5 Bon vs. Ziga

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 429 2/25/21, 1:45 AM
VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 177

Bon vs. Ziga
*
Adm. Case No. 5436. May 27, 2004.
ALFREDO BON, complainant, vs. ATTYS. VICTOR S.

ZIGA and ANTONIO A. ARCANGEL, respondents.
Administrative Law; Attorneys; Notarization is not an empty,

meaningless, routinary act; Notaries public must observe with
utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their
duties.·Arcangel seems to be laboring under a misguided
understanding of the basic principles of the Notarial Law. It is well
to remind him that 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. Notarization converts a private document into a public
document
_______________
17 People vs. Atop, G.R. Nos. 124303-05, 10 February 1998, 286 SCRA 157.
* SECOND DIVISION.
178
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bon vs. Ziga
thus making that document admissible in evidence without further
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177d5248df35c40c5a4003600fb002c009e/p/APA427/?username=Guest Page 1 of 13
proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to

full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies
and the public at large must be able to rely upon the
acknowledgement executed by a notary public and appended to a
private instrument. 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.
Same; Same; The party or parties who executed the instrument
must be the ones to personally appear before the Notary Public to
acknowledge the document.·A member of the bar who performs an
act as a notary public should not notarize a document unless the
persons who signed the same are the very same persons who
executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the
contents and truth of what are stated therein. The acts of the
affiants cannot be delegated to anyone for what are stated therein
are facts of which they have personal knowledge. They should
swear to the document personally and not through any
representative. Otherwise, their representativeÊs name should
appear in the said documents as the one who executed the same.
That is the only time the representative can affix his signature and
personally appear before the notary public for notarization of the
said document. Simply put, the party or parties who executed the
instrument must be the ones to personally appear before the Notary
Public to acknowledge the document.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court.

Disbarment.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
TINGA, J.:
On May 9, 2001, Alfredo Bon (complainant) filed a

Complaint1 dated April 3, 2001 for disbarment against the
respondents, Attys. Victor S. Ziga (Ziga) and Antonio A.
Arcangel (Arcangel). Allegedly, the respondents, conspiring
with each other and with the use of fraud, intimidation,
stealth, deception and monetary consideration, caused
Amalia Bon-Padre Borjal, Teresa Bon-Padre Patenio,
Felecito Bon and Angelina Bon (collectively, the Bons) to
sign a document entitled Waiver and Quitclaim. According
to the complainant, the Bons signed the Waiver and
Quitclaim because of ZigaÊs representation that the

document was merely a withdrawal of a previously
executed Special Power of Attorney. As it turned
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 1-11, with Annexes.
179
VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 179

Bon vs. Ziga
out, the document was a waiver in favor of Ziga of all the

properties which the Bons inherited from their parents and
predecessors-in-interest.
2
Attached to the Complaint are
Affidavits executed by the Bons renouncing the Waiver
and Quitclaim.
Moreover, the complainant claims that the Bons are
residents of Manila and did not appear before Arcangel
who was then in Albay to acknowledge the Waiver and
Quitclaim. Despite this fact, Arcangel notarized the
document and even made it appear that the Bons
personally appeared before him to acknowledge the same.
On November
3
20, 2001, the respondents filed their Joint
Comment dated October 6, 2001. According to them, the
allegations in the Complaint that the Bons did not
understand the contents of the Waiver and Quitclaim and
that they did not personally appear to acknowledge the
same before Arcangel indicate that the cause of action is
based on alleged intrinsic defects in the document. As such,
only the parties to the document, i.e., the Bons, whose
rights were violated can file the Complaint Being a
stranger to the allegedly defective document, the
complainant cannot file the Complaint. Besides, Maria Bon
Borjal and Rafael Bon-Canafe who are co-signatories to the
Waiver and
4
Quitclaim both declared in their Joint
Affidavit that Ziga thoroughly explained the contents of
the Waiver and Quitclaim to the Bons before they signed
the document. The subscribing witnesses, Rogelio Bon-
Borjal and
5
Nida Barrameda, also declared in their Joint
Affidavit that the contents of the document were explained
to the signatories.
The respondents also aver that it is difficult to believe
that the Bons did not understand the contents of the
document they were signing since Amalia and Angelina
Bon are both high6 school graduates, while Teresa Bon is a
college graduate. Further, the fact that the Bons admit
having accepted P5,000.00 from Ziga to sign the Waiver
and Quitclaim precludes them from questioning the
document.
For ArcangelÊs part, he explains that assuming that he
notarized the Waiver and Quitclaim in the absence of the
signatories, his act
_______________
2 Id., at pp. 6-11, Annexes „B‰ to „D‰.

3 Id., at pp. 19-28, with Annexes.
4 Id., at p. 23, Annex „A‰.
5 Id., at p. 28, Annex „C‰.
6 Id., at pp. 25-27, Annexes „B‰, „B-1‰ and „B-2‰.
180

Bon vs. Ziga
is merely a violation of the Notarial Law but not a ground

for disbarment. He further avers that he was able to talk to
Maria Bon and Rafael Bon-Canafe, both co-signatories to
the document, over the phone. Maria Bon and Rafael Bon-
Canafe allegedly declared that they signed the Waiver and
Quitclaim. The two, in fact, personally delivered the
document for notarization in his office. Thus, he posits that
there was substantial compliance with the Notarial Law
since a notary publicÊs primordial undertaking is merely to
ensure that the signatures on a document are genuine. As
long as they are so, the notary public can allegedly take the
risk of notarizing the document although the signatories
are not present.
In conclusion, the respondents aver that the
complainant must first prove that the Waiver and
Quitclaim is defective before he can file an administrative
case against them.

The complainant filed a Reply, Opposition
7
and Comment
to Joint Comment of Respondents dated April 5, 2001
asserting that he has a right to complain over the
acquisition of the properties subject of the Waiver and
Quitclaim having been mentioned therein. He also avers
that he has the right to inform the Court of the deception
committed by the respondents. He further states that the
Bons signed the document after having been deceived and
intimidated by Ziga who, he claims, exercises moral
ascendancy over the Bons. That the Bons are educated does
not necessarily mean they could not have been intimidated
and deceived. He maintains that the Bons were misled into
believing that what they were signing was a withdrawal of
a previously issued Special Power of Attorney and were
given P5,000.00 each to induce them to sign the Waiver and
Quitclaim.
Even assuming that the signatures appearing on the
Waiver and Quitclaim are genuine, he asserts that it was
still highly irregular for Arcangel to notarize the document
by telephone when it could have been notarized in Manila
where the signatories reside. Lastly, he avers that it is not
necessary for a court to declare that the Waiver and
Quitclaim is defective before the instant administrative
case can proceed.
The8 respondents filed their Comment on ComplainantÊs
Reply dated April 12, 2002 alleging that in his reply, the
complainant
_______________
7 Id., at pp. 41-56, with Annexes.

8 Id., at pp. 31-39.
181
VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 181

Bon vs. Ziga
changed his cause of action from fraud and deception to

intimidation and moral ascendancy. According to them, the
complainant is incompetent to charge Ziga with
intimidation as he was not a party to the document and

was not even present when it was executed. The
respondents insist that the only instance when anyone can
file a disbarment complaint against a lawyer is when the
ground therefore is a public offense like immorality,
misbehavior, betrayal of trust and the like. When, as in the
instant case, the parties to the alleged defective document
have not formally impugned the document themselves, no
one else can. 9
In the CourtÊs Resolution dated July 22, 2002, we
referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report and10
recommendation. Citing
the Report and Recommendation dated November 7, 2002
of its Investigating Commissioner,
11
the IBP passed
Resolution No. XV-2002-604 on December 14, 2002
dismissing the Complaint for lack of merit. According to
the Report and Recommendation, the BonsÊ failure to file
the appropriate action to set aside the Waiver and
Quitclaim casts doubt on their claim that Ziga misled or
deceived them into signing the document. As regards
Arcangel, the IBP concluded that while he may have been
remiss in his duties as a notary public, the same does not
constitute a ground for disbarment. 12
The complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration
dated February 24, 2003 13which the IBP denied in
Resolution No. XV-2003-149 issued on March 22, 2003
since it no longer has jurisdiction to consider and resolve a
matter already endorsed to the Supreme Court. The
complainant then filed with this Court a Motion for
ReExamination of the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating
14
Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines dated September 10, 2003 mainly rehashing
his claim that the respondents induced the Bons to sign the
Waiver and Quitclaim by means of deceit and abuse of
moral ascendancy.
We are hard put to ascribe to Ziga the fraud,
intimidation, stealth and exception with which the
complainant labels his actua-
_______________
9 Id., at p. 58.
10 Id., at pp. 62-72.

11 Id., at p. 61.
12 Id., at pp. 75-76.
13 Id., at p. 74.
14 Id., at pp. 80-82.
182

Bon vs. Ziga
tions. The fact that Amalia and Angelina Bon are both high15
school graduates, while Teresa Eton is a college graduate
makes it difficult to believe that they were deceived into
thinking that the contents of the Waiver and Quitclaim
were other than what they themselves could have easily
ascertained from a reading of the document.
16
As held by the
Court in Bernardo v. Court of Appeals:
. . . The rule that one who signs a contract is presumed to know its
contents has been applied even to contracts of illiterate persons on
the ground that if such persons are unable to read, they are
negligent if they fail to have the contract read to them. If a person
cannot read the instrument, it is as much his duty to procure some
reliable persons to read and explain it to him, before he signs it, as
it would be to read it before he signed it if he were able to do so and
his failure to obtain a reading and explanation of it is such gross
negligence as will estop him from avoiding it on the ground that he
17
was ignorant of its contents. . .
Besides, the Waiver and Quitclaim is plainly worded. It

does not contain complicated terms that might be
misconstrued by anyone who has half the education
attained by Amalia, Angelina and Teresa Bon. Moreover,
the Bons admitted therein that in 1930, their predecessors
sold to the Ziga family the properties to which they now lay
claim. They also declared in the document that it was only
their brother, Alfredo, the complainant in this case, who
still claimed rights over the properties. The relevant
provisions of the Waiver and Quitclaim state:
. . . 1. We are heirs and direct descendants of the late Santiago Bon
of Tabaco, Albay;
2. We had been named as formal parties in DARAB Case No.

V-RC-010, Albay Branch 11 Ê99 entitled Virginia Desuyo, et
al. vs. Alfredo Bon, et al.;
3. We admit that, we the descendants and relatives of the late
Santiago Bon do not have any right or interest anymore
over Lots No. 1911, 1917-A, 1917-B, 1970, 1988, all of
Tabaco, Cadastre, because the above lots had been already
sold by our predecessor in favor of the Ziga Family,
predecessor of Ex-Senator Victor Ziga since 1930, and that
the above
_______________
15 Id., at pp. 25-27, Annexes „B‰, „B-1‰ and „B-2‰.

16 387 Phil. 736; 332 SCRA 1 (2000), citing Tan Tua Sia v. Yu Baio
Sontua, 56 Phil. 707 and Mata v. Court of Appeals, 207 SCRA 753 (1992).
17 Id., at p. 9.
183
VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 183

Bon vs. Ziga
family had been continuously in possession thereof,

thru their tenants since 1930, or for more than 70
years already, to our exclusion;
4. It is only our brother, Alfredo Bon, who adamantly
refuses to admit the above fact and still claim rights
over said properties despite the explanation of our
ancestors that the above mentioned lots had 18
been
long sold by our predecessor to the Zigas. . .
Significantly, as pointed out by the Investigating

Commissioner, the Bons have not filed the appropriate
action to set aside the Waiver and Quitclaim. The
complainant, however, explains that they „will pursue 19
that
the Waiver and Quit Claim be annulled by the court‰ in
Civil Case No. T-2163 pending with the Regional Trial
Court Branch 18, Tabaco City. That they have yet to do so
almost four (4) years after the execution of the Waiver and
Quitclaim diminishes, if not totally discredits, their
position that they were defrauded, intimidated and
deceived into signing the document.
At this time, all that the complainant offers to boost his
claim that Ziga employed deceit in procuring the BonsÊ
signatures are the latterÊs bare allegations to the effect that
Ziga told them there was nothing wrong with the document
except that they were withdrawing the Special Power of
Attorney.20 These allegations are belied by the Joint
Affidavit of Maria Bon-Borjal and Rafael BonCanafe,
21
the
BonsÊ co-signatories, and the Joint Affidavit of Rogelio
Bon Borjal and Nida Barrameda, the subscribing witnesses
to the Waiver and Quitclaim, both of which assert that the
contents of the document were sufficiently explained to the
Bons.
Given these circumstances, the presumptions 22
that a
person takes ordinary care of his concerns; 23that private
transactions have been fair and regular; and that
acquiescence resulted from a belief that 24 the thing
acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact have not
been sufficiently overcome.
_______________
18 Supra, note 1 at p. 4.
19 Id., at p. 84.
20 Supra, note 4.
21 Supra, note 5.
22 Section 3(d), Rule 131, Rules of Court.
23 Section 3(p), Rule 131, Rules of Court.
24 Section 3(x), Rule 131, Rules of Court.
184

Bon vs. Ziga
However, we do find the act of Arcangel in notarizing the

Waiver and Quitclaim without requiring all the persons
who executed the document to personally appear before
him and acknowledge that the same is their free act and
deed an unpardonable breach of his duty as a notary

public.
Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 provides:
(a) The acknowledgement shall be made before a notary public or an

officer duly authorized by law of the country to take
acknowledgements of instruments or documents in the place where
the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the
acknowledgement shall certify that the person acknowledging the
instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same
person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free
act and deed. The certificate shall be made under the official seal, if
he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall
25
so state.
The Acknowledgement contained in the Waiver and

Quitclaim executed in ZigaÊs house in Manila specifically
states: „BEFORE ME, a Notary Public, for and 26
in the above
mentioned locality personally appeared. . . However, the
Bons did not personally appear before Arcangel to
acknowledge the document. Arcangel himself admits as
much but posits that he was able to talk to the BonsÊ co-
signatories over the phone, i.e., Maria Bon and Rafael Bon-
Canafe, and that the two promised to bring the document
to Albay for notarization. Hence, Arcangel claims that
there was substantial compliance with the Notarial Law.
He adds that as long as the signatures on the instrument
are genuine, the notary public can take the risk of
notarizing the document although the signatories are not
present.
Arcangel seems to be laboring under a misguided
understanding of the basic principles of the Notarial Law.
It is well to remind him that 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. Notarization
converts a private document into a public document thus
making that document admissible in evidence without
further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by
law entitled to full faith
_______________
25 Cited in Maligsa v. Cabanting, A.C. No. 4539, May 14, 1997, 272
SCRA 408.
26 Supra, note 1 at p. 5.
185
VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 185

Bon vs. Ziga
and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies

and the public at large must be able to rely upon the
acknowledgement executed by a notary public and
appended to a private instrument. 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 the27 integrity of
this form of conveyance would be undermined.
Thus, a member of the bar who performs an act as a
notary public should not notarize a document unless the
persons who signed the same are the very same persons
who executed and personally appeared before him to attest
to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The
acts of the affiants cannot be delegated to anyone for what
are stated therein are facts of which they have personal
knowledge. They should swear to the document personally
and not through any representative. Otherwise, their
representativeÊs name should appear in the said documents
as the one who executed the same. That is the only time
the representative can affix his signature and personally
appear before
28
the notary public for notarization of the said
document. Simply put, the party or parties who executed
the instrument must be the ones to personally appear 29
before the Notary Public to acknowledge the document.
From his admission, we find that Arcangel failed to
exercise due diligence in upholding
30
his duty
31
as a notary
public. He violated Rules 1.01 and 10.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility as well. However, his
transgression does not warrant disbarment, which is the
severest form of disciplinary sanction.
32
In Ocampo v. Yrreverre, Jr. the Court, taking note of
the remorseful attitude of the respondent who was found
guilty of breach of the notarial law for notarizing a
document in the absence of the
_______________
27 Rosales v. Ramos, A.C. No. 5645, July 2, 2002, 383 SCRA 498,
citations omitted.
28 Villarin v. Sabate, A.C. No. 3324, February 9, 2000, 325 SCRA 123.
29 Maligsa v. Cabanting, supra.
30 Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. Code of Professional Responsibility.
31 Rule 10.01. A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be
misled by any artifice. Code of Professional Responsibility.
32 A.C. No. 5480, September 29, 2003, 412 SCRA 182.
186

Bon vs. Ziga
signatories, revoked his notarial commission for a period of

two (2) years and suspended him from the practice of law
for six (6) months.
WHEREFORE, the Complaint filed against Atty. Victor
S. Ziga is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
As regards Atty. Antonio A. Arcangel, his commission as
Notary Public, if still existing, is REVOKED. He is
DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as such 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 a repetition of a similar violation
will be dealt with even more severely. He is further
DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this Decision
to the Court within five (5) days from such receipt.
The Clerk of Court of this Court is DIRECTED to
immediately circularize this Decision for the proper
guidance of all concerned.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the
Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
and recorded in the personal files of the respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing (Actg. Chairman), Austria-Martinez

and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
Puno (Chairman), J., On Official Leave.
Complaint against Atty. Victor S. Ziga dismissed. Atty.

Antonio A. ArcangelÊs commission as Notary Public revoked.
He is disqualified from being commissioned for two (2)
years and suspended from practice of law for six (6) months,
with warning against repetition of similar violation.
Note.·The act of a notary in administering an oath in

affiantÊs absence, while not amounting to gross misconduct,
is censurable. (Villareal vs. Diongzon, 345 SCRA 321
[2000])
··o0o··
187
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

5 Bon vs. Ziga

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 Bon vs. Ziga

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 429 2/25/21, 1:45 AM

VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 177

ALFREDO BON, complainant, vs. ATTYS. VICTOR S.

Administrative Law; Attorneys; Notarization is not an empty,

178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bon vs. Ziga

thus making that document admissible in evidence without further

proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

On May 9, 2001, Alfredo Bon (complainant) filed a

Quitclaim because of ZigaÊs representation that the

1 Rollo, pp. 1-11, with Annexes.

VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 179

out, the document was a waiver in favor of Ziga of all the

2 Id., at pp. 6-11, Annexes „B‰ to „D‰.

180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

is merely a violation of the Notarial Law but not a ground

case against them.

7 Id., at pp. 41-56, with Annexes.

VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 181

changed his cause of action from fraud and deception to

intimidation as he was not a party to the document and

10 Id., at pp. 62-72.

182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Besides, the Waiver and Quitclaim is plainly worded. It

. . . 1. We are heirs and direct descendants of the late Santiago Bon

2. We had been named as formal parties in DARAB Case No.

15 Id., at pp. 25-27, Annexes „B‰, „B-1‰ and „B-2‰.

VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 183

family had been continuously in possession thereof,

Significantly, as pointed out by the Investigating

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

However, we do find the act of Arcangel in notarizing the

deed an unpardonable breach of his duty as a notary

(a) The acknowledgement shall be made before a notary public or an

The Acknowledgement contained in the Waiver and

VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 185

and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies

document in the absence of the

186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

signatories, revoked his notarial commission for a period of

Quisumbing (Actg. Chairman), Austria-Martinez

Complaint against Atty. Victor S. Ziga dismissed. Atty.

Note.·The act of a notary in administering an oath in

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like