instrument.
It cannot be stressed enough that authority granted by his notarial commission
Case No. 1 Gokioco vs. Mateo A.C. No. 4179,
November 11, 2004
Facts: Complainant Alice Gokioco filed an
affidavit complaint against Atty. Mateo before
the IBP alleging that during the pre-trial
conference in a civil case wherein the
complainant was then one of the defendants
the complaint filed against them was subscribed
and sworn before the herein respondent by
SPS. Eustaquio and See Chua-Gokioco last Nov.
10, 1992 wherein See Chua-Gokioco was
already dead on October 7, 1992.
Atty. Mateo however admitted that he only
entered the fact of the signing and subscribing
on the date when he filed the civil case before
the court and all was in good faith since he also
met the Sps. somewhere between September
and October before See Chue-Gokioco died.
Moreover according to the respondent he
purposely delay the filing of the civil suit hoping
that both parties will reach an amicable
settlement since they are relatives.
Issue: Whether or not the action of respondent
in ante-dating the notary is valid.
Ruling: No. Under the Notarial Law, the notary
public shall enter the register in chronological
order, the nature of each instrument, executed,
sworn to or acknowledging the instrument, the
witnesses, if any to the signature, the date of
execution, oath or acknowledgment of the
notaries public should be truthful in carrying
out their functions. They must observe with the
highest degree of care the basic requirements
in the performance of their duties in order to
preserve the confidence of the public in the
integrity of the notarial system.
Hence, Atty. Mateo was suspended in the
practice of law for 6 months and his notarial
commission was revoked for 2 years.
Case No. 2 Tan Tiong Bio vs. Gonzales A.C. No.
6634 August 23, 2007
Facts: Complainant alleged that respondent was
employed as corporate counsel in Fil-Estate
Properties Inc., (FEPI) where he bought some
parcel of lands. He further stated that the Deed
of Sale of second parcel of land he bought was
notarized by respondent outside his notarial
practice and not having required his presence
as vendee and the representative of FEPI as
vendor.
Complainant further alleged that he was
construed to file a disbarment case and estafa
against the respondent and representative of
FEPI because of their refusal to give the
Certificate of Title in the parcel of land he
bought despite being fully paid.
Issue: WON the action of the respondent is
violative in the Notarial Law.
Ruling: Yes. Respondent’s act of notarizing
documents in a place outside of or beyond the
partakes of malpractice of law and
falsicification.
It cannot be over-emphasized that notarization
is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act.
Notarization is invested with substantive public
interest, such that only those who are qualified
or authorized, may act as notaries public. The
requirements for the issuance of a commission
as notary public are treated with a formality
definitely more than casual.
Hence. Respondent is permanently barred from
being commissioned as NOTARY PUBLIC. He is
furthermore suspended in the practice of law
for 2 years.
Case No. 3 Uy vs. Sano A.C. No. 6505
September 11, 2008
Facts: Complainant Jessica Uy filed a
disbarment case against Atty. Sano for allegedly
notarizing several documents despite the
expiration of his commission.
The former stated that respondent was the
counsel of Pablo Burgos in a civil case wherein
in the course of the trial several documents
were being presented before the court that said
documents were notarized by the latter in the
period in which his notarial commission was
expired.
Respondent admitted the act complaint of, but
claimed that all his actions were in good faith
because the third party whom he applied for
1
notarial practice assured him that
application was approved.
Issue: WON respondent’s contention
notarizing said documents is valid.
Ruling: No. His actuation clearly shows
disregard of the requirements for the issuance
of notarial commission. His reason in shifting
the responsibility of the office aide does not
strike the Court as the kind diligence properly
required of a member of the bar performing his
duties as notary public.
Also it should be noted that one who is
performing a notarial act without such
commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to
obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial
Law.
Hence, respondent was suspended in the
practice of law for 6 months and his present
notarial commission was revoked and was
disqualified from reappointment as a notary
public for a period of 2 years.
Case 4 Dela Cruz vs. Dimaano Jr. A.C. No. 7781
September 12, 2008
Facts: Complainant filed a disbarment case
against respondent alleging that the latter
notarized a document denominated as
Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate with
Waiver of Rights purportedly executed by her
ans her siblings together with her sister,
Zenaida V.L. Navarro.
his The former alleged that the latter made
untruthful statements in the acknowledgment
portion of the notarized document stating that
in
they personally appear before him and that
they affixed their signatures in the document in
his presence also the community tax certificates
indicated in the document were not theirs. She
further alleged that respondent effectively
enabled their sister, Navarro to assume full
ownership to their deceased parent’s property
and sell the same to the DPWH.
However respondent contention was he
notarized the said document in good faith
relying on the representation and assurance of
Zenaida Navarro being his neighbor for 30
years.
Issue: WON the act of respondent is a violation
of Notarial Law.
Ruling: Yes. It should be noted that lawyers
commission as notaries public mandated to
discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices,
such duties being dictated by the public policy
and impressed with public interest.
Hence, respondent is suspended in the practice
of law for 1 year and was disqualified from
being commissioned as notary public for a
period of 2 years.
Case No. 5
Facts: Complainants Maria Bacatan Williams
and Orlando Verar Rian Jr filed an
administrative case against Atty. Rodrigo Icao
for violation of the Notarial Law and for
unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful
conduct unbecoming of an attorney
Complainants alleged in the joint Complaint-
Affidavit that respondent notarized a
Declaration of Heirship and Partition making it
appear that the parties involved signed on the
said document when in truth they did not.
Respondent on the other hand admitted that
the document was not executed in his presence
but claims that he met the parties before the
execution of the said document.
Issue: WON the act of respondent is violative in
accordance to Notarial Law.
Ruling: Yes. He is guilty for breach of the
notarial law. It should be noted that
notarization is not an empty, meaningless,
routinary act. It is invested with substantive
public face, notaries public must observe with
utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties, lest the confidence
of the public in the integrity of the document
will be undermined.
Hence, respondent was suspended in the
practice of law and from his commission as
notary public for 1 year.
Case No. 7
2
Facts: Complainant filed a disciplinary action
before the IBP against respondent for his failure
to perform his duty as a notary public which
resulted in the violation of their rights over their
property.
The former alleged that respondent notarized a
deed of donation executed by her late husband
in favor of one Alexander David T. Linco, a
minor. The notarial acknowledgment thereof
also stated that her late husband and the
mother of the done personally appeared before
the latter on July 30, 2003 wherein fact her
husband died a day before the alleged date.
Issue: WON the action of the respondent is
violative in accordance to the Notarial Law.
Ruling: Yes. Respondent chose to ignore the
basics of notarial procedure in order to
accommodate the alleged need of a colleague.
The court repeatedly reminding that notaries
public of the importance attached to the act of
notarization. Notarization is not 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.
Hence, respondent is suspended in the practice
of law for 1 year and his notarial commission
was revoked with a disqualification from
reappointment as Notary Public for 2 years.
Case No. 9 Brennisen vs. Atty. Contawi A.C. No.
7481 April 24, 2012
The former alleged that he owns a parcel of
land which he entrusted the administration to
the latter together with the corresponding
owner’s duplicate title and unknown to his
knowledge the latter through spurious Special
Facts: Complainant filed an administrative
complaint against Atty. Contawi for deceit and
gross misconduct in violation of lawyer’s oath,
causing him damage and prejudice.
Power of Attorney (SPA), mortgaged and
subsequently sold the subject property to one
Roberto Ho.
Respondent, however averred that it was his
former office assistants, Boy Roque and Diaz
who offered the subject property to Ho as
collateral for a loan nevertheless he admitted
having confirmed the spurious SPA in his favour
upon the prodding of his office assistants
because he was also in need of money at that
time.
Issue: WON respondent’s action can disbarred
him.
Ruling: Yes. Respondent acted with deceit
when, through the use of a falsified document,
he effected the unauthorized mortgage and sale
of his client’s property for his personal benefit.
Respondent’s established acts exhibited his
unfitness and plain inability to discharge the
bouden duties of a member of the legal
profession. He failed to prove himself worthy of
the privilege to practice law and to prove
himself worthy of the privilege to practice law.
Hence, respondent was disbarred and his name
ordered stricken from the roll of attorneys.
Case No. 8 Nevada vs. Casuga A.C. No. 7591
March 20, 2012.
Facts: Complainant seeks the disbarment of
Atty. Casuga for alleged violation of his lawyer’s
oath and the 2004 Notarial Practice.
Complainant being the principal stockholder of
Mt. Crest Hotel alleged that respondent
entered into a lease contract to Jung Jong Chul
for an office space in the said property
representing himself as the administrator of the
hotel the contract was without the knowledge
of the former. Also complainant further alleged
that respondent signed over the printed name
of one of the principal stockholders and even
notarized himself. The latter also received 90k
as rental deposit.
Moreover the complainant stated that she
delivered pieces of jewelry to the latter worth
300k and a rolex watch worth 12k for purposes
of selling them however the latter failed to give
the proceeds or items despite repeated
demands.
Issue: WON respondent’s action is violated the
lawyer’s oath and the 2004 Notarial Practice.
Ruling: Yes. Respondent is guilty of
misrepresentation when he made it appear that
3
he was authorized to enter into a contract of
lease in behalf of Nevada when, in fact, he was
not. Furthermore, the records reveal that
respondent received the rentals by virtue of the
contract of lease, benefitting from his
misrepresentation.
Aside from being a violation of the Notarial
Rules, Casuga’s aforementioned act partakes of
malpractice of law and misconduct.
Hence, respondent was suspended in the
practice of law for 4 years also his notarial
commission was revoked and he was
disqualified from being commissioned as a
Notary Public for 4 years.
No. 11 A.C. No. 4191 June 10, 2013
Pena vs. Paterno
On the other hand respondent contention was
she notarized the said Deed in good faith that
complainant never visited said property for 8
years implying that there was approval on her
part.
Issue: WON the action of the respondent
violated the CPR and Notarial Law.
Ruling: Yes. Respondent failure to submit to the
RTC Clerk of Court her Notarial Register/Report
for the month of November 1986 and a copy of
the Deed of Sale, which was notarized by her
within that month has far-reaching implications
and grave consequences, as it in effect
suppressed evidence on the veracity of the said
Deed of Sale and showed the deceitful conduct
of respondent to withhold the truth about its
authenticity.

Facts: Complainant filed an administrative Hence respondent was disbarred from the
complaint against the respondent for acts practice of law and her notarial commissioned
violative of the Code of the Professional was also revoked.
Responsibility and Notarial Law.

Complainant alleged that she owned a parcel of

land located at Parang, Marikina, Metro Manila
that she gave to the respondent her owner’s
duplicate copy to enable respondent to use the
same as collateral in constructing townhouse
and that the title was in the safekeeping of
respondent for seven years. However the
complainant discovered that a building was
erected on her property that the Deed of Sale
was notarized by the respondent without her
knowledge.
4