civil law, political law, criminal law, taxation, administrative law, election law, remedial law, Philippine

constitution, case digest, law notes

HOME

CASE DIGEST

NOTES AND LEGAL FORMS

COMMENTARY

GUESTBOOK

ADMINISTRATIVE CASES vs NOTARY PUBLIC

PIKE P. ARRIETA, vs. ATTY. JOEL A. LLOSA,[A.C. No. 4369. November 28, 1997]

FACTS:

Complainant Pike P. Arrieta prays for the disbarment of Atty. Joel A. Llosa for certifying under oath a
Deed of Absolute Sale. But somehow pulled back the complaint.

In the Acknowledgment of the Deed of Sale, respondent certified: “BEFORE ME, this 24th day of March,
1993 at Dumaguete City, Philippines, personally appeared x x x Jesus Bonilla; x x x Leonardo Toledano; x x
x. Respondent claims that as a Notary Public, he asked the signatories whether the signatures appearing
above their respective names were theirs, and whether they voluntarily executed the Deed of Absolute
Sale. In order to ascertain their identities, respondent asked for their respective residence certificates.

Except for Edelina T. Bonilla whose alleged death was not evidenced by a death certificate, respondent
certified in the acknowledgment that Jesus T. Bonilla and Leonardo P. Toledano personally appeared
before him. Respondent’s acts require the presence of the vendors to be able to verify the authenticity
of their signatures, the identities of the signatories and the voluntariness of the execution of the Deed.
It defies imagination and belief how these could have happened. It would have been impossible, both
physically and legally, for Jesus T. Bonilla and Leonardo P. Toledano to have personally subscribed and
sworn before respondent as to the authenticity and validity of the Deed of Sale as they had already
passed on to the Great Beyond prior to the execution of the said documents.
ISSUE: What is required of a lawyer?

Ruling:

That respondent acted the way he did because he was confronted with an alleged urgent situation is no
excuse at all. As an individual, and even more so as a member of the legal profession, he is required to
obey the laws of the land AT ALL TIMES, to refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct AT ALL TIMES, to uphold the integrity of his profession AT ALL TIMES, to promote
respect to his profession AT ALL TIMES, and to act with justice AT ALL TIMES.

As a lawyer, respondent breached his professional responsibility by certifying under oath an instrument
fully knowing that some of the signatories thereto were long dead. It is worth stressing that the practice
of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and
continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.
[M]embership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. There being no lifetime guaranty, a
lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law only during good behavior and can be deprived of it for
misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard has been
afforded him.

Pursuant to the foregoing, it is primarily required of lawyers to obey the Constitution and laws of the
land. They must refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

An attorney may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath or of his duties as an attorney
and counsellor, which include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court, all of these being broad enough to cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional
or private capacity.

Respondent’s act of certifying under oath a Deed of Absolute Sale knowing that some of the vendors
were already dead, they being his former clients, constitutes misconduct. But this being his first
administrative offense, such should not warrant the supreme penalty of disbarment.

MELANIO L. ZORETA vs. ATTY. HEHERSON ALNOR G. SIMPLICIANO [A.C. No. 6492. November 18, 2004]
FACTS:

This is a complaint for disbarment filed against Atty. Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano for allegedly
notarizing several documents during the year 2002 after his commission as notary public had expired.

It is evident from the foregoing that when respondent notarized the aforementioned documents, he was
not commissioned as notary public, which was in violation of the Notarial Law; for having notarized the
590 documents after the expiration of his commission as notary public without having renewed said
commission amounting to gross misconduct as a member of the legal profession.

Against the evidence presented by complainant, respondent did not even attempt to present any
evidence. His counsel filed an ex-parte motion for extension to file answer, which was granted, but no
answer was forthcoming. Still, Hearing Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro gave respondent a last chance to
file his answer; which was again unheeded. Thus, respondent was unable to rebut complainant’s
evidence that he was not so commissioned for the year in question. His lack of interest and indifference
in presenting his defense to the charge and the evidence against him can only mean he has no strong
and valid defense to offer. Conclusively, respondent Atty. Simpliciano is not a duly commissioned Notary
Public for and in Quezon City for the year 2002.

ISSUE: What is the significance of the commission?

RULING:

The requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public must not be treated as a
mere casual formality. The Court has characterized a lawyer’s act of notarizing documents without the
requisite commission therefore as “reprehensible, constituting as it does not only malpractice but also x
x x the crime of falsification of public documents.”

For such reprehensible conduct, the Court has sanctioned erring lawyers by suspension from the
practice of law, revocation of the notarial commission and disqualification from acting as such, and even
disbarment. In the case of Nunga v. Viray, the Court had occasion to state that where the notarization of
a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or
commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action. For one, performing a
notarial without such commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws, more specifically,
the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for
all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer’s oath similarly
proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides: “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct.

MARINA C. GONZALES vs. ATTY. CALIXTO B. RAMOS [A.C. No. 6649. June 21, 2005]

FACTS:

When Francisco returned to his office, he brought with him the Deed of Absolute Sale signed by Marina
C. Gonzales. At first, he was hesitant to notarize the document because he did not see the complainant
sign the same, but due to Francisco’s insistence and knowing them personally, he eventually notarized
the deed.

Respondent compared the signatures of Marina C. Gonzales on the Deed of Absolute Sale with her other
signatures in his files, the spouses Gonzales being his clients from way back. Convinced that the
signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale was indeed the signature of complainant Marina C. Gonzales,
respondent notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale on March 27, 1996.

ISSUE: Who are supposed to be present during the notarization of a deed?

RULING:

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 the said notary public to attest to the
contents and truth of what are stated therein. The presence of the parties to the deed making the
acknowledgment will enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the affiant. A
notary public is enjoined from notarizing a fictitious or spurious document. The function of a notary
public, is among others, to guard against any illegal deed.
JOSEFINA P. SORIANO vs. ATTY. HUMBERTO B. BASCO [A.C. No. 6648. September 21, 2005]

FACTS:

Atty. Humberto B. Basco is charged by Josefina P. Soriano in a complaint for disbarment dated
May 5, 2003, filed with the Committee on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (“IBP”), with
violation of Sections 245 and 246 of the Revised Administrative Code, Title IV, Chapter II, known as the
Notarial Law.

That on June 30, 2000, respondent Atty. Humberto B. Basco, Notary Public of Manila testified before the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 35, stating among others, that he allegedly notarized a Deed of
Sale allegedly executed by complainant Josefina P. Soriano. He further testified that Josefina Soriano
personally appeared before him when he notarized the Deed of Sale. Since complainant had never
appeared before Notary Public Humberto B. Basco, had not seen much less received copy of the alleged
contract, complainant requested for a copy of the alleged contract from the Office of the Clerk of Court
and Ex-Officio Sheriff, Regional Trial Court of Manila concerning the aforementioned Deed of Sale. Clerk
of Court VII Jennifer H. Dela Cruz-Buendia, issued a Certification dated February 11, 2003 certifying that
the alleged Deed of Sale involving Josefina P. Soriano as vendor alleged to have been acknowledged
before Notary Public Humberto B. Basco was not among the document submitted to said office (Annex
“A” of Complaint). Complainant also received a certified true copy of the notarial register of Notary
Public Basco which disclosed his failure to indicate the names of the witnesses, fees charged, the
respective residence certificates of the parties to the documents which he notarized (Annex “B” of
Complaint). Although Atty. Basco was duty bound to furnish to complainant a certified true copy of the
alleged deed, he failed to do so despite demand therefor.

Respondent filed his Answer on June 10, 2003. In his defense, respondent declared that on January 17,
1997, herein complainant together with her son, Marcial P. Soriano went to his office located at 234 City
Hall Bldg. both carrying with them a duly pre-drafted deed of sale, contents whereof signified that
complainant did convey to the son valuable property. Respondent further stated that he instructed his
staff secretary, Ms. Elizabeth Roque-Sanchez, to effect the clerical entry of notarial particulars of the
original and copies of the said mutually executed deed of sale. Respondent claim that his staff secretary
of course, retained a copy for our file and advised complainant and her son to immediately return or call
the office to furnish their respective Community Tax Certificate.
ISSUE: IS THE NOTARY PUBLIC FREE FROM LIABILITY?

Here, Atty. Basco violated the Notarial Law by failing to provide all the necessary information regarding
the questioned Deed of Sale entered in his notarial register. He even notarized said instrument even
without the notation of the residence certificate of the party to the document. As a notary public,
respondent is required by the Notarial Law to certify that the party to the instrument acknowledged
before him has presented the proper residence certificate (or exemption from the residence certificate)
and to enter its number, place of issue and date as part of the certification. Worse, he likewise failed to
send copy of the notarized document to the clerk of court of the proper RTC and to retain a copy thereof
for his own records. These formalities are mandatory and cannot simply be neglected. Failure to
perform this duty results in the revocation of a notary's commission.

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. xxx. This is a clear violation
of the Notarial Law for which he must be disciplined.

FELICIDAD VDA. DE BERNARDO vs. ATTY. JOSE R. RESTAURO [AC. No. 3849. June 25, 2003]

FACTS:

Complainant averred that on July 19, 1990, respondent prepared and notarized a Special Power of
Attorney making it appear that she, Felicidad G. Soriano (complainant’s full maiden name), her deceased
spouse, Alberto Bernardo and Hildegarda Mejia appointed Marcelino G. Soriano, Jr. as their attorney-in-
fact to sell a parcel of land situated in Davao City covered by TCT No. T-39100 when they neither
appeared nor executed and acknowledged said document before respondent. The Special Power of
Attorney was entered in the Notarial Register of respondent as Doc. No. 380, Page No. 76, Book No. XIX,
Series of 1990.
Complainant further alleged that her husband, Alberto Bernardo, could not have appeared and executed
said Special Power of Attorney before respondent on July 19, 1990 since her husband died on January
30, 1980 at the Pangasinan Medical Center, as evidenced by a death certificate. Hence, when the Special
Power of Attorney was executed, her husband was dead for more than ten years.

Complainant also alleged that to recover her share of the property which was sold to a third party, she
hired the services of her counsel whom she promised to pay 25 percent (on a contingent basis) of the
value of her share.

Respondent further averred that a living Alberto Bernardo appeared before him in Davao City and signed
the Special Power of Attorney at the time of its execution. He also stated that Pangasinan and Davao City
are far apart; hence, events happening in either places (alluding to the death of complainant’s husband,
Alberto Bernardo) are not always known to everybody. Atty. Restauro prayed for the dismissal of the
complaint.

RULING:

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 acknowledgment 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.

However, the act of respondent does not warrant his disbarment or indefinite suspension. Considering
all the circumstances in this case, particularly the absence of any evidence of fraud involved, this Court
finds a suspension of six (6) months as notary public sufficient. Respondent, and for that matter, all
notaries public, are hereby cautioned to be very careful and diligent in ascertaining the true identities of
the parties executing a document before them, especially when it involves disposition of a property, as
this Court will deal with such cases more severely in the future.
VICENTE FOLLOSCO and HERMILINA FOLLOSCO vs. ATTY. RAFAEL MATEO A.C. No. 6186. February 3, 2004

FACTS:

Complainants are the owners of a certain property (house and lot) located in Tanay, Rizal which was
mortgaged to Dr. Epitacio R. Tongohan for a loan of P50,000.00.

Pursuant to this transaction, several related documents were caused to be executed namely: (1)
Sinumpaang Kasunduan Salaysay Tungkol sa Lupang Sanlaan; (2) Dagdag na Paglilinaw Tungkol sa Lupang
Sanlaan; (3) Sinumpaang Salaysay; (4) Sinumpaang Pangako Tungkol sa Lupang Sanglaang; and (5)
Promissory Note (Sinumpaang Pangako) which were all notarized by herein respondent in his official
capacity as notary public for the Province of Rizal.

Claiming that the signatures appearing on the documents to be forged, complainants filed criminal
complaints for falsification of public documents against Dr. Tongohan, respondent Mateo and the
instrumental witnesses which complaints were docketed as I.S. Nos. 94-269 and 94-2064 of the
Provincial Prosecutor’s Office of Rizal.

Furthermore the NBI found that the signature was really forged. By the use of this forged documents,
new tax declarations bearing Nos. 00-TN-001-3661 and 00-TN-001-3147 were issued in the name of Dr.
Epitacio Tongohan effectively canceling Tax Declaration Nos. 00-001-1158 and 001-3217 in the name of
complainant Vicente Follosco.

Commissioner Magpayo, Jr. found respondent guilty of negligence in the performance of his duty as a
notary public and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for a period of three months
with warning that repetition of the same or similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more
severely.

ISSUE: What are the responsibilities of a notary public?

Ruling:
It cannot be said that respondent acted in good faith in notarizing the questioned documents without
requiring the affiants to personally appear before him and ensuring that the signatures were indeed
theirs. Respondent’s claim of good faith cannot relieve him from the consequences of his reckless failure
to comply with the dictates of the law. A notary public’s 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 should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the
very persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of
what are stated therein. Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed upon his
shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing
of any. The Code of Professional Responsibility also commands him not to engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession. WHEREFORE, Atty. Rafael Mateo is SUSPENDED from practice of law for three (3) months; his
incumbent notarial commission, if any, is REVOKED; and he is prohibited from being commissioned as
notary public,for one year, effective immediately, with a stern warning that repetition of the same or
similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more severely.

PASTOR EDWIN VILLARIN, PACIANO DE VEYRA, SR., and BARTOLOME EVAROLO, SR., vs. ATTY. RESTITUTO
SABATE, JR., [A.C. No. 3324. February 9, 2000]

FACTS:

Atty. Restituto Sabate was a counsel in a case defending his clients, in the verification it shows
that he was the one who signed for the defendants, alleging that it was done in good faith and the word
“BY” which suggests that he did not in any manner make it appear that those persons signed in his
presence; aside from the fact that his clients authorized him to sign for and in their behalf, considering
the distance of their place of residence to that of the respondent and the reglementary period in filing
said pleadings he had to reckon with.

Issue: Is the contentions of the respondent meritorious?

Ruling:
 No. But while it would appear that in doing so, he acted in good faith, the fact remains that the
same cannot be condoned. He failed to state in the preliminary statements of said motion/answer that
the three respondents were represented by their designated attorneys-in-fact. Besides, having signed
the Verification of the pleading, he cannot swear that he appeared before himself as Notary Public.

The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements.
That function would be defeated if the notary public were one of the signatories to the instrument. For
then, he would be interested in sustaining the validity thereof as it directly involves himself and the
validity of his own act. It would place him in an inconsistent position, and the very purpose of the
acknowledgment, which is to minimize fraud, would be thwarted.

A member of the bar who performs an act as 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
said notary public to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The acts of affiants
cannot be delegated to anyone for what are stated therein are facts they have personal knowledge of
and swore to the same personally and not through any representative. Otherwise, their representative’s
names should appear in the said documents as the ones who executed the same and that is only the
time they can affix their signatures and personally appear before the notary public for notarization of
said document.

As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent is mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties
pertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy impressed with public interest.
Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgement or
jurat is sacrosanct. Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent upon and failing therein, he must now
accept the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion.

That respondent acted the way he did because he was confronted with an alleged urgent situation is no
excuse at all. As an individual, and even more so as a member of the legal profession, he is required to
obey the laws of the land at all times. For notarizing the Verification of the Motion to Dismiss With
Answer when three of the affiants thereof were not before him and for notarizing the same instrument
of which he was one of the signatories, he failed to exercise due diligence in upholding his duty as a
notary public.

WHEREFORE, for lack of diligence in the observance of the Notarial Law, respondent Atty. Restituto
Sabate, Jr. is SUSPENDED from his Commission as Notary Public for a period of one (1) year.
MENA U. GERONA vs. ATTY. ALFREDO DATINGALING A.C. No. 4801 February 27, 2003

FACTS

It was alleged that respondent lawyer notarize a document entitled “Consent to Quary” purportedlt
containing the agreement between the complainant, her brother and sisters on hand, and Ronald
Reagan Hernandez, represented by Bayano Melo, on the other allowing the latter to enter or occupy a
portion of their property in Batangas, when in truth and in fact the complainant, her brother and sisters
did not appear before the respondent. This nonappearance by the complainant and party was evidenced
by the individual daily time records of their work in Manila. It said that it is clear from the evidence of
the complainant that respondent has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility as against the
unconvincing explanation, silence and failure to file a rejoinder of the respondent. The IBP Board of
Governors approved the report with modifications. It endorsed the suspension of respondent’s
commission as Notary Public with disqualification from appointment as Notary Public for two(2) years
from receipt of notice.

ISSUE

Whether or not the acts of the respondent constitute violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
where penalty is in order?

HELD

The SC upheld the decision of the IBP as fully supported by evidence. Respondent failed to do his duty in
requiring the persons claiming to have executed the document to appear personally before him and to
attest to the contents and truth of what are stated in the document. 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. Respondent’s failure to controvert evidence as to the inconsistencies of
persons who appeared to have executed the document lent credence to complainant’s claim that the
document is fictitious.

ATTY. MINIANO B. DELA CRUZ vs. ATTY. ALEJANDRO P. ZABALA A.C. No. 6294, November 17, 2004

Facts:

Complainant averred that he was retained by a certain Demetrio C. Marero to finance and undertake the
filing of a Petition for the Issuance of a Second Duplicate Original of the Owner’s copy of Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 4153, in the names of Sps. Pedro Sumulong and Cirila Tapales.

On May 20, 1997, complainant purchased the said property from Marero and had the title transferred to
him and his wife. The next day, complainant requested a certain Mrs. Adoracion Losloso and Mr. Nestor
Aguirre to register the title in the complainant’s name at the Assessor’s Office of Antipolo City. However,
they were unable to do so because the property was already registered in the name of Antipolo
Properties, Inc.

On May 27, 1997, respondent Zabala notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale over the same land, executed by
Cirila Tapales and Pedro Sumulong in favor of the complainant and his wife.

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 before the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office and in disbarment against the complainant.

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.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Alejandro P. Zabala was negligent in his conduct as a notary public.
Ruling:

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
representative’s names should appear in the said documents as the ones who executed the same.

The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements.
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. As a lawyer commissioned to be a notary public, respondent is mandated to
discharge his sacred duties with faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an
oath in an acknowledgment or jurat. Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent upon him, he must
now accept the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion. 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.

DOMINADOR L. CABANILLA vs. ATTY. ANA LUZ B. CRISTAL-TENORIO A.C. No. 6139, November 11, 2003

Facts:

In February 1988, Dominador Cabanilla sold his right over a 34-square-meter portion of the said house
to his neighbor, Rodolfo Sabangan. Thereafter, Rodolfo brought an already-signed one-page Deed of Sale
to Dominador for the latter’s signature. Dominador affixed his signature above his typewritten name.
When he reviewed the said deed, however, Dominador noticed that contrary to the agreement, it
appeared that he was relinquishing his rights not only over the portion of the house thereon but also the
lot where such portion of the house stood. Dominador, thus, made notations at the bottom of the said
deed and also wrote on the left margin of the deed the words “Please change,” and initialed the same.
Dominador then returned the deed to Rodolfo. A few days after, Rodolfo gave Dominador a copy of the
said deed which was not revised as requested by the latter. Moreover, appended to the deed as “page
2” thereof was an acknowledgment containing the names of the Cabanilla children, including Eddie
Cabanilla, Johny Cabanilla, Raul Cabanilla, Diosdado Cabanilla, Ferdinand Cabanilla and David Cabanilla.
It appeared in the acknowledgment that those listed therein were also vendors of the property.

On October 16, 1995, Dominador et al. executed a “Joint Affidavit of Complaint” for falsification of a
document under Article 171 in relation to Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code against Rodolfo and the
respondent. In her Counter-Affidavit, the respondent alleged, inter alia, that the parties to the Deed of
Sale appeared before her and acknowledged the authenticity of their signatures therein, and even
showed their residence certificates which she entered in her notarial register; and that after finding that
everything was in order, she proceeded to notarize the deed of sale which was prepared by the parties
themselves. She also averred that she exercised due diligence in ascertaining if the signatures appearing
in the deed of sale were authentic and genuine; that she was not a handwriting expert who could
determine if the signatures appearing in the said document were forged or not; and that she acted in
good faith when she notarized the deed.

Issue: What is the effect of notarizing a falsified deed?

Ruling:

Under Section 1(a) of Act 2103, a notary public taking the acknowledgment in a document or
instrument is mandated to 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. To “acknowledge before” means to avow; to own as genuine, to assert, to admit; and “before”
means in front or preceding in space or ahead of. A party acknowledging must appear before the notary
public.

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 the said notary public to attest to the
contents and truth of what are stated therein. The presence of the parties to the deed making the
acknowledgment will enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the affiant. A
notary public is enjoined from notarizing a fictitious or spurious document. The function of a notary
public is, among others, to guard against any illegal deed.
Clearly, the respondent violated her duty as a notary public. A notary public is mandated to discharge
sacred duties which are dictated by public policy and, as such, are impressed with public interest. The
respondent miserably failed.

VICTORINA BAUTISTA vs. ATTY. SERGIO E. BERNABE, A.C. No. 6963 February 9, 2006

FACTS:

Complainant alleged that on January 3, 1998, respondent prepared and notarized a Magkasanib
na Salaysay purportedly executed by Donato Salonga and complainant’s mother, Basilia de la Cruz. Both
affiants declared that a certain parcel of land in Bigte, Norzagaray, Bulacan, was being occupied by
Rodolfo Lucas and his family for more than 30 years. Complainant claimed that her mother could not
have executed the joint affidavit on January 3, 1998 because she has been dead since January 28, 1961.

In his Answer, respondent denied that he falsified the Magkasanib na Salaysay. He disclaimed
any knowledge about Basilia’s death. He alleged that before he notarized the document, he requested
for Basilia’s presence and in her absence, he allowed a certain Pronebo, allegedly a son-in-law of Basilia,
to sign above the name of the latter as shown by the word “by”on top of the name of Basilia.
Respondent maintained that there was no forgery since the signature appearing on top of Basilia’s name
was the signature of Pronebo.

ISSUE: Can a notarized document be signed “by”?

Ruling:
 A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the
very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth
of what are stated therein. The presence of the parties to the deed will enable the notary public to
verify the genuineness of the signature of the affiant.

ROSALINDA BERNARDO VDA DE ROSALES vs. ATTY. MARIO G. RAMOS [A.C. No. 5645. July 2, 2002]

FACTS:

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.

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.

Respondent admitted in his Answer 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.
ISSUE: Should the notarized documents be recorded?

RULING:

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. 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.

Fidel D. AqUINO vs. Atty. OSCAR MANESE [A.C. No. 4958. April 3, 2003]

FACTS:

Complainant alleges that, inter alia, he has since 1960 been tilling the land subject of the Deed of
Absolute Sale as tenant of the now deceased owner thereof, Luis M. Cardona; in 1975, the spouses
Antonio and Fe Perez unlawfully took possession of the land, thus spawning the filing of a case that
reached the Court of Appeals which recognized him to be the lawful tenant; and on September 15, 1994,
without his knowledge, the Deed of Absolute Sale was purportedly executed on even date by the three
heirs of Luis Cardona, including the already deceased Lilia Cardona, in favor of Ma. Cita C. Perez,
daughter of the spouses Perez, and was notarized by respondent.

ISSUE: What should the notary public be careful of?

RULING:
In the Acknowledgment in the deed, respondent affirmed that before him “personally appeared said
vendors [including the late Lilia Cardona] whos (sic) personal circumstances are shown above below their
names and signatures, all known to [him] and to [him] known to be the same individual (sic) who
executed th[e] instrument and acknowledged to [him] that the same is their free act and voluntary
deed.”

The said acknowledgment notwithstanding, respondent asseverated in his Comment to the letter-
complaint that he is not expected to personally know every person who goes to him for notarization of
documents. Such jaunty indifference betrays his deplorable failure to heed the importance of the
notarial act and observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties as a
notary public which include the ascertainment that the persons who signed the document are the very
same persons who executed and personally appeared before him.

EMELITA SOLARTE vs. ATTY. TEOFILO F. PUGEDA [A.C. No. 4751. July 31, 2000]

FACTS:

Complainant avers that respondent Pugeda could not have legally notarized a document to which he also
acted as witness. She also cites as irregular or anomalous the absence of the vendee’s signature in one
of the deeds of sale. Complainant claims that respondent and his wife are in fact administering the
property at General Trias and they were responsible for the wrongful partition of the property belonging
to complainant’s kin. According to complainant, the acts of respondent constitute gross misconduct.

Complainant alleges in particular that respondent participated in the fraudulent partition and sale of the
property of Catalino. She discovered the fraud only recently according to her, when she sought the titling
of his father’s portion of the property. She now assails the validity of the partition made by Catalino and
his children – particularly since Herminia was not a signatory thereto and the deeds of sale pertaining to
the property.

ISSUES: Can the same notary public who notarized the document, sign as witness?
RULING:

"It appears that complainant was not a party to the documents which respondent notarized and
witnessed. The respondent cannot be faulted for failure of the National archives to provide complainant
with copies of the requested documents. Nowhere in the records is it shown that respondent and his
wife had a hand in the partition and sale of the properties. Further, there is no prohibition for a notary
public to witness a document which he ratified nor for his wife to sign as witness.”

We agree with the foregoing recommendation of the IBP.

Nothing in the law prohibits a notary public from acting at the same time as witness in the document he
notarized. The only exception is when the document to be notarized is a will.

Complainant offered no proof, but only mere allegations, that (1) respondent was involved in the
partition of the subject property, and that (2) respondent employed fraud to effect such partition. Such a
grave charge against a member of the bar and former municipal judge needs concrete substantiation to
gain credence. It could not prosper without adequate proof.

REUBEN M. PROTACIO vs. ATTY. ROBERTO M. MENDOZA [Adm. Case No. 5764. January 13, 2003]

FACTS:

Complainant claimed that he did not sign the board resolution nor did he attend a board meeting of the
corporation on the date stated therein (March 30, 1998), and therefore the signature purporting to be
his was a forgery. He alleged that the Notarial Section of the Regional Trial Court of Manila had in fact
certified that it did not have a copy of the board resolution in question because respondent had not
submitted his notarial report for March 1998. Furthermore, according to complainant, the records of the
Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) showed that Nobuyasu Nemoto was out of the country
on March 30, 1998, having left the Philippines on March 26, 1998 and having returned only on March
31, 1998. Hence, complainant claimed, it was impossible for Nobuyasu Nemoto to have attended the
supposed board meeting on March 30, 1998 and to have signed the resolution on the same date.
Complainant charged that respondent knowingly and maliciously notarized the said board resolution
without the presence of the party allegedly executing it.
ISSUE: Can a Jurat be signed even if the notary public is not present?

RULING:

It is necessary that a party to any document notarized by a notary public appear in person before the
latter and affirm the contents and truth of what are stated in the document.] The importance of this
requirement cannot be gainsaid. The acknowledgement of a document is not an empty meaningless act.
By it a private document is converted into a public document, making it admissible in court without
further proof of its authenticity. For this reason, it behooves every notary public to see to it that this
requirement is observed and that formalities for the acknowledgment of documents are complied with.

In this case, Nobuyasu Nemoto, who was allegedly a signatory to a resolution of a corporation, allegedly
notarized by respondent, could not have signed the document on March 30, 1998, the date indicated
therein, since he was not then in the Philippines. Respondent’s explanation that Nemoto actually signed
the document on March 31, 1998, after arriving from Japan, cannot be accepted. Documents must
speak the truth if their integrity is to be preserved. That is what a notary public vouches for when he
states in the jurat that the parties have appeared before him at the time and in the place he (the notary
public) states and that the document is then a free act and deed. It is for this reason that public
documents are given full faith and credit, at least as to their due execution.

Jonar Santiago vs. Atty. Edison V. Rafanan, A.C. No. 6252, October 5, 2004

Facts:

Atty. Edison V. Rafanan, was allegedly notarized several documents on different dates and failed
to: a) make the proper notation regarding the Community Tax Certificate (CTC) of the complainant; b)
enter the details of the notarized documents in the notarial register; and c) make and execute the
certification and enter his PTR and IBP numbers in the documents he had notarized.

On the other hand, Atty. Rafanan admitted having administered the oath but believed that non-
notation of the Resident Certificates as well as not entering the details of the notarized documents in the
notarial register was allowed. Notation of Resident Certificates are applied only to documents
acknowledged by a notary public and was not mandatory for affidavits related to cases pending before
courts and other government offices. He further asserted that this was a popular practice among
notaries public in Nueva Ecija, some of whom were older practitioners.

Issues:

What is the rule on registry of notarial documents?

Held:

The court ruled in the negative. 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
them has 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. They are also required to maintain and
keep a notarial register; to enter therein all instruments notarized by them; and to give to each
instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before [them] a number corresponding to the one in
[their] register [and to state therein] the page or pages of [their] register, on which the same is recorded.
Failure to perform these duties would result in the revocation of their commission as notaries public.

These formalities are mandatory and cannot be simply neglected, considering the degree of
importance and evidentiary weight attached to notarized documents. Notaries public entering into their
commissions are presumed to be aware of these elementary requirements.

It is intolerable that he did away with the basics of notarial procedure allegedly because others
were doing so. Being swayed by the bad example of others is not an acceptable justification for breaking
the law.

Disbarment, however, cannot be granted considering the nature of the infraction and the
absence of deceit on the part of Atty. Rafanan. A fine of P3, 000 is imposed with a warning that similar
infractions in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Ma. Corazon D. Fulgencio vs. Atty. Bienvenido G. Martin, A.C. No. 3223, May 29, 2003

Facts:

This is an action against Atty. Bienvenido G. Martin for falsifying and notarizing two Documents
of Sale.

On June 1, 1983, in Isabela, Basilan, respondent notarized two documents, a Deed of Absolute
Sale over a parcel of land and a Bill of Sale over a Toyota sedan, both supposedly executed by Kua Se
Beng (Kua), complainant’s husband. Complainant alleged that the two documents could not have been
executed and notarized in Basilan by her husband Kua, who died on July 5, 1983, because he was
confined at the Makati Medical Center from May 30 to June 30, 1983. She also denied having affixed her
signature on the first document.

On the other hand, respondent admitted that he prepared and notarized the questioned Deed
of Absolute Sale and Bill of Sale without the vendor Kua personally appearing before him. He asserted,
however, that he prepared and notarized the deeds upon the express request of Kua whom he
considered as a trusted friend. He insisted that the Kua’s and complainant’s signature are genuine, he
being acquainted with their signatures on account of his long years of lawyering for Kua and their family
corporation.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Martin violated Notarial Law.

Held:

Atty. Martin admitted that Kua did not appear before him when he notarized the deeds in
Basilan but stated, however, in the Acknowledgement portion of each of the documents that Kua, “on
the first day of June 1983, personally appeared before [him]…known to [him] and to [him] known to be
the same person who signed and executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged…to him that the
same is his free and voluntary act.” He thus made an untruthful statement, thus violating his oath as a
lawyer that he shall not do any falsehood.

Further, Respondent also breached the injunction of the notarial law not to do any notarial act
beyond the limits of his jurisdiction.

Alfredo Bon vs. Atty. Victor S. Ziga and Atty. Antonio A. Arcangel, A.C. No. 5436, May 27, 2004

Facts:

According to the complainant, the Bons signed the Waiver and Quitclaim because of Atty. Ziga’s
representation that the document was merely a withdrawal of a previously executed Special Power of
Attorney. As it turned out, however, the document was a waiver in favor of Ziga of all the properties
which the Bons inherited from their parents and predecessors-in-interest.

Atty. Arcangel’s part, he explained that assuming that he notarized the Waiver and Quitclaim in
the absence of the signatories, his act is merely a violation of the Notarial Law but not a ground for
disbarment. He further avers that he was able to talk to Maria Bon and Rafael Bon-Canafe, both co-
signatories to the document, over the phone. Maria Bon and Rafael Bon-Canafe allegedly declared that
they signed the Waiver and Quitclaim. The two, in fact, personally delivered the document for
notarization in his office. Thus, he posits that there was substantial compliance with the Notarial Law
since a notary public’s primordial undertaking is merely to ensure that the signatures on a document are
genuine. As long as they are so, the notary public can allegedly take the risk of notarizing the document
although the signatories are not present.

Issue: Whether or not Respondents fraudulently executed the Waiver and Quitclaim.

Held:
 Atty. Ziga, on his part, is not culpable. The fact that Amalia and Angelina Bon are both high
school graduates, while Teresa Bon is a college graduate makes it difficult to believe that they were
deceived into thinking that the contents of the Waiver and Quitclaim, which is plainly worded, were
other than what they themselves could have easily ascertained from a reading of the document. The
complaintagainst him is thus, dismissed for lack of merit.

Atty. Arcangel, however, in notarizing the Waiver and Quitclaim without requiring all the persons
who executed the document to personally appear before him and acknowledge that the same is their
free act and deed, manifestly breached his duty as a notary public.

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. Notarization
converts a private document into a public document thus making that document admissible in evidence
without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit
upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the
acknowledgement executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument. For this reason,
notaries 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.

Heinz R. Heck vs. Judge Anthony E. Santos, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657, February 23, 2004

Facts:

This is a disbarment case against Judge Anthony E. Santos, who retired on May 22, 2002, for
allegedly violating the Notarial Law before his appointment as judge, on April 11, 1989, or some twenty
years ago.

The complaint alleged that Santos subscribed and forwarded, on a non-regular basis, notarized
documents since January 1980, when in fact, it was only until January 9, 1984, that he became a duly
commissioned notary public. The complaint further alleged that Judge Santos failed to forward his
Notarial Register after the expiration of his commission in December 1989.

Issue:

Can a retired judge perform notarial duties without commission?

Held:

The retirement or resignation of a judge will not preclude the filing thereafter of an
administrative charge against him for which he shall still be held answerable if found guilty. It is settled
that a judge may be disciplined for acts committed prior to his appointment to the judiciary and that an
administrative complaint against a member of the BAR does not prescribe.

The respondent did not object to the complaint’s evidence neither did he claim that he was
commissioned as notary public for the years 1980-1983, nor deny the accuracy of such. He merely
answered that there was no proper recording of the commissioned lawyers in the City of Cagayan de Oro
nor of the submitted Notarized Documents/Notarial Register.

Judge Santos is thus, found guilty of notarizing documents without the requisite notarial
commission and is ordered to pay the fine of P5, 000.00.

However, considering that the complaint against respondent was filed twenty-four (24) years
after the commission of the act complained of and that there was no private offended party who came
forward and claimed to have been adversely affected by the documents so notarized, the action for
disbarment will not prosper.

Respondent, as a retired judge, deserved to enjoy the full measure of his well-earned retirement
benefits.
Alice Gokioco vs. Atty. Rafael P. Mateo, A.C. No. 4179, November 11, 2004

Facts:

Alice Gokioco filed an Affidavit-Complaint alleging that: during the pre-trial conference of civil
case “Sps. Eustaquio Gokioco and See Chua-Gokioco vs. Jennifer Gokioco, Sps. Mariano Gokioco and
Alice Gokioco,” they discovered that the complaint in said case was subscribed and sworn to by See
Chua-Gokioco before herein respondent, Atty. Mateo on November 10, 1992. See Chua-Gokioco
however, already died on October 7, 1992 as evidenced by the death certificate issued by the local civil
registrar.

Atty. Mateo admitted that although See Chua-Gokioco signed and subscribed the civil complaint
at an earlier date, he only entered the fact of the signing and subscribing of the said complaint much
later, that is, on the date of the filing of the said civil complaint. He purposely delayed the filing of the
civil complaint against the herein complainant and her family because he wanted to make sure that the
parties had the opportunity to amicably settle the issues raised in the civil complaint. Moreover,
respondent averred that his office has no telephone and is about 70 kilometers from the residence of
the Gokioco family in Caloocan; he notarized and filed the complaint on November 10, 1992 without any
personal knowledge of the fact of death of Mrs. Gokioco.

Issue:

What would be the effect of ante dating?

Held:

The notary public shall enter in such register, in chronological order, the nature of each instrument
executed, sworn to, or acknowledging the instrument. It cannot be stressed enough that notaries public
should be truthful in carrying out their functions. They must observe with the highest degree of care the
basic requirements in the performance of their duties in order to preserve the confidence of the public
in the integrity of the notarial system. Courts, agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon
the acknowledgment executed by notaries public appended to instruments.

BATIC vs. GALAPON, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1239; JULY 19, 2005

FACTS:

Regarding his act of notarization, respondent claims that he did not prepare the document and that his
participation was limited to its acknowledgment, for which the corresponding fee was collected by and
paid to the clerk of court. He says that he was constrained to notarize the document because the only
notary public in Dulag, Leyte was not in town and the vendor was compelled to go to him because the
vendee was in a hurry. He adds that he at that time sincerely believed that when no notary public is
available, the Municipal Trial Courts may act as ex-officio notary public, provided the fees shall be for the
government. He finishes his argument by saying that now that there are two notaries public in his
municipality, he has refrained from notarizing any deed.

ISSUE: What is the limitation of notarial duties of the judges?

RULING:

the notarization of a Deed of Absolute Sale, it disagreed with the findings and recommendation of
Investigating Judge Gil that respondent judge should be exonerated. It reasoned that the rule on the
power of the MTC and MCTC judges to act as notaries public ex-officio has been established even before
the issuance of Circular No. 1-90 dated 26 February 1990. It cited the cases of Borre v. Moya, and Penera
v. Dalocanog, wherein the Court ruled that judges are empowered to perform the functions of notaries
public ex-officio, but such authority is limited to the notarization of only those documents connected
with the exercise of their official functions. It added that this instance not being the first that
respondent committed the infraction, having been found in A.M. No. MTJ-00-1294 (formerly OCA IPI
No. 00-859-MTJ – Horst Franz Ellert vs. Judge Galapon, Jr., July 31, 2000) to have engaged in
unauthorized notarial work, he should be fined the amount of Eleven Thousand Pesos (P11,000)

VICTORINO SIMON vs. JUDGE ALIPIO M. ARAGON, [A.M. No. MTJ-05-1576. February 03, 2005]
FACTS:

Complainant alleged that the respondent judge was engaged in unauthorized notarial practice having
undertaken the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents, contracts and other acts of
conveyances which bore no direct relation to the performance of his functions as a member of the
judiciary.

Simon further averred that, contrary to the requirements of Circular No. 1-90, the documents notarized
by the respondent judge did not contain any certification attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary
public in San Pablo, Isabela. In support thereof, he attached several affidavits, deeds of absolute sale and
other documents notarized by the respondent judge from 1986 to 2000.

In his comment, respondent judge admitted that he notarized the documents annexed to the complaint,
but explained that he was constrained to do so as there was no lawyer or notary public in San Pablo,
Isabela from 1983 to 1992. He clarified that, upon learning of Circular No. 1-90 sometime in 1993, he
immediately and voluntarily desisted from further notarizing private documents. He further claimed
that he never profited from his acts of notarization since the parties paid the notarial fees with the Office
of the Municipal Treasurer of San Pablo, Isabela as evidenced by a certification issued by the Clerk of
Court of the First Municipal Circuit Trial Court of San Pablo-Sta. Maria, San Pablo, Isabela.

Respondent judge maintained that he could not be considered as having violated Circular No. 1-90
during the period 1983 to February 25, 1990, since the said circular has not yet been promulgated. He
argued that he could not be held liable for violating a circular that is not yet in existence.

ISSUE: Did the respondent judge committed a violation?

RULING:

Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) judges are empowered to perform
the function of Notaries Public ex officio under Section 76 of Republic Act No. 296, as amended
[otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948] and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code. But
the Court hereby lays down the following qualifications on the scope of this power:

MTC and MCTC judges may act as Notaries Public ex officio in the notarization of documents connected
only with the exercise of their official functions and duties [Borne v. Mayo, Adm. Matter No. 1765-CFI,
October 17, 1980. 100 SCRA 314; Penera v. Dalocanog, Adm. Matter No. 2113-MJ, April 22, 1981, 104
SCRA 193]. They may not, as Notaries Public ex officio, undertake the preparation and acknowledgment
of private documents, contracts and other acts of conveyances which bear no direct relation to the
performance of their functions as judges. The 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct not only enjoins judges to
regulate their extra-judicial activities in order to minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial duties,
but also prohibits them from engaging in the private practice of law [Canon 5 and Rule 5.07].

However, the Court taking judicial notice of the fact that there are still municipalities which have neither
lawyers nor notaries public, rules that MTC and MCTC judges assigned to municipalities or circuits with
no lawyers or notaries public may, in the capacity as notaries public ex officio, perform any act within the
competency of a regular notary public: Provided, That: [1] all notarial fees charged be for the account of
the Government and turned over to the municipal treasurer (Lapena, Jr. v. Marcos, Adm. Matter No.
1969-MJ, June 29, 1982, 114 SCRA 572); and [2] certification be made in the notarized documents
attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality or circuit.

For MTC and MCTC judges assigned to municipalities or circuits with no lawyers or notaries public to
validly perform any act of a regular notary public, two requisites must concur:

1. All notarial fees charged must be for the account of the Government and turned over to the
municipal treasurer; and

2. Certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary
public in such municipality or circuit.

Undoubtedly, respondent judge acted beyond the scope of his authority as notary public ex officio when
he notarized the aforestated documents not in connection with the exercise of his functions and without
complying with the requirement of certification as to lack of a notary public within his municipality or
circuit.
SPOUSES SANTUYO vs. ATTY. EDWIN A. HIDALGO, [A.C. No. 5838. January 17, 2005]

FACTS:

According to respondent, he once worked as a junior lawyer at Carpio General and Jacob Law Office
where he was asked to apply for a notarial commission. While he admitted that he notarized several
documents in that office, these, however, did not include the subject deed of sale. He explained that, as
a matter of office procedure, documents underwent scrutiny by the senior lawyers and it was only when
they gave their approval that notarization was done. He claimed that, in some occasions, the secretaries
in the law firm, by themselves, would affix the dry seal of the junior associates on documents relating to
cases handled by the law firm. Respondent added that he normally required the parties to exhibit their
community tax certificates and made them personally acknowledge the documents before him as notary
public. He would have remembered complainants had they actually appeared before him. While he
admitted knowing complainant Editha Santuyo, he said he met the latter’s husband and co-complainant
only on November 5, 1997, or about six years from the time that he purportedly notarized the deed of
sale. Moreover, respondent stressed that an examination of his alleged signature on the deed of sale
revealed that it was forged; the strokes were smooth and mild. He suspected that a lady was responsible
for forging his signature.

To further refute the accusations against him, respondent stated that, at the time the subject deed of
sale was supposedly notarized, on December 27, 1991, he was on vacation. He surmised that
complainants must have gone to the law office and enticed one of the secretaries, with the concurrence
of the senior lawyers, to notarize the document. He claimed he was a victim of a criminal scheme
motivated by greed.

ISSUE: Can be the notary public be held liable for the acts of the forger?

RULING:

Considering that the responsibility attached to a notary public is sensitive respondent should have been
more discreet and cautious in the execution of his duties as such and should not have wholly entrusted
everything to the secretaries; otherwise he should not have been commissioned as notary public.
For having wholly entrusted the preparation and other mechanics of the document for notarization to
the secretary there can be a possibility that even the respondent’s signature which is the only one left
for him to do can be done by the secretary or anybody for that matter as had been the case herein.

As it is respondent had been negligent not only in the supposed notarization but foremost in having
allowed the office secretaries to make the necessary entries in his notarial registry which was supposed
to be done and kept by him alone; and should not have relied on somebody else.

Respondent Atty. Edwin A. Hidalgo is hereby found GUILTY of negligence in the performance of his duties
as notary public.

BENILDA M. MADDELA vs. ATTY. ROSALIE DALLONG-GALICINAO, [A.C. No. 6491. January 31, 2005]

FACTS:

he complainant attached to her affidavit-complaint a copy of a confidential letter-complaint of one

Benjamin Rilloraza dated 3 May 2001 addressed to Atty. Ma. Cristina Layusa of the Office of the Bar
Confidant, opposing the respondent’s admission to the Bar in view of her acts of notarizing documents
outside the area of her commission. Mr. Rilloraza claimed that the respondent, although not yet a
lawyer, was issued a notarial commission for “Kayapa or (Kasibu),” Nueva Vizcaya. However, the
respondent notarized documents in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, outside the area of her commission. To
prove his allegation, he attached to the said letter-complaint photocopies of a Deed of Sale of Motor
Vehicle dated 31 January 2001 and an Affidavit dated 3 May 2001, both indicating that they were
notarized by the respondent in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, and that the respondent’s commission as a
Notary Public was for Bayombong. Mr. Rilloraza likewise alleged that despite her husband’s death, the
respondent continued to receive and encash for at least three months checks corresponding to her
husband’s salaries as Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Office of the Clerk of Court of Nueva Vizcaya. He also
pointed out that the respondent even continued to claim the higher allowable deductions as a married
individual despite the death of her husband. The respondent notarized the document outside her area of
commission.

ISSUES: Can a notary public notarize documents outside the jurisdiction of commission?
RULING:

We have declared on several occasions, that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It
is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act
as notaries public. The protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not qualified or
authorized to act must be prevented from imposing upon the public, the courts, and the administrative
offices in general. It must be underscored that the notarization by a notary public converts a private
document into a public document, making that document admissible in evidence without further proof
of the authenticity thereof (Nunga v. Viray, A.C. No. 4758, 366 Phil. 155, 160 [1999]).

Thus, we are not satisfied with respondent’s explanation that she notarized documents outside of the
area of her notarial commission as a favor to her relatives and for free. Whether the respondent derived
profit from her act of notarizing outside the area of her authority is of no moment. The fact remains
that she notarized outside the area of her commission. Considering, however, that her misconduct as a
notary public was committed while she was not yet a lawyer, she could not be disciplinarily dealt with as
a lawyer. The penalty that should be meted to her should, therefore, be as a notary public before she
was admitted to the Bar. The penalty of fine would be a sufficient sanction.

JUDGE GERVACIO A. LOPENA vs. ATTY. ARTEMIO P. CABATOS, [A.C. No. 3441. August 11, 2005]

FACTS:

As alleged, the respondent knowingly falsified a Deed of Donation purportedly executed by one Crispina
Panis by notarizing the same.

In the same Manifestation cum Motion, complainant informed that his two witnesses, Aniceta P. Tarle, a
daughter of the deceased Crispina Panis, and Ricafort (who, as reflected above, respondent claimed to
have led him to believe that “the old woman” presented before him was Panis) had died

ISSUE: Did the responded not liable?

RULING:

That a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the same
persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents of the truth of what
are stated therein bears reiterating. On pain of sounding like a broken record, this Court has repeatedly
held that the purpose of the injunction is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the
signature of the acknowledging party – in this case Crispina Panis – and to ascertain that the document is
the party’s free act of deed.[26]

Respondent having thus failed to faithfully discharge his sacred duties as a notary public, under the facts
and circumstances of the case, the revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification from being
commissioned as notary public for a period of One (1) Year is in order.

VICTOR NUNGA vs. ATTY. VENANCIO VIRAY, [A.C. No. 4758. April 30, 1999]

FACTS:

Complainant alleged that in May 1996, he was appointed by the board of directors of Masantol Rural
Bank after his father’s resignation as its president.

A few month[] thereafter, he allegedly discovered that one of the bank’s assets consisting of 250 square
meters house and lot in Kalookan City was sold without proper bidding by its manager Jesus B.
Manansala to Jesus Carlo Gerard M. Viray, a minor born February 2, 1969 during the transaction on May
22, 1987. The deed of absolute sale was notarized by the respondent who is not only the father of the
buyer minor but also a stockholder and legal counsel of the vendor bank and was not duly commissioned
as notary public as of that date.

A notarial documnet in favor of Crown Savings and Loan Association under entry number 1226 was
allegedly entered in the notarial registry of the Respondent for 1991 when he wasn’t commissioned as
notary public.
Respondent for his part alleged in his comment that complainant holds no position at the Masantol Rural
Bank Inc. [i]n 1987 and 1997, but is facing criminal charges for having plundered the said bank of
millions of pesos and [for] trespass to dwelling; while his father is facing a case before the Securities and
Exchange Commission. The sale of the lot by the Masantol Rural Bank Inc. to his son was allegedly done
in good faith all the formalities required by law [were] properly complied with and the complaint from all
indications is a leverage in persuading him into a possible compromise.

From 1965 to date Respondent alleged that he was always commissioned as notary public and the fact
that Pampanga is under several feet of floodwaters, he could not annex all the needed documents to
support the allegations. According to Respondent, there was no year in his practice of law that he was
not commissioned as notary public. In fact, in the alleged documents he had PTR for that purpose [,
and] he would not [have obtained] a commission without the PTR.

ISSUE: Did the respondent notarized without commission?

Ruling:

The respondent’s contention that he had a PTR for all the documents he prepared is only an indication
that the Professional Tax Receipt is a license for him to engage in the practice of his profession as a
lawyer but not a commission for him to act as notary public.

Inasmuch as Respondent was not able to counteract the averments of Complainant which were duly
supported with evidence[], it is apparent that Respondent violated the provisions of the notarial law by
having affixed his official signatures to the aforesaid documents with the intent to impart the appearance
of notarial authenticity thereto when … in fact as of those dates 1987 and 1991 he was not
commissioned as notary public.

Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has
no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action. For one,
performing a notarial without such commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws, more
specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is
not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer’s oath
similarly proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.”

By such misconduct as a notary public, the lawyer likewise violates Canon 7 of the same Code, which
directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Elaborating
on this, we said in Maligsa v. Cabanting (supra):

A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to
the courts and to his clients. To this end a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any
act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity,
honesty and integrity of the legal profession. (Citing Marcelo v. Javier, 214 SCRA 1 [1992]).

REIMBERT C. VILLAREAL vs. JUDGE ALEJANDRO R. DIONGZON, [A.M. No. RTJ-99-1520. November 20,
2000]

FACTS:

A“Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale” involving the same parcels of land was executed by complainant
Reimbert C. Villareal and his wife, Dale Y. Villareal as vendors a retro, and Felix Sy as vendee a retro, for a
consideration of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00).The document was notarized by
respondent, then municipal circuit trial court judge, in his capacity as notary public ex officio.

“To make the matter detrimental to my interest, I discovered lately that the document also signed by
FELIX SY and the undersigned complainant was previously of (sic) that (sic) a Real Estate Mortgage,
notarized by Diosdado V. Omega, a copy of the document is attached herewith as ANNEX `B’. Judge
Diongzon, however, changed the previous document of Real Estate Mortgage to that of Deed of Pacto de
Retro Sale.

“Consulting a lawyer, I was informed that there is a big difference between a Real Estate Mortgage and
that of a Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale. By the false representation of Judge Diongzon, I am now facing a
criminal case for qualified theft since I harvested coconuts from the land previously under Real Estate
Mortgage but was changed by Judge Diongzon as Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale.
“As a Regional Trial Court Judge, he should have informed me of the difference between the two
documents. As a lawyer, he should not have allowed Rosita Sy to sign for Felix Sy. Later on, the
document shall be faulty for the signatory was not the very same person who signed the document.

“It is hoped that Judge Diongzon be made to answer for his actuations as a Municipal Trial Court (sic)
Judge of Villaba, Leyte. If he is promoted to that of an RTC Judge, he may have the same previous
actuations when he was an MTC (sic) Judge.

ISSUE: What is the Liability of the Judge?

Ruling:

'Sec. 76. Miscellaneous Powers of the Justice of the Peace. -- A Justice of the Peace shall have power
anywhere within his territorial jurisdiction to solemnize marriage, authenticate merchant’s books,
administer oath and take depositions and acknowledgment, and, in his capacity as ex-oficio notary
public, may perform any act within the competency of a Notary Public.’

“As is clear from the above-quoted provision that the First Level Courts Judges, in their capacity as ex-
oficio Notary Public, may perform any act within the competence of a regular Notary Public, it should be
stated here that almost all, if not all, Judges of the First Level Courts have exercised the above-
mentioned miscellaneous powers. However, they collected fees (duly receipted) only as those
prescribed by the Rules of Court.

“But due to the paucity of references distributed to the First Level courts when the Judiciary was under
the Department of Justice, the Judges of the First Level Courts especially those assigned in the far flank
(sic) sections of the country, could not easily catch up with how Section 76 of the Judiciary Act of 1948
evolved. Frankly, even as the Administrative Supervision was transferred to the Hon. Supreme Court,
most of the Judges in the First Level Courts continued to exercise said miscellaneous powers, including
the respondent herein. Thus, when the complainant and Rosita Sy came to his Office on October 10,
1988 and asked him to acknowledge Annex A of the letter-complaint, with honest intention and in good
faith based on his understanding of said Section 76 of Judiciary Act of 1948, respondent notarized the
document without any feeling of guilt nor (sic) remorse. However, in 1990, respondent came across a
Supreme Court Resolution holding that Municipal Court Judges cannot act as regular Notary Public.
Immediately hence, respondent instructed said Ruben Pecayo, MCTC Clerk of Court, to surrender all the
Notarial Books kept in his Office to the Clerk of Court of Branch 17, RTC, Palompon, Leyte. It was so
done.”

Under the factual milieu of the case, we do not consider the act of respondent judge so serious as to
warrant a severe penalty. Respondent judge was honest enough to admit that when he notarized the
questioned document he was under the impression that he was still authorized to do so. But upon
learning of the Supreme Court circular prohibiting municipal trial court judges from notarizing private
documents in their capacity as ex-officio notaries public, he immediately desisted from practicing as a
notary public and ordered his Clerk of Court to surrender his notarial books to the Regional Trial Court.

OCTAVIO J. TRAYA, JR.vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO M. VILLAMOR, [A.C. No.4595. February 6, 2004]

FACTS:

In a sworn letter dated May 22, 1996 addressed to then Chief Justice Andres A. Narvasa, complainant,
Octavio J. Traya, Jr., Municipal Mayor of Abuyog, Leyte, brought attention to an affidavit purportedly
executed by one Rolando de la Cruz which was spurious but which was nevertheless notarized by Atty.
Francisco M. Villamor, respondent herein, who, it was informed, had previously been reprimanded and
admonished by the Supreme Court in Realino v. Villamor in connection with the discharge of his notarial
duties.

From the record of this case, it is gathered that one Engineer Cynthia de la Cruz Catalya filed an
application for building permit in connection with the renovation of a building situated on a lot owned
by her brother Rolando C. de la Cruz (de la Cruz). One of the documents required in the processing of the
application was an affidavit to be executed by the lot owner. Since de la Cruz was a resident abroad, an
affidavit was prepared wherein it was made to appear that he was a resident of Loyonsawang, Abuyog,
Leyte; that he was the owner of the lot whereon the building subject of the application for the issuance
of a building permit was situated; and that he was executing the affidavit “to attest to the veracity of the
abovementioned facts thereby certifying (sic) the requirements of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board relative to the application for Locational Clearance/Certificate of Zoning Compliance.”
Respondent notarized the purported affidavit of de la Cruz who was residing abroad; hence, the letter-
complaint of complainant.

In respondent’s comment denominated as “Answer,” he proferred the following explanation:

In the afternoon, at more or less 2:00 P.M. of Jan. 29, 1996, a Chinese mestizo appeared in the law office
of herein respondent. After a customary courtesy, he made known his purpose, stating that he wanted
his affidavit (Annex “A”) notarized, which was being handed simultaneously to the herein respondent.
Respondent after briefly perusing the same, asked who Rolando de la Cruz was, and the chinese mestizo,
declared that he was the one. Then respondent asked if the signature over the space for the affiant was
his, and he affirmed the same as his. Then respondent asked for the production of his Res. Certificate,
but he said, he did not bother to bring the same along with him anymore as, he has already indicated his
Serial number, in the jurat portion together with the date of issue and place of issue. Finally, respondent
asked him if he understood the written contents of his affidavit, and he affirmed that the did (sic)
understand because, he was applying for a clearance with the Municipal Planning and Development
Coordinator for the renovation/repair of the second floor of his building. And respondent having become
fully satisfied already with all the pertinent matters relevant to the affidavit to be notarized, without any
more much ado, notarized the same.(Underscoring supplied)

ISSUE: Did the respondent perform his duties faithfully?

RULING:

In the earlier mentioned case of Realino v. Villamor of which herein respondent was the respondent, this
Court stressed its repeated pronouncement that it is the duty of the notarial officer to demand that the
document presented to him for notarization should be signed in his presence, for “[a] notarial document
is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe
utmost care in complying with the elementary formalities in the performance of their duties.”

By respondent’s admission, the affidavit was already signed by the purported affiant at the time it was
presented to him for notarization. Respondent thus failed to heed his duty as a notary public to demand
that the document for notarization be signed in his presence.
Also by respondent’s admission, when the affidavit was brought to him, it already bore the Residence
Certificate Number of the “affiant” which residence certificate number turned out to be that of de la
Cruz’s brother in law, Benjamin Catalya, husband of his sister Engineer Cynthia de la Cruz Catalya. Where
a lawyer as a notary makes it appear in the acknowledgment or jurat of a contract that the affiant
exhibited to him a residence certificate when in fact he did not, the notary is guilty of misconduct. Such
misrepresentation is unquestionably censurable and justifies disciplinary action against him as a member
of the bar and as a notary public. For he violated the mandate in his attorney’s oath to “obey the law”
and “do no falsehood.”

[A] lawyer commissioned as notary public . . . is mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties appertaining
to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy impressed with public interest. Faithful
observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is
sacrosanct. Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent upon and failing therein, he must now accept
the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion.

By thus making it appear in the jurat that the “affiant” exhibited to him his residence certificate when in
fact he did not, respondent is guilty of misconduct.

Respondent’s imputation of ill-motive on complainant’s filing of the case against him owing to, so he
claims, his filing of cases against complainant before the Office of the Ombudsman is immaterial to the
merits of the present case.

Respondent having previously been reprimanded and warned also in connection with his duties as a
notary public, despite which he has demonstrated a clear and blatant disregard thereof, he should now
be faulted strictly.

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates. Get Started

Mobile Site

Philippine Jurisprudence Case Digest, Law Subject Notes, Commentaries. civil law, political law, criminal
law, taxation, administrative law, election law, remedial law, Philippine constitution, case digest, law
notes