LUZVIMINDA R. LUSTESTICA v. ATTY. SERGIO E. BERNABE, AC. No.

6258, 2010-08-24

Facts:

For consideration is the disbarment complaint filed by Luzviminda R. Lustestica (complainant) against
Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe (respondent) for notarizing a falsified or forged Deed of Donation of real
property despite the non-appearance of the... donors, Benvenuto H. Lustestica (complainant's father)
and his first wife, Cornelia P. Rivero, both of whom were already dead at the time of execution of the
said document.

In his Answer,[1] the respondent admitted the fact of death of Benvenuto H. Lustestica and Cornelia P.
Rivero, considering their death certificates attached to the complaint.  The respondent claimed,
however, that he had no knowledge that the real

Benvenuto H. Lustestica and Cornelia P. Rivero were already dead at the time he notarized the Deed of
Donation.[2] He also claimed that he exerted efforts to ascertain the identities of the persons who
appeared before him and represented themselves as the... donors under the Deed of Donation.[3]... fter
the submission of the respondent's Answer to the complaint, the Court referred the matter to the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP Commission on Bar Discipline)
for investigation, evaluation and recommendation.  The IBP

Commission on Bar Discipline made the following findings:

The core issue is whether or not Respondent committed a falsehood in violation of his oath as a lawyer
and his duties as Notary Public when he notarized the Deed of Donation purportedly executed by
Benvenuto H. Lustestica and Cornelia P. Rivero as the donors and

Cecilio R. Lustestica and Juliana Lustestica as the donees on 5 August 1994.

As correctly observed by Complainant, Respondent's Acknowledgment is the best evidence that NO

RESIDENCE CERTIFICATES were presented by the alleged donors and the donees

IBP Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. found the respondent grossly negligent in the performance of
his duties as notary public and recommended that the respondent's notarial commission be suspended
for a period of one (1) year. The IBP

Commissioner also recommended that a penalty ranging from reprimand to suspension be imposed
against the respondent, with a warning that a similar conduct in the future will warrant an imposition of
a more severe penalty.[5]

By Resolution No. XVII-2005-116 dated October 22, 2005, the Board of Governors of the IBP Commissi

In his Report dated August 15, 2005, IBP Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. found the respondent
grossly negligent in the performance of his duties as notary public and recommended that the
respondent's notarial commission be suspended for a period of one (1) year. The IBP
Commissioner also recommended that a penalty ranging from reprimand to suspension be imposed
against the respondent, with a warning that a similar conduct in the future will warrant an imposition of
a more severe penalty.[5]

By Resolution No. XVII-2005-116 dated October 22, 2005, the Board of Governors of the IBP Commission
on Bar Discipline adopted and approved the Report of the IBP Commissioner.  The pertinent portion of
this Resolution reads:

Second, on January 6, 2006, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of Resolution No. XVII-
2005-116 before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline

The motion was denied in Resolution No. XVII-2006-81, dated January 28, 2006,[8] for lack of jurisdiction
of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, since the administrative matter had then been endorsed to the
Court.

a motion for reconsideration (the same as the one filed with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline) was
filed by the respondent before the Court.

In a Minute Resolution dated March 22, 2006, the Court noted the findings and recommendations... in
Resolution No. XVII-2005-116 and required the complainant to file her Comment to the respondent's
motion for reconsideration. On April 28, 2006, the complainant filed her Comment praying for the denial
of the motion.

Issues:

whether or not Respondent committed a falsehood in violation of his oath as a lawyer and his duties as
Notary Public when he notarized the Deed of Donation purportedly executed by Benvenuto H. Lustestica
and Cornelia P. Rivero as the donors and

Cecilio R. Lustestica and Juliana Lustestica as the donees on 5 August 1994.

Ruling:

The findings of the Board of Governors of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline are well-taken. We
cannot overemphasize the important role a notary public performs... we stressed that notarization is not
an empty,... meaningless routinary act butone invested with substantive public interest.

The records undeniably show the gross negligence exhibited by the respondent in discharging his duties
as a notary public.

Under the circumstances, we find that the respondent should be made liable not only as a notary public
but also as a lawyer. He not only violated the Notarial Law (Public Act No. 2103), but also Canon 1 and
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

we find the IBP's recommendation to be very light; it is not commensurate with his demonstrated
predisposition to undertake the duties of a notary public and a lawyer lightly.
he circumstances in the present case, we find that Atty. Bernabe should be disbarred from the practice
of law and perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public.  We emphasize that...
this is respondent's second offense and while he does not appear to have any participation in the
falsification of the Deed of Donation, his contribution was his gross negligence for failing to ascertain the
identity of the persons who appeared before him as the donors.

Principles:
Fabay vs. Atty Resuena

A.C. No. 8723 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-2974], January 26, 2016

GREGORY FABAY, Complainant, v. ATTY. REX A. RESUENA, Respondent.

Complainant Fabay alleged that Atty. Resuena violated the provisions of the Notarial Law by notarizing a
special power of attorney notwithstanding the fact that two of the principals therein, Amador Perez and
Valentino Perez were already dead long before the execution of the SPA. Complainant added that Atty.
Resuena likewise notarized a complaint for ejectment in 2003 where Apolo Perez was made to appear as
attorney-in-fact of Amador Perez and Valentino Perez when again the latter could not have possibly
authorized him as they were already dead. Further, complainant averred that Atty. Resuena, as counsel
of the plainfiffs, participated in the barangay conciliations which is prohibited under the law.

Atty. Resuena explained that although it was just Remedios Perez who signed the SPA on behalf of
Amador Perez, Valentino Perez, Gloria Perez and Gracia Perez, there was no misrepresentation since
Remedios Perez is the spouse of Amador Perez and she was likewise previously authorized by the other
co-owners, Gloria Perez and Gracia Perez, to represent them.

Atty. Resuena denied that he participated in the barangay conciliations and presented the certificate
issued by the barangay captain showing that there was no record of his attendance during the
confrontations of the parties before the barangay. He, however, did not deny that Amador Perez and
Valentino Perez were already deceased at the time of the execution and notarization of the  SPA,  he
argued that in the same SPA, Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were signed by or represented by
Remedios Perez. He further insisted that in the acknowledgment portion of the SPA, the names of
Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were not included as among the parties who have personally
appeared before him. Thus, Atty. Resuena insisted that there was no misrepresentation done in the
notarization of the SPA.

Issue:
WON respondent violated the notarial law?

Held:
The SC have held that notarization of a document is not an empty act or routine. 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 and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to
rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument.
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. 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.

Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice stresses the necessity of the affiant's
personal appearance before the notary public:

(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.

In the instant case, it is undisputed that Atty. Resuena violated not only the notarial law but also his oath
as a lawyer when he notarized the subject SPA without all the affiant's personal appearance. As found
by the IBP-CBD, the purpose of the SPA was to authorize a certain Apolo D. Perez to represent the
principals "to sue and be sued in any administrative or judicial tribunal in connection with any suit that
may arise out of their properties." It is, thus, appalling that Atty. Resuena permitted Remedios Perez to
sign on behalf of Amador Perez and Valentino Perez knowing fully well that the two were already dead
at that time and more so when he justified that the latter's names were nevertheless not included in the
acknowledgment albeit they are signatories of the SPA. Equally deplorable is the fact that Remedios was
likewise allowed to sign on behalf of Gracia Perez and Gloria Perez, who were said to be residing abroad.
Worse, he deliberately allowed the use of the subject SPA in an ejectment case that was filed in court. In
effect, Atty. Resuena, in notarizing the SPA, contented himself with Remedios' representation of four of
the six principals of the SPA, doing away with the actual physical appearance of all the parties. There is
no question then that Atty. Resuena ignored the basics of notarial procedure and actually displayed his
clear ignorance of the importance of the office of a notary public. Not only did he violate the notarial
law, he also did so without thinking of the possible damage that might result from its non-observance.

A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very same
person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of
what are stated therein. Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the document in
question, the notary public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the
acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act or deed.

Atty. Resuena's failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only damage to those directly
affected by the notarized document but also made a mockery of the integrity of a notary public and
degraded the function of notarization. More so, in this case, where Atty. Resuena being the counsel of
the plaintiffs-affiants can be assumed to have known the circumstances of the subject case, as well as
the fact that affiants Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were already deceased at the time of the
execution of the subject SPA. Having appeared to have intentionally violated the notarial law, Atty.
Resuena has, in fact, allowed himself to be an instrument of fraud which this Court will not tolerate.

Through his acts, Atty. Resuena committed a serious breach of the fundamental obligation imposed
upon him by the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, which prohibited
him from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. As a lawyer and as an officer of
the court, it was his duty to serve the ends of justice, not to corrupt it. Oath-bound, he was expected to
act at all times in accordance with law and ethics, and if he did not, he would not only injure himself and
the public but also bring reproach upon an honorable profession.
A.C. No. 9514 April 10, 2013

BERNARD N. JANDOQUILE vs. ATTY. QUIRINO P. REVILLA, JR.

Facts: Atty. Revilla, Jr. notarized a complaint-affidavit signed by Heneraline L. Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas
Pedrosa and Elmer L. Alvarado. Heneraline Brosas is a sister of Heizel Wynda Brosas Revilla, Atty. Revilla,
Jr.'s wife. Jandoquile complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. is disqualified to perform the notarization in
violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice providing for the disqualification from performing
notarial services if he is a relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil
degree Jandoquile further complained with regard to Atty. Revilla’s act of notarizing the complaint-
affidavit without requiring the affiants’ presentation of valid IDs.

Atty. Revilla posited that the notarization of the complaint-affidavit was made in his capacity as the
counsel of the complainants executing the affidavit and the fact that he did not require the presentation
of IDs was due to him knowing the affiants personally.

Issue: Whether or not the acts complained of may be grounds for the disbarment of Atty. Revilla.

Ruling: No. Atty. Revilla, Jr.’s violation of the aforesaid disqualification rule is beyond dispute. Atty.
Revilla, Jr. readily admitted that he notarized the complaint-affidavit signed by his relatives within the
fourth civil degree of affinity. Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly
disqualifies him from notarizing the complaint-affidavit, from performing the notarial act, since two of
the affiants or principals are his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. This, however is not a
ground for disbarment.

A "jurat" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person before the
notary public and presents an instrument or document; (b) is personally known to the notary public or
identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity; (c) signs the instrument or
document in the presence of the notary; and (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as
to such instrument or document.

In this case, Heneraline Brosas is a sister of Atty. Revilla, Jr.’s wife; Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa is his wife’s
sister-in-law; and Elmer Alvarado is the live-in houseboy of the Brosas family. Atty. Revilla, Jr. knows the
three affiants personally. Thus, he was justified in no longer requiring them to show valid identification
cards. But Atty. Revilla, Jr. is not without fault for failing to indicate such fact in the "jurat" of the
complaint-affidavit. No statement was included therein that he knows the three affiants personally. Atty.
Revilla, Jr. was clearly disqualified to notarize the complaint-affidavit of his relatives within the fourth
civil degree of affinity. While he has a valid defense as to the second charge, it does not exempt him
from liability for violating the disqualification rule.

Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr., is reprimanded and disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public,
or from performing any notarial act if he is presently commissioned as a notary public, for a period of
three months and is to inform the Court, through an affidavit once the period of his disqualification has
lapsed.
Alfredo Bon vs. Atty. Victor S. Ziga and Atty. Antonio A. Arcangel, A.C. No. 5436, May 27, 2004

Facts:

               According to the complainant, the Bons signed the Waiver and Quitclaim  because of Atty. Ziga’s
representation that the document was merely a withdrawal of a previously executed Special Power of
Attorney.  As it turned out, however, the document was a waiver in favor of Ziga of all the properties
which the Bons inherited from their parents and predecessors-in-interest.   

               Atty. Arcangel’s part, he explained that assuming that he notarized the Waiver and Quitclaim  in
the absence of the signatories, his act 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 public’s 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.

Issue: Whether or not Respondents fraudulently executed the Waiver and Quitclaim.

Held:

               Atty. Ziga, on his part, is not culpable. The fact that Amalia and Angelina Bon are both high
school graduates, while Teresa Bon is a college graduate makes it difficult to believe that they were
deceived into thinking that the contents of the Waiver and Quitclaim,  which is plainly worded,  were
other than what they themselves could have easily ascertained from a reading of the document. The
complaintagainst him is thus, dismissed for lack of merit.

               Atty. Arcangel, however, 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, manifestly breached his duty as a notary public.

               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 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.
              

Heinz R. Heck vs. Judge Anthony E. Santos, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657, February 23, 2004

Facts:

               This is a disbarment case against Judge Anthony E. Santos, who retired on May 22, 2002, for
allegedly violating the Notarial Law before his appointment as judge, on April 11, 1989, or some twenty
years ago.

               The complaint alleged that Santos subscribed and forwarded, on a non-regular basis, notarized
documents since January 1980, when in fact, it was only until January 9, 1984, that he became a duly
commissioned notary public. The complaint further alleged that Judge Santos failed to forward his
Notarial Register after the expiration of his commission in December 1989.

Issue:

               Can a retired judge perform notarial duties without commission?

Held:

               The retirement or resignation of a judge will not preclude the filing thereafter of an
administrative charge against him for which he shall still be held answerable if found guilty.  It is settled
that a judge may be disciplined for acts committed prior to his appointment to the judiciary and that an
administrative complaint against a member of the BAR does not prescribe.

               The respondent did not object to the complaint’s evidence neither did he claim that he was
commissioned as notary public for the years 1980-1983, nor deny the accuracy of such. He merely
answered that there was no proper recording of the commissioned lawyers in the City of Cagayan de
Oro nor of the submitted Notarized Documents/Notarial Register.

               Judge Santos is thus, found guilty of notarizing documents without the requisite notarial
commission and is ordered to pay the fine of P5, 000.00.

               However, considering that the complaint against respondent was filed twenty-four (24) years
after the commission of the act complained of and that there was no private offended party who came
forward and claimed to have been adversely affected by the documents so notarized, the action for
disbarment will not prosper.

               Respondent, as a retired judge, deserved to enjoy the full measure of his well-earned
retirement benefits.
A.C. No. 7184, September 17, 2014

FELIPE B. ALMAZAN, SR., Complainant, v. ATTY. MARCELO B. SUERTE-FELIPE, Respondent.

FACTS: 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 “Extrajudicial 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 Certification6dated 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 City of
Marikina from March 30, 1994 to the date of issuance.

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 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.

IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty for violating the Notarial Law and the lawyer’s
oath, reasoning that he could not notarize the acknowledgment of the subject document in Marikina
City as it was outside the territorial limits of his jurisdiction. Moreover, respondent likewise violated the
lawyer’s oath, specifically its mandate for lawyers, to obey the laws and
do no falsehood.

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.

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, modified the penalty stated in its previous
resolution, imposing, instead, the penalty of reprimand with warning, and disqualification from being
commissioned as a notary public for the decreased period of one (1) year.

ISSUE: The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held administratively
liable.

RULING: The Court concurs with the findings of the IBP except as to the penalty.

As the Investigating Commissioner correctly observed, 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 of Marikina, 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:23cralawred

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 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 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 do any 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 anathema to 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:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

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 in the violation
involved, what the Court said in Nunga v. Viray is 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 to do 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 falsehood, 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 is not 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.30cralawred

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 or
similar 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.