to
comply with the rules of notarial law. He admitted that he
notarized a pre-signed subject document presented to him. He
also admitted his failure to personally verify the identity of all
parties who purportedly signed the subject documents and who,
as he claimed, appeared before him on January 7, 2009 as he
merely relied upon the assurance of Luzviminda that her
companions are the actual signatories to the said documents. In
ascertaining the identities of the parties, Atty. Laforteza
contented himself after propounding several questions only
despite the Rules' clear requirement of presentation of competent
evidence of identity such as an identification card with
photograph and signature. Such failure to verify the identities of
the parties was further shown by the fact that the pertinent
identification details of the parties to the subject documents, as
proof of their identity, were lacking in the subject documents'
acknowledgment portion. Atty. Laforteza even affixed his
signature in an incomplete notarial certificate. From the
foregoing, it can be clearly concluded that there was a failure on
the part of Atty. Laforteza to exercise the due diligence required
of him as a notary public ex-officio.
Notarization of documents ensures the authenticity and
reliability of a document. Notarization of a private document
converts such document into a public one, and renders it
admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity.
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. Notarization is not
an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a
substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires
preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as
notaries public from imposing upon the public and the courts
and administrative offices generally.31
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. 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. 32
The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice stresses the necessity of the
affiant's personal appearance before the notary public Rule II,
Section 1 states:
SECTION 1. Acknowledgment.-"Acknowledgment" refers to an
act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents
and integrally complete instrument or document;
(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or
identified by the notary public through competent evidence
of identity as defined by these Rules; and
(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the
instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the
purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that he
has executed the instrument or document as his free and
voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular
representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that
capacity. (Emphasis supplied)
Rule IV, Section 2(b) further states:
SEC. 2. Prohibitions. - x x x
(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.
Thus, a document should not be notarized unless the persons
who are executing it are the very same ones who are personally
appearing before the notary public. The affiants should be

present to attest to the truth of the contents of the document and
to enable the notary to verify the genuineness of their signature.
Notaries public are enjoined from notarizing a fictitious or
spurious document. In fact, it is their duty to demand that the
document presented to them for notarization be signed in their
presence. Their function is, among others, to guard against
illegal deeds.33 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. 34
PENALTY
While Atty. Laforteza was merely an ex-officio notary public by
virtue of his position as clerk of court then, it did not relieve him
of compliance with the same standards and obligations imposed
upon other commissioned notaries public.35 However, this Court
can no longer acquire administrative jurisdiction over Atty.
Laforteza for the purpose of imposing disciplinary sanctions
over erring court employees since the instant complaint against
him was filed after he has ceased to be a court employee.
In Talisic vs. Atty. Rinen,36 respondent, as ex-officio notary
public, failed to verify the identity of all the parties to the
document. Thus, the Court ordered his notarial commission
revoked and disqualified him from being commissioned as a
notary public for a period of one year. We deem it proper to
impose the same penalty.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Atty. Emmanuel E.
Laforteza's notarial commission, if there is any,
is REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from being
commissioned as a notary public for a period of one (1) year. He
is likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same
or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant, to be appended to Atty. Laforteza's personal record.
Further, let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator,
which is directed to circulate them to all the courts in the
country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
EN BANC   witnessing, copy certifications, among others. 16 The duties of a
September 5, 2017
A.C. No. 11478
SPOUSES ANDRE CHAMBON AND MARIA FATIMA
CHAMBON, Complainants
vs. ATTY. CHRISTOPHER S. RUIZ, Respondent
DECISION
TIJAM, J.:
This administrative case arose from a verified Complaint 1 for
gross violation of Section 2 (b ), paragraph 2 of Rule IV and
13
Section 2, paragraphs (a), (d), and (e) of Rule VI of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice filed by complainant Spouses Andre
and Maria Fatima Chambon (Spouses Chambon) against Atty.
Christopher S. Ruiz (respondent) before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines(IBP).
The Facts
Spouses Chambon alleged that they were creditors of a certain
Suzette Camasura Auman, also known as Mrs. Suzette
Camasura Remoreras (Remoreras). To secure her obligation,
Remoreras executed a real estate mortgage 2 (REM) over a parcel
of land with improvements covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. 29490,3 which was registered in her maiden
name. Said REM was annotated in the Registry of Deeds of
Mandaue City in 2006. TCT No. 29490 was handed over to
Spouses Chambon.4
As Remoreras failed to pay her loan obligation, Spouses
Chambon were prompted to institute an extra-judicial
foreclosure proceedings on the subject property before the Ex-
Officio Sheriff of Mandaue City. The public auction was set on
April 27, 2010. 5
In February 2010, counsel for Spouses Chambon learned that the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City, Branch 56, issued
an Order6 dated March 24, 2008, which directed the issuance of
a new Owner's Duplicate Copy of TCT No. 29490. Apparently,
a Petition for Issuance of a new Owner's Duplicate Copy of TCT
No. 29490, which was grounded on an alleged Notice of
Loss/Affidavit of Loss of the subject title, was filed by
Remoreras.
Before the scheduled public auction, Remoreras filed a
complaint to enjoin the holding of the same on the basis of an
alleged execution and delivery of a Release of Mortgage
document on the subject property purportedly executed by
Spouses Chambon.7
Spouses Chambon discovered that the Notice of Loss/ Affidavit
of Loss8 and the Release of Mortgage9 were notarized by the
respondent in Cebu City and that certain defects were found in
said notarized documents and in the Notarial Register. In the
jurat of said Notice, there was no competent evidence of identity
of the executor. Also, in said Release, Spouses Chambon denied
having executed the same.10
These incidents prompted Spouses Chambon to file a complaint
for gross violation of Section 2 (b), paragraph 2 of Rule IV and
Section 2, paragraphs (a), (d), and (e) of Rule VI of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice before the IBP.
In his Answer, the respondent denied the existence and
notarization of the Release of Mortgage. As to the Notice of
Loss/Affidavit of Loss, he admitted its existence and its entry in
the Notarial Register. However, he imputed negligence on the
part of his secretary as regards certain lapses in his Notarial
Register.11
After investigation, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-
Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) rendered a Report and
Recommendation12 dated June 19, 2013, to wit:
Viewed from the foregoing, we recommend that the
Respondent's present commission as notary public, if any, be
revoked and that he be barrt!d from being commissioned as a
notary public for a period of four (4) years.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.13
In a Resolution 14 dated October 11, 2014, the Board of
Governors of the IBP adopted the findings of the IBP-CBD, but
modified the penalty, viz:
RESOLVED TO ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby
ADOPTED and APPROVED with modification, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the
above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as
Annex "A'', and for violation of Rule IV, Section 2 (b), Rule VI,
Section (a). par. 4, 5, and 6 and Rule VI, Section (2), par. (e) of
the 2004 Rules of [sic] Notarial Practice, Atty. Christopher S.
Ruiz's notarial commission if presently commissioned is
immediately REVOKED. Further, he is DISQUALIFIED from
reappointment as notary public for three (3) years and
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3)
years. 15 (Emphasis supplied)
The Issue
Should respondent be administratively disciplined based on the
allegations in the complaint and evidence on record?
Our Ruling
By law, a notary public is empowered to perform the following
acts: acknowledgments, oaths and affirmations, jurats, signature
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. 17 For notarization by a notary
public converts a private document into a public document,
making the same admissible in evidence without further proof of
authenticity; thus, a notarial

document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its
face.18
In this case, We find that the respondent failed to live up with
the duties of a notary public as dictated by the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice. The subject Notice of Loss/Affidavit of Loss,
allegedly executed by Remoreras, was undisputedly notarized by
the respondent and entered in his Notarial Register. However, a
careful examination of said Notice reveals that violation of the
2004 Rules was committed.
For one, the jurat was incomplete in that the competent proof of
identity of the executor, Remoreras, was left in blank. Also,
reference to the Notarial Register indicates that the entries
pertaining to said Notice were also left in blank. The
title/description of instrument, name and addresses of parties,
competent evidence of identity, date and time of notarization,
and type of notarial act were not filled up.
We emphasize that Section 5 of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules
provides:
Sec. 5. False or Incomplete Certificate. - A notary public shall
not:
(a) execute a certificate containing information known or
believed by the notary to be false.
(b) affix an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate
that is incomplete.
Relevantly, Section 8 defines a notarial certificate as part of, or
attachment to, a notarized instrument or document that is
completed by the notary public, bears the notary's signature and
seal, and states the facts attested to by the notary public in a
particular notarization as provided for by these Rules.
In this case, the respondent affixed his signature and seal on the
notarial certificate without verifying the identity of the executor.
Such was inferred from the fact that the competent proof of such
executor's identity was left in blank. Hence, his act of signing
the notarial certificate, notwithstanding the fact that it was
incomplete, is a clear violation of the said Rules. No allegation
as well that Remoreras is personally known to the respondent to
dispense with the presentation of a competent evidence of
identity. 19
Moreover, entries in the respondent's Notarial Register, which
refer to said Notice of Loss/Affidavit ofLoss were also not
properly accomplished.
RULE VI - NOTARIAL REGISTER
SEC. 1. Form of Notarial Register. - (a) A notary public shall
keep, maintain, protect and provide for lawful inspection as
provided in these Rules, a chronological official notarial register
14
of notarial acts consisting of a permanently bound book with
numbered page.
xxxx
SEC. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. - (a) For every notarial
act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of
notarization the following:
(1) the entry number and page number;
(2) the date and time of day of the notarial act;
(3) the type of notarial act;
(4) the title or description of the instrument, document or
proceeding;
(5) the name and address of each principal;
(6) the competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules
if the signatory is not personally known to the notary;
(7) the name and address of each credible witness swearing to or
affirming the person's identity;
(8) the fee charged for the notarial act;
(9) the address where the notarization was performed if not in
the notary's regular place of work or business; and
(10) any other circumstance the notary public may deem of
significance or relevance.
(b) A notary public shall record in the notarial register the
reasons and circumstances for not completing a notarial act.
Here, it is undisputed that the respondent's Notarial Register did
not bear the details pertaining to said Notice of Loss/Affidavit of
Loss. To exculpate himself from liability, he attributed
negligence and omission on the part of his secretary who
prepared the same.
On this note, We reiterate that 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 his
secretary.20 The act of recording such entries in the Notarial
Register is part and parcel of the duties of a notary public.
Keeping in mind the nature of a notary public's responsibility,
the respondent should not have shifted such responsibility to his
office secretary and allowed her to make such pertinent entries.
As to the second subject document, i.e., Release of Mortgage,
the respondent denied having notarized the same. He averred
that reference to the book number, document number, and page
number of the such alleged Release points to a Special Power of
Attorney (SPA) in his Notarial Register. The respondent
admitted that while an SP A is indicated therein, it was actually
a Deed of Absolute Sale, which he actually notarized. Such
inadvertence was also blamed to his office secretary.
Said Release of Mortgage bears similarities as to the signature
and seal of the respondent as provided in the Notice of Loss/
Affidavit of Loss. Nevertheless, his admission that inadvertence
on the part of his secretary was committed with regard to the
entries in his Notarial Register also constitutes a violation under
the Rules as aforementioned.
We stress that a notary public carries with him a duty imbued
with public interest. At all times, a notary public must be wary
of the duties pertaining to his office. Thus, those who are not
qualified to live up with the mandate of such office must, in
absolute terms, be stripped off such authority.
As to penalty, We deem it proper to modify the same in
accordance with jurisprudence. For failure to make proper
entries in the notarial register, We imposed the penalty of
revocation of the notarial commission and suspension from the
practice of law for different durations. In the cases of Agadan, et
al. v. Atty. Kilaan21 and Father Aquino v. Atty. Pascuai,22 the
duration for the suspension is for three months, while in the case
of Bernardo v. Atty. Ramos, 23 the duration is for six months. On
the other hand, for affixing signature and seal on an incomplete
notarial certificate, the penalty of revocation of notarial
commission, prohibition from being a notary public for two
years, and suspension from the practice of law for one year was
viewed as wise in the case of Gaddi v. Atty. Velasco, Jr,24 while
in the case of Flodeliza E. Coquia v. Atty. Emmanuel E.
Laforteza, 25 the penalty of revocation of notarial commission
and disqualification from being a notary public for one year was
considered proper. Lastly, in the case of Bartolome v.
Basilio,26 wherein the notary public was found to have failed to
make proper entries in his notarial register and affixed his
signature in an incomplete notarial certificate, the penalty
imposed was revocation of the notarial commissio, suspension
from the practice of law for one year, and prohibition from being
a notary public for two years.
Guided by the foregoing precedents, the imposition of the
penalty of revocation of notarial commission and suspension
from the practice of law for a period of one year is considered as
just and proper. Also, We deem it proper to impose the penalty
of perpetual disqualification from being a notary public. It is
beyond question that respondent was doubly negligent in the
performance of his duties as a notary public. Not only did he
notarize an incomplete notarial document, but he also admittedly
delegated to his secretary his duty of entering details in his
Notarial Register. To recall, such admission was apparent from
respondent's act of shifting the blame to his secretary when
attention was called out as to the non-accomplishment of
pertinent entries in his Notarial Register. To Our mind, such acts
constitute dishonesty to this Court, warranting perpetual
disqualification from being a notary public.
 15

WHEREFORE, the instant complaint is GRANTED.

Respondent Atty. Christopher S. Ruiz is found GUILTY of
violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Accordingly, We
hereby REVOKE his notarial commission
and PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFY him from being a notary
public. Atty. Ruiz is also SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for a period of one (1) year, effective immediately. He
is STERNLY WARNED that repetition of the same will be
dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnish all courts, the Office of
the Bar Confidant, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
their information and guidance. The Office of the Bar Confidant
is directed to append a copy of this Decision to respondent's
record as member of the Bar.
SO ORDERED.