Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 5645

July 2, 2002

ROSALINDA BERNARDO VDA DE ROSALES, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. MARIO G. RAMOS, respondent.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
This complaint for disbarment was filed in behalf of complainant Rosalinda
Bernardo Vda. de Rosales by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
against respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos for violation of Act No. 2711 of
the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, Title IV, Ch. 11, otherwise know as
the Notarial Law, particularly Secs. 245 and 246 thereof.
In September 1990 Manuel A. Bernardo, brother of complainant Rosalinda
Bernardo Vda. de Rosales, borrowed from Rosalinda the Original Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 194464 covering Lot No. 1-B-4-H in her name. The lot
measures 112 square meters and is located at the back of Manuel's house on
Fabie Street, Paco, Metro Manila. On 25 November 1990 Rosalinda sold this
lot to one Alfredo P. Castro. When she asked her brother Manuel to return her
title he refused.
On 22 October 1990 Rosalinda executed an Affidavit of Loss of her title and
presented the affidavit to the Register of Deeds of Manila.
On 3 September 1991 the Register of Deeds informed Rosalinda that her title
to the property was already transferred to Manuel by virtue of a Deed of
Absolute Sale she purportedly executed in favor of Manuel on 5 September
1990. The document was notarized by respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos on 1
October 1990 and entered in his Notarial Register as Doc. No. 388, Page No.
718, Book No. 10, Series of 1990. Rosalinda however denied having signed any
deed of sale over her property in favor of Manuel.
On 3 September 1991 Rosalinda filed with the NBI a complaint for falsification
of public document against her brother Manuel. The NBI invited respondent
Atty. Ramos for questioning. The complaint alleged among others that on 12
September 1991 Atty. Mario G. Ramos executed an affidavit before the NBI

admitting that when Manuel presented the purported Deed of Absolute Sale to
him for notarization, he (Atty. Ramos) found some defects in the document
and that complainant Rosalinda was not around. The NBI Questioned
Documents Division also compared Rosalinda's signature appearing in
the Deed of Absolute Sale with samples of her genuine signature, and found
that the signature in the purported Deed of Absolute Sale and her genuine
signatures were not written by one and the same person.
On 5 October 1992 the NBI transmitted its findings to the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Manila with the recommendation that Manuel and Atty. Ramos
be prosecuted for Falsification of Public Document under Art. 172 in relation
to Art. 171 of The Revised Penal Code, and that Atty. Ramos be additionally
charged with violation of the Notarial Law.
The NBI also transmitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) photocopies of the NBI investigation
report and its annexes, and a verified complaint 1 for disbarment signed by
Rosalinda. The CBD received the records on 5 October 1992. On the same
date, the CBD through Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez directed respondent
to submit an answer to the complaint within fifteen (15) days from notice.
Respondent admitted in his Answer 2 that he had affixed his signature on the
purported Deed of Absolute Sale but failed to enter the document in his
Notarial Registry Book. He also admitted executing before the NBI on 12
September 1991 an affidavit regarding the matter. Respondent prayed for the
dismissal of the complaint since according to him he only inadvertently signed
the purported Deed of Absolute Sale and/or that his signature was procured
through mistake, fraud, undue influence or excusable negligence, claiming
that he simply relied on the assurances of Manuel that the document would
not be used for purposes other than a loan between brother and sister, and
that he affixed his signature thereon with utmost good faith and without
intending to obtain personal gain or to cause damage or injury to another.
The CBD set the case for hearing on 3 March 2000, 28 April 2000, 16 June
2000 and 5 October 2000. Complainant never appeared. The records show
that the notices sent to her address at 1497 Fabie Street, Paco, Manila, were
returned unclaimed.3
On 26 January 2002 the IBP Board of Governors approved the report and
recommendation of the CBD through Commissioner Fernandez that the case
against respondent be dismissed in view of complainant's failure to prosecute

and for lack of evidence on record to substantiate the complaint. 4 The

Investigating Commissioner found that the notices sent to complainant were
returned unclaimed with the annotation "moved out," and that she did not
leave any forwarding address, and neither did she come to the CBD to inquire
about the status of her case. From these actuations, he concluded that
complainant had lost interest in the further prosecution of this case, 5 and so
recommended its dismissal.
We cannot wholly agree with the findings and recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner. It is clear from the pleadings before us that
respondent violated the Notarial Law in failing to register in his notarial book
the deed of absolute sale he notarized, which fact respondent readily admitted.
The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of a notary public. It
requires him to keep a notarial register where he shall record all his official
acts as notary,6 and specifies what information with regard to the notarized
document should be entered therein. 7 Failure to perform this duty results in
the revocation of his commission as notary public. 8
The importance attached to the act of notarization cannot be overemphasized.
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with
substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or
authorized may act as notaries public. 9 Notarization converts a private
document into a public document thus making that document admissible in
evidence without further proof of its authenticity. 10 A notarial document is by
law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative
agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the
acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private
instrument.11
For this reason notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of their duties. 12 Otherwise, the confidence
of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be
undermined.13 Hence a notary public should not notarize a document unless
the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed
and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what
are stated therein.14 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. 15

The notary public is further enjoined to record in his notarial registry the
necessary information regarding the document or instrument notarized and
retain a copy of the document presented to him for acknowledgment and
certification especially when it is a contract. 16 The notarial registry is a record
of the notary public's official acts. Acknowledged documents and instruments
recorded in it are considered public documents. 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. Considering the evidentiary value given to
notarized documents, the failure of the notary public to record the document
in his notarial registry is tantamount to falsely making it appear that the
document was notarized when in fact it was not.
We take note of respondent's admission in his Answer that he had affixed his
signature in the purported Deed of Absolute Sale but he did not enter it in his
notarial registry. This is clearly in violation of the Notarial Law for which he
must be disciplined.
Respondent alleges that he merely signed the Deed of Absolute
Sale inadvertently and that his signature was procured through mistake,
fraud, undue influence or excusable negligence as he relied on the assurances
of Manuel A. Bernardo, a kababayan from Pampanga, that the document
would not be used for any illegal purpose.
We cannot honor, much less give credit to this allegation. That respondent
notarized the document out of sympathy for his kababayan is not a legitimate
excuse. It is appalling that respondent did away with the basics of notarial
procedure in order to accommodate the alleged need of a friend and client. In
doing so, he displayed a decided lack of respect for the solemnity of an oath in
a notarial document. He also exhibited his clear ignorance of the importance
of the office of a notary public. Not only did he violate the Notarial Law, he
also did so without thinking of the possible damage that might result from its
non-observance.
The principal function of a notary public is to authenticate documents. When
a notary public certifies to the due execution and delivery of the document
under his hand and seal he gives the document the force of evidence. Indeed,
one of the purposes of requiring documents to be acknowledged before a
notary public, in addition to the solemnity which should surround the
execution and delivery of documents, is to authorize such documents to be

given without further proof of their execution and delivery. 17 Where the notary
public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed upon him by reason of his
solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of
any.18 Failing in this, he must accept the consequences of his unwarranted
actions.
From his admissions we find that Atty. Mario G. Ramos failed to exercise the
due diligence required of him in the performance of the duties of notary
public. We do not agree however that his negligence should merit disbarment,
which is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction. Disbarment should
never be imposed unless it is evidently clear that the lawyer, by his serious
misconduct, should no longer remain a member of the bar. Removal from the
bar should not really be decreed when any punishment less severe reprimand, temporary suspension or fine - would accomplish the end
desired.19 Under the circumstances, imposing sanctions decreed under the
Notarial Law and suspension from the practice of law would suffice.
WHEREFORE, for lack of diligence in the observance of the Notarial Law, the
commission of respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos as Notary Public, if still
existing,
is REVOKED and
thereafter
Atty.
Ramos
should
beDISQUALIFIED from reappointment to the office of Notary Public.
Respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos is also SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of six (6) months effective immediately. He is DIRECTED to
report to this Court his receipt of this Decision to enable it to determine when
his suspension shall have taken effect.
The Clerk of Court of this Court is DIRECTED to immediately circularize this
Decision for the proper guidance of all concerned.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.
Mendoza, and Corona, JJ., concur.
Quisumbing, J., on official business.

Footnotes
1

Records, pp. 2-5.

Id, pp. 37-45.

Id, pp. 48, 50, 53, and 58.

Id, p. 60.

Id, p. 62.

The Notarial Law, Sec. 245. Notarial Register. - Every notary public shall
keep a register to be known as the notarial register, wherein record shall be
made of all his official acts as notary x x x x"
6

Id; Sec. 246. Matters to be entered therein. - The notary public shall enter
in such register, in chronological order, the nature of each instrument
executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him, the person executing,
swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument, the witnesses, if any, to the
signature, the date of execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the
instrument, the fees collected by him for his services as notary in
connection therewith, and when the instrument is a contract, he shall keep
a correct copy thereof as part of his records, and shall likewise enter in
said records a brief description of the substance thereof, and shall give to
each entry a consecutive number, beginning with number one in each
calendar year. The notary shall give to each instrument executed, sworn to,
or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his
register, and shall also state on the instrument the page or pages of his
register on which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between
entries x x x x "
7

Id; Sec. 249. Grounds for revocation of commission. - The following

derelictions of duty on the part of a notary public shall, in the discretion of
the proper judge of first instance, be sufficient ground for the revocation of
his commission x x x x (b) The failure of the notary to make the proper
entry or entries in his notarial register touching his notarial acts in the
manner required by law x x x x "
8

Maligsa v. Atty. Cabanting, 338 Phil. 912 (1997).

10

Sec. 30, Rule 132, Rules of Court.

Joson v. Baltazar, Adm. Case No. 575, 14 February 1991, 194 SCRA
114, 119.
11

Nunga v, Viray, Adm. Case No. 4758, 30 April 1999, 306 SCRA 487,
491.
12

Arrieta v. Llosa, Adm. Case No. 4369, 28 November 1997, 282 SCRA
248, citing Ramirez v. Ner, 21 SCRA 207 (1967).
13

Villarin v. Sabate Jr., Adm. Case No. 3324, 9 February 2000, 325 SCRA
123, 128.
14

15

Flores v. Chua, 306 Phil 465 (1999).

16

See Note 7.

17

Antillon v. Barcelon, 37 Phil. 148 (1917).

18

See Note 15.

19

In re Almacen, No. L-27654, 18 February 1970, 31 SCRA 562, 602.

FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 6294. November 17, 2004]
ATTY. MINIANO B. DELA CRUZ, complainant, vs. ATTY. ALEJANDRO P.
ZABALA, respondent.
RESOLUTION
QUISUMBING, J.:
In his Letter-Complaint for Disbarment filed before the Committee on Bar
Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, complainant Atty. Miniano
B. Dela Cruz charged respondent, Atty. Alejandro P. Zabala, for violating his
oath as a notary public.
Complainant alleged that respondent notarized with unknown witnesses, a
fake deed of sale allegedly executed by two dead people, in gross violation of
his oath as a Commissioned Notary Public in Quezon City. [1]
Complainant averred that he was retained by a certain Demetrio C. Marero
last December 21, 1996, to finance and undertake the filing of a Petition for
the Issuance of a Second Duplicate Original of the Owners copy of Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 4153, in the names of Sps. Pedro Sumulong and
Cirila Tapales before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 72. The
court issued an Order approving the said petition on March 10, 1997. [2]
On May 20, 1997, complainant purchased the said property from Marero
and had the title transferred to him and his wife. OCT No. 4153 was then
cancelled and replaced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 330000. [3]
The next day, complainant requested a certain Mrs. Adoracion Losloso and
Mr. Nestor Aguirre to register the title in the formers name at the Assessors
Office of Antipolo City. However, they were unable to do so because the
property was already registered in the name of Antipolo Properties, Inc., under
TCT No. N-107359.[4]
On May 27, 1997, respondent notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale over the
land covered by OCT No. 4153, executed by Cirila Tapales and Pedro
Sumulong in favor of the complainant and his wife.[5]
On December 9, 1997, Mr. Marero filed a Complaint for Reconveyance of
Title of the land, subject of the Deed of Sale which was notarized by
respondent, with damages against the complainant and his wife. The Deed of

Sale was the same document Marero used when he filed a complaint for Estafa
thru Falsification of Public Document docketed as I.S. No. 98-16357 before the
Quezon City Prosecutors Office and in a disbarment case docketed as Adm.
Case No. 4963 against complainant.[6]
Purportedly, to clear his name, complainant filed this complaint for
disbarment against respondent. According to complainant, respondent
notarized an irregular document where one of the parties to the transaction
was already dead, grossly violating his oath as a notary public. [7]
The IBP then required the respondent to file his answer to the said
allegations.
Respondent, in his Answer alleged that as a notary, he did not have to go
beyond the documents presented to him for notarization. In notarial law, he
explains, the minimum requirements to notarize a document are the presence
of the parties and their presentation of their community tax certificate. As
long as these requirements are met, the documents may be notarized.
Furthermore, he adds, when he notarized the Deed of Sale, he had no way of
knowing whether the persons who appeared before him were the real owners
of the land or were merely poseurs.[8]
Thereafter, the parties were ordered to appear before the IBP Commission
on Bar Discipline on July 31, 2001 and August 21, 2001, and required to
submit their position papers.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, in its Report dated September 29,
2003, recommended that respondent be reprimanded for violating Canon 5 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. [9] The allegations with respect to the
prayer for disbarment were recommended for dismissal for insufficiency of
evidence. The Commissioner held that complainant failed to establish by
convincing proof that respondent had to be disbarred because of his notarial
negligence. The alleged failures of respondent did not indicate a clear intent to
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, according to the
Commissions Report.
Noteworthy, however, respondent did not deny that he notarized the cited
Deed of Sale under the circumstances alleged by complainant. It appears that
there was negligence on respondents part which, in our view, is quite serious.
Thus, we cannot conclude that he did not violate the Notarial Law, [10] and our
rules regarding Notarial Practice.[11] Nor could we agree that, as recommended
by the IBP, he should only be reprimanded. At least his commission as Notary

Public should be revoked and for two years he should be disqualified from
being commissioned as such.
The IBP noted that on its face, the Deed of Sale was not executed by the
purported vendee and that only Pedro Sumulong appeared and executed the
deed even though the property was co-owned by Pedro Sumulong and Cirila
Tapales. In addition, a copy of the title was not attached to the said Deed of
Sale when it was presented for notarization. The aforementioned
circumstances should have alerted respondent. Given the ease with which
community tax certificates are obtained these days, respondent should have
been more vigilant in ascertaining the identity of the persons who appeared
before him.
We have empathically stressed that notarization is not an empty,
meaningless routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest. It
must be underscored that the notarization by a notary public converts a
private document into a public document, making that document admissible
in evidence without further proof of 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 their duties; otherwise, the confidence of the public in the
integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined. [12]
Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 provides,
...
(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. [Emphasis ours.]
A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who
signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally
appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated
therein. These acts of the affiants cannot be delegated because what are
stated therein are facts they have personal knowledge of and are personally

sworn to. Otherwise, their representatives names should appear in the said
documents as the ones who executed the same. [13]
The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any
illegal or immoral arrangements.[14] By affixing his notarial seal on the
instrument, he converted the Deed of Absolute Sale, from a private document
into a public document. In doing so, respondent, in effect, proclaimed to the
world that (1) all the parties therein personally appeared before him; (2) they
are all personally known to him; (3) they were the same persons who executed
the instruments; (4) he inquired into the voluntariness of execution of the
instrument; and (5) they acknowledged personally before him that they
voluntarily and freely executed the same. [15] 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.[16] Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent
upon him, he must now accept the commensurate consequences of his
professional indiscretion. His act of certifying under oath an irregular Deed of
Absolute Sale without ascertaining the identities of the persons executing the
same constitutes gross negligence in the performance of duty as a notary
public.
WHEREFORE, this Court finds respondent Atty. Alejandro P. Zabala
GUILTY of gross negligence in his conduct as a notary public. His notarial
commission, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED
from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. He is
DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this Resolution to the Court
within five (5) days from such receipt. Further, he is ordered to SHOW CAUSE
why he should not be subject to disciplinary action as a member of the Bar.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to all the courts of the land as
well as the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Bar
Confidant. Let this Resolution be also made of record in the personal files of
the respondent.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr.,
JJ., concur.

C.J.,

(Chairman),

Ynares-Santiago,

Carpio, and Azcuna,

[1]

Rollo, pp. 1-3.

[2]

Id. at 9

[3]

Id. at 14.

[4]

Id. at 15.

[5]

Id. at 21.

[6]

Id. at 3.

[7]

Ibid.

[8]

Id. at 54.

[9]

Id. at 71.

[10]

Sec. 125, Public Act No. 1189. See also Sec. 246, Revised Administrative
Code; Sec. 163, Local Government Code of 1991; and Art. 248(a), Rules
and Regulations implementing the Local Government Code of 1991.

[11]

2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC.

[12]

Coronado v. Felongco, Adm. Case No. 2611, 15 November 2000, 344 SCRA
565, 568-569.

[13]

Villarin v. Sabate, Jr., Adm. Case No. 3324, 9 February 2000, 325 SCRA
123, 128.

[14]

Cabanilla v. Cristal-Tenorio, Adm. Case No. 6139, 11 November 2003, 415

SCRA 353, 361.

[15]

Arrieta v. Llosa, Adm. Case No. 4369, 28 November 1997, 282 SCRA 248,
252.

[16]

Villarin v. Sabate, Jr., supra.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
A.C. No. 5281

February 12, 2008

MANUEL L. LEE, petitioner,

vs.
ATTY. REGINO B. TAMBAGO, respondent.
RESOLUTION
CORONA, J.:
In a letter-complaint dated April 10, 2000, complainant Manuel L. Lee charged
respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago with violation of the Notarial Law and the
ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a spurious last will and testament.
In his complaint, complainant averred that his father, the decedent Vicente
Lee, Sr., never executed the contested will. Furthermore, the spurious will
contained the forged signatures of Cayetano Noynay and Loreto Grajo, the
purported witnesses to its execution.
In the said will, the decedent supposedly bequeathed his entire estate to his
wife Lim Hock Lee, save for a parcel of land which he devised to Vicente Lee,
Jr. and Elena Lee, half-siblings of complainant.
The will was purportedly executed and acknowledged before respondent on
June 30, 1965.1 Complainant, however, pointed out that the residence
certificate2 of the testator noted in the acknowledgment of the will was dated
January 5, 1962.3 Furthermore, the signature of the testator was not the
same as his signature as donor in a deed of donation 4 (containing his
purported genuine signature). Complainant averred that the signatures of his
deceased father in the will and in the deed of donation were "in any way (sic)
entirely and diametrically opposed from (sic) one another in all angle[s]." 5
Complainant also questioned the absence of notation of the residence
certificates of the purported witnesses Noynay and Grajo. He alleged that their
signatures had likewise been forged and merely copied from their respective
voters affidavits.

Complainant further asserted that no copy of such purported will was on file
in the archives division of the Records Management and Archives Office of the
National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA). In this connection, the
certification of the chief of the archives division dated September 19, 1999
stated:
Doc. 14, Page No. 4, Book No. 1, Series of 1965 refers to an AFFIDAVIT
executed by BARTOLOME RAMIREZ on June 30, 1965 and is available in
this Office[s] files.6
Respondent in his comment dated July 6, 2001 claimed that the complaint
against him contained false allegations: (1) that complainant was a son of the
decedent Vicente Lee, Sr. and (2) that the will in question was fake and
spurious. He alleged that complainant was "not a legitimate son of Vicente
Lee, Sr. and the last will and testament was validly executed and actually
notarized by respondent per affidavit7 of Gloria Nebato, common-law wife of
Vicente Lee, Sr. and corroborated by the joint affidavit 8 of the children of
Vicente Lee, Sr., namely Elena N. Lee and Vicente N. Lee, Jr. xxx." 9
Respondent further stated that the complaint was filed simply to harass him
because the criminal case filed by complainant against him in the Office of the
Ombudsman "did not prosper."
Respondent did not dispute complainants contention that no copy of the will
was on file in the archives division of the NCCA. He claimed that no copy of
the contested will could be found there because none was filed.
Lastly, respondent pointed out that complainant had no valid cause of action
against him as he (complainant) did not first file an action for the declaration
of nullity of the will and demand his share in the inheritance.
In a resolution dated October 17, 2001, the Court referred the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.10
In his report, the investigating commissioner found respondent guilty of
violation of pertinent provisions of the old Notarial Law as found in the
Revised Administrative Code. The violation constituted an infringement of legal
ethics, particularly Canon 111 and Rule 1.0112 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).13 Thus, the investigating commissioner of the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the suspension of respondent for
a period of three months.

The IBP Board of Governors, in its Resolution No. XVII-2006-285 dated May
26, 2006, resolved:
[T]o ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and
APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part
of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully
supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules,
and considering Respondents failure to comply with the laws in the
discharge of his function as a notary public, Atty. Regino B. Tambago is
hereby suspended from the practice of law for one year and Respondents
notarial commission is Revoked and Disqualified fromreappointment as
Notary Public for two (2) years.14
We affirm with modification.
A will is an act whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities prescribed
by law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate, to take effect
after his death.15 A will may either be notarial or holographic.
The law provides for certain formalities that must be followed in the execution
of wills. The object of solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close
the door on bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments
and to guarantee their truth and authenticity.16
A notarial will, as the contested will in this case, is required by law to be
subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself. In addition, it should be
attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of
the testator and of one another.17
The will in question was attested by only two witnesses, Noynay and Grajo. On
this circumstance alone, the will must be considered void. 18 This is in
consonance with the rule that acts executed against the provisions of
mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself
authorizes their validity.
The Civil Code likewise requires that a will must be acknowledged before a
notary public by the testator and the witnesses. 19 The importance of this
requirement is highlighted by the fact that it was segregated from the other
requirements under Article 805 and embodied in a distinct and separate
provision.20

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. It
involves an extra step undertaken whereby the signatory actually declares to
the notary public that the same is his or her own free act and deed. 21 The
acknowledgment in a notarial will has a two-fold purpose: (1) to safeguard the
testators wishes long after his demise and (2) to assure that his estate is
administered in the manner that he intends it to be done.
A cursory examination of the acknowledgment of the will in question shows
that this particular requirement was neither strictly nor substantially
complied with. For one, there was the conspicuous absence of a notation of
the residence certificates of the notarial witnesses Noynay and Grajo in the
acknowledgment. Similarly, the notation of the testators old residence
certificate in the same acknowledgment was a clear breach of the law. These
omissions by respondent invalidated the will.
As the acknowledging officer of the contested will, respondent was required to
faithfully observe the formalities of a will and those of notarization. As we held
in Santiago v. Rafanan:22
The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of notaries
public. They are required to certify that the party to every document
acknowledged before him had presented the proper residence certificate
(or exemption from the residence tax); and to enter its number, place of
issue and date as part of such certification.
These formalities are mandatory and cannot be disregarded, considering the
degree of importance and evidentiary weight attached to notarized
documents.23 A notary public, especially a lawyer, 24 is bound to strictly
observe these elementary requirements.
The Notarial Law then in force required the exhibition of the residence
certificate upon notarization of a document or instrument:
Section 251. Requirement as to notation of payment of [cedula] residence
tax. Every contract, deed, or other document acknowledged before a
notary public shall have certified thereon that the parties thereto have
presented their proper [cedula] residence certificate or are exempt from
the [cedula] residence tax, and there shall be entered by the notary
public as a part of such certificate the number, place of issue, and date
of each [cedula] residence certificate as aforesaid.25

The importance of such act was further reiterated by Section 6 of the

Residence Tax Act26 which stated:
When a person liable to the taxes prescribed in this Act acknowledges
any document before a notary public xxx it shall be the duty of such
person xxx with whom such transaction is had or business done, to
require the exhibition of the residence certificate showing payment of the
residence taxes by such person xxx.
In the issuance of a residence certificate, the law seeks to establish the true
and correct identity of the person to whom it is issued, as well as the payment
of residence taxes for the current year. By having allowed decedent to exhibit
an expired residence certificate, respondent failed to comply with the
requirements of both the old Notarial Law and the Residence Tax Act. As much
could be said of his failure to demand the exhibition of the residence
certificates of Noynay and Grajo.
On the issue of whether respondent was under the legal obligation to furnish a
copy of the notarized will to the archives division, Article 806 provides:
Art. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the
testator and the witness. The notary public shall not be required to
retain a copy of the will, or file another with the office of the Clerk
of Court. (emphasis supplied)
Respondents failure, inadvertent or not, to file in the archives division a copy
of the notarized will was therefore not a cause for disciplinary action.
Nevertheless, respondent should be faulted for having failed to make the
necessary entries pertaining to the will in his notarial register. The old
Notarial Law required the entry of the following matters in the notarial
register, in chronological order:
1. nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before
him;
2. person executing, swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument;
3. witnesses, if any, to the signature;
4. date of execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the instrument;
5. fees collected by him for his services as notary;
6. give each entry a consecutive number; and

7. if the instrument is a contract, a brief description of the substance of

the instrument.27
In an effort to prove that he had complied with the abovementioned rule,
respondent contended that he had crossed out a prior entry and entered
instead the will of the decedent. As proof, he presented a photocopy of his
notarial register. To reinforce his claim, he presented a photocopy of a
certification28 stating that the archives division had no copy of the affidavit of
Bartolome Ramirez.
A photocopy is a mere secondary evidence. It is not admissible unless it is
shown that the original is unavailable. The proponent must first prove the
existence and cause of the unavailability of the original, 29 otherwise, the
evidence presented will not be admitted. Thus, the photocopy of respondents
notarial register was not admissible as evidence of the entry of the execution
of the will because it failed to comply with the requirements for the
admissibility of secondary evidence.
In the same vein, respondents attempt to controvert the certification dated
September 21, 199930 must fail. Not only did he present a mere photocopy of
the certification dated March 15, 2000;31 its contents did not squarely prove
the fact of entry of the contested will in his notarial register.
Notaries public must observe with utmost care32 and utmost fidelity the basic
requirements in the performance of their duties, otherwise, the confidence of
the public in the integrity of notarized deeds will be undermined. 33
Defects in the observance of the solemnities prescribed by law render the
entire will invalid. This carelessness cannot be taken lightly in view of the
importance and delicate nature of a will, considering that the testator and the
witnesses, as in this case, are no longer alive to identify the instrument and to
confirm its contents.34 Accordingly, respondent must be held accountable for
his acts. The validity of the will was seriously compromised as a consequence
of his breach of duty.35
In this connection, Section 249 of the old Notarial Law provided:
Grounds for revocation of commission. The following derelictions of
duty on the part of a notary public shall, in the discretion of the proper
judge of first instance, be sufficient ground for the revocation of his
commission:
xxx

xxx

xxx

(b) The failure of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in his
notarial register touching his notarial acts in the manner required by law.
xxx

xxx

xxx

(f) The failure of the notary to make the proper notation regarding cedula
certificates.36
These gross violations of the law also made respondent liable for violation of
his oath as a lawyer and constituted transgressions of Section 20 (a), Rule 138
of the Rules of Court37 and Canon 138 and Rule 1.0139 of the CPR.
The first and foremost duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines, uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the
land.40 For a lawyer is the servant of the law and belongs to a profession to
which society has entrusted the administration of law and the dispensation of
justice.41
While the duty to uphold the Constitution and obey the law is an obligation
imposed on every citizen, a lawyer assumes responsibilities well beyond the
basic requirements of good citizenship. As a servant of the law, a lawyer
should moreover make himself an example for others to emulate. 42 Being a
lawyer, he is supposed to be a model in the community in so far as respect for
the law is concerned.43
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. 44 A breach of these
conditions justifies disciplinary action against the erring lawyer. A disciplinary
sanction is imposed on a lawyer upon a finding or acknowledgment that he
has engaged in professional misconduct. 45 These sanctions meted out to errant
lawyers include disbarment, suspension and reprimand.
Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction. 46 We have held in
a number of cases that the power to disbar must be exercised with great
caution47 and should not be decreed if any punishment less severe such as
reprimand, suspension, or fine will accomplish the end desired. 48 The rule
then is that disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that
seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the
court.49
Respondent, as notary public, evidently failed in the performance of the
elementary duties of his office. Contrary to his claims that he "exercised his
duties as Notary Public with due care and with due regard to the provision of
existing law and had complied with the elementary formalities in the

performance of his duties xxx," we find that he acted very irresponsibly in

notarizing the will in question. Such recklessness warrants the less severe
punishment of suspension from the practice of law. It is, as well, a sufficient
basis for the revocation of his commission 50 and his perpetual disqualification
to be commissioned as a notary public.51
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago is hereby found guilty of
professional misconduct. He violated (1) the Lawyers Oath; (2) Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court; (3) Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility; (4) Art. 806 of the Civil Code and (5) the provisions of the old
Notarial Law.
Atty. Regino B. Tambago is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
one year and his notarial commission REVOKED. Because he has not lived up
to the trustworthiness expected of him as a notary public and as an officer of
the court, he is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a
notary public.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to all the courts of the land, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Bar Confidant, as well
as made part of the personal records of respondent.
SO ORDERED.
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
ANGELINA SANDOVALGUTIERREZ
Associate Justice

ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice

Footnotes
1

Rollo, p. 3.

Now known as Community Tax Certificate.

Page two, Last Will and Testament of Vicente Lee, Sr., rollo, p. 3.

Id., p. 10.

Id., p. 1.

Rollo, p. 9.

Dated July 11, 2001. Id., p. 94.

Dated July 11, 2001. Id., p. 95.

Id., p. 90.

10

Rollo, p. 107.

CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY

THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR
LEGAL PROCESSES.
11

Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral

or deceitful conduct.
12

Annex "A," Report and Recommendation by Commissioner Elpidio G.

Soriano III, dated February 27 2006. Rollo, p. 13.
13

Notice of Resolution, IBP Board of Governors. (Emphasis in the

original)
14

15

Civil Code, Art. 783.

Jurado, Desiderio P., Comments And Jurisprudence On Succession,

8 ed. (1991), Rex Bookstore, Inc., p. 52. In re: Will of Tan Diuco, 45 Phil.
807 (1924); Unson v. Abella, 43 Phil. 494 (1922); Aldaba v. Roque, 43
Phil. 379 (1922); Avera v. Garcia, 42 Phil. 145 (1921); Abangan v.
Abangan, 40 Phil. 476 (1919).
16

th

17

Civil Code, Art. 804.

18

Civil Code, Art. 5.

19

Civil Code, Art. 806.

Azuela v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122880, 12 April 2006, 487 SCRA
142.
20

21

Id.

22

A.C. No. 6252, 5 October 2004, 440 SCRA 98.

23

Santiago v. Rafanan, id., at 99.

Under the old Notarial Law, non-lawyers may be commissioned as

notaries public subject to certain conditions. Under the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, effective August 1, 2004),
however, only lawyers may be granted a notarial commission.
24

25

Revised Administrative Code, Book I, Title IV, Chapter 11, Sec. 251.

26

Commonwealth Act No. 465.

27

Revised Administrative Code, Book I, Title IV, Chapter 11, Sec. 246.

28

Dated March 15, 2000. Rollo, p. 105.

"When the 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 its
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." RULES OF COURT, Rule
130, Sec. 5.
29

30

Supra note 6.

31

Rollo, p. 105.

32

Bon v. Ziga, A.C. No. 5436, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 185.

33

Zaballero v. Montalvan, A.C. No. 4370, 25 May 2004, 429 SCRA 78.

Annex "A," Report and Recommendation by Commissioner Elpidio G.

Soriano III, dated February 27, 2006, rollo, p. 12
34

35

Id., p. 13.

36

Revised Administrative Code, Book 1, Title IV, Chapter 11.

37

"Duties of attorneys. It is the duty of an attorney:

(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to
support the Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines;
(b) Xxx," RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Sec. 20, par. (a).

38

CANON 1, supra note 11.

39

Rule 1.01, supra note 12.

Montecillo v. Gica, 158 Phil. 443 (1974). Zaldivar v. Gonzales, G.R. No.
L-79690-707, 7 October 1988, 166 SCRA 316.
40

Agpalo, Ruben E., Legal And Judicial Ethics, 7 th Edition (2002), Rex
Bookstore, Inc., p. 69. Comments of IBP Committee that drafted the
Code of Professional Responsibility, pp. 1-2 (1980).
41

42

Id.

43

Id.

Agpalo, Ruben E., Legal And Judicial Ethics, 7 th Edition (2002), Rex
Bookstore, Inc., p. 465.
44

Guidelines for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Integrated Bar of the

Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline.
45

San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Romanillos, A.C. No. 5580,

15 June 2005, 460 SCRA 105.
46

Santiago v Rafanan, supra note 22 at 101. Alitagtag v. Garcia, A.C. No.

4738, 10 June 2003, 403 SCRA 335.
47

Suzuki v. Tiamson, A.C. No. 6542, 30 September 2005, 471 SCRA

140; Amaya v. Tecson, A.C. No. 5996, 7 February 2005, 450 SCRA 510,
516.
48

Bantolo v. Castillon, Jr., A.C. No. 6589, 19 December 2005, 478 SCRA
449.
49

Cabanilla v. Cristal-Tenorio, A.C. No. 6139, 11 November 2003, 415

SCRA 361. Guerrero v. Hernando, 160-A Phil. 725 (1975).
50

51

Tan Tiong Bio v. Gonzales, A.C. No. 6634, 23 August 2007.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 7781

September 12, 2008

DOLORES L. DELA CRUZ, MILAGROS L. PRINCIPE, NARCISA L.

FAUSTINO, JORGE V. LEGASPI, and JUANITO V. LEGASPI,complainants,
vs.
ATTY. JOSE R. DIMAANO, JR., respondent.
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
In their complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Jose R. Dimaano,
Jr., Dolores L. Dela Cruz, Milagros L. Principe, Narcisa L. Faustino, Jorge V.
Legaspi, and Juanito V. Legaspi alleged that on July 16, 2004, respondent
notarized a document denominated asExtrajudicial Settlement of the Estate
with Waiver of Rights purportedly executed by them and their sister, Zenaida
V.L. Navarro. Complainants further alleged that: (1) their signatures in this
document were forged; (2) they did not appear and acknowledge the document
on July 16, 2004 before respondent, as notarizing officer; and (3) their
purported community tax certificates indicated in the document were not
theirs.
According to complainants, respondent had made untruthful statements in
the acknowledgment portion of the notarized document when he made it
appear, among other things, that complainants "personally came and
appeared before him" and that they affixed their signatures on the document
in his presence. In the process, complainants added, respondent effectively
enabled their sister, Navarro, to assume full ownership of their deceased
parents property in Tibagan, San Miguel, Bulacan, covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-303936 and sell the same to the Department of Public
Works and Highways.
In his answer, respondent admitted having a hand in the preparation of the
document in question, but admitted having indeed notarized it. He explained
that "he notarized [the] document in good faith relying on the representation
and assurance of Zenaida Navarro that the signatures and the community tax

certificates appearing in the document were true and correct." Navarro would
not, according to respondent, lie to him having known, and being neighbors of,
each other for 30 years. Finally, respondent disclaimed liability for any damage
or injury considering that the falsified document had been revoked and
canceled.
In his Report and Recommendation, the Investigating Commissioner of the
Office of the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), found the following as established: (1) the questioned document bore the
signatures and community tax certificates of, and purports to have been
executed by, complainants and Navarro; (2) respondent indeed notarized the
questioned document on July 16, 2004; (3) complainants did not appear and
acknowledge the document before respondent on July 16, 2004; (4)
respondent notarized the questioned document only on Navarros
representation that the signatures appearing and community tax certificates
were true and correct; and (5) respondent did not ascertain if the purported
signatures of each of the complainants appearing in the document belonged to
them.
The Commission concluded that with respondents admission of having
notarized the document in question against the factual backdrop as thus
established, a clear case of falsification and violation of the Notarial Law had
been committed when he stated in the Acknowledgment that:
Before me, on this 16th day of July 16, 2004 at Manila, personally came
and appeared the above-named persons with their respective Community
Tax Certificates as follows:
xxxx
who are known to me to be the same persons who executed the foregoing
instrument and they acknowledge to me that the same is their own free
act and deed. x x x
For the stated infraction, the Commission recommended, conformably with
the Courts ruling in Gonzales v. Ramos,1 that respondent be suspended from
the practice of law for one (1) year; that his notarial commission, if still
existing, be revoked; and that he be disqualified for reappointment as notary
public for two (2) years. On September 28, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors
passed Resolution No. XVIII-2007-147, adopting and approving the report and
recommendation of the Commission.

We agree with the recommendation of the Commission and the premises

holding it together. It bears reiterating that notaries public should refrain from
affixing their signature and notarial seal on a document unless the persons
who signed it are the same individuals who executed and personally appeared
before the notaries public to attest to the truth of what are stated therein, for
under Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 or the Notarial Law, an instrument or
document shall be considered authentic if the acknowledgment is made in
accordance with the following requirements:
(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.2
Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the document in
question, notaries public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the
signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is
the partys free act or deed. 3 Furthermore, notaries public are required by the
Notarial Law to certify that the party to the instrument has acknowledged and
presented before the notaries public the proper residence certificate (or
exemption from the residence certificate) and to enter its number, place, and
date of issue as part of certification.4 Rule II, Sec. 12 of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice5 now requires a party to the instrument to present competent
evidence of identity. Sec. 12 provides:
Sec. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity.-The phrase "competent evidence
of identity" refers to the identification of an individual based on:
(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official
agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, such as
but not limited to, passport, drivers license, Professional Regulations
Commission ID, National Bureau of Investigation clearance, police
clearance, postal ID, voters ID, Barangay certification, Government
Service Insurance System (GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS)
card, Philhealth card, senior citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare
Administration (OWWA) ID, OFW ID, seamans book, alien certificate of

registration/immigrant certificate of registration, government office ID,

certificate from the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons
(NCWDP), Department of Social Welfare and Development certification [as
amended by A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC dated February 19, 2008]; or
(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the
instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the
notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible
witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or
transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the
notary public documentary identification.
One last note. Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to
discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, such duties being dictated by
public policy and impressed with public interest. It must be remembered that
notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act, for notarization converts a
private document to a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence
without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due
execution.6 A notarized document is by law entitled to full credit upon its face
and it is for this reason that notaries public must observe the basic
requirements in notarizing documents. Otherwise, the confidence of the public
on notorized documents will be eroded.
WHEREFORE, for breach of the Notarial Law, the notarial commission of
respondent Atty. Jose R. Dimaano, Jr., if still existing, isREVOKED. He
is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as notary public for a period of
two (2) years and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
year, effective upon receipt of a copy of this Decision, with WARNING that a
repetition of the same negligent act shall be dealt with more severely.
Let all the courts, through the Office of the Court Administrator, as well as the
IBP and the Office of the Bar Confidant, be notified of this Decision and be it
entered into respondents personal record.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing,Chairperson Carpio-Morales, Tinga, Brion, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1

A.C. No. 6649, June 21, 2005, 460 SCRA 352.

Cited in 2 L.M. Taada & F.A. Rodrigo, Modern Philippine Legal Forms
763 (6th ed., 1997).
2

Domingo v. Reed, G.R. No. 157701, December 9, 2005, 477 SCRA 227,
238; Lopena v. Cabatos, A.C. No. 3441, August 11, 2005, 466 SCRA 419,
426.
3

Soriano v. Basco, A.C. No. 6648, September 21, 2005, 470 SCRA 423,
429.
4

5
6

Took effect on August 1, 2004.

Domingo, supra note 3.