Cases
without further proof of its authenticity. A notarized document is, by
1.) Agbulos vs Viray, 691 SCRA 1
- Atty. Viray allegedly notarized a document denominated as Affidavit
of Non-Tenancy in violation of the Notarial Law. The said affidavit
was supposedly executed by Agbulos, but she denies said execution
and claimed that the signature and CTC allegedly presented were
not hers. She said that she did not personally appear before Atty.
Viray and that the affidavit was made to facilitate an illegal transfer of
her property.
Atty. Viray was guilty of breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
-Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules emphasizes the necessity
of the affiants personal appearance before the notary public:
xxx
2.) Maria vs Cortez, 669 SCRA 87
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 notarys 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.
-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. 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 partys free act or deed.
-The important role a notary public performs Notarization is not an
empty, meaningless routinary act but one invested with substantive
public interest. The notarization by a notary public converts a private
1
document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence
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 publics
confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be
undermined.
Side track: The responsibility to faithfully observe and respect the
legal solemnity of the oath is an acknowledgment or jurat is more
pronounced when the notary public is a lawyer because of his
solemn oath under the CPR to obey the laws and to do no falsehood
or consent to the doing of any.
Based on existing jurisprudence, when a lawyer commissioned as a
notary public fails to discharge his duties as such, he is meted the
penalties of revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification
from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two
years, and suspension from the practice of law for one year.
- Atty. Cortez was filed an administrative complaint by Maria for
having notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) without verifying
the authenticity of the signatures contained therein in violation of the
Notarial Law. Respondent notarized an SPA without the parties
personally appearing before him. He merely relied on his secretaries
in scrutinizing all contents of documents including the authenticity of
its signatories before the documents are brought to him for his
notarial signature.
-A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts,
most common of which are the acknowledgement and affirmation of
documents or instruments. In the performance of these notarial acts,
the notary public must be mindful of the significance of the notarial
seal affixed on documents. 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 empty,
meaningless or routinary act.
-A notary publics function should not be trivialized and a notary
public must discharge his powers and duties which are impressed
with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity. A notary public
 exercises duties calling for carefulness and faithfulness. Notaries
must inform themselves of the facts they certify to; most importantly,
they should not take part or allow themselves to be part of illegal
transactions.
3.) Caalim-Verzonilla vs Pascua, 658 SCRA 762
-Notary public should guard against any illegal or immoral
arrangement or at least refrain from being a party to its
consummation; proper entries in notarial register
-Atty. Pascua allegedly falsified a public document and evaded the
payment of correct taxes through the use of falsified documents.
-In Gonzales v. Ramos, the Court elucidated on how important and
sacrosanct the notarial act is:
The principal function of a notary public is to authenticate
documents. When a notary public certifies to the due
execution and delivery of a 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. A
notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit
upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public
at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgement
executed before a notary public and appended to a private
instrument. Hence, a notary public must discharge his
powers and duties, which are impressed with public interest,
with accuracy and fidelity.
4.) Jandoquile vs Revilla, Jr., 695 SCRA 356
-The notary public who notarized the document despite the non-
appearance of one of the signatories was meted the penalties of
revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification from
reappointment for two years.
-Section 4.Refusal to Notarize. A notary public shall not perform any
notarial act described in these Rules for any person requesting such an
act even if he tenders the appropriate fee specified by these Rules if:
2
a) the notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial
act or transaction is unlawful or immoral;
xxxx
-In this case, respondent proceeded to notarize the second deed despite
knowledge of its illegal purpose. His purported desire to accommodate
the request of his client will not absolve the respondent who, as a
member of the legal profession, should have stood his ground and not
yielded to the importunings of his clients. Respondent should have been
more prudent and remained steadfast in his solemn oath not to commit
falsehood nor consent to the doing of any. As a lawyer, respondent is
expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the
trust and confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of the legal
profession.
-Respondent also failed to comply with Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice when he gave the second document the same
document number, page number and book number as the first:
Section 2.Entries in the Notarial Register. xxx
xxxx
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.
-Indeed, Atty. Revilla, Jr. violated the disqualification rule under
Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. We
agree with him, however, that his violation of the aforesaid
disqualification rules is beyond dispute. Atty. Revilla, Jr. readily
admitted that he notarized the complaint-affidavit signed by his
relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. Section 3(c), Rule IV
of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly disqualifies him from
notarizing the complaint-affidavit, from performing notarial act, since
two of the affiants or principals are his relatives within the fourth civil
degree of affinity. Given the clear provision of the disqualification
 rule, it behoved upon Atty. Revilla, Jr. to act with prudence and refuse
notarizing the document. We cannot agree with his proposition that
we consider him to have acted more as counsel of the affiants, not
as notary public, when he notarized the complaint-affidavit. The
notarial certificate at the bottom of the complaint-affidavit shows his
signature as a notary public, with a notarial commission valid until
December 31, 2012. He cannot therefore claim that he signed it as
counsel of the three affiants.
Side track: On the second charge, we agree with Atty. Revilla, Jr.
that he cannot be held liable. If the notary public knows the affiants
personally, he need not require them to show their valid identification
cards. This rule is supported by the definition of a jurat under
Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. A jurat
refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a)
appears in person before the notary public and presents an
instrument or document; (b) is personally known to the notary public
OR identified by the notary public through competent evidence of
identity; (c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the
notary; and (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public
as to such instrument or document. In this case, Heneraline Brosas
is a sister of Atty. Revilla, Jr.s wife; Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa is his
wifes sister-in-law; and Elmer Alvarado is the live-in houseboy of the
Brosas family. Atty. Revilla, Jr. knows the three affiants personally.
Thus, he was justified in no longer requiring them to show valid
identification cards. But Atty. Revilla, Jr. is not without fault for failing
to indicate such fact in the jurat of the complaint-affidavit. No
statement was included therein that he knows the three affiants
personally. Let it be impressed that Atty. Revilla, Jr. was clearly
disqualified to notarize the complaint-affidavit of his relatives within
the fourth civil degree of affinity. While he has a valid defense as to
the second charge, it does not exempt him from liability for violating
the disqualification rule.
5.) Amora, Jr. vs COMELEC, 640 SCRA 473
-Amora ran for the position of Mayor of Candijay, Bohol. Olandria
filed before the COMELEC a Petition for Disqualification against
Amora. He pointed out that, in executing his COC, Amora merely
presented his Community Tax Certificate (CTC) to the notary public,
Atty. Granada, instead of presenting competent evidence of his
identity. Consequently, Amoras COC had no force and effect and
should be considered as not filed.
3
-SC: Another red flag for the COMELEC to dismiss Olandrias
petition is the fact that Amora claims to personally know the notary
public, Atty. Granada, before whom his COC was sworn. In this
regard, the dissenting opinion of Commissioner Larrazabal aptly
disposes of the core issue: x x x
As quoted supra, competent evidence of identity is not
required in cases where the affiant is personally known to
the Notary Public, which is the case herein. The records
reveal that Amora submitted to this Commission a sworn
affidavit executed by Notary Public Oriculo A. Granada, who
notarized Amoras COC, affirming in his affidavit that he
personally knows Amora.
Olandria, on the other hand, presented no evidence to
counter Granadas declarations. Hence, Granadas affidavit,
which narrates in detail his personal relation with Amora,
should be deemed sufficient.
-SC: In this case, however, contrary to the declarations of the
COMELEC, Amora complied with the requirement of a sworn COC.
He readily explained that he and Atty. Granada personally knew each
other; they were not just colleagues at the League of Municipal
Mayors, Bohol Chapter, but they consider each other as distant
relatives. Thus, the alleged defect in the oath was not proven by
Olandria since the presentation of a COC turned out to be sufficient
in this instance. On the whole, the COMELEC should not have
brushed aside the affidavit of Atty. Granada and remained inflexible
in the face of Amoras victory and proclamation as Mayor of Candijay
Bohol.
6.) Baylon vs Almo, 555 SCRA 248
-The wife of Baylon sought the notarization of an SPA authorizing
here to mortgage the real property of his husband Charles Baylon.
Atty. Almo refused to notarize it at first because Charles was not
present. Later the wife came back to him bringing a person who was
an impostor of Charles. The impostor presented a CTC to prove that
he was Charles Baylon. Atty. Almo then notarized the document.
-Mindful of his duties as a notary public and taking into account the
nature of the SPA which in this case authorized the complainants
wife to mortgage the subject real property, the respondent should
 have exercised utmost diligence in ascertaining the true identity of
the person who represented himself and was presented to be the
complainant. He should not have relied on the Community Tax
Certificate presented by the said impostor in view of the ease with
which community tax certificates are obtained these days. As a
matter of fact, recognizing the established unreliability of a
community tax certificate in proving the identity of a person who
wishes to have his document notarized, we did not include it in the
list of competent evidence of identity that notaries public should use
in ascertaining the identity of persons appearing before them to have
their documents notarized.
7.) Reyes vs Glaucoma, 759 SCRA 120
-Reyes filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Glaucoma
Research Foundation, Inc.. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favour of
Glaucoma. On appeal it was reversed by the NLRC. IOW, the NLRC
ruled in favour of Reyes. Glaucoma filed a petition for certiorari with
the CA and the CA ruled in favour of Glaucoma. Reyes now
contends that Glaucomas petition for certiorari filed with the CA
should have been dismissed on the ground that it was improperly
verified because the jurat portion of the verification states only the
community tax certificate number of the affiant as evidence of her
identity. Reyes argues that under the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice, as amended by a Resolution of this Court, dated Feb. 19,
2008, a community tax certificate is not among those considered as
competent evidence of identity.
-Thus, as earlier stated, if the affiant is personally known to the
notary public, the latter need not require the former to show evidence
of identity as required under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as
amended.
-Applying the above rule to the instant case, it is undisputed that the
attorney-in-fact of respondents who executed the verification and
certificate against non-forum shopping, which was attached to
respondents petition filed with the CA, is personally known to the
notary public before whom the documents were acknowledged. Both
attorney-in-fact and the notary public hold office at respondents
place of business and the latter is also the legal counsel of
respondents.
4
8.) Ria vs Cruz
-According to the Investigating Commissioner, Cruz failed to prove
that the formalities in ascertaining the identity of an individual based
on competent evidence were followed and satisfied. Cruz merely
stated in his Answer that Grace O. Ria went to his office
accompanied by a man on the day he notarized the Extrajudicial
Agreement.
-There was nothing in the record of the case to show
that Cruz required proof of the principals' identities, which is a task
duly designated to the Notary Public.
- In a Notice of Resolution dated June 22, 2013, the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve
the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner,
finding Cruz guilty of violating Rule II, Section 12 of the 2004 Rules
of Notarial Practice and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. It was recommended that Cruz be
disqualified from re-appointment as Notary Public for two (2)
years.
-IBP Board of Governors modified the recommended penalty to
include immediate revocation of his notarial commission, if
existing, on top of his two-year disqualification from appointment.
-SC: The findings of fact and recommendations of the Board of
Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in the Notice of
Resolution No. XX-2013-843 dated June 22, 2013 and Notice of
Resolution No. XXI-2014-324 dated May 4, 2014 are ACCEPTED
and APPROVED. Atty. Primitivo C. Cruz is
hereby DISQUALIFIED from re-appointment as Notary Public for two
(2) years. His notarial commission, if existing, is also immediately
revoked.
9.) Gimeno vs Zaide
-Section 1(a), Rule IV of the Notarial Practice Rules provides that a
notary public shall keep, maintain, protect and provide for lawful
inspection as provided in these Rules, a chronological official
notarial register of notarial acts consisting of a permanently bound
book with numbered pages. The same section further provides that
 a notary public shall keep only one active notarial register at any
given time. On this basis, Atty. Zaides act of simultaneously
keeping several active notarial registers is a blatant violation of
Section 1, Rule VI. The Notarial Practice Rules strictly requires a
notary public to maintain only one active notarial register and ensure
that the entries in it are chronologically arranged. The one active
notarial register rule is in place to deter a notary public from
assigning several notarial registers to different offices manned by
assistants who perform notarial services on his behalf.
-Entries in a notarial register need to be in chronological sequence
in order to address and prevent the rampant practice of leaving blank
spaces in the notarial register to allow the antedating of
notarizations.
Side track: Since a notarial commission is personal to each lawyer,
the notary public must also personally administer the notarial acts
that the law authorizes him to execute. This important duty is vested
with public interest. Thus, no other person, other than the notary
public, should perform it.
10.) Gamido vs New Bilibid Prison, 242 SCRA 83
-As a notary public for a long time, as evidenced by the fact that his
questioned jurat is indicated to have been entered in Book 45 of his
notarial register, he should know the similarities and differences
between a jurat and an acknowledgement.
-A jurat which is, normally in this form:
Subscribed and sworn to before me in _______________,
this ____ day of ____________, affiant having exhibited to
me his Community (before, Residence) Tax Certificate No.
____________ issued at ______________ on
____________.
"is that part of an affidavit in which the officer certifies that the
instrument was sworn to before him. It is not a part of a pleading but
merely evidences the fact that the affidavit was properly made.
The jurat in the petition in the case also begins with the words
"subscribed and sworn to me."
To subscribe literally means to write underneath, as one's name; to
sign at the end of a document. To swear means to put on oath; to
declare on oath the truth of a pleading, etc. Accordingly, in a jurat,
the affiant must sign the document in the presence of and take his
oath before a notary public or any other person authorized to
administer oaths.
-As to acknowledgment, Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 provides:
(a) The acknowledgement shall be made before a notary public or an
officer duly authorized by law of the country to take
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.
-It is obvious that the party acknowledging must likewise appear
before the notary public or any other person authorized to take
acknowledgments of instruments or documents.
-The claim or belief of Atty. dela Rea that the presence of petitioner
Gamido was not necessary for the jurat because it is not an
acknowledgment is patently baseless. If this had been his belief
since he was first commissioned as a notary public, then he has
been making a mockery of the legal solemnity of an oath in a jurat.
Notaries public and others authorized by law to administer oaths or
to take acknowledgments should not take for granted the solemn
duties appertaining to their offices. Such duties are dictated by public
policy and are impressed with public interest.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x