Lawyers As Notary Public

A.C. No.
10252, December 11, 2019
IAN B. CARONONGAN, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. JAIRO M. LADERA,

RESPONDENT.
FACTS:
a. Carnongan was a bank officer at Peoples Bank of Caraga located in Agusan Del
Sur.
b. According to him Atty. Ladera notarized an incomplete Contract of Lease
purportedly executed between the Bank and the mother of Atty. Ladera (with a
manager ng bank)
c. He said that it is prohibited under the rules to notarize a document when the
contract involves a family relative and that the notarized document was
incomplete because it does not include the signature of Wilma (Banl’s Manager)
Atty Ladera Contention:
- He claimed that even Caronongan is not authorized to institute a case because

he was not an aggrieved party. (Kasi yung parties lang is sina Wilma, the mother
and Atty. Ladera)
- He also contended that since the parties did not agree to the terms so it did not
confer to any rights.
- Being a new lawyer, he was so eager to solve everyone's legal problems and due
to modest unfamiliarity, without any intention to cause damage, he
acknowledged the instrument executed by his mother.
- Respondent added that such document was not incomplete because it was only
his mother who signed it. He stressed that he did not mention at all in the same
document that Wilma appeared and signed the contract before him.
Caronongan’s Contention:
- Complainant also averred that as a law degree holder, although not a bar passer,
he was familiar with the obligations of a notary public. He asserted that it was a
basic principle of law that the notary public was prohibited from subscribing
documents involving one's relatives within the fourth degree of affinity and
consanguinity.
Canons Violated: Canon 1, Rule 1.01
Issue
Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of.
Our Ruling
We agree with the findings of the IBP, but not to the recommended penalty.
To begin with, the Court once again stresses that notarization is not a meaningless,
empty or a mere routine act. It is so imbued with public interest as it transforms a
private document into a public one making the document admissible in evidence
without need of proof of its authenticity. As such, to preserve the integrity of any
document subject of notarization, a notary public is expected to observe with due care
the basic requirements in performing his or her duties.15
Moreover, a notary public is authorized to notarize a document provided that

the person or persons who signed it are the same ones who executed and
personally appeared before him or her to attest to the contents and the truth
of the matters therein stated. This requirement is for the purpose of ensuring that
the notarized document is the free act of the party or parties to it. 16 Added to this,
Section 3(c), Rule IV of the Rules disqualifies a notary public from notarizing
documents where the principal thereof is a relative within the fourth civil
degree of affinity or consanguinity of the notary public.
In this case, respondent notarized the subject lease contract signed by his mother. By
this fact alone, he violated the disqualification rule under the aforesaid provision of the
Rules.17 However, the Court notes that other than respondent's mother, no other party
signed the contract. In fact, as embodied in the Acknowledgment itself, respondent did
not declare that any other person appeared before him, aside from his mother, to wit:
BEFORE ME, a notary for and in the City of Cagayan de Oro, on this 27 th day of
September, 2011, personally appeared Teresita M. Ladera of Zone 1, Upper Bantiles,
Bugo, Cagayan de Oro City with Social Security Systems card no. 09-0462456-6,
known to me and known to be to be same person who executed the Contract of Lease,
and she acknowledged to me that the same is her free act and voluntary deed.
This contract relates to the lease of a parcel of land and the first floor of its building
located at Bad-as, Placer, Surigao del Norte consisting of three (3) pages including on
which this acknowledgement is written and was signed by the above stated party and
the instrumental witnesses on each and every page thereof.
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL.18

At the same time, complainant himself admitted that the Bank and Teresita did not
pursue the agreement surrounding the lease agreement. This only shows that despite
its notarization, no apparent injury was caused to any party by respondent's act of
notarizing a document signed by his mother. Moreover, respondent readily admitted his
mistake contending that he was a new lawyer at the time he notarized the subject
instrument. He asserted, too, that he was so eager to be of help but due to modest
unfamiliarity, without any intention to cause damage, he acknowledged the instrument
executed by his mother.
By virtue of the foregoing attendant circumstances, the Court deems it proper to

instead admonish respondent considering that: (1) no evidence of bad faith can be
imputed against him; (2) he readily admitted his mistake; (3) no prejudice to any
person was caused by his complained act; and (4) he was a new lawyer and a first time
offender when he committed it. We believe that because of this case, respondent
learned his lesson already as regards notarizing a seemingly harmless instrument.
Certainly, this experience will teach him to be more circumspect in exercising his duties
as a notary public.19
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jairo M. Ladera is ADMONISHED with
a WARNING that a repetition of a similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Perlas-Bernabe, Senior Associate Justice, (Chairperson), A. Reyes, Jr., Hernando,

and Delos Santos, JJ., concur.
A.C. No. 9917, January 14, 2019
NORBERTO S. COLLANTES, Complainant, v. ATTY. ANSELMO B.

MABUTI, Respondent.
FACTS
a. Collantes alleged that Atty. Mabuti notarized a memorandum of agreement in

manula.
b. Upon verification, however, he discovered that respondent was not
commissioned as a notary public in the City of Manila for the years 2008- 2009.
c. Mabuti denied the allegations and claimed that the signature in the
"Memorandum of Agreement" is not his and that Collantes’ motives for filing the
present case against him, claiming that the latter has pending cases
for Estafa filed against him.
Canons violated
Canon 1, 1.01, 7
The Issue Before the Court
whether respondent liable for violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules.
The Court's Ruling
The Court affirms the findings and adopts with modification the recommendations of the
IBP Board of Governors.
The Court has emphatically stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless,
routinary act. Notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public
document making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. 16 A
notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit, 17 and as such, notaries
public are obligated to observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties.18
For these reasons, notarization is invested with substantive public interest, such that
only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. 19 As a corollary to
the protection of that interest, those not qualified or authorized to act must be
prevented from imposing upon the public, the courts, and the administrative offices in
general.20 The requirements for the issuance of a commission as a notary public must
not be treated as a mere casual formality.21
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, an act which the Court has
characterized as reprehensible, constituting as it does, not only malpractice, but also
the crime of falsification of public documents, the offender may be subjected to
disciplinary action.22 Jurisprudence provides that without a commission, a lawyer
is unauthorized to perform any of the notarial acts. 23 A lawyer who performs a
notarial act without such commission violates the lawyer's oath to obey the
laws, more specifically, the Notarial Rules.24
In this case, the IBP found that respondent notarized the subject document,
"Memorandum of Agreement," without being commissioned as a notary public at the
time of notarization. This fact has been duly certified to by none other than the Notarial
Section of the Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial
Court of Manila.25 Thus, by knowingly performing notarial acts at the time when he was
not authorized to do so, respondent clearly violated the Notarial Rules and in
consequence, should be held administratively liable.
It should be emphasized that respondent's transgressions of the Notarial Rules also

have a bearing on his standing as a lawyer. 26 In Virtusio v. Virtusio,27 the Court
observed that "[a] lawyer who notarizes a document without a proper commission
violates his lawyer's oath to obey the law. He makes it appear that he is commissioned
when he is not. He thus indulges in deliberate falsehood that the lawyer's oath forbids.
This violation falls squarely under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Canon 7 as well," 28 to wit:
CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
CANON 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and support the activities of the integrated bar.
Notably, while the Court agrees with the IBP's findings as regards respondent's
administrative liability, the Court, however, cannot adopt the recommendation of the
IBP Board of Governors to increase the penalty against respondent to
"[p]erpetual [d]isqualification from being commissioned as [a] [n]otary [p]ublic"29 in
view of an alleged earlier infraction for which he was found guilty of violating the
Notarial Rules by the IBP in CBD Case No. 11-3036. After an examination of
respondent's personal record as a member of the Bar, it has been ascertained that the
resolution of the IBP in the said case has yet to be forwarded to the Court for its
approval. As case law explains, the "[f]actual findings and recommendations of the
[IBP] Commission on Bar Discipline and the Board of Governors x x x are
recommendatory, subject to review by the Court." 30 In Torres v. Dalangin:31
It is the Supreme Court, not the IBP, which has the constitutionally mandated duty to
discipline lawyers. The factual findings of the IBP can only be recommendatory. Its
recommended penalties are also, by their nature, recommendatory. 32
Thus, pending approval by the Court, the findings and resolution in CBD Case No. 11-
3036 are only recommendatory, and hence (1) fail to establish the fact that respondent
has already been held liable for a prior offense, and (2) cannot consequently serve to
aggravate the penalty in this case.
In fine, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, 33 respondent is meted with the

following: (a) suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year; (b) immediate
revocation of his notarial commission, if any; and (c) disqualification from being
commissioned as a notary public for a period of one (1) year only.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds respondent Atty. Anselmo B. Mabuti

(respondent) GUILTY of violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and of Rule
1.01, Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly,
effective immediately, the Court: SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one (1)
year; REVOKES his incumbent commission as a notary public, if any;
and PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public for one (1) year. He
is WARNED that a repetition of the same offense or similar acts in the future shall be
dealt with more severely.
The suspension in the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and

disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public shall take effect
immediately upon receipt of this Resolution by respondent. He is DIRECTED to
immediately file a Manifestation to the Court that his suspension has started, copy
furnished all courts and quasijudicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as
counsel.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be
appended to respondent's personal record as an attorney; the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for its information and guidance; and the Office of the Court Administrator
for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., and Hernando,*JJ., concur.
A.C. No. 10132, March 24, 2015
HEIRS OF PEDRO ALILANO REPRESENTED BY DAVID

ALILANO, Complainants, v. ATTY. ROBERTO E. EXAMEN, Respondent.
FACTS
a. Absolute Deeds of Sale were executed by the Spouses Alilano in favor of Ramon
Examen and his wife, Edna.
b. Both documents were notarized by Atty. Roberto Examen.
c. Spouses Examen obtained possession of the property.
d. The heirs of Alilano filed a suit for recovery of possessionagainst Edna Examen
and Atty. Roberto Examen.
e. It was during this proceeding that Atty. Examen introduced into evidence the
Absolute Deeds of Sale.
Petitioner’s Contention:
- Atty. Examen violated the notarial law when he notarized an absolute deeds of
sale of a relative within the fourth civil degree (consguinity) second degree
(affinity)
- It is also alleged that Atty. Examen notarized the documents knowing that
the cedula or residence certificate number used by Ramon Examen was not
actually his but the residence certificate number of Florentina.
- Atty. Examen also falsely acknowledged that the two witnesses personally
appeared before him when they did not.
- Lastly, it is alleged that despite knowing the infirmities of these documents, Atty.
Examen introduced these documents into evidence violating his oath as a lawyer
and the CPR.
Atty. Examen’s Allegation
- There was no prohibition in the notarization law.

- Atty. Examen said that he was in good faith and that it was office practice that
the secretary type details without him personally examining the output. 15 In any
event, he reasoned that the use of another’s residence certificate is not a ground
for disbarment and is barred by prescription.
ISSUE:
Whether he is administratively liable. (YES)
RULING:
NO PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS FOR ACTS OF ERRING MEMBERS OF THE BAR
In Frias v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada,21 the Court En Banc opined that there can be no

prescription in bar discipline cases. It pointed out this has been the policy since 1967
with the Court’s ruling in Calo, Jr. v. Degamo22 and reiterated in Heck v. Santos23 where
we had the chance to state: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
If the rule were otherwise, members of the bar would be emboldened to disregard the
very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private
complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being completely
exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for. It is the
duty of this Court to protect the integrity of the practice of law as well as the
administration of justice. No matter how much time has elapsed from the time of the
commission of the act complained of and the time of the institution of the complaint,
erring members of the bench and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court.
This categorical pronouncement is aimed at unscrupulous members of the bench and
bar, to deter them from committing acts which violate the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, or the Lawyer’s Oath. x x x
Thus, even the lapse of considerable time from the commission of the offending act to
the institution of the administrative complaint will not erase the administrative
culpability of a lawyer…. (Italics supplied) 24 cralawlawlibrary
We therefore ruled in Frias, that Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the
IBP CBD was void and had no legal effect for being ultra vires and thus null and void.25 cralawred
This ruling was reiterated in the more recent case of Bengco v. Bernardo,26 where the
Court stated that putting a prescriptive period on administrative cases involving
members of the bar would only serve to embolden them to disregard the very oath they
took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private complainant would
immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being completely exonerated from
whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for.
Atty. Examen’s defense of prescription therefore is of no moment and deserves scant

consideration.
THE SPANISH NOTARIAL LAW OF

1889 WAS REPEALED BY THE REVISED
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1917
Prior to 1917, governing law for notaries public in the Philippines was the Spanish
Notarial Law of 1889. However, the law governing Notarial Practice is changed with the
passage of the January 3, 1916 Revised Administrative Code, which took effect in
1917. In 2004, the Revised Rules on Notarial Practice 27 was passed by the Supreme
Court.
In Kapunan, et al. v. Casilan and Court of Appeals,28 the Court had the opportunity to
state that enactment of the Revised Administrative Code repealed the Spanish Notarial
Law of 1889. Thus: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
It is petitioners’ contention that Notary Public Mateo Canonoy, who was related to the
parties in the donation within the fourth civil degree of affinity, was, under Articles 22
and 28 of the Spanish Notarial Law, incompetent and disqualified to authenticate the
deed of donation executed by the Kapunan spouses in favor of their daughter
Concepcion Kapunan Salcedo. Said deed of donation, according to petitioners, became
a mere private instrument under Article 1223 of the old Civil Code, so that under the
ruling laid down in the case of Barretto vs. Cabreza (33 Phil., 413), the donation was
inefficacious. The appellate court, however, in the decision complained of held that the
Spanish Notarial Law has been repealed with the enactment of Act No. 496. We find
this ruling to be correct. In the case of Philippine Sugar Estate vs. Poizart (48 Phil.,
536), cited in Vda. de Estuart vs. Garcia (Adm. Case No. 212, prom. February 15,
1957), this Court held that “The old Spanish notarial law and system of
conveyance was repealed in the Philippines and another and different notarial
law and system became the law of the land with the enactment of Act No.
496.”29 (Emphasis supplied) cralawlawlibrary
In this case, the heirs of Alilano stated that Atty. Examen was prohibited to notarize the
absolute deeds of sale since he was related by consanguinity within the fourth civil
degree with the vendee, Ramon. The prohibition might have still applied had the
applicable rule been the Spanish Notarial Law. However, following the Court’s ruling
in Kapunan, the law in force at the time of signing was the Revised Administrative
Code, thus, the prohibition was removed. Atty. Examen was not incompetent to
notarize the document even if one of the parties to the deed was a relative, his brother.
As correctly observed by the IBP CBD: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
At the time of notarization, the prevailing law governing notarization was Sections 231-
259, Chapter 11 of the Revised Administrative Code and there was no prohibition on a
notary public from notarizing a document when one of the interested parties is related
to the notary public within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or second degree of
affinity.30
cralawlawlibrary
Note must be taken that under 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule IV, Section 3(c), a
notary public is disqualified among others to perform the notarial act if he is related by
affinity or consanguinity to a principal within the fourth civil degree, to wit: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 3. Disqualifications. – A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act

if he:
x x x x
(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or

consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree. cralawlawlibrary
That Atty. Examen was not incompetent to act as a notary public in the present case
does not mean that he can evade administrative liability under the CPR in conjunction
with the provisions of the Notarial Law.
NOTARIES PUBLIC MUST PERFORM

THEIR DUTIES DILIGENTLY AND
WITH UTMOST CARE
In Nunga v. Atty. Viray,31 this Court stated: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
…[N]otarization 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 the
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. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. For
this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of their duties. 32 (Emphasis supplied; citations
omitted) cralawlawlibrary
Thus under the prevailing law at the time of notarization it was the duty of the notary
public to comply with the requirements of the Notarial Law. This includes the duty
under Chapter 11, Section 251 of the Revised Administrative Code: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 251. Requirement as to notation of payment of cedula [residence] tax. – Every

contract, deed, or other document acknowledged before a notary public shall have
certified thereon that the parties thereto have presented their proper cedula [residence]
certificates or are exempt from the cedula [residence] tax, and there shall be entered
by the notary public as a part of such certification the number, place of issue, and date
of each
cralawlawlibrary
cedula [residence] certificate as aforesaid.
Under Chapter 11, Section 249 of the Revised Administrative Code provided a list of the
grounds for disqualification: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 249. Grounds for revocation of commission. – The following derelictions of duty on

the part of a notary public shall, in the discretion of the proper judge of first instance,
be sufficient ground for the revocation of his commission:
x x x x
(f) The failure of the notary to make the proper notation regarding cedula certificates. chanrobleslaw
x
cralawlawlibrary
x x x
In Soriano v. Atty. Basco,33 the Court stated that notaries public are required to follow
formalities as these are mandatory and cannot be simply neglected. Thus, the Notarial
Law requires them to certify that a party to the instrument acknowledged before him
has presented the proper residence certificate (or exemption from the residence
certificate) and to enter its number, place of issue and date as part of the certification.
Failure to perform his duties results in the revocation of a notary’s commission. The
Court said: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
As a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, respondent is mandated to discharge

with fidelity the sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties being
dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. Faithful observance
and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment are
sacrosanct. He cannot simply disregard the requirements and solemnities of the
Notarial Law.34 (Emphasis supplied) cralawlawlibrary
Here, based on the submission of the complainants, it is clear that the

residence certificate number used by Ramon Examen and as notarized by Atty.
Examen in both Absolute Deeds of Sale was not in fact the residence
certificate of Ramon but Florentina’s residence certificate number. 35 Atty.
Examen interposes that he was in good faith in that it was office practice to
have his secretary type up the details of the documents and requirements
without him checking the correctness of same.
A notary public must discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed with public
interest, with accuracy and fidelity. 36 Good faith cannot be a mitigating circumstance in
situations since the duty to function as a notary public is personal. We note that the
error could have been prevented had Atty. Examen diligently performed his functions:
personally checked the correctness of the documents. To say that it was his secretary’s
fault reflects disregard and unfitness to discharge the functions of a notary public for it
is he who personally acknowledges the document. He was behooved under Section
251, Chapter 11 of the Revised Administrative Code to check if the proper cedulas were
presented and inspect if the documents to be acknowledged by him reflected the
correct details. This Court cannot stress enough that notarization is not a routinary
act. It is imbued with substantive public interest owing to the public character of his
duties37.
Atty. Examen posits that the failure of a notary to make the proper notation
of cedulas can only be a ground for disqualification and not the proper subject for a
disbarment proceeding. We disagree.
In violating the provisions of the Notarial Law, Atty. Examen also transgressed the his
oath as a lawyer, provisions of the CPR and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
which provides: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. –

A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office,
grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission
to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for
corruptly and willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority
so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally
or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. cralawlawlibrary
By his negligent act of not checking the work of his secretary and merely perfunctorily
notarizing documents, it cannot be said that he upheld legal processes thus violating
Canon 1 of the CPR. Neither can it be said that he promoted confidence in the legal
system. If anything, his acts serve to undermine the functions of a diligent lawyer. He
thus ran afoul Rule 1.02 of the CPR. We cannot stress enough that as a lawyer,
respondent is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and
confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of the legal profession. 38 A lawyer’s
mandate includes thoroughly going over documents presented to them typed or
transcribed by their secretaries.39 cralawred
The Court notes that the case between the parties is not the first that reached this
Court. In Edna Examen and Roberto Examen v. Heirs of Pedro Alilano and Florentina
Pueblo,40 Atty. Examen and his sister-in-law questioned via a petition for certiorari 41 the
propriety of three Court of Appeals’ Resolutions relating to a case involving Lot No.
1085 Pls-544-D this time with respect to its fruits. There the Court of Appeals (CA)
after giving Atty. Examen 90 days to file his appellant’s brief, denied a second motion
for extension of time merely on the basis of a flimsy reason that he had misplaced
some of the transcript of the witnesses’ testimonies. The CA did not find the reason of
misplaced transcript as good and sufficient cause to grant the extension pursuant to
Section 12,42 Rule 44 of the Revised Rules of Court. It stated that it was a “flimsy and
lame excuse to unnecessarily delay the proceedings.” 43 The CA was of the opinion that
defendant-appellant’s, herein respondent, motion was “a mockery of the procedural
rules.”44 This Court denied the petition for various procedural defects. 45 cralawred
With respect to the penalty imposed, given that Atty. Examen not only failed to uphold
his duty as a notary public but also failed to uphold his lawyer’s oath and ran afoul the
provisions of the CPR, the Court deems it proper to suspend Atty. Examen from the
practice of law for a period of two years following this Court’s decision in Caalim-
Verzonilla v. Pascua.46 cralawred
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto E. Examen is hereby SUSPENDED from the

practice of law for TWO (2) YEARS. In addition, his present notarial commission, if
any, is hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary
public for a period of two (2) years from finality of this Decision. He is
further WARNED that any similar act or infraction in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be
appended to respondent’s personal record as an attorney, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, the Department of Justice and all courts in the country for their information
and guidance.
SO ORDERED. cralawlawlibrary
Sereno, C.J., Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo,
Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Carpio, J., on leave.
A.C. No. 9081 October 12, 2011
RODOLFO A. ESPINOSA and MAXIMO A. GLINDO, Complainants,

vs.
ATTY. JULIETA A. OMAÑA, Respondent.
The Antecedent Facts
a. Espinosa and his wife asked Atty. Omana for legal advice on whether they could live
separately as husband and wife
b. Atty. Omana prepared a disument called “Kasunduan ng Paghihiwalay.”
c. It was alleged that Espinosa and Maranted were fully convinced with the document.
d. However, Marantal eventually took custody of all their children and took possession of most
of the property they acquired during their union.
e. Espinosa sought the advice of his fellow employee, complainant Glindo, a law graduate, who
informed him that the contract executed by Omaña was not valid.
f. Espinosa and Glindo then hired the services of a lawyer to file a complaint against Omaña
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).
Omana’s Contention:
She alleged that she didn’t know that her secretary notarized and forged her signature. She also
presented Marantal’s sinumpaang salaysay to show that the complaint was instigated by Glindo.
Espinosa’s Contention
Espinosa later submitted a "Karagdagang Salaysay" stating that Omaña arrived at his residence
together with a girl whom he later recognized as the person who notarized the contract. He further
stated that Omaña was not in her office when the contract was notarized.
ISSUE
Whether Omaña violated the Canon of Professional Responsibility in the notarization of Marantal
and Espinosa’s "Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay."
The Ruling of this Court
We adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP-CBD.
This case is not novel. This Court has ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal
partnership without judicial approval is void.2 The Court has also ruled that a notary public should not
facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging the separation of the
spouses and extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal partnership, 3 which is exactly what Omaña did in
this case.
1avvphi1
In Selanova v. Judge Mendoza,4 the Court cited a number of cases where the lawyer was
sanctioned for notarizing similar documents as the contract in this case, such as: notarizing a
document between the spouses which permitted the husband to take a concubine and allowed the
wife to live with another man, without opposition from each other; 5 ratifying a document entitled
"Legal Separation" where the couple agreed to be separated from each other mutually and
voluntarily, renouncing their rights and obligations, authorizing each other to remarry, and
renouncing any action that they might have against each other; 6 preparing a document authorizing a
married couple who had been separated for nine years to marry again, renouncing the right of action
which each may have against the other;7 and preparing a document declaring the conjugal
partnership dissolved.8
We cannot accept Omaña’s allegation that it was her part-time office staff who notarized the
contract. We agree with the IBP-CBD that Omaña herself notarized the contract. Even if it were true
that it was her part-time staff who notarized the contract, it only showed Omaña’s negligence in
doing her notarial duties. We reiterate that a notary public is personally responsible for the
entries in his notarial register and he could not relieve himself of this responsibility by
passing the blame on his secretaries9 or any member of his staff.
We likewise agree with the IBP-CBD that in preparing and notarizing a void document, Omaña
violated 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." Omaña knew fully well
that the "Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay" has no legal effect and is against public policy. Therefore,
Omaña may be suspended from office as an attorney for breach of the ethics of the legal profession
as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.10
WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Julieta A. Omaña from the practice of law for ONE YEAR.
We REVOKE Atty. Omaña’s notarial commission, if still existing, and SUSPEND her as a notary
public for TWO YEARS.
Let a copy of this Decision be attached to Atty. Omaña’s personal record in the Office of the Bar
Confidant. Let a copy of this Decision be also furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and to all courts in the land.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
[G.R. NO. 176984 - August 29, 2012]
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SERVANDO ARGUELLES

(Deceased) & CLAUDIO ARGUELLES and MARILOU TRINIDAD, for herself and
as guardian ad litem of her minor children namely, LLOYD, MARK, ADRIAN,
and GEORGIA, all surnamed TRINIDAD, TRISTAN TRINIDAD and EDGARDO
TRINIDAD, JR., Respondents.
[G.R. NO. 179131]
MARILOU TRINIDAD, for herself and as guardian ad litem of her minor children
LLOYD, MARK, ADRIAN & GEORGIA, all surnamed TRINIDAD, EDGARDO
TRINIDAD, JR. and TRISTAN TRINIDAD, Petitioners, v. SERVANDO ARGUELLES
(Deceased) and CLAUDIO ARGUELLES, and METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST
COMPANY, Respondents.
FACTS
a. Arguelles brothers were the owners of a parcel of land in Imus Cavite.

b. The brothers entered into a conditional sale with Edgardo Trinidad and his wife.
c. The Trinidads gave the Arguelleses Php 50, 000 downpayment and began
developing properties in 1986.
d. By virtue of a deed of sale, the Trinidads eventually had the land titled in their
names.
e. In that same year, they applied with Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company
(Metrobank) for a loan, offering the land as collateral.
f. The Arguellasses filed a complaint against the Trinidads for the cancellation of
the land title.
Arguellas Contention
The Arguelleses denied having executed a deed of sale in favor of the Trinidads. They
alleged that they entrusted their owner s duplicate copy of title to Atty. Alejandro
Saulog, Sr., who assisted the parties in executing a conditional sale covering the land.
The Trinidads used a fictitious deed of sale, notarized by a certain Atty. Saulog, Jr. to
effect the transfer of title in their names.
Trinidad’s Contention
The Trinidads claimed that they paid for the land by installments, completing the
payment on June 24, 1986 with the result that the Arguelleses executed the deed of
sale in their favor.
RTC’s Decision
In its decision of December 27, 2005 the RTC ruled in favor of the Arguelleses and
cancelled both the title in the name of the Trinidads and the mortgages in Metrobank s
favor.
ISSUE
1. Whether or not the CA erred in holding that the deed of sale, which the Arguelleses
supposedly executed and that the Trinidads used for the transfer of the property in
their names, was a falsified document; and cralawlibrary
2. Whether or not the CA erred in holding that the real estate mortgages that the
Trinidads executed in favor of Metrobank are not binding on the Arguelleses.
RULING
The key question in these cases is the authenticity of the deed of sale that the
Arguelleses supposedly executed in favor of the Trinidads and that the latter used in
transferring the property title in their names. Both the RTC and the CA held that the
deed was not authentic. Ordinarily, being a question of fact, the RTC s finding, affirmed
by the CA, carries great weight. But, here, since such finding appears to be based on a
flawed drawing of conclusions from the facts, the Court is justified in taking a second
look.4 Ï‚rÎ½ll
The courts below concluded that the subject deed of sale is not authentic based on the
following: Ï‚Î·Î±Ã±rÎ¿blÎµÅ¡ Î½Î¹râ€ Ï…Î±l lÎ±Ï‰ lÎ¹brÎ±rÃ ¿
1. The notary public who notarized the document could not recall if the Arguelleses
personally appeared and signed the deed of sale before him;
2. Two copies of the deed of sale, one dated 1986 and the other 1991, were presented;
3. The Trinidads failed to prove that they paid the Arguelleses the full purchase price
mentioned in the conditional sale; and cralawlibrary
4. The testimony of the expert witness for the Arguelleses sufficiently proved that the
two brothers signatures were forged.
chanrobles virtual law library
First. Both the RTC and the CA held that the presumption of regularity of a public
document5 did not attach to the subject deed of sale, given that the notary public, Atty.
Saulog, Jr. failed to establish the authenticity of the signatures on it. He could not
remember if the Arguelleses, present in court as he testified, were the same persons
who appeared and acknowledged the document before him.
But it is too much to expect a notary public who had but a brief time with the
Arguelleses during the notarial ceremony to remember their faces 12 years later. What
matters is Atty. Saulog, Jr. s testimony respecting the ritual of notarization that he
invariably followed. He gave unbending assurance that he ascertained the identities of
the parties to documents who appeared before him, including the Arguelleses, by
requiring them to show documentary proofs of the same 6 and to sign the documents in
his presence.7 Ï‚rÎ½ll
Besides, the theory of the Arguelleses is that it was Atty. Saulog, Jr. who facilitated the
preparation of the falsified deed of sale for the benefit of the Trinidads. But, if this were
so, it would have made more sense for Atty. Saulog, Jr. to testify in defense of the
genuineness of the transaction by claiming that he recalled the faces of those who
appeared before him 12 years ago and that they were no other than the Arguelleses.
A.C. No. 8384 April 11, 2013
EFIGENIA M. TENOSO Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. ANSELMO S. ECHANEZ, Respondent.
FACTS
a. Complainant, Tenoso alleged that Atty. Echanez was engaged in practice as a notary public
in Cordon, lsabela, without having been properly commissioned by the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Santiago City, Isabela.
b. Despite being a notary public for the years 2006-2008, his joint affidavit in 2008 could not be
"authenticated as to respondent's seal and signature as NO Notarial Commission was issued
upon him at the time of the document's notarization.
Atty. Enchanez’ Contention:
- Atty. Echanez denied the allegations.
- He alleged that the documents are tampered and adultered.
- He failed to attend the mandatory conference and likewise failed to file his Position Paper.
RULING
The Court modifies the IBP Board of Governors' Resolution.
Complainant presented evidence supporting her allegation that respondent had notarized various
documents in Cordon, Isabela from 2006 to 2008 and that respondent's name does not appear on
the list of notaries public commissioned by the RTC of Santiago City, Isabela for the years 2006 to
2007 and 2007 to 2008.
Respondent failed to present evidence to rebut complainant's allegations. Per Section 1, Rule 131
1âwphi1
of the Rules of Court,9 the burden of proof is vested upon the party who alleges the truth of his claim
or defense or any fact in issue. Thus, in Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of
the Court Administrator v. Gutierrez,10 where a party resorts to bare denials and allegations and fails
to submit evidence in support of his defense, the determination that he committed the violation is
sustained. Respondent merely posited that the notarized documents presented by complainant were
"tampered and adulterated" or were results of forgery, but he failed to present any proof.11
Respondent also resorted to a sweeping and unsupported statement that he never notarized any
document. Accordingly, the reasonable conclusion is that respondent repeatedly notarized
documents without the requisite notarial commission.
Time and again, this Court emphasizes that the practice of law is imbued with public interest and
that "a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession,
to the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of the most important functions of the State -
the administration of justice - as an officer of the court."12 Accordingly, '"lawyers are bound to
maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity and fair
dealing."13
Similarly, the duties of notaries public are dictated by public policy and impressed with public
interest.14 "Notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act, for notarization converts a private
document to a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of
preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution."15
In misrepresenting himself as a notary public, respondent exposed party-litigants, courts, other

lawyers and the general public to the perils of ordinary documents posing as public instruments. As
noted by the Investigating Commissioner, respondent committed acts of deceit and falsehood in
open violation of the explicit pronouncements of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Evidently,
respondent's conduct falls miserably short of the high standards of morality, honesty, integrity and
fair dealing required from lawyers. It is proper that he be sanctioned.
WHEREFORE, We find Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez guilty of engaging in notarial practice without a
notarial commission, and accordingly, We SUSPEND him from the practice of law for two (2) years
and DISQUALIFY him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. He is warned
that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall merit a more severe sanction.
A.C. No. 9514 April 10, 2013
BERNARD N. JANDOQUILE, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. QUIRINO P. REVILLA, JR., Respondent.
FACTS
a. Atty. Revilla, Jr. notarized a complaint-affidavit 2 signed by Heneraline L. Brosas, Herizalyn

Brosas Pedrosa and Elmer L. Alvarado.
b. Heneraline Brosas is a sister of Heizel Wynda Brosas Revilla, Atty. Revilla, Jr.'s wife.
c. Jandoquile complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. is disqualified to perform the notarial act for a
spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of
the principal4 within the fourth civil degree.
d. Jandoquile also complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not require the three affiants in the
complaint-affidavit to show their valid identification cards.
Atty. Revilla’s Contention:
- He contended that such act is not a ground for disbarment.
- He also says that he acts as counsel of the three affiants; thus, he should be considered
more as counsel than as a notary public
- He did not require the affiants to present valid identification cards since he knows them
personally. Heneraline Brosas and Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa are sisters-in-law while Elmer
Alvarado is the live-in houseboy of the Brosas family.
RULING:
Indeed, Atty. Revilla, Jr. violated the disqualification rule under Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice. We agree with him, however, that his violation is not a sufficient ground
for disbarment.
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. Given the clear provision of the
disqualification rule, it behooved upon Atty. Revilla, Jr. to act with prudence and refuse notarizing the
document. We cannot agree with his proposition that we consider him to have acted more as
counsel of the affiants, not as notary public, when he notarized the complaint-affidavit. The notarial
certificate6 at the bottom of the complaint-affidavit shows his signature as a notary public, with a
notarial commission valid until December 31, 2012.
He cannot therefore claim that he signed it as counsel of the three affiants.
II
On the second charge, we agree with Atty. Revilla, Jr. that he cannot be held liable. If the notary
public knows the affiants personally, he need not require them to show their valid identification
cards.
This rule is supported by the definition of a "jurat" under Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice.
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.7 Let it be impressed that 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.
As we said, Atty. Revilla, Jr.’s violation of the disqualification rule under Section 3(c), Rule IV of the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice is not a sufficient ground to disbar him. To our mind, Atty.
Revilla, Jr. did not commit any deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct or gross immoral conduct, or
any other serious ground for disbarment under Section 27,8 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. We
recall the case of Maria v. Cortez9 where we reprimanded Cortez and disqualified him from being
commissioned as notary public for six months. We were convinced that said punishment, which is
less severe than disbarment, would already suffice as sanction for Cortez’s violation. In Cortez, we
noted the prohibition in Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice that 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 a competent evidence
of identity. Cortez had notarized a special power of attorney without having the alleged signatories
appear before him. In imposing the less severe punishment, we were mindful that removal from the
Bar should not really be decreed when any punishment less severe such as reprimand, temporary
suspension or fine would accomplish the end desired. 1âwphi1
Considering the attendant circumstances and the single violation committed by Atty. Revilla, Jr., we
are in agreement that a punishment less severe than disbarment would suffice.
WHEREFORE, respondent 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 (3) months. Atty. Revilla, Jr. is further
DIRECTED to INFORM the Court, through an affidavit, once the period of his disqualification has
lapsed.
SO ORDERED.
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
A.C. No. 8761 February 12, 2014
WILBERTO C. TALISIC, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. PRIMO R. RINEN, Respondent.
FACTS:
a. This case is a case instituted by Talisic charging Atty. Rinen with falsification of an Extra
Judicial Partition Sale of a property under Wilberto’s name.
b. He alleged that when his father died Wilberto and his siblings knew of the transfer of the
subject parcel via the subject deed.
c. While Wilberto believed that his father’s signature on the deed was authentic, his and his
siblings’ supposed signatures were merely forged.
d. Wilberto also pointed out that even his name was erroneously indicated in the deed as
"Wilfredo". 5
Atty. Rinen’s Contention
For his defense, Atty. Rinen denied the charge against him and explained that it was only on April 7,
1994 that he came to know of the transaction between the Spouses Durante and the Talisics, when
they approached him in his office as the then Presiding Judge of the Municipal
IBP’s Reco
The report indicated that per Atty. Rinen’s admission, the subject deed was prepared in his office
and acknowledged before him. Although there was no evidence of forgery on his part, he was
negligent in not requiring from the parties to the deed their presentation of documents as proof of
identity. Atty. Rinen’s failure to properly satisfy his duties as a notary public was also shown by the
inconsistencies in the dates that appear on the deed, to wit: "1994 as to the execution; 1995 when
notarized; [and] entered as Series of 1992 in the notarial book x x x." 10
RULING
In the present case, Atty. Rinen did not deny his failure to personally verify the identity of all parties
who purportedly signed the subject document and whom, as he claimed, appeared before him on
April 7, 1994. Such failure was further shown by the fact that the pertinent details of the community
tax certificates of Wilberto and his sister, as proof of their identity, remained unspecified in the
subject deed’s acknowledgment portion. Clearly, there was a failure on the part of Atty. Rinen to
exercise the due diligence that was required of him as a notary public ex-officio. The lapses he
committed in relation to such function then justified the recommendations presented by the IBP.
The fact that Atty. Rinen was a trial court judge during the time that he administered the oath for the
subject deed did not relieve him of compliance with the same standards and obligations imposed
upon other commissioned notaries public. He also could not have simply relied on his clerk of court
to perform the responsibilities attached to his function, especially as it pertained to ensuring that the
parties to the document were then present, performing an act that was of their own free will and
deed. "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." It converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in
18
court without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, "notaries public must observe with
utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties." Otherwise, the19
confidence of the public in the integrity of public instruments would be undermined. 20

WHEREFORE, as recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Court REVOKES the
notarial commission which Atty. Primo R. Rinen may presently have, and DISQUALIFIES him from
being commissioned as a notary public for one year, effective immediately. He is WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall merit a more severe sanction. He is
DIRECTED to report to this Court the date of his receipt of this Resolution to enable it to determine
when the revocation of his notarial commission and his disqualification from being commissioned as
notary public shall take effect.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to Atty.
Primo R. Rinen's personal record. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
A.C. No. 8101 February 4, 2015
MELANIO S. SALITA, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. REYNALDO T. SALVE, Respondent.
FACTS:
a. Salita is a registered owner of a property in Tagum City.
b. He applied for a loan from one Jocelyn Rodriguez (Rodriguez) in the amount of ₱50,000.00
and, in such regard, signed blank documents, including an "incomplete" Promissory Note
(PN).
c. Subsequently, he restructured the aforesaid loan and further signed several documents
prepared by JOcelyn, including two (2) Real Estate Mortgage Agreements and a pre-formed
Deed of Absolute Sale covering the subject property as collateral.
7
d. Salita was able to pay his loan in full as evidenced by a Release of Real Estate
Mortgage executed by Rodriguez before Notary Public Buenaventura Melendre.
9
e. Notwithstanding such full payment, Rodriguez, instituted an ejectment complaint against

Salita
f. Upon checking the said documents, Salita discovered that the Deed of Absolute Sale had
already been notarized by Atty. Salve and his Community Tax Certificate Numbers were
allegedly falsified.
g. Salita, for his part, noticed that one copy of the Deed of Sale was purportedly notarized on
August 12, 2007, while another was notarized a month later, or on September 12, 2007.
15
h. Thus, Salita went on to conclude that because of the foregoing events, it appeared as if he
had sold the subject property to Rodriguez and executed the same before Atty. Salve.
i. Aggrieved, Salita filed a criminal case for falsification of public documents against
Rodriguez and Atty. Salve. Salita likewise filed the instant administrative case against Atty.
18 19
Salve.
Atty. Salve’s Contention
- Denied that the document is falsified and is regular on its face.
- He said that the date is a mere clerical error of hid secretary.
- Atty. Salve further narrated that both Salita and Rodriguez went to him and brought the PN
and other loan documents executed by Salita himself.
The Issue Before the Court
The sole issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not Atty. Salve should be held administratively
liable.
The Court’s Ruling
Be that as it may, the Court takes up the cudgels and explains the reasons warranting the
suspension of Atty. Salve’s notarial commission.
To recount, records reveal that Rodriguez used, among others, the Deed of Absolute Sale notarized
by Atty. Salve to file an ejectment complaint against Salita. However, it must be remembered that
Salita was merely made to sign such document as collateral for his loan and that he had already fully
paid the same, as evidenced by the notarized Release of Real Estate Mortgage executed by
Rodriguez herself.
Considering the circumstances, it is simply unfathomable for Salita to appear before Atty. Salve to
have the said document notarized, as it will be detrimental to his own interests. Hence, the Court
finds that Atty. Salve notarized the pre-formed Deed of Absolute Sale without Salita’s presence
before him.
Verily, 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 the truth of what are stated therein. These acts of the affiants cannot be
delegated because what are stated therein are facts they have personal knowledge of and are
personally sworn to. Otherwise, their representative’s names should appear in the said
documents as the ones who executed the same. 31
The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral
arrangements. By affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, he converted the Deed of Absolute
Sale, from a private document into a public document. In doing so, Atty. Salve, as borne from the
records of this case, effectively proclaimed to the world that: (a) all the parties therein personally
appeared before him; (b) they are all personally known to him; (c) they were the same persons who
executed the instruments; (d) he inquired into the voluntariness of execution of the instrument; and
(e) they acknowledged personally before him that they voluntarily and freely executed the same. As32
a lawyer commissioned to be a notary public, Atty. Salve is mandated to discharge his sacred duties
with faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment
or jurat. Having failed in this regard, he must now accept the commensurate consequences of his
professional indiscretion. His act of certifying under oath an irregular Deed of Absolute Sale without
requiring the personal appearance of the persons executing the same constitutes gross negligence
in the performance of duty as a notary public.33
In the case of Atty. Dela Cruz v. Atty. Zabala, the Court revoked the errant lawyer’s notarial
34
commission and disqualified him from being commissioned as such for a period of two (2) years for
similarly committing gross negligence in the performance of his duty as a notary public through his
failure to ascertain the identities of the persons executing the Deed of Absolute sale he
notarized. Thus, due to the infractions’ relative comparability, the Court finds it apt to impose the
35
same against Atty. Salve, thereby effectively modifying the suspension initially recommended by the
IBP.
As a final point, it bears noting that unlike the aforesaid misdeed – which palpably appears from the
records – the Court expresses its concurrence with the IBP Investigating Commissioner’s finding that
Atty. Salve should nevertheless be absolved from the falsification charges against him. Suffice it to
state that Salita failed to prove the allegations against Atty. Salve, especially considering the
resolutions in the criminal case against the latter finding no probable cause to indict him of the crime
of Falsification of Public Documents. That being said, only Atty. Salve’s administrative liability for
36
gross negligence in his conduct as a notary public stands. WHEREFORE, respondent Atty.
Reynaldo T. Salve is found GUILTY of gross negligence in his conduct as a notary public. His
notarial commission, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED from being
commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years.
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 courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
A.C. No. 5482 February 10, 2015
JIMMY ANUDON and JUANITA ANUDON, Complainants,

vs.
ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA, Respondent.
FACTS
a. Complainants co-own a parcel of land in Sison Pangasinan
b. Respondent Atty. Arturo B. Cefra (Atty. Cefra) is a distant relative of Jimmy and Juanita.
c. On August 12, 1998, Atty. Cefra notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale over a land which
4
appeared the Juanita and Jimmy among others as vendors.
d. Jimmy and Juanita claimed that the Deed of Absolute Sale was falsified.
e. The National Bureau of Investigation’s Questioned Documents Division certified that Jimmy
and Juanita’s signatures were forged.
f. In addition, it is imposible for the complainants’ other brothers and sisters to sign the deed of
sale because there are in the United States and the other is in Cavite
g. Hence, they filed a case against Atty. Cefra.
Atty. Cefra’s Contention
- He contended that they knew about the sale.
- Atty. Cefra claimed that he assisted in the preparation of the documents for the sale, which
included the deed of sale and the acknowledgment receipts for payment.
- tty. Cefra admitted knowing that Loejan affixed the signatures of Johnny, Alfonso, and Benita
"with the full knowledge and permission of the three[.]"
- According to Atty. Cefra, he "notarized the questioned document in good faith, trusting in
[complainants’] words and pronouncements; with the only purpose of helping them out
legally and financially[.]"
28
RULING
We agree and adopt the findings of fact of the Investigating Commissioner. Respondent Atty. Arturo
B. Cefra violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility in notarizing a
document without requiring the presence of the affiants.
The notarization of documents ensures the authenticity and reliability of a document. As this court
previously explained:
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. (Citation omitted)
45
The earliest law on notarization is Act No. 2103. This law refers specifically to the acknowledgment
46
and authentication of instruments and documents. Section 1(a) of this law states that an
acknowledgment "shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the
country to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done."
The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice reiterates that acknowledgments require the affiant to appear in
person 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) states further:
SEC. 2. Prohibitions.—. . .
(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.
The rules require the notary public to assess whether the person executing the document voluntarily
affixes his or her signature. Without physical presence, the notary public will not be able to properly
execute his or her duty under the law. In Gamido v. New Bilibid Prisons Officials, we stated that "[i]t
47
is obvious that the party acknowledging must . . . appear before the notary public[.]" Furthermore,
48
this court pronounced that:
[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. (Citations omitted)
49
Notarization is the act that ensures the public that the provisions in the document express the true
agreement between the parties. Transgressing the rules on notarial practice sacrifices the integrity of
notarized documents. It is the notary public who assures that the parties appearing in the document
are the same parties who executed it. This cannot be achieved if the parties are not physically
present before the notary public acknowledging the document.
Atty. Cefra claims that Jimmy and Juanita wanted to sell their land. Even if this is true, Jimmy and
Juanita, as vendors, were not able to review the document given for notarization. The Deed of
Absolute Sale was brought to Atty. Cefra by Paran’s representatives, who merely informed Atty.
Cefra that the vendors signed the document. Atty. Cefra should have exercised vigilance and not
just relied on the representations of the vendee.
It is possible that the terms and conditions favorable to the vendors might not be in the document
submitted by the vendee for notarization. In addition, the possibility of forgery became real.
In Isenhardt v. Atty. Real, Linco v. Atty. Lacebal, Lanuzo v. Atty. Bongon, and Bautista v. Atty.
50 51 52
Bernabe, the respondent notaries were all guilty of notarizing documents without the presence of
53
the parties. In Linco, Lanuzo, and Bautista, the respondents notarized documents even if the
persons executing those documents were already dead at the time of notarization. In Bautista, the
respondent, like Atty. Cefra, also allowed another individual to sign on behalf of another despite lack
of authorization. In these cases, this court imposed the penalty of disqualification as notaries for two
54
(2) years and suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.
In the recent case of De Jesus v. Atty. Sanchez-Malit, the respondent lawyer notarized 22 public
55
documents even without the signatures of the parties on those documents. This court suspended
56
the respondent-lawyer from the practice of law for one (1) year and perpetually disqualified her from
being a notary public.57
II
Aside from Atty. Cefra’s violation of his duty as a notary public, Atty. Cefra is also guilty of violating
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This canon requires "[a] lawyer [to] uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes." He
contumaciously delayed compliance with this court’s order to file a Comment. As early as September
19, 2001, this court already required Atty. Cefra to comment on the Complaint lodged against him.
Atty. Cefra did not comply with this order until he was arrested by the National Bureau of
Investigation. Atty. Cefra only filed his Comment on January 15, 2008, more than seven years after
this court’s order. Atty. Cefra’s actions show utter disrespect for legal processes.
The act of disobeying a court order constitutes violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
58
Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to "observe and maintain the respect due to the courts[.]"
Under Rule 138, Section 27, paragraph 1 of the Rules of Court, "wilful disobedience of any lawful
59
order of a superior court" constitutes a ground for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.
Atty. Cefra’s disobedience to this court’s directive issued in 2001 was not explained even as he
eventually filed his Comment in2008. Clearly, his disobedience was willful and inexcusable. Atty.
Cefra should be penalized for this infraction.
In Sebastian v. Atty. Bajar, this court suspended a lawyer who refused to comply with this court’s
60
directives to submit a Rejoinder and to comment on complainant’s Manifestation. The lawyer 61
complied with the order to file a Rejoinder only after being detained by the National Bureau of
Investigation for five (5) days. Likewise, she complied with the order to comment through a
62
Manifestation filed after four (4) months without explaining her delay. This court found that the
63
lawyer’s "conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. . . . [Her] obstinate refusal to comply
with the Court’s orders ‘not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also underscores her
disrespect of the Court’s lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof.’" 64
We thus find that the penalty recommended against Atty. Cefra should be modified to take into
account all his acts of misconduct.
WHEREFORE, this court finds respondent Atty. Arturo B. Cefra GUILTY of notarizing the Deed of
Absolute Sale dated August 12, 1998 in the absence of the affiants, as well as failure to comply with
an order from this court. Accordingly, this court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for two (2)
years, REVOKES his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIES
him from being commissioned as a notary public. Respondent is also STERNLY WARNED that
more severe penalties will be imposed for any further breach of the Canons in the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to
respondent's personal record as attorney. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN
A.C. No. 4545, February 05, 2014
CARLITO ANG, Complainant, v. ATTY. JAMES JOSEPH GUPANA, Respondent.
FACTS:
a. Ang filed a complaint against Atty. Gupana.

b. He alleged that he and the other heirs of the late Candelaria Magpayo executed
an Extra-Judicial Declaration of Heirs and Partition.
c. He was given a share in that lot.
d. When Ang tried to secure for a Title, he found out that it was already issued.
e. Ang alleged that Atty. Gupana had a direct participation in the forgeries because
he was the one prepared the necessary documents. (Affidavit of Loss at DOS)
f. Ang also alleged that Atty. Gupana represented those concerned in executing the
Deed of Sale while the case regarding the land was pending in the RTC.
Atty. Gupana’s Contention:
- That this is merely a complaint to force his clients to accede to Ang’s wishes.
- He further alleged that during the trial of the case, Ang knew he would lose the
pending case in court, hence he filed the present administrative complaint to
force him and the other defendants of the case to settle.
IBP;s Reco: SUSPENSION
She held that respondent committed an unethical act when he allowed himself to be an
instrument in the disposal of the subject property through a deed of sale executed
between him as attorney–in–fact of his client and Lim Kim So Mercantile Co. despite his
knowledge that said property is the subject of a pending litigation before the RTC of
Mandaue City, Cebu.
The Investigating Commissioner additionally found that respondent “delegated the

notarial functions to the clerical staff of their office before being brought to him for his
signature.” This, according to the commissioner, “must have been the reason for the
forged signatures of the parties in the questioned document…as well as the erroneous
entry in his notarial register….”16 Nonetheless, the Investigating Commissioner merely
reminded respondent to be more cautious in the performance of his duties as regards
his infraction of his notarial duties.
She held,
Respondent should have been more cautious in his duty as notary public which requires
that the party subscribing to the authenticity of the document should personally appear
and sign the same before respondent’s actual presence. As such notary public
respondent should not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task
which by law may only be performed by a member of the bar in accordance with Rule
9.0117 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 18 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
ISSUE:
Whether respondent should be suspended. (YES)
RULING
We affirm the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors finding respondent

administratively liable.
After reviewing the records of the case, the Court finds that respondent did not act
unethically when he sold the property in dispute as the sellers’ attorney–in–fact
because there was no more notice of lis pendens annotated on the particular lot sold.
Likewise, the Court finds no sufficient evidence to show that the Deed of Absolute Sale
executed by Candelaria Magpayo on April 17, 1989 was antedated.
However, the Court finds respondent administratively liable for violation of his notarial
duties when he failed to require the personal presence of Candelaria Magpayo when
he notarized the Affidavit of Loss which Candelaria allegedly executed on April
29, 1994. Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, otherwise known as the Notarial Law,
explicitly provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Sec. 1. x x x
(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly
authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents
in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the
acknowledgment 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 his official seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate
shall so state.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the party acknowledging must appear before the
notary public or any other person authorized to take acknowledgments of instruments
or documents.23 In the case at bar, the jurat of the Affidavit of Loss stated that
Candelaria subscribed to the affidavit before respondent on April 29, 1994, at Mandaue
City. Candelaria, however, was already dead since March 26, 1991. Hence, it is clear
that the jurat was made in violation of the notarial law. Indeed, respondent averred in
his position paper before the IBP that he did not in fact know Candelaria personally
before, during and after the notarization24 thus admitting that Candelaria was not
present when he notarized the documents.
Time and again, we have held that notarization of a document is not an empty act or
routine.25 Thus, in Bernardo v. Atty. Ramos,26 the Court emphasized the significance of
the act of notarization, to wit: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The importance attached to the act of notarization cannot be overemphasized.
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
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.
A notary public’s function should not be trivialized and a notary public must discharge
his powers and duties which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy and
fidelity.27 It devolves upon respondent to act with due care and diligence in stamping
fiat on the questioned documents. Respondent’s failure to perform his duty as a notary
public resulted in undermining the integrity of a notary public and in degrading the
function of notarization. Hence, he should be liable for his infraction, not only as a
notary public but also as a lawyer.
As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent is mandated to subscribe to the

sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy
impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal
solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. Simply put, such
responsibility is incumbent upon respondent and failing therein, he must now accept the
commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion. 28 As the Court has held
in Flores v. Chua,29
Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed upon his
shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood
or consent to the doing of any. The Code of Professional Responsibility also
commands him not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and
to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession…. (Emphasis
supplied.)
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Respondent likewise violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9, of the Code of Professional

Responsibility which provides that “[a] lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified
person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member
of the Bar in good standing.” Respondent averred in his position paper that it had been
his consistent practice to course through clerical staff documents to be notarized. Upon
referral, said clerical staff investigates whether the documents are complete as to the
fundamental requirements and inquires as to the identity of the individual signatories
thereto. If everything is in order, they ask the parties to sign the documents and
forward them to him and he again inquires about the identities of the parties before
affixing his notarial signature.30 It is also his clerical staff who records entries in his
notarial report. As aforesaid, respondent is mandated to observe with utmost care the
basic requirements in the performance of his duties as a notary and to ascertain that
the persons who signed the documents are the very same persons who executed and
personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated
therein. In merely relying on his clerical staff to determine the completeness of
documents brought to him for notarization, limiting his participation in the notarization
process to simply inquiring about the identities of the persons appearing before him,
and in notarizing an affidavit executed by a dead person, respondent is liable for
misconduct. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the revocation of his
notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a
period of two years and suspension from the practice of law for one year are in order. 31
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. James Joseph Gupana is found administratively liable

for misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year. Further, his
notarial commission, if any, is REVOKED and he is disqualified from reappointment as
Notary Public for a period of two years, with a stern warning that repetition of the same
or similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all courts all over the country. Let a copy of this
Decision likewise be attached to the personal records of respondent.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo–De Castro, Bersamin, and Reyes, JJ.,

concur.
A.C. No. 8103 December 3, 2014
ATTY. AURELIO C. ANGELES, JR., PROVINCIAL LEGAL OFFICER, BATAAN CAPITOL,

BALANGA CITY, BATAAN, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. RENATO C. BAGAY, Respondent.
FACTS
a. Atty. Angeles, the provincial legal officer of bataan sent a leter to the judge of the RTC
alleging Atty. Bagay notarized certain documents at the time he was out of the country.
b. The letter contained the affidavits of the persons who caused the documents to be notarized
which showed a common statement that they did not see respondent sign the documents
himself and it was either the secretary who signed them or the documents cameout of the
office already signed.
c. Upon verification with the Bureau of Immigration, it was found out that a certain Renato C.
Bagay departed from the country on March 13, 2008 and returned on April 8, 2008.
Atty, Bagay’s Contention:

- He was not aware that the documents were notarized.
- Upon his own inquiry, he found out that the notarizations were done by his secretary and
without his knowledge and authority and apologized to the court for his lapses.
ISSUE
The sole issue to resolve in this case is whether the notarization of documents by the secretary of
respondent while he was out of the country constituted negligence.
RULING
The Court answers in the affirmative.
Respondent admitted in his commentand motion for reconsideration that the 18 documents were
notarized under his notarial seal by his office secretary while he was out of the country. This clearly
constitutes negligence considering that respondent is responsible for the acts of his secretary.
Section 9 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a "Notary Public" refers to any person
commissioned to perform official acts under these Rules. A notary public’s secretary is obviously not
commissioned to perform the official acts of a notary public. Respondent cannot take refuge in his
claim that it was his secretary’s act which he did not authorize. He is responsible for the acts of the
secretary which he employed. He left his office open to the public while leaving his secretary in
charge. He kept his notarial seal and register within the reach of his secretary, fully aware that his
secretary could use these items to notarize documents and copy his signature. Such blatant
negligence cannot be countenanced by this Court and it is far from being a simple negligence. There
is an inescapable likelihood that respondent’s flimsy excuse was a mere afterthought and such
carelessness exhibited by him could be a conscious act of what his secretary did.
Respondent must fully bear the consequence of his negligence. A person who is commissioned as a
notary public takes full responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register. He cannot relieve
14
himself of this responsibility by passing the buck to his secretary.
As to his plea of leniency, the Court cannot consider it. Respondent claims that for the 21 years that
he has been practicing law, he acted as a notary public without any blemish and this was his first
and only infraction. His experience, however, should have placed him on guard and could have
prevented possible violations of his notarial duty. By his sheer negligence, 18 documents were
notarized by an unauthorized person and the public was deceived. Such prejudicial act towards the
public cannot be tolerated by this Court. Thus, the penalty of revocation of notarial commission and
disqualification from reappointment as Notary Public for two (2) years is appropriate.
Because of the negligence of respondent, the Court also holds him liable for violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).His failure to solemnly perform his duty as a notary public not only
damaged those directly affected by the notarized documents but also undermined the integrity of a
notary public and degraded the function of notarization. He should, thus, be held liable for such
negligence not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer. Where the notary public is a lawyer, a
15
graver responsibility is placed upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and
to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. 16
Respondent violated Canon 9 of the CPR which requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in
the unauthorized practice of law. Due to his negligence that allowed his secretary to sign on his
behalf as notary public, he allowed an unauthorized person to practice law. By leaving his office
open despite his absence in the country and with his secretary in charge, he virtually allowed his
secretary to notarize documents without any restraint.
Respondent also violated his obligation under Canon 7 of the CPR, which directs every lawyer to
uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The people who came into his
office while he was away, were clueless as to the illegality of the activity being conducted therein.
They expected that their documents would be converted into public documents. Instead, they later
found out that the notarization of their documents was a mere sham and without any force and
effect. By prejudicing the persons whose documents were notarized by an unauthorized person,
their faith in the integrity and dignity of the legal profession was eroded.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, an additional penalty of suspension from the
practice of law for three (3) months is in order.
Respondent should remember that a notarial commission is a privilege and a significant

responsibility. 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 notary 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.
17
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 its authenticity.
Thus, notaries pub! ic must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of
their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of pub! ic instruments would be
undermined. 18
Let this serve as a reminder to the members of the legal profession that the Court will not take lightly
complaints of unauthorized acts of notarization, especially when the trust and confidence reposed by
the public in our legal system hang in the balance.
WHEREFORE, the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is ADOPTED with
MODIFICATION. Finding Atty. Renato C. Bagay grossly negligent in his duty as a notary public, the
1âwphi1
Court REVOKES his notarial commission and DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as
notary public for a period of two (2) years. The Court also SUSPENDS him from the practice of law
for three (3) months effective immediately, with a WARNING that the repetition of a similar violation
will be dealt with even more severely.
The respondent 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 copies of this Decision be furnished to Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to Atty.
Renato C. Bagay's personal record; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and all courts in the
country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Lawyers As Notary Public

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Lawyers As Notary Public

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.C. No.

10252, December 11, 2019

IAN B. CARONONGAN, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. JAIRO M. LADERA,

Atty Ladera Contention:

- He claimed that even Caronongan is not authorized to institute a case because

Canons Violated: Canon 1, Rule 1.01

Moreover, a notary public is authorized to notarize a document provided that

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL.18

By virtue of the foregoing attendant circumstances, the Court deems it proper to

Perlas-Bernabe, Senior Associate Justice, (Chairperson), A. Reyes, Jr., Hernando,

A.C. No. 9917, January 14, 2019

NORBERTO S. COLLANTES, Complainant, v. ATTY. ANSELMO B.

a. Collantes alleged that Atty. Mabuti notarized a memorandum of agreement in

The Issue Before the Court

whether respondent liable for violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules.

The Court's Ruling

Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a

It should be emphasized that respondent's transgressions of the Notarial Rules also

In fine, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, 33 respondent is meted with the

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds respondent Atty. Anselmo B. Mabuti

The suspension in the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and

Carpio (Chairperson), Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., and Hernando,*JJ., concur.

A.C. No. 10132, March 24, 2015

HEIRS OF PEDRO ALILANO REPRESENTED BY DAVID

Atty. Examen’s Allegation

- There was no prohibition in the notarization law.

Whether he is administratively liable. (YES)

NO PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS FOR ACTS OF ERRING MEMBERS OF THE BAR

In Frias v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada,21 the Court En Banc opined that there can be no

Atty. Examen’s defense of prescription therefore is of no moment and deserves scant

THE SPANISH NOTARIAL LAW OF

SEC. 3. Disqualifications. – A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act

(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or

NOTARIES PUBLIC MUST PERFORM

In Nunga v. Atty. Viray,31 this Court stated: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

…[N]otarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with

SEC. 251. Requirement as to notation of payment of cedula [residence] tax. – Every

SEC. 249. Grounds for revocation of commission. – The following derelictions of duty on

As a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, respondent is mandated to discharge

Here, based on the submission of the complainants, it is clear that the

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. –

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto E. Examen is hereby SUSPENDED from the

A.C. No. 9081 October 12, 2011

RODOLFO A. ESPINOSA and MAXIMO A. GLINDO, Complainants,

The Antecedent Facts

The Ruling of this Court

We adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP-CBD.

[G.R. NO. 176984 - August 29, 2012]

METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SERVANDO ARGUELLES

[G.R. NO. 179131]

a. Arguelles brothers were the owners of a parcel of land in Imus Cavite.

A.C. No. 8384 April 11, 2013

Atty. Enchanez’ Contention:

- Atty. Echanez denied the allegations.

- He alleged that the documents are tampered and adultered.

The Court modifies the IBP Board of Governors' Resolution.

In misrepresenting himself as a notary public, respondent exposed party-litigants, courts, other

A.C. No. 9514 April 10, 2013

a. Atty. Revilla, Jr. notarized a complaint-affidavit 2 signed by Heneraline L. Brosas, Herizalyn

Atty. Revilla’s Contention:

- He contended that such act is not a ground for disbarment.

He cannot therefore claim that he signed it as counsel of the three affiants.

A "jurat" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: