7.A.C. No. 8840 [Formerly CBD Case No.
11- Philippines (DBP) which was already past due and
3121], March 08, 2016
SPOUSES EDUARDO G. GACUYA AND CARIDAD
ROSARIO GACUYA, Complainants, v. ATTY.
REYMAN A. SOLBITA, Respondent.
Spouses Gacuya went to the residence of Atty.
Solbita at Bulanao, Tabuk City, Kalinga to
request legal assistance for the purpose of
drafting and notarizing a deed of sale of a parcel
of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
No. T-5925.
deed of sale involving the subject parcel of land
was then executed and signed by the Spouses
Gacuya, as sellers, and the Spouses Fernando S.
Gonzales, Jr. and Marivic P. Gonzales (Spouses
Gonzales), as buyers. 
Standing as witnesses to the deed were Angelo
Sanchez and Melanie Balbino who likewise
affixed their signatures thereon. The total
consideration is One Million Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P1,200,000.00), but what was
reflected in the Deed of Sale was only the
amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00) to save on the capital gains tax.
Atty. Solbita then suggested that he will
antedate the notarization of the deed of sale to
December 31, 2005 since his Notarial
Commission already expired and he was still in
the process of renewing the same for the year
2006.
However, Marivic Gonzales insisted that the
instrument be notarized on the date it was
executed to avoid penalties or surcharges by
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for late
payment of capital gains tax.
The contracting parties agreed and consented.
Consequently, Atty. Solbita notarized the Deed
of Sale on February 21, 2006, the date it was
executed by the contracting parties and entered
it as Doc. No. 440, Page No. 88, Page No. X
(sic), Series of 2006 despite an expired notarial
commission.
On February 22, 2006, the Spouses Gonzales
completed the transfer of title of the subject lot
The Spouses Gacuya, on the other hand, used the
proceeds of the sale of the property to pay their
mortgaged debt with the Development Bank of the
subject to foreclosure, and thus, they were able to
redeem the mortgaged property covered by Original
Certificate of Title No. P-5215 situated in Poblacion,
Tabuk, Kalinga.
Three (3) days from the execution and signing of the
Deed of Sale, Eduardo Gacuya (Gacuya) went to
Atty. Solbita carrying with him a Philippine National
Bank (PNB) Manager's Check in the amount of One
Million Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P1,200,000.00) and offered to return the money to
the Spouses Gonzales because there was another
buyer willing to buy the property at a higher price.
However, the Spouses Gonzales did not accept the
PNB Manager's Check in the amount of
P1,200,000.00 and explained that the contract of
sale was already consummated and that the property
was already transferred to their name.
==RTC:--Gacuya filed an action for declaration of
nullity of documents, recovery of ownership and title
with tender of payment, consignation and damages,
before the Regional Trial Court of Bulanao, Tabuk
City, Kalinga,
 the court a quo, in its Decision,1 dismissed the
complaint for insufficiency of evidence. The
subsequent motion for reconsideration was, likewise,
denied.
instant petition for disbarment was filed by the
Spouses Gacuya against Atty. Solbita for alleged
untruthful statement of facts in the subject deed of
sale and for notarizing the same despite an expired
notarial commission.
==IBP Court required Atty. Solbita to file his
Comment on the petition for disbarment, and
referred the instant case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for investigation, report and
recommendation.
DEF------Atty. Solbita denied,He claimed that he
had neither interest on the subject property nor any
motive so as to induce him to falsify or make
untruthful statements to the detriment of the
Spouses Gacuya. By way of defense, Atty. Solbita
claimed that he informed the parties of his expired
notarial commission as, in fact, he suggested to
antedate the deed of sale to December 31, 2005.
Atty. Solbita surmised that the Spouses Gacuya filed
the instant petition for disbarment in order to get
back at him due to the unfavorable decision in Civil
Case No. 641 which the latter filed against the
Spouses Gonzales.
===Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on
Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found Atty. Solbita
administratively liable for notarizing a deed of sale
despite his expired notarial commission. It
recommended that Atty. Solbita be reprimanded for
violation of the lawyer's oath with stern warning that
any repetition of the same or similar offense shall be
dealt with more severely
===IBP-Board of Governors adopted and
approved with modification the Report and
Recommendation of the IBP-CBD. Instead, Atty.
Solbita was reprimanded and his notarial commission
was revoked. He was further disqualified for
reappointment as notary public for a period of one
(1) year  proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the
ISSUE: notarizing the same despite an expired
notarial commission.
HELD: 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."5
 "For this reason, notaries public must observe with
the 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.
 Atty. Solbita's guilt of violating the notarial law is
undisputed as he readily admitted that he had
actually made the unauthorized notarization despite
an expired notarial commission. Indeed, Atty.
Solbita's defense of voluntary disclosure to the
parties of the fact that his notarial commission has
expired cannot exonerate him from the present
administrative sanctions. "
The act of notarizing without the necessary
commission is not merely a simple enterprise to be
trivialized.  So much so that one who stamps a
notarial seal and signs a document as a notary public
without being so authorized may be haled to
court not only for malpractice but also for
falsification."
 "where the notarization of a document is done by a
member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has
no authorization or commission to do so, the
offender may be subjected to disciplinary action.
Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly
commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal
intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate
falsehood, which the lawyer's oath similarly
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.'"8 By acting as a notary public
without the proper commission to do so, the lawyer
likewise violates Canon 7 of the same Code, which
directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
WHEREFORE, this Court ADOPTS the findings of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on
Bar Discipline, but hereby MODIFIES the penalty
recommended by the Board of Governors. The
notarial commission of Atty. Reyman A. Solbita, if
still existing, is hereby REVOKED, and he
is PERMANENTLY BARRED from being
commissioned as notary public, effective upon
receipt of the copy of this decision. He is
also SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of two (2) years effective immediately, with
a WARNING that a repetition of a similar violation
will be dealt with even more severely. He
is DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this
Decision to enable this Court to determine when his
suspension shall take effect.
8.A.C. No. 7184, September 17, 2014
FELIPE B. ALMAZAN, SR., Complainant, v. ATTY.
MARCELO B. SUERTE-FELIPE, Respondent.
complainant Felipe B. Almazan, Sr. (complainant)
charged respondent, previously of the Public
Attorney’s Office,2 for malpractice and gross
negligence in the performance of his duty as a
notary public and/or lawyer, alleging that the
latter, despite not having been registered as a
notary public for the City of Marikina,
 notarized the acknowledgment of the document
entitled “Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the
Deceased Juliana P. Vda. De Nieva
 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 City of Marikina
-----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 Pasig and 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.
-----complainant filed a asserting that he has the
legitimate right to file the administrative complaint
against respondent for his unlawful act of
notarization, which is not an act of harassment as
respondent claims. He also draws attention to the
fact that the subject document was incompletely
dated and yet notarized by respondent.
=== IBP Investigating Commissioner found
respondent guilty for violating the Notarial Law and
the lawyer’s oath, reasoning that he could not
notarize the acknowledgment of the subject
document in Marikina City as it was outside the
territorial limits of his jurisdiction
 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 of Rizal, of which he was not,
hence, violating the Notarial Law.
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
===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.
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
he was commissioned as notary public only in the
City of Pasig and the Municipalities of Taguig,
Pateros, San Juan, and Mandaluyong for the years
1998-1999, could not notarize the subject
document’s acknowledgment in the City of Marikina,
as said notarial act is beyond the jurisdiction of the
commissioning court,
Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice:23cralawred
Sec. 11. Jurisdiction and Term – A person
commissioned as notary public may perform notarial
acts in any place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a
period of two (2) years commencing the first day of
January of the year in which the commissioning court
is made, unless either revoked or the notary public
has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of
Court. (Emphasis supplied)
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: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Sec. 240. Territorial jurisdiction. – The jurisdiction of
a notary public in a province shall be co-extensive
with the province. The jurisdiction of a notary
public in the City of Manila shall be co-extensive with
said city. No notary shall possess authority to do
any notarial act beyond the limits
jurisdiction. (Emphases supplied)
While seemingly appearing to be a harmless
incident, respondent’s act of notarizing
documents in a place outside of or beyond the
authority granted by his notarial commission,
partakes of malpractice of law and falsification.
While perhaps not on all fours because of the slight
dissimilarity in the violation involved, what the Court
said in Nunga v. Viray is very much apropos:
Where the notarization of a document is done by a
member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has
no authorization or commission to do so, the
offender may be subjected to disciplinary action. For
one, performing a notarial [act] without such
commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to
obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial
Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is
duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all
legal intents and purposes, indulging in
deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer’s oath
similarly proscribes. These violations fall squarely
within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
provides: “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”
It cannot be over-emphasized that notarization is not
an empty, meaningless, routinary act. Far from it.
Notarization is invested with substantive public
interest, such that only those who are qualified or
authorized may act as notaries public. Hence, the
requirements for the issuance of a commission as
notary public are treated with a formality definitely
more than casual
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-
Felipe is found GUILTY of malpractice as a notary
public, and violating the lawyer’s oath as well as Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of six (6) months,
effective upon his receipt of this Resolution, with
a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar acts will be dealt with more severely. He is
likewise DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned
as a notary public for a period of one (1) year and
his notarial commission, if currently existing, is
hereby REVOKED.
9.A.C. No. 7036               June 29, 2009
of his JUDGE LILY LYDIA A. LAQUINDANUM, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. NESTOR Q. QUINTANA, Respondent.
administrative case against Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana (Atty.
Quintana) stemmed from a letter1 addressed to the Court
filed by Executive Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum (Judge
Laquindanum) of the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap,
Cotabato requesting that proper disciplinary action be
imposed on him for performing notarial functions in
Midsayap, Cotabato, which is beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his
notarial commission, and for allowing his wife to do notarial
acts in his absence.
judge Laquindanum alleged that pursuant to A.M. No. 03-8-
02-SC, executive judges are required to closely monitor the
activities of notaries public within the territorial bounds of
their jurisdiction and to see to it that notaries public shall not
extend notarial functions beyond the limits of their authority.
Hence, she wrote a letter2 to Atty. Quintana directing him to
stop notarizing documents within the territorial jurisdiction of
the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Cotabato (which is
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court
that issued his notarial commission for Cotabato City and the
Province of Maguindanao) since certain
documents3 notarized by him had been reaching her office.
However, despite such directive, respondent continuously
performed notarial functions in Midsayap, Cotabato as
evidenced by: (1) the Affidavit of Loss of ATM
Card4 executed by Kristine C. Guro; and (2) the Affidavit of
Loss of Driver’s License5 executed by Elenita D. Ballentes.
ec. 11, Rule III6 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Atty.
Quintana could not extend his notarial acts beyond Cotabato
City and the Province of Maguindanao because Midsayap,
Cotabato is not part of Cotabato City or the Province of
Maguindanao. Midsayap is part of the Province of
Cotabato. The City within the province of Cotabato is
Kidapawan City, and not Cotabato City.
------Judge Laquindanum also alleged that, upon further
investigation of the matter, it was discovered that it was Atty.
Quintana’s wife who performed notarial acts whenever he
was out of the office as attested to by the Joint
Affidavit7 executed by Kristine C. Guro and Elenita D.
Ballentes.
-------Atty. Quintana alleged that he filed a petition for notarial
commission before Branch 18, Regional Trial Court,
Midsayap, Cotabato. However, the same was not acted
upon by Judge Laquindanum for three weeks. He alleged
that the reason for Judge Laquindanum’s inaction was that
she questioned his affiliation with the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Cotabato City Chapter, and required him to
be a member of IBP Kidapawan City Chapter and to obtain a
Certification of Payments from the latter chapter. Because of
this, he opted to withdraw his petition. After he withdrew his
petition, he claimed that Judge Laquindanum sent a clerk
from her office to ask him to return his petition, but he did not
oblige because at that time he already had a Commission for
Notary Public10 issued by Executive Judge Reno E. Concha
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cotabato City.
-----Atty. Quintana lamented that he was singled out by
Judge Laquindanum, because the latter immediately issued
notarial commissions to other lawyers without asking for so
many requirements. However, when it came to him, Judge
Laquindanum even tracked down all his pleadings;
communicated with his clients; and disseminated information
through letters, pronouncements, and directives to court
clerks and other lawyers to humiliate him and be ostracized
by fellow lawyers.
------Atty. Quintana argued that he subscribed documents in
his office at Midsayap, Cotabato; and Midsayap is part of
the Province of Cotabato. He contended that he did not
violate any provision of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,
because he was equipped with a notarial commission
He maintained that he did not act outside the province of
Cotabato since Midsayap, Cotabato, where he practices his
legal profession and subscribes documents, is part of the
province of Cotabato.
Atty. Quintana further argued that Judge Laquindanum had
no authority to issue such directive, because only Executive
Judge Reno E. Concha, who issued his notarial commission,
and the Supreme Court could prohibit him from notarizing in
the Province of Cotabato.
===OBC presided by Atty. Ma. Crisitina B. Layusa (Hearing
Officer), Judge Laquindanum presented a Deed of
Donation,13 which was notarized by Atty. Quintana in
2004.14 Honorata Rosil appears as one of the signatories of
the document as the donor’s wife. However, Honorata Rosil
died on March 12, 2003, as shown by the Certificate of
Death15 issued by the Civil Registrar of Ibohon, Cotabato.
----Judge Laquindanum testified that Atty. Quintana
continued to notarize documents in the years 2006 to 2007
despite the fact that his commission as notary public for and
in the Province of Maguindanao and Cotabato City had
already expired on December 31, 2005, and he had not
renewed the same.16  arguments raised by Atty. Quintana to be without merit, viz:
To support her claim, Judge Laquindanum presented the
following: (1) Affidavit of Loss [of] Title17 executed by Betty G.
Granada with subscription dated April 8, 2006 at Cotabato
City; (2) Certificate of Candidacy18 of Mr. Elias Diosanta
Arabis with subscription dated July 18, 2006; (3) Affidavit of
Loss [of] Driver’s License19 executed by Anecito C. Bernabe
with subscription dated February 20, 2007 at Midsayap,
Cotabato; and (4) Affidavit of Loss20 executed by Santos V.
Magbanua with subscription dated February 22, 2007 at
Midsayap, Cotabato
Atty. Quintana admitted that all the signatures appearing in
the documents marked as exhibits of Judge Laquindanum
were his except for the following: (1) Affidavit of Loss of ATM
Card21 executed by Kristine C. Guro; and (2) Affidavit of Loss
of Driver’s License22 executed by Elenita D. Ballentes; and
(3) Affidavit of Loss23 executed by Santos V. Magbanua. He
explained that those documents were signed by his wife and
were the result of an entrapment operation of Judge
Laquindanum: to let somebody bring and have them
notarized by his wife, when they knew that his wife is not a
lawyer. He also denied the he authorized his wife to notarize
documents. According to him, he slapped his wife and told
her to stop doing it as it would ruin his profession.
Judge Laquindanum explained that she was only performing
her responsibility and had nothing against Atty. Quintana.
The reason why she did not act on his petition was that he
had not paid his IBP dues,24 which is a requirement before a
notarial commission may be granted. She told his wife to
secure a certification of payment from the IBP, but she did
not return.
Finally, Atty. Quintana asked for forgiveness for what he had
done and promised not to repeat the same. He also asked
that he be given another chance and not be divested of his
privilege to notarize, as it was the only bread and butter of
his family.
On March 5, 2007, Atty. Quintana submitted to the OBC the
documents25 issued by the IBP Cotabato City Chapter to
prove that he had paid his IBP dues.
In a Manifestation26 dated March 9, 2007, Judge
Laquindanum submitted a Certification27 and its entries show
that Atty. Quintana paid his IBP dues for the year 2005 only
on January 9, 2006 per Official Receipt (O.R.) No. 610381.
Likewise, the arrears of his IBP dues for the years 1993,
1995, 1996, and 1998 to 2003 were also paid only on
January 9, 2006 per O.R. No. 610387. Hence, when he filed
his petition for notarial commission in 2004, he had not yet
completely paid his IBP dues.
In its Report and Recommendation,28 the OBC
recommended that Atty. Quintana be disqualified from being
appointed as a notary public for two (2) years; and that if his
notarial commission still exists, the same should be revoked
for two (2) years. The OBC found the defenses and
ISSUE:Apparently, respondent has extended his notarial
acts in Midsayap and Kabacan, Cotabato, which is already
outside his territorial jurisdiction to perform as Notary Public.
Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides,
thus:
"Jurisdiction and Term – A person commissioned as
notary public may perform notarial acts in any place
within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning
court for a period of two (2) years commencing the first
day of January of the year in which the commissioning
court is made, unless earlier revoked [or] the notary public
has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.
respondent may perform his notarial acts within the territorial
jurisdiction of the commissioning Executive Judge Concha,
which is in Cotabato City and the [P]rovince of Maguindanao
only. But definitely he cannot extend his commission as
notary public in Midsayap or Kabacan and in any place of
the province of Cotabato as he is not commissioned thereat
to do such act. Midsayap and Kabacan are not part of
either Cotabato City or [P]rovince of Maguindanao but
part of the province of North Cotabato
claim of respondent that he can exercise his notarial
commission in Midsayap, Cotabato because Cotabato City is
part of the province of Cotabato is absolutely devoid of
merit.
ISSUE:several documents which the respondent’s wife has
herself notarized. Respondent justifies that he cannot be
blamed for the act of his wife as he did not authorize the
latter to notarize documents in his absence. According to
him[,] he even scolded and told his wife not to do it anymore
as it would affect his profession.
In the case of Lingan v. Calubaquib et al., Adm. Case No.
5377, June 15, 2006 the Court held, thus:
"A notary public is personally accountable for all entries in
his notarial register; He cannot relieve himself of this
responsibility by passing the buck to their (sic) secretaries"
A person who is commissioned as a notary public takes full
responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register.
Respondent cannot take refuge claiming that it was his
wife’s act and that he did not authorize his wife to notarize
documents. He is personally accountable for the activities in
his office as well as the acts of his personnel including his
wife, who acts as his secretary.
ISSUE:Likewise, evidence reveals that respondent
notarized in 2004 a Deed of Donation (Rollo, p. 79)
wherein, (sic) Honorata Rosel (Honorata Rosil) one of the
affiants therein, was already dead at the time of
notarization as shown in a Certificate of Death (Rollo, p.80)
issued by the Civil Registrar General of Libungan, Cotabato.
Sec. 2, (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
provides, thus[:]
"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 through competent evidence of identity as defined by
these Rules."
Clearly, in notarizing a Deed of Donation without even
determining the presence or qualifications of affiants therein,
respondent only shows his gross negligence and ignorance
of the provisions of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Issue:respondent claims that he, being a lawyer in good
standing, has the right to practice his profession including
notarial acts in the entire Philippines.
While it is true that lawyers in good standing are allowed to
engage in the practice of law in the Philippines.(sic)
However, not every lawyer even in good standing can
perform notarial functions without having been
commissioned as notary public as specifically provided for
under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
filing his petition for issuance of his notarial (sic) Notarial
Practice. The commissioning court may or may not grant the
said petition if in his sound discretion the petitioner does not
meet the required qualifications for [a] Notary Public. Since
respondent herein did not submit himself to the procedural
rules for the issuance of the notarial commission, he has no
reason at all to claim that he can perform notarial act[s] in
the entire country for lack of authority to do so.
Midsayap, Cotabato has the authority under Rule XI of the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice to monitor the duties and
responsibilities including liabilities, if any, of a notary public
commissioned or those performing notarial acts without
authority in her territorial jurisdiction
(1) he notarized documents outside the area of his
commission as a notary public;
The act of notarizing documents outside one’s area of
commission is not to be taken lightly. Aside from being a
violation of Sec. 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, it
also partakes of malpractice of law and falsification
(2) he performed notarial acts with an expired
commission;
Notarizing documents with an expired commission is a
violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws, more
specifically, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Since the
public is deceived into believing that he has been duly
commissioned, it also amounts to indulging in deliberate
falsehood, which the lawyer's oath proscribes.
(3) he let his wife notarize documents in his absence;
and
Notarizing documents without the presence of the signatory
to the document is a violation of Sec. 2(b)(1), Rule IV of the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
(4) he notarized a document where one of the
signatories therein was already dead at that time.
That Atty. Quintana relies on his notarial commission as the
sole source of income for his family will not serve to lessen
the penalty that should be imposed on him. On the contrary,
we feel that he should be reminded that a notarial
commission should not be treated as a money-making
venture
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 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 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 thereo
N VIEW WHEREOF, the notarial commission of Atty. Nestor
Q. Quintana, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED, and he is
DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as notary
public for a period of two (2) years. He is also
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months 
10.EN BANC
[A.C. No. 6258 : August 24, 2010]
10.LUZVIMINDA R. LUSTESTICA,
COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. SERGIO E. BERNABE,
RESPONDENT.
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
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.
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:
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
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.
x  x x  x
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]
 ==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. 
==Board of Governors of the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline adopted and approved the Report of the
IBP Commissioner.  appointed or commissioned as a notary public.
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
Subsequently, on January 26, 2009, the Court
declared the case closed and terminated
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.
-----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

undisputed facts, supervening events occurred
that must be taken into consideration of the
present case.
1. 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.
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 

2. the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration

of Resolution No. XVII-2005-116 before the IBP
he respondent be REQUIRED to submit certification
Commission on Bar Discipline.  The respondent
from competent courts and IBP that he has fully
moved to reconsider the IBP Resolution, claiming
served the entire period of suspension and
that the penalty imposed for the infraction
disqualification in Adm. Case No. 6963;
committed was too harsh.  The motion was denied
in Resolution No. XVII-2006-81, dated January 28, In Gonzales v. Ramos,[11] we stressed that
2006,[8] for lack of jurisdiction of the IBP Commission notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary
on Bar Discipline, since the administrative matter act butone invested with substantive public interest.
had then been endorsed to the Court. The notarization by a notary public converts a
private document into a public document, making it
3. on January 4, 2006, a motion for reconsideration
admissible in evidence without further proof of its
(the same as the one filed with the IBP Commission
authenticity.[12] A notarized document is, by law,
on Bar Discipline) was filed by the respondent before
entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.[13]It is
the Court.  In a Minute Resolution dated March 22,
for this reason that a notary public must observe
2006, the Court noted the findings and
with utmost care the basic requirements in the
recommendations in Resolution No. XVII-2005-116
performance of his duties; otherwise, the public's
and required the complainant to file her Comment to
confidence in the integrity of a notarized document
the respondent's motion for reconsideration. On April
would be undermined.
28, 2006, the complainant filed her Comment
Held: 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.
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)
(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.
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.
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.
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.
n 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.
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
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,
idering 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
admission[27] 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.
11.G.R. No. 184843               July 30, 2010
VIRGILIO DYCOCO, herein represented by his
Attorneys-in-fact CRISTINO C. GRAFILO, JOSE C.
GRAFILO and ADOLFO C. GRAFILO, and CRISTINO C.
GRAFILO, JOSE C. GRAFILO and ADOLFO C. GRAFILO
for and in their own behalf, Petitioners,
vs.
ADELAIDA ORINA joined by her husband GERMAN R.
ORINA as represented by her Attorney-in-fact EVELYN
M. SAGALONGOS and for in the latter's own
behalf, Respondents.
 (Dycoco) is alleged to have executed on October 9, 1995 a
"Real Estate Mortgage with Special Power to Sell
Mortgaged Property without Judicial Proceedings" (REM) in
favor of respondent Adelaida Orina (Adelaida), covering a
parcel of land located in Sta. Cruz, Manila and registered
under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 105730 in
Dycoco’s name. The REM was notarized on even date by
Notary Public Arwin Juco Sinaguinan.
delaida’s claim, Dycoco was indebted to her in the amount of
₱250,000.00, payable in six months, to bear monthly interest
rate of five percent (5%), to secure which Dycoco executed
the REM y
Dyococo’s alleged failure to pay his obligation, Adelaida
extrajudicially foreclosed the REM and as no redemption
was made within the reglementary period, Dycoco’s TCT
was cancelled and, in its stead, TCT No. 243525 was issued
in her name.
Dycoco’s attorneys-in-fact-brothers-in-law Cristino, Jose and
Adolfo, all surnamed Grafilo, who occupy the property
covered by the REM as caretakers/tenants, did not turn-over
its possession to Adelaida,
====METC:::hence, she, joined by her husband
represented by her attorney-in-fact Evelyn Sagalongos
(Evelyn), filed a complaint for ejectment against them before
the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila
====RTC:::Dycoco, represented by his attorneys-in-fact,
filed a complaint for annulment of the REM and transfer
certificate of title with damages, docketed as Civil Case No.
01100522, against Adelaida and her husband German Orina
represented by Evelyn before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
-----------Dycoco’s attorneys-in-fact claimed that Dycoco’s
signature on the REM was forged, to prove which they
presented various documents that Dycoco was working in
the United States of America as a licensed physician on the
alleged date of execution of the REM. 
----They also presented Dycoco’s U.S. Passport, personal
checks, Special Power of Attorney and Affidavit; and a
Certification from the Clerk of Court of RTC Manila that the
office does not possess a copy of the REM, Notary Public
Sinaguinan having not submitted her notarial report for
October 1995.
Manila RTC dismissed Dycoco’s complaint, holding that:
Plaintiff, [Dycoco], through the testimony of their (sic) lone
witness as well as their (sic) documentary exhibits tried
to show that it was not . . . Dycoco who mortgaged the
said property. Cristino Grafilo even testified that their brother
Miguel, admitted to having stole (sic) the title and have (sic)
it mortgaged. Plaintiffs (sic), however, failed to establish that
the mortgagor, (sic) defendant Adelaida Orina, knew it was
not Virgilio Dycoco who mortgaged the same.
===Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of
Dycoco’s complaint, it holding that albeit Dycoco’s
questioned signature appearing on the REM and the
documentary evidence presented by his attorneys-in-fact
bear "striking differences," since Dycoco was not presented
on the witness stand
===The motion for reconsideration of Dycoco’s attorneys-in-
fact having been denied by Resolution of October 3, 2008,
the present petition for review was filed.
A perusal of the REM which is, as stated earlier, a merely
photocopy, shows the incompleteness of the
acknowledgment portion. It reads:
Republic of the Philippines )
City of Manila ) S.S.
BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for and in the City of Manila,
this 9th day of October 1995, personally came and appeared
____________________ (sic) with Res. Cert. No. :
12262297 C issued on 27 July 95 at Manila and Tax Account
No.: 110-783-724 known to me and to me known to be the
same person who executed the foregoing instrument which
he acknowledged before me as his free and voluntary act
and deed.4
As the above-quoted acknowledgment shows, the name of
the person who personally appeared before the notary public
is not stated.
Documents acknowledged before a notary public, except last
wills and testaments, are public documents.5 Since the
subject REM was not properly notarized, its public character
does not hold.
Since the REM is not a public document, it is subject to the
requirement of proof for private documents under Section
20, Rule 132, which provides:
Section 20. Proof of private document. – Before any private
document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its
due execution and authenticity must be proved either:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or
written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature
or handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified as that
which it is claimed to be. (underscoring supplied)
It was thus incumbent upon Adelaida to prove that Dycoco’s
signature is genuine. As stated earlier, a mere photocopy of
the REM was presented. It is axiomatic that when the
genuineness of signatures on a document is sought to be
proved or disproved through comparison of standard
signatures with the questioned signature, the original thereof
must be presented.6 Why respondents did not present the
original, they did not explain. Why they did not present
Adelaida, who must have been present at the execution of
the REM as her purported signature appears thereon, or the
notary public, or any of the witnesses, neither did they
explain. Sec. 5 of Rule 130 which reads:
SEC. 5. When original document is unavailable. — When the
original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or
existence and the cause of the unavailability without bad
faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a
recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the
testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
Any other private document need only be identified as that
which it is claimed to be. (underscoring supplied)
It was thus incumbent upon Adelaida to prove that Dycoco’s
signature is genuine.
As stated earlier, a mere photocopy of the REM was
presented.
It is axiomatic that when the genuineness of signatures on a
document is sought to be proved or disproved through
comparison of standard signatures with the questioned
signature, the original thereof must be presented.6 
Why respondents did not present the original, they did not
explain. Why they did not present Adelaida, who must have
been present at the execution of the REM as her purported
signature appears thereon, or the notary public, or any of the
witnesses, neither did they explain. Sec. 5 of Rule 130 which
reads:
SEC. 5. When original document is unavailable. — When the
original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or
existence and the cause of the unavailability without bad
faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a
recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the
testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
Upon the other hand, Dycoco’s attorneys-in-fact presented
his U.S. passport documenting when he entered and exited
from the Philippines, as well as various documents showing
his genuine signature.
The appellate court, although upholding the admissibility of
Dycoco’s documentary evidence, did not ascribe weight to it,
however, upon the justification that "[e]ven if . . . Cristino
Grafilo was empowered to appear for and on behalf of
plaintiff-appellant Virgilio Dycoco in this case by virtue of a
Special Power of Attorney, the powers couched in said
document do not vest upon the former the power to testify on
matters [of] which he has no personal knowledge."7
Contrary to the appellate court’s stance, there was no
necessity to present Dycoco on the witness stand or to
present the one who made the entries on his U.S. passport.
In respondents’ Comment/Opposition to Dycoco’s formal
offer of evidence, the passport was objected to as being
"immaterial, irrelevant and impertinent."8 Such comment is a
virtual admission of the authenticity of the entries in the
passport.
But more important, one of the documents offered by
Dycoco is a Special Power of Attorney executed on June 2,
2000 in Illinois, U.S.A. showing his signature, notarized and
certified in accordance with Public Act No. 2103,9 which
effectively dispenses with the requirement of presenting
him on the witness stand.
Section 2. An instrument or document acknowledged and
authenticated in a foreign country shall be considered
authentic if the acknowledgment and authentication are
made in accordance with the following requirements:
(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before (1) an
ambassador, minister, secretary of legation, chargé
d’affaires, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of
the United States, acting within the country or place
to which he is accredited, or (2) a notary public or
officer duly authorized by law of the country to take
acknowledgments of instruments or documents in
the place where the act is done.
(b) The person 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 under his official seal, if he is by law
required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate
shall so state. In case the acknowledgment is made
before a notary public or an officer mentioned in
subdivision (2) of the preceding paragraph, the
certificate of the notary public or the officer
taking the acknowledgment shall be
authenticated by an ambassador, minister,
secretary of legation, chargé d’affaires, consul,
vice-consul, or consular agent of the United
States, acting within the country or place to
which he is accredited. The officer making the
authentication shall certify under his official seal that
the person who took the acknowledgment was at the
time duly authorized to act as notary public or that he
was duly exercising the functions of the office by
virtue of which he assumed to act, and that as such
he had authority under the law to take
acknowledgment of instruments or documents in the
place where the acknowledgment was taken, and
that his signature and seal, if any, are genuine.
(emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Evelyn insisted that Dycoco was present during the signing
of the REM on October 9, 1995:
ATTY. MERCADO:
Q: Madam Witness, when this document was prepared,
were you present?
WITNESS:
A: Yes sir.
Q: Are you a witness in the execution of this document?
A: Yes sir.
Q: On page 2 of this document, the (sic) appears a signature
above the type-written name Adelaida Orina, will you please
inform the Honorable Court whose signature is this?
Q: Why do you know that it is the signature of Adelaida
Orina?
A: Because she is included there.
Q: What do you mean by "kasama po siya"?
A: There were four of us at the office of the Notary Public.
Q: When you said four of you, whao (sic) are they?
A: Adelaida, Virgilio, two other witness (sic) and me.
Q: You are not four, you are five?
A: Yes sir.10 (underscoring supplied)
Evelyn’s testimony not only contradicts the entries in
Dycoco’s U.S. Passport, however, it appearing therein that
Dycoco visited the Philippines on April 2, 1990 and arrived in
the United States on April 9 of the same year. Contrary to
her claim, the REM does not reflect here as one of the
witnesses to its execution.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of
the Court of Appeals dated November 29, 2007
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. 1avvphi1
Let a NEW judgment be entered declaring null and void the
document entitled "Real Estate Mortgage with Special Power
to Sell Mortgaged Property without Judicial Proceedings"
purportedly signed by Virgilio Dycoco in favor of Adelaida
Orina.
12.G.R. No. 229781
SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA, Petitioner
vs.
HON. JUANITA GUERRERO, in her capacity as Presiding
Judge, Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch
204, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, P/DIR. GEN.
RONALD M. DELA ROSA, in his capacity as Chief of the
Philippine National Police, PSUPT. PHILIP GIL M.
PHILIPPS, in his capacity as Director, Headquarters
Support Service, SUPT. ARNEL JAMANDRON APUD, in
his capacity as Chief, PNP Custodial Service Unit, and
ALL PERSONS ACTING UNDER THEIR CONTROL,
SUPERVISION, INSTRUCTION OR DIRECTION IN
RELATION TO THE ORDERS THAT MAY BE ISSUED BY
THE COURT, Respondents
The facts are undisputed. The Senate and the House of
Representatives conducted several inquiries on the
proliferation of dangerous drugs syndicated at the New
Bilibid Prison (NBP), inviting inmates who executed affidavits
in support of their testimonies.  These legislative inquiries led
3
to the filing of the following complaints with the Department
of Justice:
a) NPS No. XVI-INV-16J-00313, entitled "Volunteers against
Crime and Corruption (VACC), represented by Dante
Jimenez vs. Senator Leila M. De Lima, et al.;"
b) NPS No. XVI-INV-16J-00315, entitled "Reynaldo
Esmeralda and Ruel Lasala vs. Senator Leila De Lima, et
al.;"
c) NPS No. XVI-INV-16K-00331, entitled "Jaybee Nifio
Sebastian, represented by his wife Roxanne Sebastian, vs.
Senator Leila M De Lima, et al.;" and
d) NPS No. XVI-INV-16K-00336, entitled "National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) vs. Senator Leila M. De Lima, et al. " 4
four cases were consolidated and the DOJ Panel of
Prosecutors (DOJ Panel),  headed by Senior Assistant State
5 (₱5,000,000.00) Pesos on 24 November 2012, Five Million
Prosecutor Peter Ong, was directed to conduct the requisite
preliminary investigation.
DOJ Panel conducted a preliminary hearing on December 2,
2016,  wherein the petitioner, through her counsel, filed
7 following: the RTC lacks jurisdiction over the offense
an Omnibus Motion to Immediately Endorse the Cases
to the Office of the Ombudsman and for the Inhibition of
the Panel of Prosecutors and the Secretary of Justice
("Omnibus Motion").  In the main, the petitioner argued that
8
the Office of the Ombudsman has the exclusive authority
and jurisdiction to hear the four complaints against her.
Further, alleging evident partiality on the part of the DOJ
Panel, the petitioner contended that the DOJ prosecutors
should inhibit themselves and refer the complaints to the
Office of the Ombudsman.
petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for
Prohibition and Certiorari assailing the jurisdiction of the
14
DOJ Panel over the complaints against her. The petitions,
docketed as CA-G.R. No. 149097 and CA-G.R. No. SP No.
149385, are currently pending with the Special 6th Division
of the appellate court.  Meanwhile, in the absence of a
15
restraining order issued by the Court of Appeals,
the DOJ Panel proceeded with the conduct of the
preliminary investigation  and, in its Joint Resolution dated
16
February 14, 2017,  recommended the filing of Informations
17
against petitioner De Lima. Accordingly, on February 17,
2017,
three Informations were filed against petitioner De Lima and
several co-accused before the RTC ofMuntinlupa City. One
of the Infonnations was docketed as Criminal Case No. 17-
165  and raffled off to Branch 204, presided by respondent
18
judge. This Information charging petitioner for violation of
Section 5 in relation to Section (jj), Section 26(b), and
Section 28 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, contained the
following averments:
 accused Leila M. De Lima, being then the Secretary of the
Department of Justice, and accused Rafael Marcos Z.
Rages, being then the Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of
Corrections, by taking advantage of their public office,
conspiring and confederating with accused Ronnie P.
Dayan, being then an employee of the Department of Justice
detailed to De Lima, all of them having moral ascendancy or
influence over inmates in the New Bilibid Prison, did then
and there commit illegal drug trading, in the following
manner: De Lima and Ragos, with the use of their power,
position, and authority, demand, solicit and extort money
from the high profile inmates in the New Bilibid Prison to
support the senatorial bid of De Lima in the May 2016
election; by reason of which, the inmates, not being lawfully
authorized by law and through the use of mobile phones and
other electronic devices, did then and there willfully and
unlawfully trade and traffic dangerous drugs, and thereafter
give and deliver to De Lima, through Ragos and Dayan, the
proceeds of illegal drug trading amounting to Five Million
(₱5,000,000.00) Pesos on 15 December 2012, and One
Hundred Thousand (₱100,000.00) Pesos weekly "tara"
petitioner filed a Motion to Quash, mainly raising the
20
charged against petitioner; the DOJ Panel lacks authority to
file the Information; the Information charges more than one
offense; the allegations and the recitals of facts do not allege
the corpus delicti of the charge; the Information is based on
testimonies of witnesses who are not qualified to be
discharged as state witnesses; and the testimonies of these
witnesses are hearsay. 21
respondent judge issued the presently
assailed Order  finding probable cause for the issuance of
22
warrants of arrest against De Lima and her co-accused
Accordingly, the questioned Warrant of Arrest dated
February 23, 2017 ,  which contained no recommendation
24
for bail, was issued against petitioner.
 petitioner repaired to this court via the present petition,
praying for the following reliefs:
a. Granting a writ of certiorari annulling and setting aside
the Order dated 23 February 2017, the Warrant of
Arrest dated the same date, and the Order dated 24
February 2017 of the Regional Trial Court - Branch 204,
Muntinlupa City, in Criminal Case No. 17-165
entitled People of the Philippines versus Leila M De Lima, et
al.;
b. Granting a writ of prohibition enjoining and prohibiting
respondent judge from conducting further proceedings until
and unless the Motion to Quash is resolved with finality;
c. Issuing an order granting the application for the issuance
of temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of
preliminary injunction to the proceedings; and
d. Issuing a Status Quo Ante Order restoring the parties to
the status prior to the issuance of the Order and Warrant of
Arrest, both dated February 23, 201 7, thereby recalling both
processes and restoring petitioner to her liberty and
freedom. 26
The OSG argued that the petition should be dismissed as De
Lima failed to show that she has no other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy. petitioner did not observe the hierarchy of
courts and violated the rule against forum shopping.
OSG filed a Manifestation dated March 13, 2017,  claiming
30
that petitioner falsified the jurats appearing in the: (1)
Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping
page of her petition; and (2) Affidavit of Merit in support of
her prayer for injunctive relief.
The OSG alleged that while the advertedjurats appeared
to be notarized by a certain Atty. Maria Cecille C.
Tresvalles-Cabalo on February 24, 2017, the guest
logbook  in the PNP Custodial Center Unit in Camp
31
Crame for February 24, 2017 does not bear the name of
Atty. Tresvalles-Cabalo. Thus, so the OSG maintained,
petitioner De Lima did not actually appear and swear before
the notary public on such date in Quezon City, contrary to
the allegations in the jurats. For the OSG, the petition should
therefore be dismissed outright for the falsity committed by
petitioner De Lima.
In compliance with an Order of this Court, petitioner filed
the Affidavit of Atty. Maria Cecille C. Tresvalles-Cabalo
dated March 20, 2017  to shed light on the allegations of
32
falsity in petitioner'sjurats.
OUR RULING
Before proceeding to a discussion on the outlined issues,
We shall first confront the issue of the alleged falsification
committed by petitioner in the jurats of her Verification and
Certification against Forum Shopping and Affidavit of Merit in
support of her prayer for injunctive relief.
-------In her Affidavit, Atty. Tresvalles-Cabalo disproves the
OSG's allegation that she did not notarize the petitioner's
Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping and
Affidavit of Merit in this wise:
4. On February 24, 2017 at or around nine in the morning
(9:00 AM), I went to PNP, CIDG, Camp Crame, Quezon City
to notarize the Petition as discussed the previous night.
5. I met Senator De Lima when she was brought to the CIDG
at Camp Crame and I was informed that the Petition was
already signed and ready for notarization.
6. I was then provided the Petition by her staff. I examined
the signature of Senator De Lima and confirmed that it was
signed by her. I have known the signature of the senator
given our personal relationship. Nonetheless, I still
requested from her staff a photocopy of any of her
government-issued valid Identification Cards (ID) bearing her
signature. A photocopy of her passport was presented to
me. I compared the signatures on the Petition and the
Passport and I was able to verify that the Petition was in fact
signed by her. Afterwards, I attached the photocopy of her
Passport to the Petition which I appended to my Notarial
Report/Record.
7. Since I already know that Sen. De Lima caused the
preparation of the Petition and that it was her who signed the
same, I stamped and signed the same.
8. To confirm with Senator De Lima that I have already
notarized the Petition, I sought entry to the detention facility
at or around three in the afternoon (3:00 PM). x x x
xxxx
11. Since I was never cleared after hours of waiting, I was
not able to talk again to Senator De Lima to confirm the
notarization of the Petition. I then decided to leave Camp
Crame. 3

At first glance, it is curious that Atty. Tresvalles-Cabalo who
claims to have "stamped and signed the [Verification and
Certification and Affidavit of Merit]" inside Camp Crame,
presumably in De Lima's presence, still found it necessary
to, hours later, "confirm with Senator De Lima that [she had]
already notarized the Petition." Nonetheless, assuming the
veracity of the allegations narrated in the Affidavit, it is
immediately clear that petitioner De Lima did not sign the
Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping and
Affidavit of Merit in front of the notary public.
This is contrary to the jurats (i.e., the certifications of the
notary public at the end of the instruments) signed by Atty.
Tresvalles-Cabalo that the documents were "SUBSCRIBED
AND SWORN to before me."
Such clear breach of notarial protocol is highly
censurable  as Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on
36
Notarial Practice requires the affiant, petitioner De Lima in
this case, to sign the instrument or document in the
presence of the notary, viz.:
SECTION 6. Jurat. - "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 as
defined by these Rules;
(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.(Emphasis and underscoring
supplied.)
While there is jurisprudence to the effect that " an irregular
notarization merely reduces the evidentiary value of a
document to that of a private document, which requires /roof
of its due execution and authenticity to be admissible as
evidence,"  the same cannot be considered controlling in
37
determining compliance with the requirements of Sections 1
and 2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Both Sections 1 and 2
of Rule 65  require that the petitions for certiorari and
38
prohibition must be verified and accompanied by a "sworn
certificate of non-forum shopping."
In this regard, Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure states that "[a] pleading is verified by an affidavit
that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations
therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or
based on authentic records." "A pleading required to be
verified which x x x lacks a proper verification, shall be
treated as an unsigned pleading."
Meanwhile, Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that "[t]he plaintiff or principal party shall certify
under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading
asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification
annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that
he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any
claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or
quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no
such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is
such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of
the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter
learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed
or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or
initiatory pleading has been filed." "Failure to comply with the
foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere
amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but
shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without
prejudice, unless otherwise provided x x x."
In this case, when petitioner De Lima failed to sign the
Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping in the
presence of the notary, she has likewise failed to properly
swear under oath the contents thereof, thereby rendering
false and null the jurat and invalidating the Verification
and Certification against Forum Shopping. The
significance of a proper jurat and the effect of its invalidity
was elucidated in William Go Que Construction v. Court of
Appeals, where this Court held that:
39
In Fernandez v. Villegas (Fernandez), the Court pronounced
that noncompliance with the verification requirement or a
defect therein "does not necessarily render the pleading
fatally defective. The court may order its submission or
correction or act on the pleading if the attending
circumstances are such that strict compliance with the
Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of
justice may be served thereby."
"Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one
who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the
allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification,
and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in
good faith or are true and correct."
Here, there was no substantial compliance with the
verification requirement as it cannot be ascertained that any
of the private respondents actually swore to the truth of the
allegations in the petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No.
109427 given the lack of competent evidence of any of their
identities. Because of this, the fact that even one of the
private respondents swore that the allegations in the
pleading are true and correct of his knowledge and belief is
shrouded in doubt.
For the same reason, neither was there substantial
compliance with the certification against forum shopping
requirement. In Fernandez, the Court explained that "non-
compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in
verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent
submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to
relax the Rule on the ground of 'substantial compliance'
or presence of 'special circumstances or compelling
reasons."' Here, the CA did not mention - nor does there
exist - any perceivable special circumstance or compelling
reason which justifies the rules' relaxation. At all events, it is
uncertain if any of the private respondents certified under
oath that no similar action has been filed or is pending in
another forum.
xxxx
Case law states that "[v]erification is required to secure an
assurance that the allegations in the petition have been
made in good faith or are true and correct, and not merely
speculative." On the other hand, "[t]he certification against
forum shopping is required based on the principle that a
party-litigant should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous
remedies in different fora." The important purposes behind
these requirements cannot be simply brushed aside absent
any sustainable explanation justifying their relaxation. In this
case, proper justification is especially called for in light of the
serious allegations of forgery as to the signatures of the
remaining private respondents, i.e., Lominiqui and Andales.
Thus, by simply treating the insufficient submissions before it
as compliance with its Resolution dated August 13, 2009
requiring anew the submission of a proper
verification/certification against forum shopping, the CA
patently and grossly ignored settled procedural rules and,
hence, gravely abused its discretion. All things considered,
the proper course of action was for it to dismiss the
petition.40 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
Without the presence of the notary upon the signing of the
Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping, there
is no assurance that the petitioner swore under oath that the
allegations in the petition have been made in good faith or
are true and correct, and not merely speculative.
It must be noted that verification is not an empty ritual
or a meaningless formality. Its import must never be
sacrificed in the name of mere expedience or sheer
caprice,41 as what apparently happened in the present case.
Similarly, the absence of the notary public when petitioner
allegedly affixed her signature also negates a proper
attestation that forum shopping has not been committed by
the filing of the petition. Thus, the petition is, for all intents
and purposes, an unsigned pleading that does not deserve
the cognizance of this Court.42 In Salum bides, Jr. v. Office
of the Ombudsman,43the Court held thus:
The Court has distinguished the effects of non-compliance
with the requirement of verification and that of certification
against forum shopping. A defective verification shall be
treated as an unsigned pleading and thus produces no
legal effect, subject to the discretion of the court to
allow the deficiency to be remedied, while the failure to
certifv against forum shopping shall be cause for dismissal
without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, and is not
curable by amendment of the initiatory pleading.
(Emphasis and italicization from the original.)
Notably, petitioner has not proffered any reason to justify her
failure to sign the Verification and Certification Against
Forum Shopping in the presence of the notary. There is,
therefore, no justification to relax the rules and excuse the
petitioner's non-compliance therewith. This Court had
reminded parties seeking the ultimate relief of certiorari to
observe the rules, since nonobservance thereof cannot be
brushed aside as a "mere technicality."44 Procedural rules
are not to be belittled or simply disregarded, for these
prescribed procedures ensure an orderly and speedy
administration of justice.45 Thus, as in William Go Que
Construction, the proper course of action is to dismiss
outright the present petition.
Even if We set aside this procedural infirmity, the petition just
the same merits denial on several other grounds.
LEONEN:Dissenting-opinion:TPetitioner substantially
complied with the requirements of the verification in her
Petition.
Rule 7, Section 4 of the Rules of Court requires all pleadings
to be verified.  A pleading which lacks proper verification is
209
treated as an unsigned pleading and shall, thus, be the
cause for the dismissal of the case.  The requirement of
210
verification is merely formal, not jurisdictional, and in proper
cases, this Court may simply order the correction of a
defective verification.  "Verification is simply intended to
211
secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are
true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a
matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good
faith."
212
The ponencia insists on an unreasonable reading of the
Rules, stating that petitioner's failure to sign the Verification
in the presence of the notary invalidated her Verification.  It 213
cites William Go Que Construction v. Court of Appeals and 214
states that "[w]ithout the presence of the notary upon the
signing of the Verification and Certification against Forum
Shopping, there is no assurance that the petitioner swore
under oath that the allegations in the petition have been
made in good faith or are true and correct, and not merely
speculative."215
The events which transpired in this case, however, are
different than that of William Go Que Construction. Here, the
petitioner and the notary public knew each other. There was
no question as to their identities. The notary public's affidavit
likewise states that she met with petitioner on the day of the
notarization. Even with the difficulties presented by
petitioner's detention, the notary public still required
petitioner's staff to provide proof of identification.
216
No one is questioning petitioner's identification or signature
in the Petition. No one alleges that she falsified her signature
in the Petition or that the notary public was unauthorized to
notarize the Petition. The evil sought to be prevented by the
defective verification, therefore, is not present in this case.
The ponencia's insistence on its view of strict compliance
with the requirements of the jurat in the verification is a
hollow invocation of an ambiguous procedural ritual
bordering on the contrived. Substantial justice should always
prevail over procedural niceties without any clear rationale.
13. A.C. No. 11346, March 08, 2017
DR. BASILIO MALVAR, Complainant, v. ATTY.
CORA JANE P. BALEROS, Respondent.
the owner of a parcel of land located,in Barangay
Pagudpud, San Fernando City, La Union.2 On January
7, 2011, the complainant executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale3 in favor of Leah Mallari (Mallari) over
the said lot for the amount of Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). This transaction was
acknowledged by the children of the complainant
through a document denominated as Confirmation of
Sale
process of conveying the title of the lot in the name
of Mallari spawned the legal tussle between the
parties.
------ According to the complainant, an agreement
was made between him and Mallari wherein he
undertook to facilitate the steps in order to have the
title of the lot transferred under Mallari's
name.5 However, without his knowledge and
consent, Mallari who was not able to withstand the
delay in the delivery of the title of the land sold to
her allegedly filed an Application for Certification of
Alienable and Disposable Land
as a preliminary step for the segregation and titling
of the same before the Community Environment and
Natural Resources Office of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), San
Fernando City, La Union using the complainant's
name and signing the said application.
 A civil case for collection of sum of money was
instituted by Mallari before the Municipal Trial Court
(MTC) of Aringay, La Union seeking reimbursement
tor the expenses she incurred by reason of the
transfer and titling of the property she purchased
A compromise agreement9 was forged between the
parties which failed because two out of the four
checks issued by the complainant were
unfunded.10 This prompted Mallari to file a criminal
case for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22
==mtc:: criminal case for falsification of public
document against Mallari was filed before the Office
of the Prosecutor and now pending before the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of San
Fernando City, La Union, Branch 1.12 The
complainant alleged that it was through the
conspiracy of Mallari and the respondent 
Office of the Prosecutor's determination that the
evidence presented was insufficient to establish
conspiracy between Mallari and the respondent,
thereby dropping the latter's name from the
indictment
-----initiated the present petition for disbarment
seeking the imposition of disciplinary sanction
against the respondent.14 
----The complainant claimed that the respondent, by
notarizing the assailed Application for Certification of
Alienable and Disposable Land, made it appear that
he executed the same when the truth of the matter
was he never went to the office of the respondent for
he was in Manila at the time of the alleged
notarization and was busy performing his duties
as a doctor
-----complainant buttressed in his position paper that
the respondent consummated the crime of
falsification of public document as delineated under
Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and thus, the
presumption of regularity in the notarization of the
contested document has been overthrown and
cannot work in her favor.19 He recapped that he
never appeared before the respondent to have the
subject document notarized.20 The complainant
stressed that the respondent made a mockery of the
Notarial Rules by notarizing the Application for
Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land in his
absence.
------Position Paper,21 the respondent refuted the
allegations against her by narrating that Benny
Telles, the complainant and his sons came to her
office to have the subject document notarized and
that she is certain as to the identity of the
complainant.22 Moreover, she argued that the
charges filed against her were all part of the
complainant's scheme to avoid his obligations to
Mallari as the buyer of his lot.
Ruling of the IBP

====On June 15, 2015, Commissioner Maria Angela
Esquivel (Commissioner Esquivel) found that the
respondent was negligent in the performance of her
duties as a notary public and violated the Notarial
Rules, thereby recommending disciplinary imposition
against her. The pertinent portion of the Report and
Recommendation24 reads:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is hereby
recommended that the Respondent's commission as
a notary public be revoked; that she be disqualified
for being a notary public for two (2) years with a
stem warning that a repetition of similar offense
shall be dealt with more severely.
===IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved
Commissioner Esquivel's report and recommendation
with modification, to wit:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby
ADOPTED and APPROVED,  with modification, the
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein
made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", for failure
of Respondent to observe due diligence in the
performance of her duties and obligations as a
Notary Public specifically Rule VI, Section 2 of the
Notarial Law. Thus, [the respondent's] notarial
commission, if presently commissioned, is
immediately  REVOKED. Furthermore, [she]
is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as
a Notary Public for two (2) years and
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6)
months
The Issues
Whether administrative liability should attach to the
respondent by reason of the following acts alleged to
have been committed by her:
1. Falsification of the Application for Certification
of Alienable and Disposable Land;
2. Notarization of the aforesaid document in the
absence of the complainant; and
3. Double Entries in the Notarial Registry
Ruling of the Court
After a close scrutiny of the facts of the case, the
Court finds no compelling reason to deviate from the
resolution of the IBP Board of Governors.
the Court shall not inquire into the merits of the said
criminal case pending adjudication before the MTCC
and make a ruling on the matter. Commissioner
Esquivel correctly declined to resolve the falsification
case pending resolution before the regular court to
which jurisdiction properly pertains. Though
disbarment proceedings are sui generis as they
belong to a class of their own and are distinct from
that of civil or criminal actions, it is judicious for an
administrative body like IBP-CBD not to pre-empt
the course of action of the regular courts in order to
avert contradictory findings.
The Court concurs with the conclusion of
Commissioner Esquivel that the respondent violated
several provisions of the Notarial Rules. The
complainant insists that the Application for
Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land was
notarized sans his presence. An affidavit requiring
a jurat which the respondent admittedly signed and
notarized on August 18, 2010 forms part of the
subject document.
The jurat is that end part of the affidavit in which the
notary certifies that the instrument is sworn to
before her, thus, making the notarial certification
essential.29 The unsubstantiated claim of the
respondent that the complainant appeared before
her and signed the contested document in her
presence cannot prevail over the evidence supplied
by the complainant pointing that it was highly
improbable if not impossible for him to appear before
the respondent on the date so alleged that the
subject document was notarized.
The complainant furnished in his Sworn Judicial
Affidavit submitted before the court patients' record
cards showing that he attended to a number of them
on August 18, 2010 in De Los Santos Medical Center,
E. Rodriguez, Sr. Avenue, Quezon City.3
A jurat as sketched in jurisprudence lays
emphasis on the paramount requirements of
the physical presence of the affiant as well as
his act of signing the document before the
notary public.31 The respondent indeed
transgressed Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Notarial
Rules by affixing her official signature and seal on
the notarial certificate of the affidavit contained in
the Application for Certification of Alienable and
Disposable Land in the absence of the complainant
and for failing to ascertain the identity of the affiant. 
SEC. 2. Prohibitions.
xxx

(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the

person involved as signatory to the instrument or
further, the respondent displayed lack of diligence by
document - the non observance of the obligations imposed upon
her under Section 2 of Rule VI of the Notarial Rules,
(1) to wit:
is not in the notary's presence personally at the time
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

of the notarization; and SEC. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register.

(2)
is not personally known to the notary public or
otherwise identified by the notary through competent
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
(a) For every notarial act, the notary shall
record in the notarial register at the time of
notarization the following:

The physical presence of the affiant ensures the (1)

proper execution of the duty of the notary public the entry number and page number;
under the law to determine whether the former's (2)
the date and time of day of the notarial act;
signature was voluntarily affixed.32 Aside from
(3)
forbidding notarization without the personal presence
the type of notarial act;
of the affiant, the Notarial Rules demands the
(4)
submission of competent evidence of identity such as
the title or description of the instrument,
an identification card with photograph and signature
document or proceeding;
which requirement can be dispensed with provided
(5)
that the notary public personally knows the affiant.
the name and address of each principal;
Competent evidence of identity under Section 12 of
(6)
Rule II of the Notarial Rules is defined as follows:
the competent evidence of identity as defined by
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

the Rules if the signatory is not personally known to

Sec. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity.
Granting that the complainant was present before
the notary public at the time of the notarization of
the contested document on August 18, 2010, the
respondent remained unjustified in not requiring him
to show a competent proof of his identification. She
could have escaped administrative liability on this
score if she was able to demonstrate that she
personally knows the complainant. On the basis of
the very definition of a jurat under Section 6 of Rule
II of the Notarial Rules, case law echoes that the
non-presentation of the affiant's competent proof of
identification is permitted if the notary public
personally knows the former.33 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.
the notary;
(7)
the name and address of each credible witness
swearing to or affirming the person's identity;
(8)
the fee charged for the notarial act;
(9)
the address where the notarization was
performed if not in the notary's regular place of
business; and
(10)
any other circumstance the notary public may deem
of significance or relevance.
(e) The notary public shall give to each
instrument or document executed, sworn to, or
acknowledged before him a number
corresponding to the one in his register, and
shall also state on the instrument or document
the page/s of his register on which the same is
recorded. No blank line shall be left between
entries.
A similar order was issued by the MTCC requiring the
DENR for the production of the impugned
document.36 The DENR issued a certification that
despite diligent efforts they could not locate the said
document but which they were certain was received
by their office.37 Meanwhile, upon Atty. Estigoy-
Andres' certification,38 it was discovered that as per
the respondent's notarial register submitted to the
Office of the Clerk of Court, Document No. 288, Page
No. 59, Book No. LXXIII, Series of 2010 does not
pertain to the Application for Certification of
Alienable and Disposable Land but to a notarized
document denominated as Joint Affidavit of Adjoining
Owners3
executed by Ricardo Sibayan and Cecilia Flores.
Undoubtedly, the document entitled Application for
Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land
nowhere appears in the respondent's notarial
register.
 The respondent further exposed herself to
administrative culpability when she regretfully
offered plain oversight as an excuse for the non-
inclusion of the challenged document in her notarial
register and by stating that it is her office staff who
usually fills it up.
To reiterate, the respondent admitted having
signed and notarized the Application for
Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land
but based from the foregoing, she indubitably
failed to record the assailed document in her
notarial book.
 It is axiomatic that notarization is not an empty,
meaningless or routinary act. It is through the act of
notarization that a private document is converted
into a public one, making it admissible in evidence
without need of preliminary proof of authenticity and
due execution.40 "If the document or instrument
does not appear in the notarial records and there is
no copy of it therein, doubt is engendered that the
document or instrument was not really notarized, so
that it is not a public document and cannot
bolster any claim made based on this
document."41 The respondent's delegation of her
notarial function of recording entries in her notarial
register to her staff is a clear contravention of the
explicit provision of the Notarial Rules dictating
that such duty be fulfilled by her and not somebody
else. This likewise violates Canon 9, Rule 9.01 of the
CPR which provides that: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
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.
In addition to the above charges, Commissioner
Esquivel noted that the respondent failed to retain an
original copy in her records and to submit the
duplicate copy of the document to the Clerk of
Court. However, in a previous case, the Court ruled
that the requirement stated under Section 2(h)
of Rule VI of the Notarial Rules applies only to
an instrument acknowledged before the notary
public and not to the present document which
contains a jurat.42 
"A jurat is a distinct creature from an
acknowledgment."43
 It is that part of an affidavit in which the notary
certifies that before him or her, the document was
subscribed and sworn to by the executor;
while an acknowledgment is the act of one who
has executed a deed in going before some
competent officer or court and declaring it to
be his act or deed.44 
Hence, no liability can be ascribed to the
respondent relative to such ground.
The Court finds unacceptable the respondent's
defiance of the Notarial Rules. Under the
circumstances, the respondent should be made liable
not only as a notary public who failed to discharge
her duties as such but also as a lawyer who exhibited
utter disregard to the integrity and dignity owing to
the legal profession.
he acts committed by the respondent go beyond
being mere lapses in the fulfilment of her duties
under the Notarial Rules, they comprehend a parallel
breach of the CPR particularly Canon 9, Rule 9.01,
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 which provides that "a lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct" and the Lawyer's Oath which
amplifies the undertaking to do no falsehood and
adhere to laws and the legal system being one of
their primordial tasks as officers of the court.
given the evidentiary value accorded to notarized
documents, the failure of the notary public to record
the document in her notarial register corresponds to
falsely making it appear that the document was
notarized when, in fact, it was not.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Cora Jane P. Baleros
is GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice, the Code of Professional Responsibility and
the Lawyer's Oath. Her notarial commission, if still
existing, is hereby REVOKED, and she is
hereby DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as
Notary Public for a period of two (2) years. She is
likewise SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six
(6) months effective immediately.  receiving the PhP 90,000 from Chul.
14 A.C. No. 7591               March 20, 2012
CORAZON T. NEVADA, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. RODOLFO D. CASUGA, Respondent.
Nevada is the principal stockholder of C.T. Nevada & Sons,
Inc., a family corporation which operates the Mt. Crest Hotel
located at Legarda Road, Baguio City (the Hotel).
Nevada alleges that she and Casuga are members of the
One in Jesus Christ Church, a religious group which counts
the latter as one of its "elders." 
According to Nevada, she has allowed the use of one of the
Hotel’s functions rooms for church services. And in time,
Casuga was able to gain her trust and confidence.
----Nevada further alleges that unbeknownst to her, Casuga,
sometime in 2006, started to represent himself as the
administrator of the Hotel. In fact, on March 1, 2006, he
entered into a contract of lease with a certain Jung Jong
2 
Chul (Chul) covering an office space in the Hotel. Notably,
Casuga signed the lease contract over the printed name
of one Edwin T. Nevada and notarized the document
himself.
affidavit-complaint is a notarized letter dated May 15, 2007,
wherein Chul attested that he gave Casuga, upon contract
signing, the amount of ninety thousand pesos (PhP 90,000)
as rental deposit for the office space. The amount thus
deposited, so Nevada claims, was never turned over to her
or to C.T. Nevada & Sons, Inc.
Nevada adds that, in the course of their
acquaintanceship, Casuga was able to acquire from her
several pieces of jewelry: a ¾ K diamond solitaire ring,
earrings with three (3) diamonds each and a ring with three
(3) diamonds, with an aggregate value of three hundred
thousand pesos (PhP 300,000), and a solid gold Rolex
watch with diamond dials valued at twelve thousand US
dollars (USD 12,000). Casuga took possession of the
valuables purportedly with the obligation of selling them
and to remit any proceeds to Nevada. However, despite
repeated demands by Nevada for Casuga to return the
valuables or otherwise remit the proceeds of the sale, no
jewelry or money was ever returned.
----------------------In compliance with a directive from the
Court, Casuga submitted an Affidavit dated December 5,
4 
2007, as comment on the administrative complaint. In it,
Casuga claims that Nevada informally instituted him as the
administrator of the Hotel in a limited capacity but denied
 
With regard to the pieces of jewelry and the Rolex watch,
Casuga stated that Nevada actually pawned them in a
pawnshop and that she later asked his wife to redeem them
using their own money. Thereafter, Nevada asked Casuga’s
wife to sell the valuables and reimburse herself from the
proceeds of the sale.
 the Court, thru the Office of the Bar Confidant, referred the
case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation/decision.
he IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), thru
Commisioner Norberto B. Ruiz, issued and sent out a Notice
of Mandatory Conference nly Nevada showed up, prompting
the designated commissioner to reset the conference to
November 25, 2008, with a warning that he, Casuga, will be
declared in default and the case submitted for resolution
should he again fail to appear.
Results of the Investigation
In its Report and Recommendation dated January 14, 2009,
5 
the IBP CBD found Casuga guilty of the charges against
him, disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered it is hereby
recommended that Casuga be suspended for one (1) year
for gross misconduct, violation of the notarial law and
infidelity in the custody of monies, jewelries and a Rolex
watch which pertain to the complainant and the family
corporation.
Results of the Investigation
In its Report and Recommendation dated January 14, 2009,
5 
the IBP CBD found Casuga guilty of the charges against
him, disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered it is hereby
recommended that Casuga be suspended for one (1) year
for gross misconduct, violation of the notarial law and
infidelity in the custody of monies, jewelries and a Rolex
watch which pertain to the complainant and the family
corporation.
copy of Resolution No. XIX-2010-461, wrote and asked the
IBP Board of Governors to rectify said resolution. Instead of
the return of the amount of PhP 90,000, the jewelry and the
Rolex watch or their monetary value to Chul, as directed in
the resolution, Nevada requested the return to be made in
her favor. The letter-request of Nevada had remained not
acted upon owing obviously to the fact that the records of the
case have been transmitted to the Court in the interim.
The Issues
The principal but simple issues in this case pivot on the guilt
of Casuga for the charges detailed or implied in the basic
complaint; and the propriety of the return to Nevada of the
items, or their money value, and the amount subject of the
case.
The Court’s Ruling
We agree with the CBD’s inculpatory findings, as endorsed
by the IBP Board of Governors, and the recommended
upgrading of penalties,  (10) knowingly performs or fails to perform any other act
Casuga violated the Notarial Rules
The Notarial Rules, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, provides in its
Rule IV, Section 1(c) and Sec. 3(a) when a notary public
may sign a document in behalf of another person, thus:
SEC. 1. Powers. – x x x
xxxx
(c) A notary public is authorized to sign on behalf of a person
who is physically unable to sign or make a mark on an
instrument or document if:
(1) the notary public is directed by the person unable
to sign or make a mark to sign on his behalf;
(2) the signature of the notary public is affixed in the
presence of two disinterested and unaffected
witnesses to the instrument or document;
(3) both witnesses sign their own names;
(4) the notary public writes below his signature:
"Signature affixed by notary in presence of (names
and addresses of person and two (2) witnesses)";
(5) the notary public notarizes his signature by
acknowledgment or jurat.
On the other hand, the succeeding Sec. 3(a) disqualifies a
notary public from performing a notarial act if he or she "is a
party to the instrument or document that is to be notarized."
None of the requirements contained in Rule IV, Sec. 1(c), as
would justify a notary signing in behalf of a contracting party,
was complied with in this case. Moreover, Casuga’s act of
affixing his signature above the printed name "Edwin T.
Nevada," without any qualification, veritably made him a
party to the contract of lease in question
Thus, his act of notarizing a deed to which he is a party
is a plain violation of the aforequoted Rule IV, Sec. 3(a)
of the Notarial Rules, for which he can be disciplinarily
sanctioned provided under Rule XI, Sec. 1(b)(10) of the
Notarial Rules, which provides:
SECTION 1. Revocation and Administrative Sanctions. – x x
x.
(b) In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the
commission of, or impose appropriate administrative
sanctions upon, any notary public who:
prohibited or mandated by these Rules;
Aside from being a violation of the Notarial Rules, Casuga’s
aforementioned act partakes of malpractice of law and
misconduct punishable under the ensuing Sec. 27, Rule 138
of the Rules of Court:
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, x x x or for any violation of
the oath which he is required to take before admission to
practice x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
 x [N]otarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary
act. It is invested with substantive public interest. It
must be underscored that x x x notarization x x x
converts a private document into a public document
making that document admissible in evidence without
further proof of authenticity thereof. A notarial
document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon
its face. For this reason, a notary public must observe
with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of x x x duties; otherwise, the confidence
of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance
would be undermined.
The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard
against any illegal or immoral arrangements.  By affixing
1âwphi1
his notarial seal on the instrument, he converted the Deed
of Absolute Sale, from a private document into a public
document. x x x
As a lawyer commissioned to be a notary public,
respondent 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.
Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent upon him, he
must now accept the commensurate consequences of his
professional indiscretion. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
16 
The money, jewelry and Rolex watch should be returned to
Nevada
Nevada’s plea that the rental deposit of PhP 90,000, the
pieces of jewelry worth PhP 300,000, and the Rolex watch
valued at USD 12,000 or its equivalent in Philippine Peso
should be ordered returned to her instead of to Jung Jong
Chul is well-taken. We need not belabor the fact that Chul
has no right whatsoever over the amount or property
mentioned above.
Casuga is guilty of gross misconduct for misrepresenting
himself
In re Horrilleno defined "gross misconduct" in the following
6  adduce a single piece of evidence to support his contention.
wise:
The grounds for removal of a judge of first instance under
Philippine law are two: (1) Serious misconduct and (2)
inefficiency. The latter ground is not involved in these
proceedings. As to the first, the law provides that "sufficient
cause" must exist in the judgment of the Supreme Court
involving "serious misconduct." The adjective is "serious;"
that is, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. The
noun is "misconduct;" that is, a transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, more particularly,
unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer.
The word "misconduct" implies a wrongful intention and not
a mere error or judgment. For serious misconduct to exist,
there must be reliable evidence showing that the judicial acts
complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to
violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of well-known
legal rules. (Lawlor vs. People [1874], 74 Ill., 228; Citizens'
Insurance Co. vs. Marsh [1861], 41 Pa., 386; Miller vs. Roby
[1880], 9 Neb., 471; Smith vs. Cutler [1833], 10 Wend.
[N.Y.], 590; U.S. vs. Warner [1848], 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16643;
In re Tighe [1904], 89 N.Y. Supra., 719.) (Emphasis
supplied.)
The above definition was to be reiterated in Ajeno v. Judge
Inserto, where the Court wrote:
7  With regard to the jewelry and watch entrusted to him,
In the case of In re [Horrilleno], 43 Phil. 212, this Court
previously ruled that "For serious misconduct to exist, there
must be reliable evidence showing that the judicial acts
complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to
violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of well-known
legal rules."
Of similar tenor is the definition provided in Jamsani-
Rodriguez v. Ong: 8
x x x The respondent Justices were not liable for gross
misconduct – defined as the transgression of some
established or definite rule of action, more particularly,
unlawful behavior or gross negligence, or the corrupt or
persistent violation of the law or disregard of well-known
legal rules x x x.
Respondent Casuga represented himself as a duly-
authorized representative of Nevada when in fact he was
not. Casuga admitted signing the subject contract of lease,
but claimed that he was duly authorized to do so by Nevada.
However, Casuga failed to adduce an iota of evidence to
prove that he was indeed so authorized. One who alleges
the existence of an agency relationship must prove such
fact. 
Chul’s notarized letter of May 15, 2007 sufficiently shows
that Casuga indeed received PhP 90,000 as rental deposit
from Chul. In his affidavit-comment dated December 5,
2007, Casuga denied having received such amount, alleging
that a certain Pastor Oh, who purportedly introduced him to
Chul, received the money. However, Casuga again failed to
A bare denial must fail in light of the positive assertion of
Chul, who appears to have no ulterior motive to incriminate
Casuga.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Rodolfo D. Casuga
GUILTY of gross misconduct for violation of Canon 16 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Rules.
He is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of four (4) years
from the practice of law. The notarial commission of Atty.
Casuga, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED and he is
DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as Notary Public
also for four (4) years.
Casuga also violated Canon 16
of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Casuga alleged that Nevada pawned them and thereafter
instructed Casuga’s wife to redeem them with the latter’s
money. He added that Nevada then instructed his wife to sell
the valuables and use the proceeds to reimburse herself for
the redemption price. Again, however, Casuga’s allegations
are unsupported by a single shred of evidence. Pawnshop
receipts would have provided the best evidence under the
circumstances. But they were not presented, too.
15. A.C. No. 7350               February 18, 2013
PATROCINIO V. AGBULOS, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. ROSELLER A. VIRAY, Respondent.
complainant Mrs. Patrocinio V. Agbulos against respondent
Atty. Roseller A. Viray of Asingan, Pangasinan, for allegedly
notarizing a document denominated as Affidavit of Non-
Tenancy2 in violation of the Notarial Law. case stemmed
from a Complaint1 filed before the Office of the Bar Confidant
(OBC) 
+++The said affidavit was supposedly executed by
complainant, but the latter denies said execution and
++++claims that the signature and the community tax
certificate (CTC) she allegedly presented are not hers.
+++++She further claims that the CTC belongs to a
certain Christian Anton.
+++++Complainant added that she did not personally appear
before respondent for the notarization of the document. She,
likewise, states that respondent's client, Rolando Dollente
(Dollente), benefited from the said falsified affidavit as it
contributed to the illegal transfer of a property registered in
her name to that of Dollente.4
---------In his Comment,5 respondent admitted having
prepared and notarized the document in question at the
request of his client Dollente, who assured him that it was
personally signed by complainant and that the CTC
appearing therein is owned by her.6 He, thus, claims good
faith in notarizing the subject document.
 ====OBC referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation or decision.
===After the mandatory conference and hearing, the parties
submitted their respective Position Papers.8  the same without the affiant’s personal appearance. He
+++Complainant insists that she was deprived of her
property because of the illegal notarization of the subject
document.9
-----Respondent, on the other hand, admits having notarized
the document in question and asks for apology and
forgiveness from complainant as a result of his indiscretion
In his report, Commissioner Dennis A. B. Funa
(Commissioner Funa) reported that respondent indeed
notarized the subject document in the absence of the alleged
affiant having been brought only to respondent by Dollente.
It turned out later that the document was falsified and the
CTC belonged to another person and not to complainant. He
further observed that respondent did not attempt to refute
the accusation against him; rather, he even apologized for
the complained act.11 Commissioner Funa, thus,
recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating
the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice, and that he be meted the penalty of six
(6) months suspension as a lawyer and six (6) months
suspension as a Notary Public.
IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XVIII-2008-
166 which reads:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby
ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, 
 SUSPENSION from the practice of law for one (1) month,
Atty. Roseller A. Viray is hereby SUSPENDED as Notary
Public for six (6)moth
The findings of the IBP are well taken.
Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice emphasizes the necessity of the affiant’s personal
appearance before the notary public:14
(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.
Moreover, Section 12,15 Rule II, of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice defines the "competent evidence of
identity" referred to above.
In this case, respondent admits that not only did he prepare
and notarize the subject affidavit but he likewise notarized
explained that he did so merely upon the assurance of his
client Dollente that the document was executed by
complainant.
In notarizing the document, respondent contented himself
with the presentation of a CTC despite the Rules’ clear
requirement of presentation of competent evidence of
identity such as an identification card with photograph and
signature. With this indiscretion, respondent failed to
ascertain the genuineness of the affiant’s signature which
turned out to be a forgery. In failing to observe the
requirements of the Rules, even the CTC presented,
purportedly owned by complainant, turned out to belong to
somebody else.
To be sure, 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.16 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.
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.19
x x x [N]otarization 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. A notarized document
is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. 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
notary public resulted not only damage to those directly
affected by the notarized document but also in undermining
the integrity of a notary public and in degrading the function
of notarization.22 He should, thus, be held liable for such
negligence not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.2
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Roseller A.
Viray GUILTY of breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of
law for one (1) year; REVOKES his incumbent commission,
if any; and PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a
notary public for two (2) years,
16 A.C. No. 10450               July 30, 2014
EMERITA B. MAHILUM, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. SAMUEL SM. LEZAMA, Respondent.
This administrative complaint  filed by Emerita B. Mahilum
1
(complainant) seeks the disbarment of Atty. Samuel SM.
Lezama (respondent), a commissioned notary public and
practicing lawyer in San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, for
notarizing a 'Deed of Donation' in the absence of or Le of
the affiants.
the respondent notarized a Deed of Donation executed by
her estranged husband, Rodolfo (Rodolfo) Mahilum as
donor, and their common daughter, Jennifer Mahilum-
Sorenson (Jennifer) as donee, pertaining to the donor's
share of one-half portion over a parcel of land covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-71071  of the Registry of
2
Deeds of Bacolod City.
Attached to the complaint is a copy of the deed of donation
dated February 7, 2006 bearing the signatures of Rodolfo
and Jennifer, as well as the notarial seal and signature ofthe
respondent on the acknowledgment portion attesting to the
personal appearance of Rodolfo and Jennifer before him
when the same was notarized  Practice
++++++According to the complainant,she has personal
knowledge that Jennifer could not have personally appeared
before the respondent on May 24, 2006 or even on February
7, 2006 because during those dates, she was in the United
States of America (USA) working at the State Fund Office in
California.
-------In his Answer,  the respondent asserted that the donor,
4
donee and instrumental witnesses to the donation were all
physically present when the document was signed. He
stated thathe is personally acquainted with Rodolfo and he
had no reason to cast doubts upon him when he introduced
his daughter Jennifer who came all the way from the USA to
visit her father.
===mandatory conference before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), Negros Occidental Chapter, whereby both
of them undertook to present documentary evidence
showing the actual whereabouts of Jennifer during the dates
in question.
++++The complainant submitted a Certification  from the
5
Bureau of Immigration showing the arrival and departure
records of Jennifer in the Philippines. Based
thereon,Jennifer did not enter the Philippines in the year
2006. Her travel records closest to thatyear showed that she
arrived in the Philippines on June 25, 2004 but departed a
month later or on July 22, 2004. She again arrived in the
Philippines onJune 24, 2007 and left on July 20, 2007. There
were other various dates of her arrival in the country but the
records did not reflect that she came to the Philippines in
2006. Despite opportunity to submitevidence rebutting the
foregoing certification,
----- the respondent failed to file any.  The only supporting
6
evidence he proffered were the documents attached to his
Answer showing the present marital status of the
complainant – that she is actually married to a certain
George W. Cooper, a British Canadian; that on July 14, 1986
she filed for the dissolution of her marriage with Rodolfo
before the Superior Court of California, County of
Orangeand the same was granted on October 23, 1986.
Likewise attached to his Answer is an Affidavit executed by
Rodolfo attesting that Jennifer was physically present when
she signed the deed of donation
Report and Recommendation of the IBP
In its Resolution transmitted to the IBP national office on
March 12, 2009,  the Grievance Committee of IBP Negros
8
Occidental Chapter found that the respondent failed to
exercise diligence in ascertaining the identity of the person
who appeared before him as donee considering that based
on official records, Jennifer never set foot in the Philippine
soil at any time in the year 2006. The respondent failed to
require competent proof of identification from the parties to
the deed of donation as mandated by the Rules on Notarial
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the above
recommendation in a Resolution  dated May 15, 2011.
10
The respondent moved for reconsideration  pleading for the
11
modification of the penalty meted upon him on the ground
that various factors does not render it commensurate with
the offense charged. He stressed that the complainant never
became his client neither was she involved in the execution
of the deed of donation. There was also no claim whatsoever
that Jennifer’s signature inthe deed of donation was forged
or falsified. The respondent, further, asserted that he did not
benefit financially from the notarization of the deed of
donation and that the same did not cause any damage or
injury to the complainant.
The respondent also asserted that there was no need for
him to require any proof of identity from Rodolfo since he
was personally known to him having been his partner before
the latter retired from law practice.
He appealed for humanitarian consideration and cited that
he has been a notary public for 35 years and this isthe first
administrative case filed against him. He also rendered free
notarial services to the members of the local Philippine
National Police in San Carlos City as well as the personnel
of the Regional Trial Courts and Municipal Courts of
Calatrava in Negros Occidental. In the same motion, the
respondent expressed remorse over his negligence and
pledged to exercise diligence in discharging his duties as a
notary public.
In a Resolution  dated February 11, 2014, the IBP Board of
12
Governors denied the respondent’smotion for
reconsideration.
Ruling of the Court
The Court agrees with and sustains the IBP’s finding that the
official record from the Bureau ofImmigration showing that
Jennifer never traveled to the Philippines in the year 2006
substantially established that indeed she could not have
personally appeared before the respondent when he
notarized the deed of donation on May 24, 2006.
Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, or the Notarial Law
mandates that affiants must personally appear to the notary
public, viz:
Sec. 1. (a) The acknowledgement shall be 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,
acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The
certificate shall be made under the official seal, if he is
required by law to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall
so state.
Corollary, under Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Rules on
Notarial Practice of 2004, a commissioned notary public is
enjoined from performing a notarial act unless the affiant is:
(1) in his presence at the time of the notarization; and(2)
personally known to him or otherwise identified by him
through competent evidence of identity as defined by
these Rules.
The physical presence of the affiants enables the notary
public to verify the genuineness of the signatures of the
acknowledging parties and to ascertain that the document is
the parties’ free act and deed.
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 toa 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.
A holistic examination of the records illustrates that the
respondent has actually met Jennifer when she went home
to visit the ailing Rodolfo. But this was before and definitely
notduring the notarization of deed of donation because
based on her travel records, she did not come to the
Philippines in 2006. The respondent accommodated the
notarization of the deed sansJennifer’s physical appearance
before him on May 24, 2006 since he was personally
acquainted with Rodolfo. Hence, he took the latter’s
representation that Jennifer voluntarilyexecuted the deed as
reliable and faithful. Even if we were to uphold such
representation, however, the truth remains that Jennifer was
not personally present to attest to the truthfulness of her
acceptance of the donation as donee during notarization.
Carelessness implies that the affiant was actually
personally present and the notary public just forgot to
verify her identity or that she was not personally known
to her
 Here, however, the affiant was not physically present during
the notarization but the notary public nevertheless affixed his
seal and signature attesting that the affiant "personally
appeared" before him when in truth and in fact, she did not.
 "[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
presence of the parties to the deed will enable the notary
public to verify the genuineness ofthe signature of the
affiant."
15
It must be emphasized that the public and the courts accord
conclusiveness of due execution in notarized
documents.  By affixing his signature and notarial seal
1âwphi1
on the instrument, the respondent misled the public that
Jennifer personally appeared before him and attested to
the truth and veracity of the contents of the deed when
in fact she did not. Such misconduct can also usher in
precariouslegal consequences should the deed of donation
later on spawn court intervention.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds Atty. Samuel SM.
Lezama GUILTY of violating the Notarial Law and the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, his incumbent
notarial commission is REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED
from being commissioned as a notary public for ONE (1)
YEAR,
17. A.C. No. 7880               April 11, 2012
WILLIAM HECTOR MARIA, Petitioners,
vs.
ATTY. WILFREDO R. CORTEZ, Respondents.
This is an administrative complaint filed by William Hector
1  Gundaway and Namnama in the USA who told them that
Maria (William) against respondent Atty. Wilfredo R. Cortez
for having notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA)
without verifying the authenticity of the signatures contained
therein in violation of the Notarial Law.
Complainant William is a citizen of New Zealand, and
married to Ernita Villanueva-Maria (Ernita) from Bio,
Tagudin, Ilocos Sur. Sometime in September 2005, the
complainant and his wife Ernita (Spouses Maria) took a
vacation in Ilocos Sur from Australia.
Spouses Biteng, who represented themselves as
caretakers of certain parcels of land purportedly for sale and
specifically covered by Original Certificates of Title (OCT)
Nos. P-69632 and P-69595, situated in Sevilla and
Paratong, Ilocos Sur, respectively.
Taking interest over the same, Spouses Maria had the
metes and bounds surveyed and came to know that the
properties were separately registered under the names of
Emmanuel’s aunts namely: Gundaway Biteng (Gundaway)
and Namnama B. Alberto (Namnama), and his late father
Pascual Biteng (Pascual).
Being confronted with the issue on ownership, Emmanuel
presented an SPA allegedly signed by Gundaway and
Namnama, appointing him as their attorney-in-fact in all
transactions pertaining to the subject properties. The
SPA was notarized by the respondent and entered in his
Notarial Register as Document No. 1553, Page No. 313,
Book No. XV, Series of 2005. 2
The complainant, however, doubted the authenticity of the
document as it appeared to be a mere photocopy. Besides,
he learned that both Gundaway and Namnama were living
abroad, who allegedly never came home to execute an SPA
in favor of Emmanuel. Spouses Biteng, however, promised
to send Spouses Maria a duly signed SPA notarized in the
USA. Relying on their word, Ernita affixed her signature on
the Deed of Sale (as to the land owned by Gundaway and
Namnama) and Deed of Adjudication with Sale (as to the
land owned by the late Pascual).
When Spouses Maria were back in Australia, they received a
communication from the Philippines together with a General
Power of Attorney (GPA) signed by Gundaway and
Namnama executed in Daly City, California, USA; but said
document was allegedly not authenticated by the Philippine
Embassy.
Spouses Maria found out that Transfer Certificates of Title
(TCTs) over the subject properties have already been issued
in their names but were in the possession of the Spouses
Biteng who refused to deliver to them due to some
misunderstanding
This prompted the Spouses Maria to get in touch with
they (Gundaway and Namnana) did not execute any SPA in
favor of Emmanuel.
On April 4, 2006, the complainant came back to the
Philippines and reviewed all the pertinent documents
involved in the sale of the subject properties and noticed that
they were all notarized by the respondent. Hence, the
complainant filed the instant administrative case which
prayed for the respondent’s suspension as a notary public
and for his disbarment for violating his sworn duty as a
lawyer.
--------The respondent also averred that the SPA he
notarized was not the one used in the registration of the
subject properties, since it was replaced with another one
upon the insistence of Spouses Maria, who eventually
signed the two (2) Deeds of Sale on the same day
----He even asseverated that the complainant should not
have allowed his wife to sign the two Deeds of Sale if he
doubted the authenticity of the SPA
------More importantly, the respondent stressed that he was
merely being implicated in the feud between the parties
regarding the selling price of the subject properties. T
==The instant case was referred to the IBP for investigation, (2) is not personally known to the notary
report and recommendation. public or otherwise identified by the notary
public through competent evidence of identity
The Investigating Commissioner set the case for mandatory as defined by these Rules.
conference on 

 found the respondent administratively liable for having

 it was clearly established that the respondent notarized the
notarized the SPA in the absence of the alleged affiants and
subject SPA without having Gundaway and Namnama
without knowing whether or not the signatures appearing
personally appear before him as required by law. In his
therein belong to the supposed affiants. As it appeared, the
Answer, he stated that he merely relies on his two
signatures were falsified considering that Gundaway and
secretaries in scrutinizing all contents of documents
Namnama were not aware of such SPA.
including the authenticity of its signatories before the
documents are brought to him for his notarial signature

Thus, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that

the respondent be reprimanded and denied commission as a
This was what actually transpired with regard to the subject
notary public for a period of one (1) year.
11

SPA when Emmanuel went to the respondent’s office to

==he IBP Board of Governors adopted the report and have the SPA notarized. The secretaries were familiar with
recommendation  Emmanuel for being a long time Barangay Chairman. With
the secretaries’ assurance that they knew Emmanuel in
------A motion for reconsideration was promptly filed by the person, the respondent affixed his notarial signature on the
respondent, pleading that the penalty of disqualification from SPA without even requiring the physical presence of
being commissioned as notary public for one year was too Gundaway and Namnama whose names appear as
harsh. He reiterated that he was a victim of circumstances signatories on the SPA.
considering that the instant administrative case merely arose
from the misunderstanding between the parties. The
respondent alleged that he has not committed any fraud,
The respondent’s excuse that the SPA was never used or
dishonesty or deliberate injustice to anyone.  For the past
has been replaced during the registration of the subject
1âwphi1

twenty years (20) engaging in notarial works, he has not

lands is of no moment. The fact remains that the SPA was
committed any kind of misconduct which may destroy his
notarized without complying with the requirements of the
honor and reputation as a member of the legal profession. 13

law. It should be noted that a notary public’s function should

HELD: The findings of the IBP are well-taken. not be trivialized and a notary public must discharge his
powers and duties which are impressed with public interest,
 notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial with accuracy and fidelity. A notary public exercises duties
15 

acts, most common of which are the acknowledgement and calling for carefulness and faithfulness. Notaries must inform
affirmation of documents or instruments. In the performance themselves of the facts they certify to; most importantly, they
of these notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of should not take part or allow themselves to be part of illegal
the significance of the notarial seal affixed on documents. transactions.16

The notarial seal converts a document from a private to a

public instrument, after which it may be presented as
evidence without need for proof of its genuineness and due
execution. Thus, notarization should not be treated as an onsidering the circumstances of the case, particularly the
empty, meaningless or routinary act. 14 absence of bad faith and the fact that this is the first
infraction lodged against him for the past 20 years, 
Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Atty.
Wilfredo R. Cortez is hereby REPRIMANDED and
Section 2. Prohibitions – DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as Notary Public
for six (6) months.
xxxx
SO ORDERED.
(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 18. EN BANC

at the time of the notarization; and
[G.R. No. 199196 : March 20, 2012]
NELLY RAMOS v. ANACLETO BALDO
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a
Resolution dated MARCH 20, 2012, which reads as
follows:  he arguments of petitioner Ramos lack considerable
"G.R. No. 199196 (Nelly Ramos v. Anacleto
Baldo). - The Court DENIES WITH FINALITY the
Motion for Reconsideration dated 16 February 2012
filed by petitioner Nelly Ramos for lack of merit.
The Court is unconvinced by the explanations offered
by petitioner Ramos with respect to the technical
defects in her Rule 65 Petition in relation to Rule 64.
The Court is unconvinced by the explanations
offered by petitioner Ramos with respect to the
technical defects in her Rule 65 Petition in
relation to Rule 64. 
First, the assailed 08 August 2011 Resolution[1]  and
07 October 2011 Order[2] of the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) attached to her Petition are not
original copies or even certified true copies
thereof, in violation of the Rules.[3] 
Second, there was no indication in the Affidavit of
Mailing/Explanation dated 11 November 2011
attached to the Petition that Ms. Mirasol B.
Misanes is ''personally known, to the notary
public or identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity" as required under
the 2004 Notarial Rules.[4] The notary public failed
to explicitly state whether Ms. Misanes was
personally known to him, or whether the latter
presented competent evidence of her identity, except
for the general averment that she was a messenger
clerk in the law office of the notary public.[5] 
Lastly, the Verification/Certification dated 11
November 2011 was improper because petitioner
Ramos’ counsel, who signed the Petition was the
same person who notarized its Verification and
Certification of non-forum shopping. Having prepared
and signed the instant Petition, Atty. Agustin C.
Tarroza is disqualified from notarizing the
Verification portion of the said Petition.[6] 
Neither did Atty. Tarroza, as a notary public, specify
that he personally knew petitioner Ramos, or that
any competent proof of her identity was presented to
him.
Even if the Court were to set aside these
technical defects under a liberal application of
procedural rules, t
merit to warrant a review of the findings of the
COMELEC.
As the Court already ruled and hereby affirm, the
COMELEC was not shown by petitioner to have
committed any grave abuse of discretion in
rendering the challenged resolution and order, which
on the contrary appear to be in accord with the facts
and applicable law and jurisprudence.
To be clear, the COMELEC did not commit grave
abuse of discretion when it ruled that the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court of Cabadbaran-Agusan del Norte
had no authority to order the breaking of a tie in the
case of the contested election between petitioner
Ramos and respondent Anacleto Baldo. As pointed
out by the COMELEC, the responsibility of breaking a
tie between candidates statutorily lies with the board
of canvassers as expressly stated in the Omnibus
Election Code.[7]  Indeed, the COMELEC justifiably
ruled that "courts may order the breaking of a tie in
accordance with Section[s] 240 and 71, supra,
except when the results of the election protest
resulting to a tie merely confirms the previous tie
originally determined and already broken by the
Board of Canvassers."[8]  Hence, the Court finds that,
based on the presentation made by petitioner
Ramos, there is no compelling reason or grave abuse
of discretion that would overturn the ruling of the
COMELEC.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration dated
16 February 2012 filed by petitioner Nelly Ramos
is DENIED WITH FINALITY. Petitioner raises no
substantial arguments that would warrant the
reversal of the Court's 17 January 2012 Resolution
dismissing the instant Petition. No further pleadings
will be entertained."