HEIRS OF ARDONA, 

petitioner,
vs.
HON. JUAN Y. REYES, Executive Judge and Presiding Judge of Branch I, COURT OF FIRST
instance OF CEBU, and the PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY, respondents
October 26, 1983 G.R. No L-60549, 60553 to 60555 GUTTIEREZ JR., J.
FACTS

The Philippine Tourism Authority filed four (4) Complaints with the Court of First Instance of Cebu City for the
expropriation of some 282 hectares of rolling land situated in barangays Malubog and Babag, Cebu City,
under PTA's express authority "to acquire by purchase, by negotiation or by condemnation proceedings any
private land within and without the tourist zones" for the purposes indicated in Section 5, paragraph B(2), of its
Revised Charter (PD 564), more specifically, for the development into integrated resort complexes of selected
and well-defined geographic areas with potential tourism value.

Due to this, the petitioners alleged that the expropriation is not for the purpose of public use and that there is
no specific constitutional provision authorizing the taking of private property for tourism purposes; that
assuming that PTA has such power, the intended use cannot be paramount to the determination of the land as
a land reform area.

The petitioners look for the word "tourism" in the Constitution. Understandably the search would be in vain.

The petitioners adopts a strict construction and declare that "public use" means literally use by the public and
that "public use" is not synonymous with "public interest", "public benefit", or "public welfare" and much less
"public convenience. "

ISSUE/S

Do the purposes of the taking in this case constitute "public use"?

RULING

Yes. The petitioners' contention that the promotion of tourism is not "public use" because private
concessioners would be allowed to maintain various facilities such as restaurants, hotels, stores, etc. inside the
tourist complex is impressed with even less merit. The policy objectives of the framers of the constitution can
be expressed only in general terms such as social justice, local autonomy, conservation and development of
the national patrimony, public interest, and general welfare, among others. The programs to achieve these
objectives vary from time to time and according to place, To freeze specific programs like Tourism into express
constitutional provisions would make the Constitution more prolix than a bulky code. The particular mention in
the Constitution of agrarian reform and the transfer of utilities and other private enterprises to public ownership
merely underscores the magnitude of the problems sought to be remedied by these programs. They do not
preclude nor limit the exercise of the power of eminent domain for such purposes like tourism and other
development programs.

As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of eminent domain comes into play. As just
noted, the constitution in at least two cases, to remove any doubt, determines what is public use. One is the
expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots for resale at cost to individuals. The other is in the
transfer, through the exercise of this power, of utilities and other private enterprise to the government. It is
accurate to state then that at present whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies
the requirement of public use. 

The petitioners have failed to overcome the burden of anyone trying to strike down a statute or decree whose
avowed purpose is the legislative perception is the public good. A statute has in its favor the presumption of
validity. All reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of a law. The courts will not
set aside a law as violative of the Constitution except in a clear case

 The right of the PTA to proceed with the expropriation of the 282 hectares already Identified as fit for the
establishment of a resort complex to promote tourism is, therefore, sustained.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

ADDITIONAL NOTES

The power of eminent domain is expressly provided for under Section 5 B(2) as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

2. Acquisition of Private Lands, Power of Eminent Domain. — To acquire by purchase, by

negotiation or by condemnation proceedings any private land within and without the tourist
zones for any of the following reasons: (a) consolidation of lands for tourist zone development
purposes, (b) prevention of land speculation in areas declared as tourist zones, (c) acquisition of
right of way to the zones, (d) protection of water shed areas and natural assets with tourism
value, and (e) for any other purpose expressly authorized under this Decree and accordingly, to
exercise the power of eminent domain under its own name, which shall proceed in the manner
prescribed by law and/or the Rules of Court on condemnation proceedings. The Authority may
use any mode of payment which it may deem expedient and acceptable to the land owners:
Provided, That in case bonds are used as payment, the conditions and restrictions set forth in
Chapter III, Section 8 to 13 inclusively, of this Decree shall apply.
 JABINAL v. OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, G.R. No. 232094,
PARINA R. JABINAL, petitioner,
vs.
HON. OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, respondents
July 24, 2019 July 24, 2019 July 24, 2019
FACTS
Petitioner is a government employee and is prohibited from engaging in the private practice of her profession
unless authorized by the NHA.

On December 4, 2015, the Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman, filed a complaint against Parina R.
Jabinal, Legal Services Department, National Housing Authority (NHA), for violation of Section 7(b)(2) of
Republic Act No. (R.A.) 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees, which prohibits all public officials and employees from engaging in the private
practice of their profession unless authorized.

It was alleged that the petitioner had notarized two documents (Deed of Sale dated August 20, 2008 and a
Deed of Assignment dated September 30, 2008) while he was the legal officer of the National Housing
Authority. Further, she was paid the amount of ₱30,000.00 for both documents.

Such acts of notarization were within the ambit of the term private practice of law, there should have been a
prior request made by her to the NHA for authority to engage in the practice of her profession.

Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. 6713, in relation to Section 11:

Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and
employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts
and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - Public officials and employees during their
incumbency shall not:

(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided,
that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions;

Petitioner submitted her counter affidavit which states that she filed a petition for appointment as a notary
public for and in Quezon City, attaching the authority issued by the NHA to engage in private practice, which
was granted by the Executive Judge of RTC Quezon City on May 4, 2006, covering the period from 2006-
2007. On February 9, 2008, she filed another petition for a notarial commission, attaching a letter of authority
issued by the NHA, but the certificate for notarial commission was issued by the RTC Judge on March 3, 2009
for the period from 2009-2010

Ombudsman found probable cause against the petitioner. Petitioner filed for a motion for reconsideration and a
supplemental motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE/S
Whether the respondent illegally engaged in private practice when she notarized the documents in August and
September 2009 while she was still employed by the National Housing Authority?
RULING
Since there was no petition filed on the said dates, and the authority given by the NHA comes as an
attachment to the petition, the logical conclusion is that there was no authority given by the NHA in order for
respondent to engage in the limited practice of notarial services when she notarized the documents in August
and September 2008.

Section 7, paragraph b(2), R.A. 6713, prohibits any public official and employee to engage in the private
practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law. Respondent is a government
employee and is prohibited from engaging in the private practice of her profession unless authorized by the
NHA.

Complainant has established that on two occasions respondent engaged in notarial practice while employed as
Legal Officer of [the] NHA in 2008, without prior authority from the NHA.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. The Resolution dated May 16, 2016 and the Joint
Order dated December 2, 2016 issued by the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-C-15-0487 are
hereby AFFIRMED.

ADDITIONAL NOTES

Public officials and employees during their incumbency are prohibited from engaging in the private practice of
their profession unless authorized by law or the Constitution and such practice should not be in conflict with
their official functions.

Memorandum Circular No. 17 of the Executive Department allows government employees to engage directly in
the private practice of their profession provided there is a written permission from the Department head.
 MUNTUERTO vs. ALBERTO, A.C. No. 12289,
ATTY. ANASTACIO T. MUNTUERTO, JR.; ATTY. RAMON JOSE G. DUYONGCO; ATTY.
MARIO Y. CA VADA; and ATTY. CHAD RODOLFO M. MIEL, complainant,
vs.

ATTY. GERARDO WILFREDO L. ALBERTO, respondents

April 02, 2019 April 02, 2019 April 02, 2019
FACTS
A lawyer who notarizes documents without a notarial commission, and assists and abets the
unauthorized practice of law by a non-lawyer, deliberately violates the Lawyer's Oath and transgresses
the canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

In the case at bar, respondent was the counsel of record of Cristeto E. Dinopol, Jr., who had instituted
an action for reconveyance and recovery of possession and damages against Singfil Hydro Builders.
Attached to the complaint filed is a supplemental agreement and an amended joint venture agreement
separately acknowledged before him as a notary public for and in Cavite City. However, the Notarial
Division of the RTC in Cavite City certified that it had "no record of any Commission/Order the
respondent as Notary Public for the City of Cavite”. He also had not indicated his MCLE certificate of
compliance number and the date of issue of such certificate. He also had his client sign and file the so-
called Motion for Prior Leave of Court to Admit the Herein Attached Amended Complaint, with the
amended complaint attached; he had further falsified the supposed secretary's certificate to make it
appear that he had been duly appointed as the acting corporate secretary of Singtrader JV Corporation.

According to the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which expressly defines a notary public as "any person
commissioned to perform official acts under the [2004 Rules on Notarial Practice]." The commission, which is
the grant of authority to perform notarial acts, is issued upon due application by the Executive Judge of the
province or city where the applicant is to have a regular place of work or business after a summary hearing
conducted by the Executive Judge following the publication of the notice of summary hearing in a newspaper
of general circulation in said province or city, and after posting of the notice of summary hearing in a
conspicuous place in the offices of the Executive Judge and of the Clerk of Court. Clearly, the exercise of the
authority to notarize cannot simply be done by anyone.

An administrative complaint was filed against the respondent, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
directed him to file his answer. However, he did not comply, and for that reason he was declared in
default.

The IBP then conducted a mandatory conference on June 18, 2016, but the respondent did not attend
the same despite notice. Furthermore, he did not file his position paper.
ISSUE/S
Whether the respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility: (a) by
notarizing documents without having been issued a notarial commission; (b) by allowing a non-lawyer to sign a
motion filed in court; and (c) by failing to indicate his MCLE compliance number in the complaint filed in
connection with a pending case?
RULING

(a) The respondent should be subjected to strong disciplinary action for notarizing the documents
without authorization or commission to do so.
(b) In fine, the responsibility of signing the so-called Motion for Prior Leave of Court to Admit the
Herein Attached Amended Complaint was personal to the respondent as the attorney of record.
That he delegated it to a non-lawyer was an abdication of the responsibility that subjected him to
sanction.
(c) It is also good to mention that the respondent seemed to be a repeat violator of the requirement
for disclosure under the resolution issued in Bar Matter No. 1922. He had been observed to
have been guilty of the same omission in A.C. No. 12131, where the Court noted his having
defied the order for him to submit his MCLE compliance.

WHEREFORE, the Court SUSPENDS respondent ATTY. GERARDO WILFREDO L. ALBERTO from

the practice of law for five (5) years effective upon receipt of this decision; PERMANENTLY BARS him
from being commissioned as Notary Public in the Philippines effective upon his receipt of this decision;
and STERNLY WARNS him that a stiffer penalty will be imposed should he commit a similar offense
hereafter.

ADDITIONAL NOTES

Rule 9.01 — 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.

Bar Matter No. 1922 – compliance with the MCLE program "Failure to disclose the required information would
subject the counsel to appropriate penalty and disciplinary action";