Here's the assignment on Legal forms: 1. What does the 'SS' in the notarized document called? 2.

What is the function of the 'SS' in the document? 3. Jose who li es in !a"u# wants to sell his land in !a"u#. $edro who li es in %uezon &it' wants to "u' Jose's land in !a"u#. &an a contract of sale "etween Jose and $edro "e e(ecuted and notarized e en if Jose signs the contract in !a"u# and $edro signs in %uezon &it'? )(*lain. +. &an attorne' ,ario- a commissioned notar' *u"lic in the *ro ince of .alinga a**l' for a notarized commission in the *ro ince of &aga'an while his commission in .alinga is still acti e? )(*lain.... / notar' *u"lic 0or notar' or *u"lic notar'1 in the common law world is a *u"lic officer constituted "' law to ser e the *u"lic in non2 contentious matters usuall' concerned with estates- deeds- *owers2of2attorne'- and foreign and international "usiness. / notar''s main functions are to administer oaths and affirmations- ta#e affida its and statutor' declarations- witness and authenticate the e(ecution of certain classes of documents- ta#e ac#nowledgments of deeds and other con e'ances- *rotest notes and "ills of e(change- *ro ide notice of foreign drafts- *re*are marine or shi*'s *rotests in cases of damage- *ro ide e(em*lifications and notarial co*ies- and *erform certain other official acts de*ending on the 3urisdiction.415 /n' such act is #nown as a notarization. !he term notary public onl' refers to common2law notaries and should not "e confused with ci il2law notaries. With the e(ce*tions of Louisiana- $uerto 6ico- %ue"ec- whose *ri ate law is "ased on ci il law- and 7ritish &olum"ia- whose notarial tradition stems from scri ener notar' *ractice- a notar' *u"lic in the rest of the 8nited States and most of &anada has *owers that are far more limited than those of ci il2law or other common2law notaries- "oth of whom are 9ualified law'ers admitted to the "ar: such notaries ma' "e referred to as notaries2at2law or law'er notaries. !herefore- at common law- notarial ser ice is distinct from the *ractice of law- and gi ing legal ad ice and *re*aring legal instruments is for"idden to la' notaries such as those a**ointed throughout most of the 8nited States of /merica.

!he duties and functions of notaries *u"lic are descri"ed in Brooke's Notary on *age 1: in these terms: ;enerall' s*ea#ing- a notar' *u"lic 4...5 ma' "e descri"ed as an officer of the law 4...5 whose *u"lic office and dut' it is to drawattest or certif' under his official seal deeds and other documents- including wills or other testamentar' documentscon e'ances of real and *ersonal *ro*ert' and *owers of attorne'< to authenticate such documents under his signature and official seal in such a manner as to render them acce*ta"le- as *roof of the matters attested "' him- to the 3udicial or other *u"lic authorities in the countr' where the' are to "e used- whether "' means of issuing a notarial certificate as to the due e(ecution of such documents or "' drawing them in the form of *u"lic instruments< to #ee* a *rotocol containing originals of all instruments which he ma#es in the *u"lic form and to issue authentic co*ies of such instruments< to administer oaths and declarations for use in *roceedings 4...5 to note or certif' transactions relating to negotia"le instruments- and to draw u* *rotests or other formal *a*ers relating to occurrences on the o'ages of shi*s and their na igation as well as the carriage of cargo in shi*s.= 4>ootnotes omitted.5 / notar'- in almost all common law 3urisdictions other than most of ?orth /merica- is a *ractitioner trained in the drafting and e(ecution of legal documents.4citation needed5 ?otaries traditionall' recorded matters of 3udicial im*ortance as well as *ri ate transactions or e ents where an officiall' authenticated record or a document drawn u* with *rofessional s#ill or #nowledge was re9uired. !he functions of notaries s*ecificall' include the *re*aration of certain t'*es of documents 0including international contracts- deeds- wills- and *owers of attorne'1 and certification of their due e(ecution- administering of oaths- witnessing affida its and statutor' declarations- certification of co*' documents- noting and *rotesting of "ills of e(changeand the *re*aration of shi*s' *rotests.

/n e(am*le of a notarized ac#nowledgment @ocuments certified "' notaries are sealed with the notar''s seal or stam* and are recorded "' the notar' in a register 0also called a =*rotocol=1 maintained and *ermanentl' #e*t "' him or her. !hese are #nown as =notarial acts=. An countries su"scri"ing to the Hague &on ention /"olishing the 6e9uirement of Legalization for >oreign $u"lic @ocuments or /*ostille &on ention- onl' one further act of certification is re9uired- #nown as an a*ostille- and is issued "' a go ernment de*artment 0usuall' the >oreign /ffairs @e*artment or similar1. >or countries which are not su"scri"ers to that con ention- an =authentication= or =legalization= must "e *ro ided "' one of a num"er of methods- including "' the >oreign /ffairs ,inistr' of the countr' from which the document is "eing sent or the em"ass'- &onsulate2;eneral- consulate or High &ommission of the countr' to which it is "eing sent. /.&. ?o. B+C @ecem"er 1D- 1:CE

A? !H) ,/!!)6 F> !H) @AS7/6,)?! F> @F,A?/@F6 ). >LF6)S- res*ondents. &A!G >AS&/L L8AS 6. LFH/@/- com*lainant. &/S!6F- J.: !he &it' >iscal of !oledo &it' filed this case for dis"arment against @ominador ). >lores- a mem"er of the$hili**ine 7ar- for un*rofessional and unethical conduct- more s*ecificall'- for notarizing certain documents during the 'ears 1:C1 and 1:C2- after his commission as notar' *u"lic had e(*ired.lawphil.net !he com*laint further alleges that the res*ondent deli"eratel' omitted to su"mit to the &ler# of the &ourt of >irst Anstance of &e"u certified co*ies of the entries in his notarial register as well as of the documents ac#nowledged "efore him- as re9uired "' the ?otarial Law- in order to conceal the fact that he did not at the time ha e an a**ointment as notar' *u"lic. An his answer- the res*ondent admitted ha ing notarized some documents in 1:C1 and 1:C2 "ut claimed that his commission- which e(*ired on @ecem"er 31- 1:CI- was renewed in 1:C1- to e(*ire on @ecem"er 31- 1:C2. !he case was referred to the Solicitor ;eneral who- on ?o em"er 11- 1:CB- su"mitted the following findings and recommendation: 011 !hat res*ondent's commission as notar' *u"lic for the cit' and *ro ince of &e"u e(*ired on @ecem"er 31- 1:CI< 021 !hat res*ondent had not "een commissioned as notar' *u"lic for the cit' and *ro ince of &e"u for the 'ear 1:C1 and 1:C2< 031 !hat notwithstanding his lac# of commission as notar' *u"lic for the 'ears 1:C1 and 1:C2- res*ondent notarized se eral documents 0)(hs. 7- &- @- )- >- ;1- which documents "ecame the "asis of the cancellation "' the cit' ta( assessor of the ta( declarations of the *ro*erties in ol ed in said documents in the names of the former owners and their transfer to the new owners< 0+1 !hat res*ondent had not filed his monthl' notarial re*orts and co*ies of the documents he had notarized or the 'ears 1:C1 and 1:C2 with the notarial section of the &ourt of >irst Anstance of &e"u- nor had he surrendered his notarial register to said office for the 'ear 1:CI- when his commission as notar' *u"lic e(*ired. ((( ((( (((

6es*ondent- in s*ite of the man' *ost*onements gi en to him and the re*eated warnings issued "' the in estigating fiscal that if he still failed to a**ear at the hearing- the case would "e considered su"mitted without his e idence- failed to a**ear at the last date set for the rece*tion of his e idence. ) en res*ondent's own counsel- who *leaded that a last chance "e gi en his client "' *ost*oning the hearing again for the last time to another date- and that if his client would still fail to a**ear at the latter date- he would withdraw as his counsel 0*. 1BI- t.s.n.1- did not a**ear an'more at the last hearing set- o" iousl' #nowing that his own client would not a**ear- as he in fact failed to a**ear thereat 0**. 1B321BB- id.1.lawphil.net6es*ondent's com*lete lac# of interest and indifference in *resenting him defense to the charges and e idence against him in this case can onl' mean that he has no strong and alid defense to *resent herein. >or the foregoing reasons- we find that sufficient grounds e(ist to *roceed against the res*ondent @ominador ). >lores in this administrati e case on the grounds of mal*ractice- gross misconduct in office as attorne'- and iolation of the law'er's oathand for this reason- it is res*ectfull' recommended that after a**ro*riate *roceeding- said res*ondent "e remo ed from the *ractice of law. Fn ?o em"er 22- 1:CB we re9uired the res*ondent to answer the a"o e29uoted re*ort of the Solicitor ;eneral. /fter se eral e(tensions of time granted to him- he finall' filed his answer on ,arch 1B- 1:CC- in which he stated- among other things- that =he admits his negligence in not renewing his commission as notar' *u"lic- and of notarizing documents without *re ious authorit'=- and *ra's this &ourt =to tem*er 3ustice with merc'- and to render such orders that will gi e herein *oor res*ondent- who has no derogator' record so far- another chance to ma#e a li ing and *ro e his worth as a good mem"er of the "ar=. !he ease was set for hearing on ,a' +- 1:CC. Fn this date neither the Solicitor ;eneral nor the res*ondent a**eared. /lthough the res*ondent was thereafter gi en time within which to file a memorandum in lieu of oral argument- the res*ondent ne er su"mitted an'. At is to state the o" ious that the e idence conclusi el' esta"lishes the misconduct im*uted to the res*ondent. !he si( documents referred to in the Solicitor ;eneral's re*ort are an e(tra3udicial *artition of an estate- a deed of sale with a right of re*urchase- and four deeds of a"solute sale J all in ol ing unregistered lands.itc-alf !he res*ondent *resented these documents to the cit' assessor of !oledo- and it was on the strength of the former's re*resentation that he had authorit' to ratif' the instruments that the latter acce*ted the documents for registration and cancelled the ta( declarations in the name of the former owners of the *ro*erties in ol ed. /s the Solicitor ;eneral a*tl' o"ser es- without the criminal falsification of these documents "' the res*ondent- the cit' assessor would not ha e made the corres*onding transfers of the ta( declarations of the *ro*erties- which transfers thus im*aired the integrit' of the documents and caused distur"ance of and *re3udice to the *ro*ert' rights of the *arties thereto.1 /gainst the e idence *resented "' the com*lainant- the res*ondent did not e en attem*t to *resent an'. He did not e en attend the in estigation conducted "' the *ro incial fiscal of &e"u to whom the Solicitor ;eneral endorsed this case. Se eral times the in estigation was *ost*oned to afford the res*ondent an o**ortunit' to a**ear and "e heard in his defense- "ut not once did he show

u*. ?or did he manifested desire to *resent e idence "efore this &ourt when re9uired- *ursuant to section B of 6ule 13:- to file an answer to the formal com*laint lodged "' the Solicitor ;eneral. Anstead he now offers the unacce*ta"le e(cuse that in the *ast the *re*aration of =his *etition for renewal of his commission= was attended to "' a friend who- =for one reason or another .....failed to com*l' with 4the res*ondent's5 last re9uest.= !he res*ondent's re*rehensi"le conduct- constituting as it does not onl' mal*ractice "ut also the commission- in si( se*arate and distinct occasions- of the crime of falsification of *u"lic document- 3ustifies his dis"arment.2 His e(cuse- contained in his answer to the com*laint of the Solicitor ;eneral- can hardl' "e reconciled with his first answer in which he stoutl' denied ha ing no commission to act as a notar' *u"lic for the 'ears 1:C1 and 1:C2- and e en e(*ressed moc# sur*rise =wh' it had "een re*orted that he had none.= !his facile resort to contradictor' denials cannot "e regarded as an'thing "etter than trifling with this &ourt- and ma#es the res*ondent undeser ing of the merc' which- he so fer entl' *ra's- 3ustice should "e tem*ered with. /&&F6@A?;LG- the res*ondent @ominador ). >lores is dis"arred from the *ractice of law and his name is ordered stric#en from the 6oll of /ttorne's. He is further- ordered to surrender his law'er's certificate of title to the &ler# of &ourt within ten da's from the date this 3udgment "ecomes final. ?otarial iolations An the case of J8@;) LALG LG@A/ L/%8A?@/?8, s. /!!G. ?)S!F6 %. %8A?!/?/- )n 7anc- /.&. ?o. EI3C- June 2:- 2II:- the $hili**ine Su*reme &ourt re o#ed the notarial commission of res*ondent /tt'. ?estor %. %uintana- dis9ualified him from "eing commissioned as notar' *u"lic for a *eriod of two 021 'ears- and sus*ended him from the *ractice of law for si( 0C1 months effecti e immediatel'- with a warning that a re*etition of a similar iolation would "e dealt with e en more se erel'. !he administrati e case against /tt'. %uintana stemmed from a letter addressed to the &ourt filed "' )(ecuti e Judge Lil' L'dia /. La9uindanum of the 6egional !rial &ourt of ,idsa'a*- &ota"ato re9uesting that *ro*er disci*linar' action "e im*osed on him for *erforming notarial functions in ,idsa'a*- &ota"ato- which is "e'ond the territorial 3urisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial commission- and for allowing his wife to do notarial acts in his a"sence. An her letter- Judge La9uindanum alleged that *ursuant to /.,. ?o. I32D2I22S&- e(ecuti e 3udges are re9uired to closel' monitor the acti ities of notaries *u"lic within the territorial "ounds of their 3urisdiction and to see to it that notaries *u"lic shall not e(tend notarial functions "e'ond the limits of their authorit'. Hence- she wrote a letter to /tt'. %uintana directing him to sto* notarizing documents within the territorial 3urisdiction of the 6egional !rial &ourt of ,idsa'a*- &ota"ato 0which is outside the territorial 3urisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial commission for &ota"ato &it' and the $ro ince of ,aguindanao1 since certain documents notarized "' him had "een reaching her office. An its 6e*ort and 6ecommendation- the Fffice of the 7ar &onfidant 0F7&1 of the Su*reme &ourt recommended that /tt'. %uintana "e dis9ualified from "eing a**ointed as a notar' *u"lic for two 021 'ears< and that if his notarial commission still e(ists- the same should "e re o#ed for two 021 'ears. !he F7& found the defenses and arguments raised "' /tt'. %uintana to "e without merit. !he F7& cited Section 11 of the 2II+ 6ules on ?otarial $ractice *ro ides- thus: KJurisdiction and !erm L / *erson commissioned as notar' *u"lic ma' *erform notarial acts in an' *lace within the territorial 3urisdiction of the commissioning court for a *eriod of two 021 'ears commencing the first da' of Januar' of the 'ear in which the commissioning court is made- unless earlier re o#ed 4or5 the notar' *u"lic has resigned under these 6ules and the 6ules of &ourt. !he F7& stated that under the rule- res*ondent ma' *erform his notarial acts within the territorial 3urisdiction of the commissioning )(ecuti e Judge &oncha- which was in &ota"ato &it' and the $ro ince of ,aguindanao onl'. 7ut definitel' he could not e(tend his commission as notar' *u"lic in ,idsa'a* or .a"acan and in an' *lace of the *ro ince of &ota"ato as he was not commissioned thereat to do such act. ,idsa'a* and .a"acan were not *art of either &ota"ato &it' or $ro ince of ,aguindanao "ut *art of the *ro ince of ?orth &ota"ato. !hus- the claim of res*ondent that he could e(ercise his notarial commission in ,idsa'a*- &ota"ato "ecause &ota"ato &it' was *art of the *ro ince of &ota"ato was a"solutel' de oid of merit. >urther- *er the F7&- e idence on record also showed that there were se eral documents which the res*ondentMs wife had herself notarized. 6es*ondent 3ustified that he could not "e "lamed for the act of his wife as he did not authorize the latter to notarize documents in his a"sence. /ccording to him- he e en scolded and told his wife not to do it an'more as it would affect his *rofession. !he F7& cited the case of Lingan . &alu"a9ui" et al.- /dm. &ase ?o. B3EE- June 1B- 2IIC where the &ourt held- thus: K/ notar' *u"lic is *ersonall' accounta"le for all entries in his notarial register< He cannot relie e himself of this res*onsi"ilit' "' *assing the "uc# to 0his1 secretariesN !he F7& stated that a *erson who is commissioned as a notar' *u"lic ta#es full res*onsi"ilit' for all the entries in his notarial register. 6es*ondent cannot ta#e refuge claiming that it was his wifeMs act and that he did not authorize his wife to notarize documents. He is *ersonall' accounta"le for the acti ities in his office as well as the acts of his *ersonnel including his wife- who acts as his secretar'. !he F7& stressed further that Sec. 2- 0"1- 6ule AO of the 2II+ 6ules on ?otarial $ractice *ro ides- thus4:5 K/ *erson shall not *erform a notarial act if the *erson in ol ed as signator' to the instrument or document 011 is not in the notar'Ms

*resence *ersonall' at the time of the notarization< and 021 is not *ersonall' #nown to the notar' *u"lic through com*etent e idence of identit' as defined "' these 6ules.N !he Su*reme &ourt ado*ted the findings of the F7&. Howe er- it found the *enalt' of sus*ension from the *ractice of law for si( 0C1 months and re ocation and sus*ension of /tt'. %uintana's notarial commission for two 021 'ears more a**ro*riate considering the gra it' and num"er of his offenses. !he &ourt held that after a careful re iew of the records and e idence- there was no dou"t that /tt'. %uintana iolated the 2II+ 6ules on ?otarial $ractice and the &ode of $rofessional 6es*onsi"ilit' when he committed the following acts: 011 he notarized documents outside the area of his commission as a notar' *u"lic< 021 he *erformed notarial acts with an e(*ired commission< 031 he let his wife notarize documents in his a"sence< and 0+1 he notarized a document where one of the signatories therein was alread' dead at that time. !he act of notarizing documents outside oneMs area of commission is not to "e ta#en lightl'- the &ourt stated. /side from "eing a iolation of Sec. 11 of the 2II+ 6ules on ?otarial $ractice- it also *arta#es of mal*ractice of law and falsification. ?otarizing documents with an e(*ired commission is a iolation of the law'erMs oath to o"e' the laws- more s*ecificall'- the 2II+ 6ules on ?otarial $ractice. Since the *u"lic is decei ed into "elie ing that he has "een dul' commissioned- it also amounts to indulging in deli"erate falsehoodwhich the law'er's oath *roscri"es. ?otarizing documents without the *resence of the signator' to the document is a iolation of Sec. 20"1011- 6ule AO of the 2II+ 6ules on ?otarial $ractice- 6ule 1.I1 of the &ode of $rofessional 6es*onsi"ilit'- and the law'erMs oath which unconditionall' re9uires law'ers not to do or declare an' falsehood- the &ourt added. >inall'- the &ourt stressed that /tt'. %uintana was *ersonall' accounta"le for the documents that he admitted were signed "' his wife. He cannot relie e himself of lia"ilit' "' *assing the "lame to his wife- said the &ourt. He is- thus- guilt' of iolating &anon : of the &ode of $rofessional 6es*onsi"ilit'which re9uires law'ers not to directl' or indirectl' assist in the unauthorized *ractice of law- it concluded. !he &ourt furthermore held that a notarial commission should not "e treated as a mone'2ma#ing enture. At is a *ri ilege granted onl' to those who are 9ualified to *erform duties im"ued with *u"lic interest. ?otarization is not an em*t'- meaningless- routinar' act. At is in ested with su"stanti e *u"lic interest- such that onl' those who are 9ualified or authorized ma' act as notaries *u"lic. !he *rotection of that interest necessaril' re9uires that those not 9ualified or authorized to act must "e *re ented from im*osing u*on the *u"lic- the courts- and the administrati e offices in general. At must "e underscored that notarization "' a notar' *u"lic con erts a *ri ate document into a *u"lic document- ma#ing that document admissi"le in e idence without further *roof of the authenticit' thereof- the &ourt stated. &A6&8L/6 ?F. D. 41:DB5 &A6&8L/6 ?F. D 41:DB5 !F: /LL )P)&8!AO) J8@;)S F> !H) 6);AF?/L !6A/L &F86! S87J)&!: /$$FA?!,)?! F> ?F!/6A)S $87LA&. At has come to the #nowledge of this &ourt that some notaries *u"lic were a"le to secure more than one 415 commission as notar' *u"lic for the same term from different &ourts within the ,etro ,anila 6egion. >or 'our information and guidance in the a**ointment of notaries *u"lic- attention is in ited to the *ertinent *ro isions of the 6e ised /dministrati e &odeto wit:chanro"les irtuallawli"rar' =Section 2+I. Territorial Jurisdiction. 2 !he 3urisdiction of a notar' *u"lic in a *ro ince shall "e co2e(tensi e with the *ro ince. !he 3urisdiction of a notar' *u"lic in the &it' of ,anila shall "e co2 e(tensi e with said cit'. No notary shall possess authority to do any notarial act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction.= 08nderlining su**lied1 4See also Section 2E+- /ct ?o. 2CBE5. and to the En Banc 6esolution of the Su*reme &ourt dated /*ril 11- 1:DB- to wit: =/dministrati e ,atter ?o. DB232E+1+26!&. 2 e: !uery of "lerk of "ourt #a$imo ". "ontreras. 2 ( ( ( the &ourt resol ed to: 4a5 /d ise &ler# of &ourt( ( ( &ontreras that a notar' *u"lic who has alread' an a**ointment as notar' *u"lic for and within the &it' of ,anila or elsewhere- shall not "e allowed to "e commissioned as notar' *u"lic during the same

term within and for ,a#ati- ,etro ,anila or %ice%ersa< and 4"5 @irect the /cting &ourt /dministrator of this &ourt to issue to all )(ecuti e Judges a circular on this matter for their information and guidance in the a**ointment of notaries *u"lic.= An line with the aforecited *ro ision of law and &ourt 6esolution of /*ril 11- 1:DB- 'ou are here"' directed to see to it that "efore a**ointing- re2a**ointing- or renewing the commission of a notar' *u"lic- it should "e ensured that he was not a**ointed as notar' *u"lic elsewhere for the same term "' an' other )(ecuti e Judge. Strict com*liance herewith is here"' en3oined.cralaw ,anila- /*ril 22- 1:DB.