WILBERTO C. TALISIC VS. ATTY. PRIMO R. RINEN.

A.C. No. 8761, February 12, 2014

FACTS:
Wilberto charged Atty. Rinen of falsification of an Extra Judicial Partition with Sale which
allowed the transfer to Spouses Durante of a parcel of land formerly owned by Wilberto’s mother.
Wilberto claimed that his mother died leaving behind as heirs her spouse and their three children.
It was only after the death of Wilberto’s father that he and his siblings knew of the transfer of the
subject parcel via the subject deed. While Wilberto believed that his father’s signature on the deed
was authentic, his and his siblings’ supposed signatures were merely forged. Wilberto also pointed
out that even his name was erroneously indicated in the deed as “Wilfredo”.
Atty. Rinen denied the charge against him and explained that he came to know of the
transaction between the Spouses Durante and the Talisics, when they approached him in his office
as the then Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court to have the subject deed prepared and
notarized. His clerk of court prepared the deed and upon its completion, ushered the parties to his
office for the administration of oath. The deed contained his certification that at the time of the
document’s execution, “no notary public was available to expedite the transaction of the parties.”
Notarial fees paid by the parties were also covered by a receipt issued by the Treasurer of the
Municipality.

RULING:
Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an
acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. The notarization of a document carries considerable legal
effect. Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders
it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, notarization is not an empty
routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a substantial degree
In the present case, Atty. Rinen did not deny his failure to personally verify the identity of
all parties who purportedly signed the subject document and whom, as he claimed, appeared before
him. Such failure was further shown by the fact that the pertinent details of the community tax
certificates of Wilberto and his sister, as proof of their identity, remained unspecified in the subject
deed’s acknowledgment portion. Clearly, there was a failure on the part of Atty. Rinen to exercise
the due diligence that was required of him as a notary public ex-officio.
The fact that Atty. Rinen was a trial court judge during the time that he administered the
oath for the subject deed did not relieve him of compliance with the same standards and obligations
imposed upon other commissioned notaries public. He also could not have simply relied on his
clerk of court to perform the responsibilities attached to his function, especially as it pertained to
ensuring that the parties to the document were then present, performing an act that was of their
own free will and deed.
 “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.” It
converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in court without further proof
of its authenticity. Thus, “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 public
instruments would be undermined.
The Court REVOKES the notarial commission which Atty. Primo R. Rinen may
presently have, and DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as a notary public for one
year, effective immediately.

CARLITO ANG VS. ATTY. JAMES JOSEPH GUPANA

A.C. No. 4545, February 05, 2014

FACTS:
Ang and the other heirs of the late Candelaria Magpayo, namely Purificacion Diamante
and William Magpayo, executed an Extra-judicial Declaration of Heirs and Partition a lot covered
by TCT No. (T-22409)-6433. However, when he tried to secure a TCT of his share in the lot in his
name, he found out that said TCT No. (T-22409)-6433 had already been cancelled and in lieu
thereof, new TCTs had been issued in the names of William Magpayo, Antonio Diamante, Patricia
Diamante, Lolita D. Canque, Gregorio Diamante, Jr. and Fe D. Montero (NEW HEIRS).
Ang alleged that:
 Respondent had a direct participation in the commission of forgeries and falsifications
because he was the one who prepared and notarized the Affidavit of Loss and Deed of
Absolute Sale that led to the transfer and issuance of the new TCTs.
o The Deed of Absolute Sale which was allegedly executed by Candelaria was
antedated and her signature was forged. The certified true copy of respondent’s
Notarial Report showed that what was recorded did not refer to the Deed of
Absolute Sale, but to an affidavit.
o The Affidavit of Loss which was allegedly executed by the late Candelaria
Magpayo could not have been executed by her as she died three years prior to the
execution of the said affidavit of loss.
 Respondent made himself the attorney-in-fact of the [NEW HEIRS], and executed a Deed
of Sale selling the subject lot to Lim Kim So Mercantile Co. despite his knowledge that
said property is the subject of a pending litigation before the RTC.
Defense: Atty. Gupana denied any wrongdoing and argued that Ang is merely using the present
administrative complaint as a tool to force Gupana and the defendants in a pending civil case to
accede to Ang’s wishes. Respondent reiterates that being commissioned by his own clients to sell
a portion of a parcel of land, part of which is involved in litigation, is not per se illegal or unethical.
According to him, his clients got his help to sell part of the land and because they were residing in
different provinces, they executed a Special Power of Attorney in his favor.
Thus, respondent prayed for the dismissal of the case for being devoid of any factual or
legal basis, or in the alternative, holding resolution of the instant case in abeyance pending
resolution of the civil case allegedly because the issues in the present administrative case are
similar to the issues or subject matters involved in said civil case.

RULING:
Atty. Gupana is suspended for one year and his notarial commission is revoked and he is
disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two years.
The Court finds that respondent did not act unethically when he sold the property in dispute
as the sellers’ attorney-in-fact because there was no more notice of lis pendens annotated on the
particular lot sold. Likewise, the Court finds no sufficient evidence to show that the Deed of
Absolute Sale executed by Candelaria Magpayo was antedated. However, the Court finds
respondent administratively liable for violation of his notarial duties when he failed to require the
personal presence of Candelaria when he notarized the Affidavit of Loss which Candelaria
allegedly executed.
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. It devolves
upon respondent to act with due care and diligence in stamping fiat on the questioned documents.
Respondent’s failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted in undermining the integrity
of a notary public and in degrading the function of notarization. Hence, he should be liable for his
infraction, not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.
As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent 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
respondent and failing therein, he must now accept the commensurate consequences of his
professional indiscretion.
<hindi ko makita yung relate niya sa prescription dito sa case mismo, halos notarization yung
buong ruling niya>