A.C. No.

6258 August 24, 2010

LUZVIMINDA R. LUSTESTICA vs. ATTY. SERGIO E. BERNABE

PER CURIAM:
For consideration is the disbarment complaint filed by Luzviminda R. Lustestica
(complainant) against Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe (respondent) for notarizing a
falsified or forged Deed of Donation of real property despite the non-appearance
of the donors, Benvenuto H. Lustestica (complainant’s father) and his first wife,
Cornelia P. Rivero, both of whom were already dead at the time of execution of
the said document.
In his Answer,1 the respondent admitted the fact of death of Benvenuto H.
Lustestica and Cornelia P. Rivero, considering their death certificates attached to
the complaint. The respondent claimed, however, that he had no knowledge that
the real Benvenuto H. Lustestica and Cornelia P. Rivero were already dead at the
time he notarized the Deed of Donation.2 He also claimed that he exerted efforts
to ascertain the identities of the persons who appeared before him and
represented themselves as the donors under the Deed of Donation.3
After the submission of the respondent’s Answer to the complaint, the Court
referred the matter to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP Commission on Bar Discipline) for investigation, evaluation
and recommendation. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline made the following
findings:
The core issue is whether or not Respondent committed a falsehood in violation
of his oath as a lawyer and his duties as Notary Public when he notarized the
Deed of Donation purportedly executed by Benvenuto H. Lustestica and Cornelia
P. Rivero as the donors and Cecilio R. Lustestica and Juliana Lustestica as the
donees on 5 August 1994.
Section 1 of Public Act No. 2013, otherwise known as the Notarial Law, explicitly
provides:
x x x 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 acknowledged that the same is his free act
and deed. x x x.
As correctly observed by Complainant, Respondent’s Acknowledgment is the best
evidence that NO RESIDENCE CERTIFICATES were presented by the alleged donors
and the donees. Had the parties presented their residence certificates to
Respondent, it was his duty and responsibility under the Notarial Law to enter, as
part of his certification, the number, place of issue and date of each residence
certificate presented by the parties to the Deed of Donation. Respondent,
however, failed to make the required entries. Respondent’s claim that the
persons who allegedly appeared before him and represented themselves to be
the parties to the Deed of Donation showed their residence certificates and that
he instructed his secretary to indicate the details of the residence certificates of
the parties is self-serving and not supported by the evidence on record.
xxxx
The fact that Respondent notarized a forged/falsified document is also
undisputed not only by [the] strength of Complainant’s documentary evidence
but more importantly, by Respondent’s own judicial admission. x x x. In view of
Respondent’s judicial admission that the alleged donors, BENVENUTO H.
LUSTESTICA and his first wife, CORNELIA P. RIVERO, died on 7 September 1987
and 24 September 1984, respectively, it is beyond reasonable doubt that said
donors could not have personally appeared before him on 5 August 1994 to
[acknowledge] to him that they freely and voluntary executed the Deed of
Donation. Moreover, x x x quasi-judicial notice of the Decision of the Municipal
Trial Court finding accused CECILIO LUSTESTICA and JULIANA LUSTESTICA GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT as principals of the crime of falsification of public
document.4
In his Report dated August 15, 2005, IBP Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr.
found the respondent grossly negligent in the performance of his duties as notary
public and recommended that the respondent’s notarial commission be
suspended for a period of one (1) year. The IBP Commissioner also recommended
that a penalty ranging from reprimand to suspension be imposed against the
respondent, with a warning that a similar conduct in the future will warrant an
imposition of a more severe penalty.5
By Resolution No. XVII-2005-116 dated October 22, 2005, the Board of Governors
of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline adopted and approved the Report of the
IBP Commissioner. The pertinent portion of this Resolution reads:
[C]onsidering Respondent’s gross negligence in the performance of his duties as
Notary Public, Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for one (1) year and Respondent’s notarial commission is Revoked and
Disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for two (2) years with a
notification that this suspension of one year must be served in succession to the
initial recommendation of the IBP Board of Suspension of one year in CBD Case
No. 04-1371.6
From these undisputed facts, supervening events occurred that must be taken
into consideration of the present case.
First, CBD Case No. 04-1371, entitled Victorina Bautista, complainant, v. Atty.
Sergio E. Bernabe, respondent, which was the case referred to in Resolution No.
XVII-2005-116, was docketed as A.C. No. 69637 before the Court. In a decision
dated February 9, 2006, the Court revoked the respondent’s notarial commission
and disqualified him from reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two (2)
years, for his failure to properly perform his duties as notary public when he
notarized a document in the absence of one of the affiants. In addition, the Court
suspended him from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, with a
warning that a repetition of the same or of similar acts shall be dealt with more
severely.
Second, on January 6, 2006, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of
Resolution No. XVII-2005-116 before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. The
respondent moved to reconsider the IBP Resolution, claiming that the penalty
imposed for the infraction committed was too harsh. The motion was denied in
Resolution No. XVII-2006-81, dated January 28, 2006,8 for lack of jurisdiction of
the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, since the administrative matter had then
been endorsed to the Court.
Third, on January 4, 2006, a motion for reconsideration (the same as the one filed
with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline) was filed by the respondent before
the Court. In a Minute Resolution dated March 22, 2006, the Court noted the
findings and recommendations in Resolution No. XVII-2005-116 and required the
complainant to file her Comment to the respondent’s motion for reconsideration.
On April 28, 2006, the complainant filed her Comment praying for the denial of
the motion.
On July 5, 2006, the Court issued a Minute Resolution noting the denial of the
respondent’s motion for reconsideration, by the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline, and the complainant’s Comment to the respondent’s motion before
the Court.
Subsequently, on January 26, 2009, the Court declared the case closed and
terminated after considering that no motion for reconsideration or petition for
review, assailing both IBP resolutions, had been filed by the respondent.9
On October 8, 2009, the respondent, through a letter addressed to the Office of
the Bar Confidant, requested that he be given clearance to resume the practice of
law and to allow him to be commissioned as a notary public. In his letter, the
respondent alleged that he has already served the penalties imposed against him
in A.C. No. 6963 and the present case. He claimed that after the receipt of the IBP
Resolutions in both cases, he did not practice his profession and had not been
appointed or commissioned as a notary public.
The Office of the Bar Confidant
Acting on the respondent’s letter, the Office of the Bar Confidant submitted a
Report and Recommendation, which states:
1. The EFFECTIVITY of the respondent’s suspension and disqualification should
have been COMMENCED on the date of receipt of the Decision of the Court and
not from the date of receipt of the Resolution of the IBP recommending the
respondent’s suspension from the practice of law and disqualification from being
commissioned as notary public, it being recommendatory in nature;
2. The prayer of the respondent to resume his practice of law in Adm. Case No.
6963 be denied;
3. The respondent be REQUIRED to submit certification from competent courts
and IBP that he has fully served the entire period of suspension and
disqualification in Adm. Case No. 6963;
4. The Court may now FINALLY RESOLVE the findings and recommendation of the
IBP in its Resolution No. XVII-2005-16, dated October 2005, in Adm. Case No.
6258, for final disposition of the case and for proper determination whether the
order of suspension and disqualification in Adm. Case No. 6963 should be lifted
after the respondent has satisfactorily shown that he has fully served the
suspension and disqualification.10
The Court’s Ruling
The findings of the Board of Governors of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
are well-taken. We cannot overemphasize the important role a notary public
performs. In Gonzales v. Ramos,11 we stressed that notarization is not an empty,
meaningless routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest. The
notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public
document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its
authenticity.12 A notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit
upon its face.13 It is for this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost
care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties; otherwise, the
public’s confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be
undermined.14
The records undeniably show the gross negligence exhibited by the respondent in
discharging his duties as a notary public. He failed to ascertain the identities of
the affiants before him and failed to comply with the most basic function that a
notary public must do, i.e., to require the parties’ presentation of their residence
certificates or any other document to prove their identities. Given the
respondent’s admission in his pleading that the donors were already dead when
he notarized the Deed of Donation, we have no doubt that he failed in his duty to
ascertain the identities of the persons who appeared before him as donors in the
Deed of Donation.
Under the circumstances, we find that the respondent should be made liable not
only as a notary public but also as a lawyer. He not only violated the Notarial Law
(Public Act No. 2103), but also Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 (Old Notarial Law)15 states:
(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.
In turn, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "[a]
lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes." At the same time, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
In this regard, a reading of the respondent’s Acknowledgment in the Deed of
Donation shows how these provisions were violated by the respondent:
BEFORE ME, Notary Public for and in Bulacan this AUG 05 1994 day of August,
1994, personally appeared:
BENVENUTO H. LUSTESTICA: C.T.C. # _______:________:________
CORNELIA RIVERO : C.T.C. # ________:________:________
CECILIO LUSTESTICA : C.T.C. # ________:________:________
JULIANA LUSTESTICA : C.T.C. # ________:________:________
known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the
foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that the same are their free act
and voluntary deed.16
The respondent engaged in dishonest conduct because he falsely represented in
his Acknowledgment that the persons who appeared before him were "known to
him" to be the same persons who executed the Deed of Donation, despite the
fact that he did not know them and did not ascertain their identities as he
attested.17
Moreover, the respondent engaged in unlawful conduct when he did not observe
the requirements under Section 1 of the Old Notarial Law that requires notaries
public to certify that the party to the instrument has acknowledged and
presented, before the notaries public, the proper residence certificate (or
exemption from the residence certificate) and to enter the residence certificate’s
number, place, and date of issue as part of the certification.18 The unfilled spaces
in the Acknowledgment where the residence certificate numbers should have
been clearly established that the respondent did not perform this legal duty.
With these considerations, we find that the imposition of administrative sanctions
for the above infractions committed is in order.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the penalty of suspension,
for a period of one (1) year, from the practice of law and disqualification from
reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two (2) years. Considering that this
is already Atty. Bernabe’s second infraction, we find the IBP’s recommendation to
be very light; it is not commensurate with his demonstrated predisposition to
undertake the duties of a notary public and a lawyer lightly.
In Maligsa v. Cabanting,19 we disbarred a lawyer for failing to subscribe to the
sacred duties imposed upon a notary public. In imposing the penalty of
disbarment, the Court considered the lawyer’s prior misconduct where he was
suspended for a period of six (6) months and warned that a repetition of the same
or similar act would be dealt with more severely.20
In Flores v. Chua,21 we disbarred the lawyer after finding that he deliberately
made false representations that the vendor appeared before him when he
notarized a forged deed of sale. We took into account that he was previously
found administratively liable for violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (for bribing a judge) and sternly warned that a repetition of similar
act or acts or violation committed by him in the future would be dealt with more
severely.22
In Traya v. Villamor,23 we found the respondent notary public guilty of gross
misconduct in his notarial practice for failing to observe the proper procedure in
determining that the person appearing before him is the same person who
executed the document presented for notarization. Taking into account that it
was his second offense, he was perpetually disqualified from being commissioned
as a notary public.24
In Social Security Commission v. Coral,25 we suspended indefinitely the notarial
commission of the respondent lawyer who was found to have prepared, notarized
and filed two complaints that were allegedly executed and verified by people who
have long been dead. We also directed him to show cause why he should not be
disbarred.26
Considering these established rulings, read in light of the circumstances in the
present case, we find that Atty. Bernabe should be disbarred from the practice of
law and perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public. We
emphasize that this is respondent’s second offense and while he does not appear
to have any participation in the falsification of the Deed of Donation, his
contribution was his gross negligence for failing to ascertain the identity of the
persons who appeared before him as the donors. This is highlighted by his
admission27 in his Answer that he did not personally know the parties and was not
acquainted with them. The blank spaces in the Acknowledgment indicate that he
did not even require these parties to produce documents that would prove that
they are the same persons they claim to be. As we emphasized in Maligsa:
A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as honesty
and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully
performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this
end a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act which
might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the
fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession.28
In light of the above findings and penalties, the respondent’s request to be given
clearance to resume the practice of law and to apply for a notarial commission,
after serving the administrative sanctions in A.C. No. 6963, is now moot and
academic. We, accordingly, deny the request for clearance to practice law and to
apply for notarial commission.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to:
(1) NOTE the letter dated October 8, 2009 of respondent Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe
to the Office of the Bar Confidant.
(2) ADOPT the findings and recommendations of the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline with MODIFICATION on the administrative penalty imposed.
(3) DECLARE respondent Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe liable for gross negligence, in the
performance of his duties as notary public, and for his deceitful and dishonest
attestation, in the course of administering the oath taken before him. Respondent
Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and his
name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. He is also PERPETUALLY
DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public.
(4) DENY the request for clearance to practice law and to apply for notarial
commission of respondent Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe.
Let a copy of this Decision be attached to Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe’s record, as a
member of the bar, and copies furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts.
In view of the notarization of a falsified deed whose purported parties were
already dead at the time of notarization, let a copy of this Decision be furnished
the Office of the Prosecutor General, Department of Justice for whatever action,
within its jurisdiction, it may deem appropriate to bring against Atty. Sergio E.
Bernabe.
SO ORDERED.
 A.C. No. 8723
[Formerly CBD Case No. 11-2974]
GREGORY FABAY vs. ATTY. REX A. RESUENA

DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Before us is a Complaint for Disbarment filed by Gregory Fabay (Fabay) against
respondent Atty. Rex A. Resuena (Atty. Resuena), docketed as A.C. No. 8723 for
Gross Misconduct due to the unauthorized notarization of documents relative to
Civil Case No. 2001. 1
The facts are as follows:
On October 15, 2003, Virginia Perez, Marcella Perez, Amador Perez, Gloria Perez,
Gracia Perez and Valentino Perez (plaintiffs) filed a complaint for
ejectment/forcible entry against Gregory Fabay before the Municipal Trial Court
of Pili, Camarines Sur with respondent Atty. Resuena as their counsel.
On the same date, October 15, 2003, Atty. Resuena notarized a special power of
attorney (SPA) with plaintiffs as grantors, in favor of Apolo D. Perez. However, it
appeared that it was only Remedios Perez who actually signed the SP A in behalf
of Amador Perez, Valentino Perez, Gloria Perez and Gracia Perez. Said SPA was
recorded in Atty. Resuena's notarial book as Doc. No. 126, Page 26, Book 1, Series
of 2003.2
The ejectment case was later on decided in favor of the client of Atty. Resuena,
however, on appeal, the Regional Trial Court of Pili, Camarines Sur, Branch 32,
ordered the case to be remanded to the court a quo to try the case on the
merits.3 In its Decision4 dated August 4, 2005, the trial court noted that both
Amador Perez and Valentino Perez have already died on September 7, 1988 and
April 26, 1976, respectively.
Complainant Fabay alleged that Atty. Resuena violated the provisions of the
Notarial Law by notarizing a special power of attorney notwithstanding the fact
that two of the principals therein, Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were
already dead long before the execution of the SPA. Complainant added that Atty.
Resuena likewise notarized a complaint for ejectment in 2003 where Apolo Perez
was made to appear as attomey-infact of Amador Perez and Valentino Perez
when again the latter could not have possibly authorized him as they were
already dead. Further, complainant averred that Atty. Resuena, as counsel of the
plainfiffs, participated in the barangay conciliations which is prohibited under the
law.
Thus, the instant complaint for disbarment for violation of the notarial law and for
Atty. Resuena's misconduct as a lawyer.
On October 18, 2010, the Court resolved to require Atty. Resuena to file his
comment relative to the complaint filed against him. 5
In compliance, Atty. Resuena submitted his Comment6 dated December 20, 2010
wherein he denied the allegations in the complaint and claimed that it was
tainted with malice, considering that it was only filed with the Supreme Court on
August 20, 2010 when in fact it was allegedly prepared last June 18, 2006.
Atty. Resuena explained that although it was just Remedios Perez who signed the
SP A on behalf of Amador Perez, Valentino Perez, Gloria Perez and Gracia Perez,
there was no misrepresentation since Remedios Perez is the spouse of Amador
Perez and she was likewise previously authorized by the other co-owners, Gloria
Perez and Gracia Perez, to represent them.7 Atty. Resuena, thus, prayed that the
complaint against him be dismissed for lack of merit.
On January 19, 2011, the Court then resolved to refer the instant case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and
recommendation/decision. 8
On June 16, 2011, a mandatory conference was conducted where complainant
was assisted by his counsel Atty. Crispo Borja, Jr., while Atty. Resuena appeared
for himself.
Atty. Resuena denied that he participated in the barangay conciliations and
presented the certificate issued by the barangay captain showing that there was
no record of his attendance during the confrontations of the parties before the
barangay. He, however, did not deny that Amador Perez and Valentino Perez
were already deceased at the time of the execution and notarization of the SP
A, albeit, he argued that in the same SP A, Amador Perez and Valentino Perez
were signed by or represented by Remedios Perez. He further insisted that in the
acknowledgment portion of the SP A, the names of Amador Perez and Valentino
Perez were not included as among the parties who have personally appeared
before him. Thus, Atty. Resuena insisted that there was no misrepresentation
done in the notarization of the SPA.
In its Report and Recommendation, the IBP-CBD found Atty. Resuena to have
violated the provisions of the notarial law. The pertinent portion thereof reads as
thus:
A close scrutiny of the evidence submitted would show that respondent notarized
a Special Power of Attorney on October 15, 2003 wherein the supposed principals
were Virginia Perez, Marcella Perez, Amador Perez, Gloria Perez, Gracia Perez,
Valent.ino Perez, the purpose of which, was to authorize Apolo D. Perez to
represent them to sue and be sued in any administrative or judicial tribunal in
connection with any suit that may arise out of any and all transactions in their
properties covered by TCT No. RT-1118 (14380), 38735, 38737. In the said
document, the signatures of Amado Perez, Gloria Perez, Gracia Perez and
Valentino Perez were signed as "BY: REMEDIOS PEREZ". Remedios Perez is the
spouse of Amador Perez and the mother of [Apolo] Perez.
Evaluating the Special Power of Attorney, two of the parties, namely, Amador
Perez and Valentino Perez were already dead during the execution of the Special
Power of Attorney. Amador Perez died sometime in September 7, 1988, while
Valentino Perez died in April 26, 1976. Despite this fact, respondent allowed them
to be represented by Remedios Perez in the signing of the Special Power of
Attorney without the proper authority provided for by law.
On the other hand, the other parties in the Special Power of Attorney, GRACIA
PEREZ and GLORIA PEREZ were both residing in the United States of
America. While the respondent alleged that there was a previous authority to sign
the Special Power of Attorney, no proof was presented by the respondent to that
effect. They also were signed as "BY REMEDIOS PEREZ".9
The IBP-CBD, thus, recommended that his notarial commission be revoked and
that he be disqualified to be commissioned as notary public for one (1) year.
In Notice of Resolution No. XX-2013-591 dated May 10, 2013, the IBP-Board of
Governors adopted and approved in toto the Report and Recommendation of the
IBP-CBD.
On September 9, 2013, complainant moved for reconsideration of Resolution No.
XX-2013-591 and prayed that the same be set aside and instead the penalty of
suspension be imposed against Atty. Resuena as an erring member of the bar and
not merely as a notary public.
On May 3, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors, in its Resolution No. XXI-2014-
293, 10 denied complainant's motion for reconsideration, thus affirming
Resolution No. XX-2013-591 but modified the penalty imposed to two (2) years
disqualification from notarial practice.
We concur with the findings of the IBP except as to the penalty.
Time and again, we have held that notarization of a document is not an empty act
or routine. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who
are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a
private document into a public document thus making that document admissible
in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by
law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies
and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed
by a notary public and appended to a private instrument.11
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. 12
Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice stresses the
necessity of the affiant's personal appearance before the notary public:
xxxx
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to
the instrument or document -
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the
notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
In the instant case, it is undisputed that Atty. Resuena violated not only the
notarial law but also his oath as a lawyer when he notarized the subject SP A
without all the affiant's personal appearance. As found by the IBP-CBD, the
purpose of the SP A was to authorize a certain Apolo D. Perez to represent the
principals "to sue and be sued in any administrative or judicial tribunal in
connection with any suit that may arise out of their properties." It is, thus,
appalling that Atty. Resuena permitted Remedios Perez to sign on behalf of
Amador Perez and Valentino Perez knowing fully well that the two were already
dead at that time and more so when he justified that the latter's names were
nevertheless not included in the acknowledgment albeit they are signatories of
the SP A. Equally deplorable is the fact that Remedios was likewise allowed to sign
on behalf of Gracia Perez and Gloria Perez, who were said to be residing abroad.
Worse, he deliberately allowed the use of the subject SPA in an ejectment case
that was filed in court. In effect, Atty. Resuena, in notarizing the SPA, contented
himself with Remedios' representation of four of the six principals of the SPA,
doing away with the actual physical appearance of all the parties. There is no
question then that Atty. Resuena ignored the basics of notarial procedure and
actually displayed his clear ignorance of the importance of the office of a notary
public. Not only did he violate the notarial law, he also did so without thinking of
the possible damage that might result from its non-observance.
We cannot overemphasize that a notary public should not notarize a document
unless the person who signed the same is the very same person who executed
and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of
what are stated therein. Without the appearance of the person who actually
executed the document in question, the notary public would be unable to verify
the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that
the document is the party's free act or deed.
In Agbulos v. Atty. Viray, 13 this Court, citing Dela Cruz-Sillano v.
Pangan, 14 reiterated anew the necessity of personal appearance of the affiants,
to wit:
The Court is aware of the practice of not a few lawyers commissioned as notary
public to authenticate documents without requiring the physical presence of
affiants. However, the adverse consequences of this practice far outweigh
whatever convenience is afforded to the absent affiants. Doing away with the
essential requirement of physical presence of the affiant does not take into
account the likelihood that the documents may be spurious or that the affiants
may not be who they purport to be. 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.
Atty. Resuena's failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only
damage to those directly affected by the notarized document but also made a
mockery of the integrity of a notary public and degraded the function of
notarization. Moreso, in this case, where Atty. Resuena being the counsel of the
plaintiffs-affiants can be assumed to have known the circumstances of the subject
case, as well as the fact that affiants Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were
already deceased at the time of the execution of the subject SP A. Having
appeared to have intentionally violated the notarial law, Atty. Resuena has, in
fact, allowed himself to be an instrument of fraud which this Court will not
tolerate.
A graver responsibility is placed upon Atty. Resuena by reason of his solemn oath
to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of
any.1âwphi1 The Code of Professional Responsibility also commands lawyers not
to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and to uphold at
all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. 15 It requires every
lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for the law and legal processes. 16 Moreover, the Notarial Law and the 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice require a duly-commissioned notary public to make the
proper entries in his Notarial Register and to refrain from committing any
dereliction or act which constitutes good cause for the revocation of commission
or imposition of administrative sanction. 17 Unfortunately, Atty. Resuena failed in
both respects.
Through his acts, Atty. Resuena committed a serious breach of the fundamental
obligation imposed upon him by the Code of Professional Responsibility,
particularly Rule 1. 01 of Canon 1, which prohibited him from engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. As a lawyer and as an officer of
the court, it was his duty to serve the ends of justice, not to corrupt it. Oath-
bound, he was expected to act at all times in accordance with law and ethics, and
if he did not, he would not only injure himself and the public but also bring
reproach upon an honorable profession. 18 Atty. Resuena must now accept the
consequences of his unwarranted actions.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Rex A. Resuena is found GUILTY of malpractice as a notary
public, and of violating the lawyer's oath as well as Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is DISBARRED from the practice of
law and likewise PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a
notary public.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be
appended to Atty. Resuena's personal record. Further, let copies of this
Resolution be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the
Court Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all the courts in the
country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
 A.C. No. 9514 April 10, 2013
BERNARD N. JANDOQUILE vs. ATTY. QUIRINO P. REVILLA, JR.

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before us is a complaint1 for disbarment filed by complainant Bernard N.
Jandoquile against respondent Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr.
The Facts of the case are not disputed.
Atty. Revilla, Jr. notarized a complaint-affidavit2 signed by Heneraline L. Brosas,
Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa and Elmer L. Alvarado. Heneraline Brosas is a sister of
Heizel Wynda Brosas Revilla, Atty. Revilla, Jr.'s wife. Jandoquile complains that
Atty. Revilla, Jr. is disqualified to perform the notarial act3 per Section 3( c), Rule
IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice which reads as follows:
SEC. 3. Disqualifications. – A notary public is disqualified from performing a
notarial act if he:
xxxx
(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity
or consanguinity of the principal4 within the fourth civil degree.
Jandoquile also complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not require the three affiants
in the complaint-affidavit to show their valid identification cards.
In his comment5 to the disbarment complaint, Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not deny but
admitted Jandoquile’s material allegations. The issue, according to Atty. Revilla,
Jr., is whether the single act of notarizing the complaint-affidavit of relatives
within the fourth civil degree of affinity and, at the same time, not requiring them
to present valid identification cards is a ground for disbarment. Atty. Revilla, Jr.
submits that his 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 when he notarized their complaint-affidavit. 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.
Since the facts are not contested, the Court deems it more prudent to resolve the
case instead of referring it to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
investigation.
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.
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.
 Adm. Case No. 5436 May 27, 2004
ALFREDO BON vs. ATTYS. VICTOR S. ZIGA and ANTONIO A. ARCANGEL

TINGA, J.:
On May 9, 2001, Alfredo Bon (complainant) filed a Complaint1 dated April 3,
2001 for disbarment against the respondents, Attys. Victor S. Ziga (Ziga) and
Antonio A. Arcangel (Arcangel). Allegedly, the respondents, conspiring with each
other and with the use of fraud, intimidation, stealth, deception and monetary
consideration, caused Amalia Bon-Padre Borjal, Teresa Bon-Padre Patenio,
Felecito Bon and Angelina Bon (collectively, the Bons) to sign a document
entitled Waiver and Quitclaim. According to the complainant, the Bons signed
the Waiver and Quitclaim because of Ziga’s representation that the document
was merely a withdrawal of a previously executed Special Power of Attorney. As it
turned out, the document was a waiver in favor of Ziga of all the properties which
the Bons inherited from their parents and predecessors-in-interest. Attached to
the Complaint are Affidavits2 executed by the Bons renouncing the Waiver and
Quitclaim.
Moreover, the complainant claims that the Bons are residents of Manila and did
not appear before Arcangel who was then in Albay to acknowledge the Waiver
and Quitclaim. Despite this fact, Arcangel notarized the document and even made
it appear that the Bons personally appeared before him to acknowledge the
same.
On November 20, 2001, the respondents filed their Joint Comment3 dated
October 6, 2001. According to them, the allegations in the Complaint that the
Bons did not understand the contents of the Waiver and Quitclaim and that they
did not personally appear to acknowledge the same before Arcangel indicate that
the cause of action is based on alleged intrinsic defects in the document. As such,
only the parties to the document, i.e., the Bons, whose rights were violated can
file the Complaint. Being a stranger to the allegedly defective document, the
complainant cannot file the Complaint. Besides, Maria Bon Borjal and Rafael Bon-
Canafe who are co-signatories to the Waiver and Quitclaim both declared in
their Joint Affidavit4 that Ziga thoroughly explained the contents of the Waiver
and Quitclaim to the Bons before they signed the document. The subscribing
witnesses, Rogelio Bon-Borjal and Nida Barrameda, also declared in their Joint
Affidavit5 that the contents of the document were explained to the signatories.
The respondents also aver that it is difficult to believe that the Bons did not
understand the contents of the document they were signing since Amalia and
Angelina Bon are both high school graduates, while Teresa Bon is a college
graduate.6 Further, the fact that the Bons admit having accepted ₱5,000.00 from
Ziga to sign the Waiver and Quitclaim precludes them from questioning the
document.
For Arcangel’s part, he explains that assuming that he notarized the Waiver and
Quitclaim in the absence of the signatories, his act is merely a violation of the
Notarial Law but not a ground for disbarment. He further avers that he was able
to talk to Maria Bon and Rafael Bon-Canafe, both co-signatories to the document,
over the phone. Maria Bon and Rafael Bon-Canafe allegedly declared that they
signed the Waiver and Quitclaim. The two, in fact, personally delivered the
document for notarization in his office. Thus, he posits that there was substantial
compliance with the Notarial Law since a notary public’s primordial undertaking is
merely to ensure that the signatures on a document are genuine. As long as they
are so, the notary public can allegedly take the risk of notarizing the document
although the signatories are not present.
In conclusion, the respondents aver that the complainant must first prove that
the Waiver and Quitclaim is defective before he can file an administrative case
against them.
The complainant filed a Reply, Opposition and Comment to Joint Comment of
Respondents7 dated April 5, 2001 asserting that he has a right to complain over
the acquisition of the properties subject of the Waiver and Quitclaim having been
mentioned therein. He also avers that he has the right to inform the Court of the
deception committed by the respondents. He further states that the Bons signed
the document after having been deceived and intimidated by Ziga who, he claims,
exercises moral ascendancy over the Bons. That the Bons are educated does not
necessarily mean they could not have been intimidated and deceived. He
maintains that the Bons were misled into believing that what they were signing
was a withdrawal of a previously issued Special Power of Attorney and were given
₱5,000.00 each to induce them to sign the Waiver and Quitclaim.
Even assuming that the signatures appearing on the Waiver and Quitclaim are
genuine, he asserts that it was still highly irregular for Arcangel to notarize the
document by telephone when it could have been notarized in Manila where the
signatories reside. Lastly, he avers that it is not necessary for a court to declare
that the Waiver and Quitclaim is defective before the instant administrative case
can proceed.
The respondents filed their Comment on Complainant’s Reply8 dated April 12,
2002 alleging that in his reply, the complainant changed his cause of action from
fraud and deception to intimidation and moral ascendancy. According to them,
the complainant is incompetent to charge Ziga with intimidation as he was not a
party to the document and was not even present when it was executed. The
respondents insist that the only instance when anyone can file a disbarment
complaint against a lawyer is when the ground therefore is a public offense like
immorality, misbehavior, betrayal of trust and the like. When, as in the instant
case, the parties to the alleged defective document have not formally impugned
the document themselves, no one else can.
In the Court’s Resolution9 dated July 22, 2002, we referred the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation. Citing the Report and Recommendation10 dated November 7,
2002 of its Investigating Commissioner, the IBP passed Resolution No. XV-2002-
60411 on December 14, 2002 dismissing the Complaint for lack of merit. According
to the Report and Recommendation, the Bons’ failure to file the appropriate
action to set aside the Waiver and Quitclaim casts doubt on their claim that Ziga
misled or deceived them into signing the document. As regards Arcangel, the IBP
concluded that while he may have been remiss in his duties as a notary public, the
same does not constitute a ground for disbarment.
The complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration12 dated February 24, 2003
which the IBP denied in Resolution No. XV-2003-14913 issued on March 22, 2003
since it no longer has jurisdiction to consider and resolve a matter already
endorsed to the Supreme Court. The complainant then filed with this Court
a Motion for Re-Examination of the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines14 dated
September 10, 2003 mainly rehashing his claim that the respondents induced the
Bons to sign the Waiver and Quitclaim by means of deceit and abuse of moral
ascendancy.
We are hard put to ascribe to Ziga the fraud, intimidation, stealth and deception
with which the complainant labels his actuations. The fact that Amalia and
Angelina Bon are both high school graduates, while Teresa Bon is a college
graduate15 makes it difficult to believe that they were deceived into thinking that
the contents of the Waiver and Quitclaim were other than what they themselves
could have easily ascertained from
a reading of the document. As held by the Court in Bernardo v. Court of Appeals:16
…The rule that one who signs a contract is presumed to know its contents has
been applied even to contracts of illiterate persons on the ground that if such
persons are unable to read, they are negligent if they fail to have the contract
read to them. If a person cannot read the instrument, it is as much his duty to
procure some reliable persons to read and explain it to him, before he signs it, as
it would be to read it before he signed it if he were able to do so and his failure to
obtain a reading and explanation of it is such gross negligence as will estop him
from avoiding it on the ground that he was ignorant of its contents…17
Besides, the Waiver and Quitclaim is plainly worded. It does not contain
complicated terms that might be misconstrued by anyone who has half the
education attained by Amalia, Angelina and Teresa Bon. Moreover, the Bons
admitted therein that in 1930, their predecessors sold to the Ziga family the
properties to which they now lay claim. They also declared in the document that
it was only their brother, Alfredo, the complainant in this case, who still claimed
rights over the properties. The relevant provisions of the Waiver and
Quitclaim state:
…1. We are heirs and direct descendants of the late Santiago Bon of Tabaco,
Albay;
2. We had been named as formal parties in DARAB Case No. V-RC-010, Albay
Branch 11 ’99 entitled Virginia Desuyo, et al. vs. Alfredo Bon, et al.;
3. We admit that, we the descendants and relatives of the late Santiago Bon do
not have any right or interest anymore over Lots No. 1911, 1917-A, 1917-B, 1970,
1988, all of Tabaco, Cadastre, because the above lots had been already sold by
our predecessor in favor of the Ziga Family, predecessor of Ex-Senator Victor Ziga
since 1930, and that the above family had been continuously in possession
thereof, thru their tenants since 1930, or for more than 70 years already, to our
exclusion;
4. It is only our brother, Alfredo Bon, who adamantly refuses to admit the above
fact and still claim rights over said properties despite the explanation of our
ancestors that the above mentioned lots had been long sold by our predecessor
to the Zigas…18
Significantly, as pointed out by the Investigating Commissioner, the Bons have not
filed the appropriate action to set aside the Waiver and Quitclaim. The
complainant, however, explains that they "will pursue that the Waiver and Quit
Claim be annulled by the court"19 in Civil Case No. T-2163 pending with the
Regional Trial Court Branch 18, Tabaco City. That they have yet to do so almost
four (4) years after the execution of the Waiver and Quitclaim diminishes, if not
totally discredits, their position that they were defrauded, intimidated and
deceived into signing the document.
At this time, all that the complainant offers to boost his claim that Ziga employed
deceit in procuring the Bons’ signatures are the latter’s bare allegations to the
effect that Ziga told them there was nothing wrong with the document except
that they were withdrawing the Special Power of Attorney. These allegations are
belied by the Joint Affidavit20 of Maria Bon-Borjal and Rafael Bon-Canafe, the
Bons’ co-signatories, and the Joint
Affidavit21 of Rogelio Bon Borjal and Nida Barrameda, the subscribing witnesses to
the Waiver and Quitclaim, both of which assert that the contents of the
document were sufficiently explained to the Bons.
Given these circumstances, the presumptions that a person takes ordinary care of
his concerns;22 that private transactions have been fair and regular;23 and that
acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable
to the law or fact24 have not been sufficiently overcome.
However, we do find the act of Arcangel in notarizing the Waiver and
Quitclaim without requiring all the persons who executed the document to
personally
appear before him and acknowledge that the same is their free act and deed an
unpardonable breach of his duty as a notary public.
Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 provides:
(a) The acknowledgement shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly
authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgements of instruments or
documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the officer
taking the acknowledgement shall certify that the person acknowledging the
instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who
executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The
certificate shall be made under the official seal, if he is by law required to keep a
seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.25
The Acknowledgement contained in the Waiver and Quitclaim executed in Ziga’s
house in Manila specifically states: "BEFORE ME, a Notary Public, for and in the
above mentioned locality personally appeared…"26 However, the Bons did not
personally appear before Arcangel to acknowledge the document. Arcangel
himself admits as much but posits that he was able to talk to the Bons’ co-
signatories over the phone, i.e., Maria Bon and Rafael Bon-Canafe, and that the
two promised to bring the document to Albay for notarization. Hence, Arcangel
claims that there was substantial compliance with the Notarial Law. He adds that
as long as the signatures on the instrument are genuine, the notary public can
take the risk of notarizing the document although the signatories are not present.
Arcangel seems to be laboring under a misguided understanding of the basic
principles of the Notarial Law. It is well to remind him that notarization is not an
empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest,
such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.
Notarization converts a private document into a public document thus making
that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A
notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts,
administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the
acknowledgement executed by a notary public and appended to a private
instrument. For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the
basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence
of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined.27
Thus, a member of the bar who performs an act as a notary public should not
notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same
persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the
contents and truth of what are stated therein. The acts of the affiants cannot be
delegated to anyone for what are stated therein are facts of which they have
personal knowledge. They should swear to the document personally and not
through any representative. Otherwise, their representative’s name should
appear in the said documents as the one who executed the same. That is the only
time the representative can affix his signature and personally appear before the
notary public for notarization of the said document.28 Simply put, the party or
parties who executed the instrument must be the ones to personally appear
before the Notary Public to acknowledge the document.29
From his admission, we find that Arcangel failed to exercise due diligence in
upholding his duty as a notary public. He violated Rules 1.0130 and 10.0131 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility as well. However, his transgression does not
warrant disbarment, which is the severest form of disciplinary sanction.
In Ocampo v. Yrreverre,32 the Court, taking note of the remorseful attitude of the
respondent who was found guilty of breach of the notarial law for notarizing a
document in the absence of the signatories, revoked his notarial commission for a
period of two (2) years and suspended him from the practice of law for six (6)
months.
WHEREFORE, the Complaint filed against Atty. Victor S. Ziga is DISMISSED for lack
of merit.
As regards Atty. Antonio A. Arcangel, his commission as Notary Public, if still
existing, is REVOKED. He is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as such for a
period of two (2) years. He is also SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6)
months effective immediately, with a WARNING that a repetition of a similar
violation will be dealt with even more severely. He is further DIRECTED to report
the date of his receipt of this Decision to the Court within five (5) days from such
receipt.
The Clerk of Court of this Court is DIRECTED to immediately circularize
this Decision for the proper guidance of all concerned.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and recorded in the personal files of the
respondents.
SO ORDERED.
 A.C. No. 7184 September 17, 2014
FELIPE B. ALMAZAN, SR. vs.ATTY. MARCELO B. SUERTE-FELIPE,

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
This is an administrative case against respondent Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe
(respondent) for malpractice as a notary public, among others.
The Facts
In a Complaint1 dated April 27, 2006, complainant Felipe B. Almazan, Sr.
(complainant) charged respondent, previously of the Public Attorney's Office,2 for
malpractice and gross negligence in the performance of his duty as a notary public
and/or lawyer, alleging that the latter, despite not having been registered as a
notary public for the City of Marikina, notarized the acknowledgment of the
document entitled "Extra judicial Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Juliana
P. Vda. De Nieva"3 dated "25th day of 1999" (subject document), stating that he is
a "notary public for and in the City of Marikina."4 Said document was one of the
attachments to the Amended Complaint5 dated August 14, 2003 filed in Civil Case
No. 03-849-MK entitled "Esperanza Nieva Dela Cruz[(as represented by
respondent)] v. Brita T. Llantada[(as represented by complainant)]." To prove his
claim, complainant attached a Certification6 dated May 26, 2005 issued by the
Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City,
certifying that per the court’s record, respondent is not a commissioned notary
public for the Cityof Marikina from March 30, 1994 to the date of issuance. In a
Resolution7 dated July 5, 2006, the Court required respondent to file his
Comment8 which he eventually submitted on February 13, 2007 after proper
service. In said pleading, respondent admitted that he indeed notarized the
acknowledgment of the subject document but denied that he was not
commissioned as a notary public at that time.9 To prove his defense, he attached
a Certification10 dated August 23, 2006 issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court
of the RTC of Pasig City, certifying the fact of his appointment as notary public for
the City of Pasigand in the Municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and
Mandaluyong for the years 1998-1999 under Appointment No. 98.11 Further,
respondent, thru the comment, incorporated his own administrative complaint
against complainant for malpractice and harassment of a fellow lawyer in view of
the filing of the instant administrative case against him.12
In response, complainant filed a Reply13 dated April 26, 2007 asserting that he has
the legitimate rightto file the administrative complaint against respondent for his
unlawful act of notarization, which is not an act of harassment as respondent
claims. He alsodraws attention to the fact that the subject document was
incompletely dated and yet notarized by respondent.14 In a Resolution15 dated
July 11, 2007, the Court,inter alia, referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. Eventually, both
parties appeared during the mandatory conference held on April 30, 2008.16
The Report and Recommendation of the IBP
In a Report and Recommendation17 dated September 22, 2008, the IBP
Investigating Commissioner foundrespondent guilty for violating the Notarial Law
and the lawyer’s oath, reasoning that he could not notarize the acknowledgment
of the subject document inMarikina City as it was outside the territorial limits of
his jurisdiction. To this end, the Investigating Commissioner pointed out that in
the acknowledgment of the subject document, it was categorically stated that
respondent is a notary public for and in the City of Marikina, Province ofRizal, of
which he was not, hence, violating the Notarial Law. Moreover,respondent
likewise violated the lawyer’s oath, specifically its mandate for lawyers, to obey
the laws and do no falsehood.18
In view of the foregoing, it was thus recommended that respondent be suspended
for a period of two (2) years from the practice of law. However, since it does not
appear that he was still commissioned as a notary public, the Investigating
Commissioner did not recommend that he be disqualified as such.19
In a Resolution20 dated October 9, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and
approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner
with modification, decreasing the penalty of suspension to one (1) year, with
immediate revocation of notarial commission if presently commissioned, and
disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.
On reconsideration,21 the IBP Board of Governors, in a Resolution22 dated March
8, 2014, modifiedthe penalty stated in its previous resolution, imposing, instead,
the penalty ofreprimand with warning, and disqualification from being
commissioned as a notary public for the decreased period of one (1) year.
The Issue Before the Court
The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held
administratively liable.
The Court’s Ruling
The Court concurs with the findings of the IBP except as to the penalty.
As the Investigating Commissioner correctly observed, respondent, who himself
admitted that he was commissioned as notary public only in the City of Pasig and
the Municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and Mandaluyong for the years
1998-1999, could not notarize the subject document’s acknowledgment in the
City ofMarikina, as said notarial act is beyond the jurisdiction of the
commissioning court, i.e.,the RTC of Pasig. The territorial limitation of a notary
public’s jurisdiction is crystal clear from Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice:23 Sec. 11. Jurisdiction and Term– A person commissioned as
notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the commissioning courtfor a period of two (2) years commencing
the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning court is made,
unless either revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the
Rules of Court. (Emphasis supplied)
Said principle is equally echoed in the Notarial Law found in Chapter 12, Book V,
Volume I of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, as amended,24 of which
Section 240, Article II states:
Sec. 240. Territorial jurisdiction. – The jurisdiction of a notary public in a province
shall be co-extensive with the province. The jurisdiction of a notary public in the
City of Manila shall be co-extensive with said city. No notary shall possess
authority to doany notarial act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction. (Emphases
supplied)
For misrepresenting in the said acknowledgment that he was a notary public for
and in the City of Marikina, when it is apparent and, in fact, uncontroverted that
he was not, respondent further committed a form of falsehood which is
undoubtedly anathemato the lawyer’s oath. Perceptibly, said transgression also
runs afoul of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct."
In the case of Tan Tiong Bio v. Atty. Gonzales,25 citing Nunga v. Atty. Viray,26 the
Court instructively expounded on infractions similar to that of respondent:
While seemingly appearing to be a harmless incident, respondent’s act of
notarizing documents in a place outside of or beyond the authority granted by his
notarial commission, partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. While
perhaps not on all fours because of the slight dissimilarity inthe violation involved,
what the Court said in Nunga v. Virayis very much apropos: Where the
notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time
when he has no authorization or commission todo so, the offender may be
subjected to disciplinary action. For one, performing a notarial [act] without such
commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws, more specifically,
the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly commissioned
when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate
false hood, which the lawyer’s oath similarly proscribes. These violations fall
squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides: "A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
It cannot be over-emphasized that notarization isnot an empty, meaningless,
routinary act. Far from it.1âwphi1 Notarization is invested with substantive public
interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries
public. Hence, the requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public
are treated with a formality definitely more than casual.27 (Emphases supplied)
With respondent’s liability herein established, and considering further the
attendant circumstances of this case, take for instance, that he is a first time
offender and that he had already acknowledged his wrongdoings,28 the Court
finds that suspension for a period of six (6) months29 from the practice of law
would suffice as a penalty. In addition, he is disqualified from being commissioned
as a notary public for a period of one (1) year and, his notarial commission, if
currently existing, is hereby revoked.30
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe is found GUILTY of
malpractice as a notary public,and violating the lawyer’s oath as well as Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, effective upon his receipt
of this Resolution, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same orsimilar
acts will be dealt with more severely. He is likewise DISQUALIFIED from being
commissioned as a notary public for a period of one (1) year and his notarial
commission, if currently existing, is hereby REVOKED.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be
appended to respondent's personal record as attorney. Further, let copies of this
Resolution be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the
Court Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all the courts in the
country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.