1.

non-judicial forms
1.1 kinds private and public documents
rules of court
rule132
Sec. 19.Classes of Documents. For the purpose of their presentation
evidence, documents are either public or private.
Public documents are:
(a)The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b)Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last wills and
testaments; and
(c)Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by
law to the entered therein.
All other writings are private. (20a)
1.2 As to froms and solemnities
ART. 17 new civil code
Art. 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public
instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are
executed.
When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular
officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities
established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution.
Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which
have, for their object, public order, public policy and good customs shall not
be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by
determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. (11a)
1.3 Forms required as validity of contract new civil code
A.general principles
CHAPTER 3
FORM OF CONTRACTS
Art. 1356. Contracts shall be obligatory, in whatever form they may have
been entered into, provided all the essential requisites for their validity are
present. However, when the law requires that a contract be in some form in
order that it may be valid or enforceable, or that a contract be proved in a
certain way, that requirement is absolute and indispensable. In such cases,
the right of the parties stated in the following article cannot be exercised.
(1278a)
Art. 1357. If the law requires a document or other special form, as in the acts
and contracts enumerated in the following article, the contracting parties
may compel each other to observe that form, once the contract has been
perfected. This right may be exercised simultaneously with the action upon
the contract. (1279a)

Art. 1358. The following must appear in a public document:

(1) Acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission,
modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property; sales
of real property or of an interest therein a governed by Articles 1403, No. 2,
and 1405;
(2) The cession, repudiation or renunciation of hereditary rights or of those of
the conjugal partnership of gains;
(3) The power to administer property, or any other power which has for its
object an act appearing or which should appear in a public document, or
should prejudice a third person;
(4) The cession of actions or rights proceeding from an act appearing in a
public document.
All other contracts where the amount involved exceeds five hundred pesos
must appear in writing, even a private one. But sales of goods, chattels or
things in action are governed by Articles, 1403, No. 2 and 1405. (1280a)
Art. 1359. When, there having been a meeting of the minds of the parties to a
contract, their true intention is not expressed in the instrument purporting to
embody the agreement, by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or
accident, one of the parties may ask for the reformation of the instrument to
the end that such true intention may be expressed.
If mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident has prevented a meeting of
the minds of the parties, the proper remedy is not reformation of the
instrument but annulment of the contract.
B. other specific provision requiring a public document
-- on donation
Art. 747. Persons who accept donations in representation of others who may
not do so by themselves, shall be obliged to make the notification and
notation of which Article 749 speaks. (631)
Art. 748. The donation of a movable may be made orally or in writing.
An oral donation requires the simultaneous delivery of the thing or of the
document representing the right donated.
If the value of the personal property donated exceeds five thousand pesos,
the donation and the acceptance shall be made in writing, otherwise, the
donation shall be void. (632a)
Art. 749. In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be
made in a public document, specifying therein the property donated and the
value of the charges which the donee must satisfy.
The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate
public document, but it shall not take effect unless it is done during the
lifetime of the donor.

If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be

notified thereof in an authentic form, and this step shall be noted in both
instruments. (633)
-- on pledge
Art. 2096. A pledge shall not take effect against third persons if a description
of the thing pledged and the date of the pledge do not appear in a public
instrument. (1865a)
B. FORMS and SIZES of Documents
efficient use of paper rule comapred with BAR matter 207 nov 18
1993
efficient use of paper rule
Sec. 3. Format and Style. a) All pleadings, motions and similar papers
intended for the court and quasi-judicial bodys consideration and action
(court-bound papers) shall written in single space with one-and-a half space
between paragraphs, using an easily readable font style of the partys choice,
of 14-size font, and on a 13 inch by 8.5- inch white bond paper; and
b) All decisions, resolutions and orders issued by courts and quasi-judicial
bodies under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court shall
comply with these requirements. Similarly covered are the reports submitted
to the courts and transcripts of stenographic notes.
Sec. 4. Margins and Prints . The parties shall maintain the following margins
on all court-bound papers: a left hand margin of 1.5 inches from the edge; an
upper margin of 1.2 inches from the edge; a right hand margin of 1.0 inch
from the edge; and a lower margin of 1.0 inch from the edge. Every page
must be consecutively numbered.
BAR matter 207 nov 18 1993
Effective immediately and until further action of the Court, all pleadings,
briefs, memoranda, motions, and other papers to be filed before the Supreme
Court and the Court of Appeals shall either be typewritten on good
quality unglazed paper, or mimeographed or printed on newsprint or
mimeograph paper, 11 inches in length by 8-1/2 inches in width
(commonly known as letter size) or 13 inches in length by 8-1/2
inches in width (commonly known as legal size). There shall be a
margin at the top and at the left-hand side of each page not less
than 1-1/2 inches in width. The contents shall be written doublespaced and only one side of the page shall be used.
In the Supreme Court, eighteen (18) legible copies of the petition shall
initially be filled, and eighteen(18) copies of subsequent pleadings, briefs,
memoranda, motions and other papers shall be filed in cases for
consideration of the Court en banc and nine (9) copies in cases to be heard
before a division. One (1) copy thereof shall be served upon each of the
adverse parties in either case..
C.2004 Rule on Notarial Practice (A.M no 02-8-13-sc, as amended)
1. degree of responsibility of a lawyer for notarial practice
Generally speaking, a lawyer can do 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, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity

which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the
fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the profession.
nadayag vs grageda
Facts:
Complainant Rosita Nadayag charged respondent Atty. Jose Grageda, a
practicing attorney and notary public in Iligan City, with conduct unbecoming
of a lawyer in connection with a Pacto de Retro transaction wherein
complainant was the vendee.
In her letter-complaint, Nadayag alleged that Grageda prepared and
notarized the sale using a stolen Original Certificate of Land Title, as a result
of which she was swindled P108,000 because the land was already sold
ahead of her using the owners duplicate copy of the title.
Suspicious of the OCTs appearance, she had brought the matter to
Gragedas attention, to which he simply answered that the title was all right
told her not to worry as he is an attorney and knew very well the Vendor-aRetro whose business transactions especially notarial matter has been and in
fact always handled by him. However, the OCT was confiscated by the Iligan
ROD, Atty. Baguio when the complainant applied for registration of the pacto
de retro. Nadayag filed a complaint against the vendor-a-retro and
accomplices, including Grageda coursed through the local Brgy. Captain and
city fiscal, but the information did not include Grageda, hence this report. In
his counter-affidavit, Grageda claimed that he notarization was based on the
documents presented.

Issue:
W/N respondent should be disciplined

Held:
Yes. The Commission on Bar Discipline found reason to discipline based on
respondents admission of notarizing the deed of sale a retro based on title
presented to him. It turns out that the title presented to him is the OCT which
only the Register of Deeds has custody of and he should have sensed foulplay or irregularity. As a lawyer and officer of the court, he should have been
alerted and should have reported the irregularity of an OCT, which should be
in the exclusive safekeeping of the Register of Deeds, in the possession of
unauthorized persons. Even if it were the photostat copy of said Original
Certificate of Title that was presented to him, the same did not bear any
certification by the Register of Deeds which could have alerted him of the
irregularity. The testimony that the Original was shown to him has not been
controverted. The Vendee was in fact in possession of the Original because it
was testified that when the Register of Deeds found that respondent was in
possession, the original certificate was confiscated by the Register of Deeds.

The Commission takes special note of a notary public acting more than a
notary public and goes beyond mere certification of the presence of the
signatories, their having signed, and having contracted. By transcending
these bounds, such notary public has entered the realm of giving legal
advice thus acting also as counsel aside from notary public to the
parties to the contract.
A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession. The trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients require in
the attorney a high standard and appreciation of his duty to his clients, his
profession, the courts and the public. The bar should maintain a high
standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing. Generally
speaking, a lawyer can do 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, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity
which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the
fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the profession.
In the case at bar, respondent should have been conscientious in seeing to it
that justice permeated every aspect of a transaction for which his services
had been engaged, in conformity with the avowed duties of a worthy member
of the Bar. He should have fully explained the legal intricacies and
consequences of the subject transaction as would aid the parties in making
an informed decision. Such responsibility was plainly incumbent upon him,
and failing therein, he must now face the commensurate consequences of his
professional indiscretion. After all, notarization is not an empty routine.
Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one
and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity.
Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3)
months, with the warning that a repetition of the same or any other
misconduct will be dealt with more severely.
2.powers and limitation of notary public
RE: VIOLATION OF RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This case stemmed from three (3) letter-complaints for Violation of Rules on
Notarial Practice endorsed to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for
appropriate action. The first letter-complaint,1 dated March 2, 2009, was filed
by the commissioned notaries public within and for the jurisdiction of
Lingayen, Pangasinan, namely, Atty. Butch Cardinal Torio, Atty. Nepthalie
Pasiliao, Atty. Dominique Evangelista, and Atty. Elizabeth C. Tugade
(complainants) before the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court,
Lingayen, Pangasinan (RTC-Lingayen) against Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. (Atty.
Siapno) for notarizing documents without a commission.
In their letter, complainants alleged that Atty. Siapno was maintaining a
notarial office along Alvear Street East, Lingayen, Pangasinan, and was
performing notarial acts and practices in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan
City without the requisite notarial commission. They asserted that Atty.

Siapno was never commissioned as Notary Public for and within the
jurisdiction of Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City. Instead, he applied and
was commissioned to perform notarial functions by Executive Judge Anthony
Sison of the RTC, San Carlos City, Pangasinan from March 22, 2007 to
December 31, 2008. His notarial commission, however, was never renewed
upon expiration. Complainants presented evidence supporting their
allegations such as the pictures of Atty. Siapnos law office in Lingayen,
Pangasinan; and documents to prove that Atty. Siapno performed acts of
notarization in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City, to wit: (1) Addendum
to Loan and Mortgage Agreement2 showing that the Promissory Note was
notarized before Atty. Siapno in Lingayen, Pangasinan in 2007; (2) Deed of
Absolute Sale,3 dated January 24, 2008, notarized in Natividad, Pangasinan;
(3) Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons Re: Given Name and Date of
Birth,4 dated January 6, 2009, notarized in Dagupan City; and (4)
Acknowledgement of Debt,5 dated January 24, 2008, notarized in Dagupan
City.
Complainants also averred that Atty. Siapno had delegated his notarial
authority to his secretaries, Mina Bautista (Bautista) and Mary Ann Arenas
(Arenas), who wrote legal instruments and signed the documents on his
behalf.
On March 17, 2009, the RTC-Lingayen forwarded the said letter-complaint to
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)6 which, in turn, indorsed the
same to the OBC.
The second letter-complaint7 was filed by Audy B. Espelita (Espelita) against
Atty. Pedro L. Santos (Atty. Santos). It alleged that in 2008, Espelita lost his
drivers license and he executed an affidavit of loss which was notarized by
Atty. Santos. The said affidavit, however, was denied for authentication when
presented before the Notarial Section in Manila because Atty. Santos was not
commissioned to perform notarial commission within the City of Manila.
The third letter-complaint8 came from a concerned citizen reporting that a
certain Atty. Evelyn who was holding office at Room 402 Leyba Bldg., 381
Dasmarias Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila, had been notarizing and signing
documents for and on behalf of several lawyers.
In its Resolution,9 dated June 9, 2009, the Court directed the Executive Judge
of the RTC-Lingayen to conduct a formal investigation on the complaint
against Atty. Siapno and Executive Judge Reynaldo G. Ros (Judge Ros) of the
RTC-Manila to conduct a formal investigation on the alleged violation of the
Notarial Law by Atty. Santos, and the illegal activities of a certain Atty. Evelyn,
and thereafter, to submit a report and recommendation thereon.
Re: Complaint against Atty. Siapno
With regard to the complaint against Atty. Siapno, the Executive Judge
conducted a hearing wherein the complainants affirmed the allegations in
their letter-complaint. For his part, Atty. Siapno denied the accusations and
averred that the law office in Lingayen, Pangasinan, was not his and that
Bautista and Arenas were not his secretaries.10
In her Report and Recommendation,11 the Executive Judge found that Atty.

Siapno was issued a notarial commission within the jurisdiction of Lingayen,

Pangasinan, from January 20, 2003 to December 31, 2004 and February 8,
2005 to December 3, 2006. His commission, however, was cancelled on June
8, 2006 and he was not issued another commission thereafter. The Executive
Judge found Atty. Siapno to have violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Commission when he performed notarial functions without commission and
recommended that he be fined in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00).
The Court agrees with the findings of the Executive Judge but not to the
recommended penalty.
A review of the records and evidence presented by complainants shows that
Atty. Siapno indeed maintained a law office in Lingayen, Pangasinan, just
beside the law office of one of the complainants, Atty. Elizabeth Tugade. It
was also proven that Atty. Siapno notarized several instruments with an
expired notarial commission outside the territorial jurisdiction of the
commissioning court. Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice provides that:Jurisdiction and Term A person commissioned as
notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2) years
commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning
is made, unless earlier revoked or the notary public has resigned under these
Rules and the Rules of Court.
Under the rule, only persons who are commissioned as notary public may
perform notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the court which
granted the commission. Clearly, Atty. Siapno could not perform notarial
functions in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City of the Province of
Pangasinan since he was not commissioned in the said places to perform
such act.
Time and again, this Court has stressed that notarization is not an empty,
meaningless and routine act. It is invested with substantive public interest
that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.12
It must be emphasized that the act of notarization by a notary public converts
a private document into a public document making that document admissible
in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A notarial document is by
law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries
public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties.
By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission from the court,
Atty. Siapno violated not only his oath to obey the laws particularly the Rules
on Notarial Practice but also Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which proscribes all lawyers from engaging in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and directs them to uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession, at all times.13
In a plethora of cases, the Court has subjected lawyers to disciplinary action
for notarizing documents outside their territorial jurisdiction or with an
expired commission. In the case of Nunga v. Viray,14 a lawyer was suspended
by the Court for three (3) years for notarizing an instrument without a
commission. In Zoreta v. Simpliciano,15 the respondent was likewise
suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years and was

permanently barred from being commissioned as a notary public for

notarizing several documents after the expiration of his commission. In the
more recent case of Laquindanum v. Quintana,16 the Court suspended a
lawyer for six (6) months and was disqualified from being commissioned as
notary public for a period of two (2) years because he notarized documents
outside the area of his commission, and with an expired commission.
Considering that Atty. Siapno has been proven to have performed notarial
work in Ligayen, Natividad and Dagupan City in the province of Pangasinan
without the requisite commission, the Court finds the recommended penalty
insufficient. Instead, Atty. Siapno must be barred from being commissioned as
notary public permanently and suspended from the practice of law for a
period of two (2) years.
Re: Complaints against Atty. Santos and Atty. Evelyn
In a letter,17 dated July 29, 2013, Judge Ros informed the Court that he could
not have complied with the June 9, 2009 and August 4, 2009 orders of the
Court because he was no longer the Executive Judge of the RTC-Manila at that
time. To date, no formal investigation has been conducted on the alleged
violation of Atty. Santos and the reported illegal activities of a certain Atty.
Evelyn.
With respect to the complaints against Atty. Santos and a certain Atty. Evelyn,
the Clerk of Court is ordered to RE-DOCKET the same as separate
administrative cases.
The incumbent Executive Judge of the RTC-Manila, whether permanent or in
acting capacity, is ordered to conduct a formal investigation on the matter
and to submit his Report and Recommendation within sixty (60) days from
receipt of copy of this decision.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for two (2) years and BARRED PERMANENTLY from being
commissioned as Notary Public, effective upon his receipt of a copy of this
decision.
Let copies of this decision be furnished all the courts of the land through the
Office of the Court Administrator, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the
Office of the Bar Confidant, and be recorded in the personal files of the
respondent.
With respect to the complaints against Atty. Pedro L. Santos and a certain
Atty. Evelyn, the Clerk of Court is ordered to RE-DOCKET them as separate
administrative cases. The Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Manila,
is ordered to conduct a formal investigation on the matter and to submit his
Report and Recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of a copy of
this decision.
SO ORDERED.
CRESCENCIANO M. PITOGO v. ATTY. JOSELITO TROY SUELLO, A.C.
No. 10695, March 18, 2015
FACTS: Crescenciano M. Pitogo (Pitogo) purchased a motorcycle from

Emcor, Inc. Themotorcycle was eventually registered in Pitogos name based

on three (3) documents notarized by respondent Atty. Joselito Troy Suello
(Suello). The documents indicate that they are registered in Suellos notarial
register.
Pitogo obtained a copy of the three (3) documents from the Land
Transportation Office. He went to Suellos office to have themcertified. Pitogo
claims that when he called Suello the next day to tell him about the
importance
of these documents to his civil case, Suello disowned the documents. Suello
instead ordered his secretary to give Pitogo a copy of his notarial register.
Pitogo reiterated to Suello that the documents were important in his civil case
pending before the Regional Trial Court. He requested Suello to certify the
authenticity and veracity of the three (3) documents he obtained from the
Land
Transportation Office. He wanted to determine if the documents were duly
notarized by Suello or were merely fabricated. Pitogo did not receive a reply
from Suello.
Pitogo filed his Affidavit-Complaint against Suello before the IBP. Pitogo
alleges that there were discrepancies between the three (3) documents
notarized by Suello and Suellos entries in his notarial register.
RESPONDENT:
Suello denies having notarized the three (3) documents obtained from the
Land Transportation Office.He denies the allegation that he disowned the
documents. He admits that he certified the documents as true copies. Suello
explains that it was his secretary who certified Pitogos documents. Pitogo
called Suello the next day to ask for a certification. Suello told Pitogo that his
secretary was not given such authority.
IBP:
Recommended Suellos suspension from the active practice of law for six (6)
months, as well as the revocation of his commission as a notary public. He
also recommended Suellos disqualification as notary public for (4) years.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable for his
negligence in keeping and maintaining his notarial register.
HELD: The SC finds respondent Atty. Joselito Troy Suello GUILTY of violating
Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for three (3) months. His notarial commission is immediately
revoked if presently commissioned. He is DISQUALIFIED from being
commissioned as notary public for one (1) year.
Failure to properly record entries in the notarial register is also a ground for
revocation of notarial commission.
Notarial acts give private documents a badge of authenticity that the public
relies on when they encounter written documents and engage in written
transactions. Hence, all notaries public are duty-bound to protect the integrity
of notarial acts by ensuring that they perform their duties with utmost care.
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with
such substantial public interest that only those who are qualified or
authorized
may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a
public document, making that document admissible in evidence without
further proof of its authenticity. For this reason, notaries 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.32

Hence, when respondent negligently failed to enter the details of the three
(3)
documents on his notarial register, he cast doubt on the authenticity of
complainants documents. He also cast doubt on the credibility of the notarial
register and the notarial process. He violated not only the Notarial Rules but
also the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to
promote respect for law and legal processes.
Later, in his Position Paper, he passed the blame to his secretary. This
violates the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from
engaging in dishonest and unlawful conduct. Respondents secretary cannot
be blamed for the erroneous entries in the notarial register. The notarial
commission is a license held personally by the notary public. It cannot be
further delegated. It is the notary public alone who is personally responsible
for the correctness of the entries in his or her notarial register. Respondents
apparent remorse may assuage the injury done privately, but it does not
change the nature of the violation.
JANDOQUILE v. REVILLA
A.C. No. 9514, April 10, 2013
FACTS: Atty. Revilla, Jr. notarized a complaint-affidavit signed by Heneraline
L. Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa and Elmer L. Alvarado. Heneraline
Brosas is a sister of Heizel Wynda Brosas Revilla, Atty. Revilla, Jr.'s wife.
Petitioner:
Jandoquile complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. is disqualified to perform the
notarial act per Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Jandoquile also complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not require the three
affiants in the complaint-affidavit to show their valid identification cards.
Defendant:
Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not deny but admitted Jandoquiles material allegations.
Atty. Revilla, Jr. submits that his act is not a ground for disbarment. He also
says that he acts as counsel of the three affiants; thus, he should be
considered more as counsel than as a notary public when he notarized their
complaint-affidavit. He did not require the affiants to present valid
identification cards since he knows them personally. Heneraline Brosas and
Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa are sisters-in-law while Elmer Alvarado is the livein
houseboy of the Brosas family.
ISSUE: Whether the single act of notarizing the complaint-affidavit of relatives
within the fourth civil degree of affinity and, at the same time, not requiring
them to present valid identification cards is a ground for disbarment.
HELD: No
Indeed, section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly
disqualifies respondent from notarizing the complaint-affidavit, from
performing the 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 behooved upon Atty. Revilla, Jr. to act with
prudence and refuse notarizing the document.
As to requiring the affiants to present valid identification, the Court ruled that
he cannot be 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.
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.
However, Atty. Revilla, Jr.s violation of the disqualification rule under Section
3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice is not a sufficient ground
to disbar him. Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not commit any deceit, malpractice, gross
misconduct or gross immoral conduct, or any other serious ground for
disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Considering the attendant circumstances and the single violation committed
by Atty. Revilla, Jr., the court ruled that a punishment less severe than
disbarment would suffice.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr., is REPRIMANDED
and DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public, or from
performing any notarial act if he is presently commissioned as a notary
public,
RULE 141 sec 11 and 12 notarial fee
Section 11. Notaries. No notary public shall charge or receive for any
service rendered by him any fee, remuneration or compensation in excess of
those expressly prescribed in the following schedule:
(a)
For protests of drafts, bills or exchange, or promissory notes for nonacceptance or non-payment and for notice thereof, thirty-six (P36.00) pesos;
(b)
For the registration of such protest and safekeeping of the same thirtysix (P36.00) pesos;
(c)

For authenticating powers of attorney, thirty-six (P36.00) pesos;

(d)
For sworn statement concerning correctness of any account or other
document, thirty-six (P36.00) pesos;
(e)

For each oath of affirmation, thirty-six (P36.00) pesos;

(f)
For receiving evidence of indebtedness to be sent outside, thirty-six
(P36.00) pesos;
(g)
For issuing a certified copy of all or part of his notarial register or
notarial records, for each page, thirty-six (P36.00) pesos;
(h)

For taking depositions, for each page, thirty-six (P36.00) pesos; and

(i)
For acknowledging other documents not enumerated in this section,
thirty-six (P36.00) pesos. (11a)
Section 12. Other officers taking depositions. Other officers taking

depositions shall receive the same compensation as above provided for

notaries public for taking and certifying depositions. (10)