A.C. No.

10132

HEIRS OF PEDRO ALILANO represented by DAVID ALILANO, Complainants,

vs.
ATTY. ROBERTO E. EXAMEN,Respondent .

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before us is a complaint1 for disbarment filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) by the heirs of
Pedro Alilario against Atty. Roberto E. Examen for misconduct and malpractice for falsifying documents and
presenting these as evidence in court thus violating the Lawyer's Oath,2 Canons 1,3 104 and 19,5 and Rules
1.01,61.02,7 10.01,8 and 19.019 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Pedro Alilano and his wife, Florentina, were the holders of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-23261
covering a 98,460 sq. m. parcel of land identified as Lot No. 1085 Pls-544-D located in Paitan, Esperanza, Sultan
Kudarat. Pedro and Florentina died on March 6, 1985 and October 11, 1989, respectively.

It appears that on March 31, 1984 and September 12, 1984 Absolute Deeds of Sale10 were executed by the
Spouses Alilano in favor of Ramon Examen and his wife, Edna. Both documents were notarized by respondent
Atty. Roberto Examen, brother of the vendee. Sometime in September 1984, Spouses Examen obtained
possession of the property.

On January 12, 2002, the heirs of Alilano filed a suit for recovery of possession before the Regional Trial Court
of Sultan Kudarat against Edna Examen and Atty. Roberto Examen.11 It was during this proceeding that Atty.
Examen introduced into evidence the March 31, 1984 and September 12, 1984 Absolute Deeds of Sale.

On November 15, 2003,12 the heirs of Alilano filed this complaint alleging that Atty. Examen, based on Barretto
v. Cabreza,13 violated the notarial law when he notarized the absolute deeds of sale since a notary public is
prohibited from notarizing a document when one of the parties is a relative by consanguinity within the fourth
civil degree or affinity within the second civil degree. It is also alleged that Atty. Examen notarized the documents
knowing that the cedula or residence certificate number used by Ramon Examen was not actually his but the
residence certificate number of Florentina. Atty. Examen also falsely acknowledged that the two witnesses
personally appeared before him when they did not. Lastly, it is alleged that despite knowing the infirmities of
these documents, Atty. Examen introduced these documents into evidence violating his oath as a lawyer and
the CPR.

In his defense, Atty. Examen pointed out that there was no longer any prohibition under the Revised
Administrative Code for a notary public to notarize a document where one of the parties is related to him by
consanguinity and affinity.14 With regard to the use of Florentina’s residence certificate as Ramon’s, Atty.
Examen said that he was in good faith and that it was office practice that the secretary type details without him
personally examining the output.15 In any event, he reasoned that the use of another’s residence certificate is
not a ground for disbarment and is barred by prescription based on IBP Resolution No. XVI-2004-13 dated
January 26, 2004 where it was proposed that the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Section 1, Rule VIII, be revised to include a prescription period for professional
misconduct: within two years from the date of the act.16

In its Report and Recommendation,17 the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Examen liable
for breach of the Notarial Law and introducing false Absolute Deeds of Sale before court proceedings. It stated
that there was ample evidence to support the complainants’ contention that the Spouses Alilano did not
voluntarily and knowingly convey their property, i.e. denials under oath by attesting witnesses and NBI Report
by Handwriting Expert Jennifer Dominguez stating that Pedro Alilano’s signature in the September 1984 Absolute
Deed of Sale was significantly different from the specimen signatures. It also noted that Ramon Examen’s
residence certificate number, date and place of issue were also falsified since the residence certificate actually
belonged to Florentina Pueblo. It thus recommended that the penalty of disbarment be imposed.

The IBP Board of Governors (BOG) in its June 26, 2007 Resolution18 adopted the IBP CBD’s report but modified
the penalty to suspension from the practice of law for a period of two years and a suspension of Atty. Examen’s
Notarial Commission for a period of two years.

Atty. Examen moved for reconsideration. In its Notice of Resolution, the IBP BOG denied the motion for
reconsideration. It also modified the penalty imposed to suspension from the practice of law for a period of one
year and disqualification from re-appointment as Notary Public for a period of two years.19

We agree with the IBP that Atty. Examen is administratively liable and hereby impose a modified penalty.

In disbarment cases the only issue that is to be decided by the Court is whether the member of the bar is fit to
be allowed the privileges as such or not.20 It is not therefore the proper venue for the determination of whether
there had been a proper conveyance of real property nor is it the proper proceeding to take up whether witnesses’
signatures were in fact forged.

NO PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS FOR

ACTS OF ERRING MEMBERS OF THE BAR

In Frias v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada,21 the Court En Banc opined that there can be no prescription in bar discipline
cases. It pointed out this has been the policy since 1967 with the Court’s ruling in Calo, Jr. v. Degamo22 and
reiterated in Heck v. Santos23 where we had the chance to state:

If the rule were otherwise, members of the bar would be emboldened to disregard the very oath they took as
lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private complainant would immediately come forward, they
stand a chance of being completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for.
It is the duty of this Court to protect the integrity of the practice of law as well as the administration of justice. No
matter how much time has elapsed from the

time of the commission of the act complained of and the time of the institution of the complaint, erring members
of the bench and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court. This categorical pronouncement is aimed
at unscrupulous members of the bench and bar, to deter them from committing acts which violate the Code of
Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, or the Lawyer’s Oath. x x x

Thus, even the lapse of considerable time from the commission of the offending act to the institution of the
administrative complaint will not erase the administrative culpability of a lawyer…. (Italics supplied)24

We therefore ruled in Frias, that Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the IBP CBD was void and had
no legal effect for being ultra vires and thus null and void.25

This ruling was reiterated in the more recent case of Bengco v. Bernardo,26 where the Court stated that putting
a prescriptive period on administrative cases involving members of the bar would only serve to embolden them
to disregard the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private complainant
would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being completely exonerated from whatever
administrative liability they ought to answer for.

Atty. Examen’s defense of prescription therefore is of no moment and deserves scant consideration.

THE SPANISH NOTARIAL LAW OF 1889 WAS REPEALED BY THE

REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1917

Prior to 1917, governing law for notaries public in the Philippines was the Spanish Notarial Law of 1889. However,
the law governing Notarial Practice is changed with the passage of the January 3, 1916 Revised Administrative
Code, which took effect in 1917. In 2004, the Revised Rules on Notarial Practice27 was passed by the Supreme
Court.

In Kapunan, et al. v. Casilan and Court of Appeals,28 the Court had the opportunity to state that enactment of the
Revised Administrative Code repealed the Spanish Notarial Law of 1889. Thus:

It is petitioners’ contention that Notary Public Mateo Canonoy, who was related to the parties in the donation
within the fourth civil degree of affinity, was, under Articles 22 and 28 of the Spanish Notarial Law, incompetent
and disqualified to authenticate the deed of donation executed by the Kapunan spouses in favor of their daughter
Concepcion Kapunan Salcedo. Said deed of donation, according to petitioners, became a mere private
instrument under Article 1223 of the old Civil Code, so that under the ruling laid down in the case of Barretto vs.
Cabreza (33 Phil., 413), the donation was inefficacious. The appellate court, however, in the decision complained
of held that the Spanish Notarial Law has been repealed with the enactment of Act No. 496. We find this ruling
to be correct. In the case of Philippine Sugar Estate vs. Poizart (48 Phil., 536), cited in Vda. de Estuart vs. Garcia
(Adm. Case No. 212, prom. February 15, 1957), this Court held that "The old Spanish notarial law and system
of conveyance was repealed in the Philippines and another and different notarial law and system became the
law of the land with the enactment of Act No. 496."29 (Emphasis supplied)

In this case, the heirs of Alilano stated that Atty. Examen was prohibited to notarize the absolute deeds of sale
since he was related by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree with the vendee, Ramon. The prohibition
might have still applied had the applicable rule been the Spanish Notarial Law. However, following the Court’s
ruling in Kapunan, the law in force at the time of signing was the Revised Administrative Code, thus, the
prohibition was removed. Atty. Examen was not incompetent to notarize the document even if one of the parties
to the deed was a relative, his brother. As correctly observed by the IBP CBD:

At the time of notarization, the prevailing law governing notarization was Sections 231-259, Chapter 11 of the
Revised Administrative Code and there was no prohibition on a notary public from notarizing a document when
one of the interested parties is related to the notary public within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or
second degree of affinity.30

Note must be taken that under 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule IV, Section 3(c), a notary public is
disqualified among others to perform the notarial act if he is related by affinity or consanguinity to a principal
within the fourth civil degree, to wit:

SEC. 3. Disqualifications. – A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he:

xxxx

(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal
within the fourth civil degree.

That Atty. Examen was not incompetent to act as a notary public in the present case does not mean that he can
evade administrative liability under the CPR in conjunction with the provisions of the Notarial Law.

NOTARIES PUBLIC MUST PERFORM

THEIR DUTIES DILIGENTLY AND
WITH UTMOST CARE

In Nunga v. Atty. Viray,31 this Court stated:

…[N]otarization 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. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon
its face. For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance
of their duties.32(Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)

Thus under the prevailing law at the time of notarization it was the duty of the notary public to comply with the
requirements of the Notarial Law.1âwphi1 This includes the duty under Chapter 11, Section 251 of the Revised
Administrative Code:

SEC. 251. Requirement as to notation of payment of cedula [residence] tax. – Every contract, deed, or other
document acknowledged before a notary public shall have certified thereon that the parties thereto have
presented their proper cedula [residence] certificates or are exempt from the cedula [residence] tax, and there
shall be entered by the notary public as a part of such certification the number, place of issue, and date of each
cedula [residence] certificate as aforesaid.

Under Chapter 11, Section 249 of the Revised Administrative Code provided a list of the grounds for
disqualification:

SEC. 249. Grounds for revocation of commission. – The following derelictions of duty on the part of a notary
public shall, in the discretion of the proper judge of first instance, be sufficient ground for the revocation of his
commission:

xxxx

(f) The failure of the notary to make the proper notation regarding cedula certificates.

xxxx

In Soriano v. Atty. Basco,33 the Court stated that notaries public are required to follow formalities as these are
mandatory and cannot be simply neglected. Thus, the Notarial Law requires them to certify that a 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. Failure to
perform his duties results in the revocation of a notary’s commission. The Court said:

As a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, respondent is mandated to discharge with fidelity the sacred duties
appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. Faithful
observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment are sacrosanct. He
cannot simply disregard the requirements and solemnities of the Notarial Law.34 (Emphasis supplied)

Here, based on the submission of the complainants, it is clear that the residence certificate number used by
Ramon Examen and as notarized by Atty. Examen in both Absolute Deeds of Sale was not in fact the residence
certificate of Ramon but Florentina’s residence certificate number.35 Atty. Examen interposes that he was in good
faith in that it was office practice to have his secretary type up the details of the documents and requirements
without him checking the correctness of same.

A notary public must discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy
and fidelity.36 Good faith cannot be a mitigating circumstance in situations since the duty to function as a notary
public is personal. We note that the error could have been prevented had Atty. Examen diligently performed his
functions: personally checked the correctness of the documents. To say that it was his secretary’s fault reflects
disregard and unfitness to discharge the functions of a notary public for it is he who personally acknowledges
the document. He was behooved under Section 251, Chapter 11 of the Revised Administrative Code to check if
the proper cedulas were presented and inspect if the documents to be acknowledged by him reflected the correct
details. This Court cannot stress enough that notarization is not a routinary act. It is imbued with substantive
public interest owing to the public character of his duties37 .
Atty. Examen posits that the failure of a notary to make the proper notation of cedulas can only be a ground for
disqualification and not the proper subject for a disbarment proceeding. We disagree.

In violating the provisions of the Notarial Law, Atty. Examen also transgressed the his oath as a lawyer,
provisions of the CPR and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which provides:

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. – A member of the bar
may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or
other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a
wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly and willfully appearing as an attorney
for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

By his negligent act of not checking the work of his secretary and merely perfunctorily notarizing documents, it
cannot be said that he upheld legal processes thus violating Canon 1 of the CPR. Neither can it be said that he
promoted confidence in the legal system. If anything, his acts serve to undermine the functions of a diligent
lawyer. He thus ran afoul Rule 1.02 of the CPR. We cannot stress enough that as a lawyer, respondent is
expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal

SEC. 241. Powers of notary public. – Every notary public shall have power to administer all oaths and affirmations
provided for by law, in all matters incident to his notarial office, and in the execution of affidavits, depositions,
and other documents requiring an oath, and to receive the proof or acknowledgment of all writings relating to
commerce or navigation, such as bills of sale bottomries, mortgages, and hypothecations of ships, vessels, or
boats, charter parties of affreightments, letters of attorney, deeds, mortgages, transfers and assignments of land
or buildings, or an interest therein, and such other writings as are commonly proved or acknowledged before
notaries; to act as a magistrate, in the writing of affidavits or depositions, and to make declarations and certify
the truth thereof under his seal of office, concerning all matters done by him by virtue of his office. profession
and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the
integrity of the legal profession.38 A lawyer’s mandate includes thoroughly going over documents presented to
them typed or transcribed by their secretaries.39

The Court notes that the case between the parties is not the first that reached this Court. In Edna Examen and
Roberto Examen v. Heirs of Pedro Alilano and Florentina Pueblo,40 Atty. Examen and his sister-in-law
questioned via a petition for certiorari41 the propriety of three Court of Appeals’ Resolutions relating to a case
involving Lot No. 1085 Pls-544-D this time with respect to its fruits. There the Court of Appeals (CA) after giving
Atty. Examen 90 days to file his appellant’s brief, denied a second motion for extension of time merely on the
basis of a flimsy reason that he had misplaced some of the transcript of the witnesses’ testimonies. The CA did
not find the reason of misplaced transcript as good and sufficient cause to grant the extension pursuant to Section
12,42 Rule 44 of the Revised Rules of Court. It stated that it was a "flimsy and lame excuse to unnecessarily
delay the proceedings."43 The CA was of the opinion that defendant-appellant’s, herein respondent, motion was
"a mockery of the procedural rules."44 This Court denied the petition for various procedural defects.45

With respect to the penalty imposed, given that Atty. Examen not only failed to uphold his duty as a notary public
but also failed to uphold his lawyer’s oath and ran afoul the provisions of the CPR, the Court deems it proper to
suspend Atty. Examen from the practice of law for a period of two years following this Court’s decision in Caalim-
Verzonilla v. Pascua.46

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto E. Examen is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for TWO
(2) YEARS. In addition, his present notarial commission, if any, is hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED
from reappointment as a notary public for a period of two (2) years from finality of this Decision. He is further
WARNED that any similar act or infraction in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent’s
personal record as an attorney, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Department of Justice and all courts in the country for their information and
guidance.

SO ORDERED.
A.C. No. 9081 October 12, 2011

RODOLFO A. ESPINOSA and MAXIMO A. GLINDO, Complainants,

vs.
ATTY. JULIETA A. OMAÑA, Respondent.

DECISION

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

Before the Court is a complaint for disbarment filed by Rodolfo A. Espinosa (Espinosa) and Maximo A. Glindo
(Glindo) against Atty. Julieta A. Omaña (Omaña).

The Antecedent Facts

Complainants Espinosa and Glindo charged Omaña with violation of her oath as a lawyer, malpractice, and
gross misconduct in office.

Complainants alleged that on 17 November 1997, Espinosa and his wife Elena Marantal (Marantal) sought
Omaña’s legal advice on whether they could legally live separately and dissolve their marriage solemnized on
23 July 1983. Omaña then prepared a document entitled "Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay" (contract) which reads:

REPUBLIKA NG PILIPINAS
BAYAN NG GUMACA
LALAWIGAN NG QUEZON

KASUNDUAN NG PAGHIHIWALAY

KAMI, ELENA MARANTAL AT RODOLFO ESPINOSA, mga Filipino, may sapat na gulang, dating legal na mag-
asawa, kasalukuyang naninirahan at may pahatirang sulat sa Brgy. Buensoceso, Gumaca, Quezon, at
COMELEC, Intramuros, Manila ayon sa pagkakasunod-sunod, matapos makapanumpa ng naaayon sa batas
ay nagpapatunay ng nagkasundo ng mga sumusunod:

1. Na nais na naming maghiwalay at magkanya-kanya ng aming mga buhay ng walang

pakialaman, kung kaya’t bawat isa sa amin ay maaari ng humanap ng makakasama sa buhay;

2. Na ang aming mga anak na sina Ariel John Espinosa, 14 na taong gulang; Aiza Espinosa, 11
taong gulang at Aldrin Espinosa, 10 taong gulang ay namili na kung kanino sasama sa aming
dalawa. Si Ariel John at Aiza Espinosa ay sasama sa kanilang ama, Rodolfo Espinosa, at ang
bunso, Aldrin Espinosa at sasama naman sa ina na si Elena;

3. Na dahil sina Ariel John at Aiza ay nagsisipag-aral sa kasalukuyan sila ay pansamantalang

mananatili sa kanilang ina, habang tinatapos ang kanilang pag-aaral. Sa pasukan sila ay maaari
ng isama ng ama, sa lugar kung saan siya ay naninirahan;

4. Na ang mga bata ay maaaring dalawin ng sino man sa aming dalawa tuwing may pagkakataon;

5. Na magbibigay ng buwanang gastusin o suporta ang ama kay Aldrin at ang kakulangan sa
mga pangangailangan nito ay pupunan ng ina;

6. Na lahat ng mga kasangkapan sa bahay tulad ng T.V., gas stove, mga kagamitan sa kusina
ay aking (Rodolfo) ipinagkakaloob kay Elena at hindi na ako interesado dito;
 7. Na lahat ng maaaring maipundar ng sino man sa amin dalawa sa mga panahong darating ay
aming mga sari-sariling pag-aari na at hindi na pinagsamahan o conjugal.

BILANG PATUNAY ng lahat ng ito, nilagdaan namin ito ngayong ika-17 ng Nobyembre, 1997, dito sa Gumaca,
Quezon.

(Sgd) (Sgd)
ELENA MARANTAL RODOLFO ESPINOSA
Nagkasundo Nagkasundo

PINATUNAYAN AT PINANUMPAAN dito sa harap ko ngayong ika-17 ng Nobyembre, 1997, dito sa Gumaca,
Quezon

ATTY. JULIETA A. OMAÑA

Notary Public
PTR No. 3728169; 1-10-97
Gumaca, Quezon

Doc. No. 482;

Page No. 97;
Book No. XI;
Series of 1997.

Complainants alleged that Marantal and Espinosa, fully convinced of the validity of the contract dissolving their
marriage, started implementing its terms and conditions. However, Marantal eventually took custody of all their
children and took possession of most of the property they acquired during their union.

Espinosa sought the advice of his fellow employee, complainant Glindo, a law graduate, who informed him that
the contract executed by Omaña was not valid. Espinosa and Glindo then hired the services of a lawyer to file a
complaint against Omaña before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).

Omaña alleged that she knows Glindo but she does not personally know Espinosa. She denied that she prepared
the contract. She admitted that Espinosa went to see her and requested for the notarization of the contract but
she told him that it was illegal. Omaña alleged that Espinosa returned the next day while she was out of the
office and managed to persuade her part-time office staff to notarize the document. Her office staff forged her
signature and notarized the contract. Omaña presented Marantal’s "Sinumpaang Salaysay" (affidavit) to support
her allegations and to show that the complaint was instigated by Glindo. Omaña further presented a letter of
apology from her staff, Arlene Dela Peña, acknowledging that she notarized the document without Omaña’s
knowledge, consent, and authority.

Espinosa later submitted a "Karagdagang Salaysay" stating that Omaña arrived at his residence together with a
girl whom he later recognized as the person who notarized the contract. He further stated that Omaña was not
in her office when the contract was notarized.

The Decision of the Commission on Bar Discipline

In its Report and Recommendation1 dated 6 February 2007, the IBP-CBD stated that Espinosa’s desistance did
not put an end to the proceedings. The IBP-CBD found that Omaña violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. The IBP-CBD stated that Omaña had failed to exercise due diligence in the performance of
her function as a notary public and to comply with the requirements of the law. The IBP-CBD noted the
inconsistencies in the defense of Omaña who first claimed that it was her part-time staff who notarized the
contract but then later claimed that it was her former maid who notarized it. The IBP-CBD found:
Respondent truly signed the questioned document, yet she still disclaimed its authorship, thereby revealing much
more her propensity to lie and make deceit, which she is deserving [of] disciplinary sanction or disbarment.

The IBP-CBD recommended that Omaña be suspended for one year from the practice of law and for two years
as a notary public.

In a Resolution dated 19 September 2007, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the
recommendation of the IBP-CBD.

Omaña filed a motion for reconsideration.

In a Resolution dated 26 June 2011, the IBP Board of Governors denied Omaña’s motion for reconsideration.

The Issue

The sole issue in this case is whether Omaña violated the Canon of Professional Responsibility in the notarization
of Marantal and Espinosa’s "Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay."

The Ruling of this Court

We adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP-CBD.

This case is not novel. This Court has ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without
judicial approval is void.2 The Court has also ruled that a notary public should not facilitate the disintegration of
a marriage and the family by encouraging the separation of the spouses and extrajudicially dissolving the
conjugal partnership,3 which is exactly what Omaña did in this case.1avvphi1

In Selanova v. Judge Mendoza,4 the Court cited a number of cases where the lawyer was sanctioned for
notarizing similar documents as the contract in this case, such as: notarizing a document between the spouses
which permitted the husband to take a concubine and allowed the wife to live with another man, without
opposition from each other;5 ratifying a document entitled "Legal Separation" where the couple agreed to be
separated from each other mutually and voluntarily, renouncing their rights and obligations, authorizing each
other to remarry, and renouncing any action that they might have against each other; 6 preparing a document
authorizing a married couple who had been separated for nine years to marry again, renouncing the right of
action which each may have against the other;7 and preparing a document declaring the conjugal partnership
dissolved.8

We cannot accept Omaña’s allegation that it was her part-time office staff who notarized the contract. We agree
with the IBP-CBD that Omaña herself notarized the contract. Even if it were true that it was her part-time staff
who notarized the contract, it only showed Omaña’s negligence in doing her notarial duties. We reiterate that a
notary public is personally responsible for the entries in his notarial register and he could not relieve himself of
this responsibility by passing the blame on his secretaries9 or any member of his staff.

We likewise agree with the IBP-CBD that in preparing and notarizing a void document, Omaña violated Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Omaña knew fully well that the "Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay"
has no legal effect and is against public policy. Therefore, Omaña may be suspended from office as an attorney
for breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. 10

WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Julieta A. Omaña from the practice of law for ONE YEAR.
We REVOKE Atty. Omaña’s notarial commission, if still existing, and SUSPEND her as a notary public for TWO
YEARS.
Let a copy of this Decision be attached to Atty. Omaña’s personal record in the Office of the Bar Confidant. Let
a copy of this Decision be also furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to all courts
in the land.

SO ORDERED.
[G.R. NO. 176984 - August 29, 2012]

METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SERVANDO ARGUELLES (Deceased) &
CLAUDIO ARGUELLES and MARILOU TRINIDAD, for herself and as guardian ad litem of her minor
children namely, LLOYD, MARK, ADRIAN, and GEORGIA, all surnamed TRINIDAD, TRISTAN TRINIDAD
and EDGARDO TRINIDAD, JR., Respondents.

[G.R. NO. 179131]

MARILOU TRINIDAD, for herself and as guardian ad litem of her minor children LLOYD, MARK, ADRIAN
& GEORGIA, all surnamed TRINIDAD, EDGARDO TRINIDAD, JR. and TRISTAN
TRINIDAD, Petitioners, v. SERVANDO ARGUELLES (Deceased) and CLAUDIO ARGUELLES, and
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Respondents.

DECISION

ABAD, J.:

These cases involve an action for the annulment of a transfer certificate of title (TCT) over a parcel of land on
the basis of an allegedly falsified deed of sale transferring title over the property.

The Facts and the Case

Respondent brothers, Servando and Claudio Arguelles (the Arguelleses ), were registered owners of a parcel of
land in Imus, Cavite, under TCT T-115897. On November 23, 1983 the Arguelleses entered into a conditional
sale of the land to Edgardo Trinidad and his wife Marilou (the Trinidads). In accordance with the terms of the
sale, the Trinidads gave the Arguelleses P 50,000.00 as down payment. The balance ofl!396,720.00 was to be
paid in monthly installments.

The Trinidads occupied and began developing the property in 1986. They paid the real estate taxes due on it
from 1987 to 1997. With a deed of sale in their favor, the Trinidads eventually had the land titled in their names
on August 15, 1991 under TCT T-316427. In that same year, they applied with Metropolitan Bank & Trust
Company (Metrobank) for a loan, offering the land as collateral. Satisfied that the Trinidads owned the property,
Metrobank accepted it as collateral and lent them money. Subsequently, Metrobank granted the couple several
more loans, totaling more than P 11 million, all secured by the land.

On January 7, 1997 the Arguelleses filed a complaint against the Trinidads with the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Imus, Cavite1 for the cancellation of TCT T-316427 in the latter s names. Subsequently, the complaint was
amended to implead Metrobank and sought the cancellation of the real estate mortgages over the property in its
favor.

The Arguelleses denied having executed a deed of sale in favor of the Trinidads. They alleged that they entrusted
their owner s duplicate copy of title to Atty. Alejandro Saulog, Sr., who assisted the parties in executing a
conditional sale covering the land. The Trinidads used a fictitious deed of sale, notarized by a certain Atty.
Saulog, Jr. to effect the transfer of title in their names.

In answer, the Trinidads claimed that they paid for the land by installments, completing the payment on June 24,
1986 with the result that the Arguelleses executed the deed of sale in their favor. For its part, Metrobank filed a
cross-claim against the Trinidads for litigation expenses, alleging that the Trinidads were answerable for such
expenses under the mortgage contracts.

In its decision of December 27, 2005 the RTC ruled in favor of the Arguelleses and cancelled both the title in the
name of the Trinidads and the mortgages in Metrobank s favor. The primordial issue, said the RTC, was whether
or not the Trinidads paid the balance of the agreed purchase price by installments. It found that they did not
since they could not present proof of the payments they supposedly made. When asked on cross-examination,
Marilou Trinidad could not even remember when they made those installment payments.

Two handwriting experts testified during the trial on the authenticity of the Arguelleses signatures appearing on
the deed of sale: 1) Atty. Desiderio Pagui whom the Arguelleses hired and 2) Rogelio Azores of the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Their opinions differed. Atty. Pagui concluded that the signatures were forged,
while Azores maintained that the signatures were authentic. The RTC adopted the conclusion of Atty. Pagui,
finding that he presented a more thorough and detailed analysis. He compared both similarities and differences
between the questioned signatures and specimen signatures; whereas, Azores gave emphasis to the similarities.

In addition to annulling the Trinidads title, the RTC awarded the Arguelleses moral damages of P1,000,000.00
and attorney s fees of P 200,000.00. It denied Metrobank s cross-claim against the Trinidads, holding that
Metrobank was a mortgagee in bad faith, having had prior notice of the irregularity in the Trinidads title. The
defendants appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA).2ςrνll

In its decision of March 6, 2007,3 the CA affirmed that of the RTC but reduced the award of moral damages
to P 50,000.00 each in favor of Servando and Claudio Arguelles. As for Metrobank, the CA held that it was not
a mortgagee in good faith as it appears that Metrobank compelled the Trinidads to acquire title over the property
before the initial loan could be approved.

The Trinidads filed their motion for reconsideration while Metrobank appealed the CA Decision to this Court.
Upon the denial of their motion, the Trinidads filed their own petition with this Court as well. Both cases were
then consolidated on November 21, 2007. During the pendency of these cases, Servando Arguelles passed
away and was substituted by his heirs.

The Issues Presentedςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

The issues in these cases are:

chanrobles virtual law library

1. Whether or not the CA erred in holding that the deed of sale, which the Arguelleses supposedly executed and
that the Trinidads used for the transfer of the property in their names, was a falsified document; andcralawlibrary

2. Whether or not the CA erred in holding that the real estate mortgages that the Trinidads executed in favor of
Metrobank are not binding on the Arguelleses.

The Court s Rulings

The key question in these cases is the authenticity of the deed of sale that the Arguelleses supposedly executed
in favor of the Trinidads and that the latter used in transferring the property title in their names. Both the RTC
and the CA held that the deed was not authentic. Ordinarily, being a question of fact, the RTC s finding, affirmed
by the CA, carries great weight. But, here, since such finding appears to be based on a flawed drawing of
conclusions from the facts, the Court is justified in taking a second look.4ςrνll

The courts below concluded that the subject deed of sale is not authentic based on the
following:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

1. The notary public who notarized the document could not recall if the Arguelleses personally appeared and
signed the deed of sale before him;

2. Two copies of the deed of sale, one dated 1986 and the other 1991, were presented;

3. The Trinidads failed to prove that they paid the Arguelleses the full purchase price mentioned in the conditional
sale; andcralawlibrary
4. The testimony of the expert witness for the Arguelleses sufficiently proved that the two brothers signatures
were forged.

chanrobles virtual law library

First. Both the RTC and the CA held that the presumption of regularity of a public document 5 did not attach to
the subject deed of sale, given that the notary public, Atty. Saulog, Jr. failed to establish the authenticity of the
signatures on it. He could not remember if the Arguelleses, present in court as he testified, were the same
persons who appeared and acknowledged the document before him.

But it is too much to expect a notary public who had but a brief time with the Arguelleses during the notarial
ceremony to remember their faces 12 years later. What matters is Atty. Saulog, Jr. s testimony respecting the
ritual of notarization that he invariably followed. He gave unbending assurance that he ascertained the identities
of the parties to documents who appeared before him, including the Arguelleses, by requiring them to show
documentary proofs of the same6 and to sign the documents in his presence.7ςrνll

Besides, the theory of the Arguelleses is that it was Atty. Saulog, Jr. who facilitated the preparation of the falsified
deed of sale for the benefit of the Trinidads. But, if this were so, it would have made more sense for Atty. Saulog,
Jr. to testify in defense of the genuineness of the transaction by claiming that he recalled the faces of those who
appeared before him 12 years ago and that they were no other than the Arguelleses.

Second. The Arguelleses point out that the residence certificates on the acknowledgment portion of the deed of
sale did not belong to them since these did not tally with their 1991 residence certificates. Further, they presented
evidence that Atty. Saulog, Jr. did not have a notarial commission in 1991.

But two copies of the deed of sale were presented in this case, identical in every way except that the first, the
Trinidad s original copy of the deed of sale, Exhibit "4," carried the date June 24, 1986 while the second, a
certified copy of the deed of sale from the Register of Deeds, Exhibit "D" of the Arguelleses, bore the date June
24, 1991. Evidently, it is the first document, original, unblemished, and bearing the year 1986 that is the correctly
dated copy. On the other hand, the year typewritten on the second document, the certified copy, had been
crudely altered by erasure with the digits "91" superimposed to make the year read "1991." In other words, the
deed of sale was executed in 1986, not 1991.

The Arguelleses merely claim that their residence certificate numbers on the copies of the deed of sale did not
reflect their 1991 residence certificates. They do not state, however, that those numbers do not represent their
1986 residence certificates, the correct year when the deed of sale was executed. Further, they do not also claim
that Atty. Saulog, Jr. did not have a notarial commission in 1986 the year that the clean deed of sale was actually
notarized.

Third. Both the RTC and the CA held that what is crucial in determining the authenticity of the deed of sale is
the question of whether or not the Trinidads paid the balance of the purchase price after November 23, 1983.
The two courts point out that the Trinidads not only failed to present proof of payment, but Marilou Trinidad was
also unable to say specifically when they paid their installments to the Arguelleses.

But, firstly, the fact that Marilou Trinidad did not have any receipt evidencing payment of the balance of the price
cannot give rise to the assumption that they had not paid the same. Marilou testified that she in fact asked the
Arguelleses to issue receipts for the payments made but the latter declined, saying that they would be executing
a deed of sale upon full payment and that this would be better proof of payment than ordinary receipts.8 That the
Trinidads trusted the Arguelleses sufficiently to waive the receipts is evidenced by Claudio Arguelles own
admission that they also did not issue any receipt for the P 50,000.00 down payment that the Trinidads
made.9ςrνll

Secondly, while the conditional sale contained an undertaking by the Trinidads to pay the balance of the
purchase price in installments, such payment may be assumed to have been made from the fact that the
Trinidads were subsequently found in possession of a deed of sale that the Arguelleses executed in their favor.
Not only this, unquestionably, the Arguelleses gave up possession of their owner s duplicate copy of the title and
this subsequently found its way into the hands of the Trinidads. There can be no better proof than these that the
Trinidads had already paid their obligation to the Arguelleses. Indeed, in 1991 the Trinidads succeeded in
registering the title to the land in their names.

Actually, as plaintiffs, the Arguelleses carried the burden of proving the affirmative of their claims (1) that the
Trinidads had not fully paid for the land and (2) that they caused the falsification of a deed of sale supposedly
executed by the Arguelleses in their favor and used it to transfer the title to the property in their names. Further,
by the nature of their action, the Arguelleses must rely on the strength of their evidence and not on the weakness
of the evidence of the defendants.10ςrνll

The Court finds it difficult to believe the Arguelleses version that the Trinidads did not pay even one centavo of
the P 396,720.00 balance of the purchase price that they undertook to pay by installments. Consider the
following:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

A. If the Arguelleses were to be believed, they endured the fact that the Trinidads did not bother to pay them
even one installment after the down payment made in November 1983.11 The Arguelleses supposedly contented
themselves with just waiting for when the payment would come.12 And they did not bother to make any demand
from 1983 to 1996 on the Trinidads for what was due them.13 Indeed, it was only after some 13 years that Claudio
Arguelles went to the Registry of Deeds to check on the standing of their title.14 Incredible!

b. According to the Arguelleses, they turned over their owner s duplicate copy of the title to Atty. Saulog, Sr. who
assisted them in 1983 in preparing the conditional sale they entered into with the Trinidads. But it makes no
sense for the Arguelleses to entrust their original title to Atty. Saulog, Sr. who was practically a stranger to them.
And, although the Trinidads supposedly failed for 13 years to pay the monthly installment due, they made no
effort to demand from the lawyer the return of their duplicate owner s copy of the title.

c. The Arguelleses had all along been aware that the Trinidads took possession of the land as early as 1983
after supposedly making a mere down payment. Claudio Arguelles who lived about half a kilometer from the
property, passed by it almost every day, and observed the presence of the Trinidads on it15 and the fact they had
built improvements.16 Yet, Claudio never bothered to drop in and demand payments of what was due him and
his brother or ask the Trinidads to leave the property. Claudio s mere excuse was that he was very busy.17ςrνll

d. Further, the Arguelleses ceased paying real estate taxes on the property after 1986. The Trinidads were the
ones who paid those taxes from 1987 to 1996. Only in 1997 when the Arguelleses filed their action to recover
the property did they begin to pay the taxes.18ςrνll

chanrobles virtual law library

Fourth. Of two handwriting experts who examined the questioned signatures, Atty. Desiderio Pagui and Rogelio
Azores, both the RTC and the CA gave more credence to the opinion of the first because he identified both the
similarities and the differences and gave more details. Pagui was a private handwriting expert that the
Arguelleses presented. Azores was an expert from the NBI.

In essence, Atty. Pagui gave the opinion that, whereas the specimen signatures were clumsily written, the
questioned signatures were done with greater dexterity. He imputed the similarities between the two sets of
signatures to simulation through practice.19ςrνll

Azores found, on the other hand, significant similarities between the questioned signatures and the specimen:
the structural pattern of elements, the directions of strokes, and the manner of execution. He also observed
allowable natural variations between the sets of signatures. Finally, he held the view that there were no
indications or symptoms of forgery, such as hesitations and tremors in writing, and that the questioned signatures
were written with free and spontaneous strokes, made unconsciously without attention given to the act of
writing.20ςrνll
The RTC gave greater weight to the report of Atty. Pagui because it gave more details and extensively discussed
both differences and similarities between the questioned signatures and specimen; whereas Azores focused
mainly on the similarities.

But, while the trial court generally has discretion to determine the weight to be given to an expert testimony, it
erroneously disregarded Azores findings. Azores, as government handwriting expert, was a neutral source of
opinion. The Chief of the Questioned Documents Division of the

NBI concurred in his findings. Azores findings should be treated as an official act performed with accepted
competence and cloaked with the mantle of impartiality and neutrality. 21 Atty. Pagui, on the other hand, was a
private practitioner paid for by the Arguelleses. It was but natural for him to support the position of his client,
bringing up tiny details to make up for lack of substance.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the Arguelleses have failed to overcome the presumed
validity of the Trinidads title over the property in dispute.

Fifth. With the Court s above conclusion, there is no further need to determine whether or not the real estate
mortgages that the Trinidads executed in favor of Metrobank are binding on the Arguelleses. They are, based
on such conclusion.

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petitions, REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of
Appeals dated March 6, 2007 and resolution dated August 8, 2007 in CA-G.R. CV 86714 as well as the decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite in Civil Case 1465-97 dated December 27, 2005, and DENIES the
action for the annulment of Transfer Certificate of Title T-316427 of the Register of Deeds of the Province of
Cavite and of the real estate mortgages entered into by the Trinidad spouses and Metrobank and the cross-claim
of Metrobank.

SO ORDERED.
A.C. No. 8384 April 11, 2013

EFIGENIA M. TENOSO Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. ANSELMO S. ECHANEZ, Respondent.

RESOLUTION

LEONEN, J.:

Etigenia M. Tenoso (complainant) tiled a complaint against Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez (respondent) alleging that
respondent was engaged in practice as a notary public in Cordon, lsabela, without having been properly
commissioned by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Santiago City, Isabela. This is the RTC exercising jurisdiction
over the Municipality of Cordon.

This alleged act violates Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC). To support her
allegations, complainant attached the following documents to her pleadings:

a. Two (2) documents signed and issued by RTC Santiago City Executive Judge Efren M. Cacatian
bearing the names of commissioned notaries public within the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC of
Santiago City for the years 2006 to 2007 and 2007 to 2008.1 Respondent's name does not appear on
either list;

b. Copies of ten (10) documents that appear to have been notarized by respondent in the years 2006,
2007, and 2008; and

c. A copy of a certification issued by Judge Cacatian stating that a joint-affidavit notarized by respondent
in 2008 could not be "authenticated as to respondent's seal and signature as NO Notarial Commission
was issued upon him at the time of the document's notarization."2

In his two-page Answer, respondent denied the allegations saying, "I have never been notarizing any document
or pleadings"3 and added that he has "never committed any malpractice, nor deceit nor have violated thelawyers
(sic) oath".4 He dismissed such allegations as being "preposterous, full of lies, politically motivated and x x x
meant to harass or intimidate him".5

Also, he surmised that the documents annexed to the Affidavit-Complaint were "tampered and adulterated," or
that "somebody might have forged his signature."6 He failed to attend the mandatory conference and likewise
failed to file his Position Paper.

In his Report and Recommendation dated 29 September 2008, Investigating Commissioner Atty. Salvador B.
Hababag recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months and
disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years for violating Rules 1.01 and 10.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.7

In a Resolution dated 11 December 2008, the IBP Board of Governors affirmed the findings of the Investigating
Commissioner but increased the penalty of suspension from six (6) months to one (1) year. Respondent did not
file a Motion for Reconsideration or any other subsequent pleading.

On 12 August 2009, the IBP Board of Governors transmitted its Resolution to the Supreme Court for its action
following Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.8

The Court modifies the IBP Board of Governors' Resolution.

Complainant presented evidence supporting her allegation that respondent had notarized various documents in
Cordon, Isabela from 2006 to 2008 and that respondent's name does not appear on the list of notaries public
commissioned by the RTC of Santiago City, Isabela for the years 2006 to 2007 and 2007 to 2008.

Respondent failed to present evidence to rebut complainant's allegations.1âwphi1 Per Section 1, Rule 131 of
the Rules of Court,9 the burden of proof is vested upon the party who alleges the truth of his claim or defense or
any fact in issue. Thus, in Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v.
Gutierrez,10where a party resorts to bare denials and allegations and fails to submit evidence in support of his
defense, the determination that he committed the violation is sustained. Respondent merely posited that the
notarized documents presented by complainant were "tampered and adulterated" or were results of forgery, but
he failed to present any proof.11 Respondent also resorted to a sweeping and unsupported statement that he
never notarized any document. Accordingly, the reasonable conclusion is that respondent repeatedly notarized
documents without the requisite notarial commission.

Time and again, this Court emphasizes that the practice of law is imbued with public interest and that "a lawyer
owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the
nation, and takes part in one of the most important functions of the State - the administration of justice - as an
officer of the court."12 Accordingly, '"lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency,
but also of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing."13

Similarly, the duties of notaries public are dictated by public policy and impressed with public
interest.14"Notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act, for notarization converts a private document to a
public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity
and due execution."15

In misrepresenting himself as a notary public, respondent exposed party-litigants, courts, other lawyers and the
general public to the perils of ordinary documents posing as public instruments. As noted by the Investigating
Commissioner, respondent committed acts of deceit and falsehood in open violation of the explicit
pronouncements of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Evidently, respondent's conduct falls miserably
short of the high standards of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing required from lawyers. It is proper that
he be sanctioned.

WHEREFORE, We find Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez guilty of engaging in notarial practice without a notarial
commission, and accordingly, We SUSPEND him from the practice of law for two (2) years and DISQUALIFY
him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. He is warned that a repetition of the same or
similar act in the future shall merit a more severe sanction.

SO ORDERED
A.C. No. 9514 April 10, 2013

BERNARD N. JANDOQUILE, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. QUIRINO P. REVILLA, JR., Respondent.

RESOLUTION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before us is a complaint1 for disbarment filed by complainant Bernard N. Jandoquile against respondent Atty.
Quirino P. Revilla, Jr.

The Facts of the case are not disputed.

Atty. Revilla, Jr. notarized a complaint-affidavit2 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.
Jandoquile complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. is disqualified to perform the notarial act3 per Section 3( c), Rule IV
of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice which reads as follows:

SEC. 3. Disqualifications. – A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he:

xxxx

(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the
principal4within the fourth civil degree.

Jandoquile also complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not require the three affiants in the complaint-affidavit to
show their valid identification cards.

In his comment5 to the disbarment complaint, Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not deny but admitted Jandoquile’s material
allegations. The issue, according to Atty. Revilla, Jr., is 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. 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 live-in houseboy of the Brosas family.

Since the facts are not contested, the Court deems it more prudent to resolve the case instead of referring it to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation.

Indeed, Atty. Revilla, Jr. violated the disqualification rule under Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice. We agree with him, however, that his violation is not a sufficient ground for disbarment.

Atty. Revilla, Jr.’s violation of the aforesaid disqualification rule is beyond dispute. Atty. Revilla, Jr. readily
admitted that he notarized the complaint-affidavit signed by his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity.
Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly disqualifies him from notarizing the complaint-
affidavit, from performing 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. We cannot agree with his proposition that we consider
him to have acted more as counsel of the affiants, not as notary public, when he notarized the complaint-affidavit.
The notarial certificate6 at the bottom of the complaint-affidavit shows his signature as a notary public, with a
notarial commission valid until December 31, 2012.
He cannot therefore claim that he signed it as counsel of the three affiants.

On the second charge, we agree with Atty. Revilla, Jr. that he cannot be held liable. If the notary public knows
the affiants personally, he need not require them to show their valid identification cards. This rule is supported
by the definition of a "jurat" under Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. A "jurat" refers to an
act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an
instrument or document; (b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity; (c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and (d) takes
an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document. In this case, Heneraline Brosas
is a sister of Atty. Revilla, Jr.’s wife; Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa is his wife’s sister-in-law; and Elmer Alvarado is
the live-in houseboy of the Brosas family. Atty. Revilla, Jr. knows the three affiants personally. Thus, he was
justified in no longer requiring them to show valid identification cards. But Atty. Revilla, Jr. is not without fault for
failing to indicate such fact in the "jurat" of the complaint-affidavit. No statement was included therein that he
knows the three affiants personally.7 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.

As we said, 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. To our mind, Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not commit any
deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct or gross immoral conduct, or any other serious ground for disbarment
under Section 27,8 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. We recall the case of Maria v. Cortez9 where we reprimanded
Cortez and disqualified him from being commissioned as notary public for six months. We were convinced that
said punishment, which is less severe than disbarment, would already suffice as sanction for Cortez’s violation.
In Cortez, we noted the prohibition in Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice that a person
shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document (1) is not in the
notary’s presence personally at the time of the notarization and (2) is not personally known to the notary public
or otherwise identified by the notary public through a competent evidence of identity. Cortez had notarized a
special power of attorney without having the alleged signatories appear before him. In imposing the less severe
punishment, we were mindful that removal from the Bar should not really be decreed when any punishment less
severe such as reprimand, temporary suspension or fine would accomplish the end desired.1âwphi1

Considering the attendant circumstances and the single violation committed by Atty. Revilla, Jr., we are in
agreement 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, for a period of three (3) months. Atty. Revilla, Jr. is further DIRECTED to INFORM the Court, through an
affidavit, once the period of his disqualification has lapsed.

SO ORDERED.

A.C. No. 8101 February 4, 2015

MELANIO S. SALITA, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. REYNALDO T. SALVE, Respondent.

RESOLUTION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

This instant administrative case arose from an Affidavit-Complaint1 filed by complainant Melania S. Salita (Salita)
against respondent Atty. Reynaldo T. Salve (Atty. Salve) in connection with the latter's alleged falsification of
public documents.
The Facts

On December 14, 2002, Salita - the registered owner of a parcel of land located at Visayan Village, Tagum
City2with Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-678503 (subject property) - applied for a loan from one Jocelyn
Rodriguez (Rodriguez) in the amount of ₱50,000.00 and, in such regard, signed blank documents, including an
"incomplete" Promissory Note (PN).4 Subsequently, he restructured the aforesaid loan and further signed several
documents prepared by the latter, including two (2) Real Estate Mortgage Agreements dated November 9,
20055 and November 18, 20056 (REM instruments), and a pre-formed Deed of Absolute Sale7 covering the
subject property as collateral.8

On November 15, 2006, Salita was able to pay his loan in full as evidenced by a Release of Real Estate
Mortgage9executed by Rodriguez before Notary Public Buenaventura Melendres, which was later duly entered
in the Register of Deeds of Davao Del Norte.10

Notwithstanding such full payment, Rodriguez, on September 17, 2007, instituted an ejectment
complaint11 against Salita before the Office of the Barangay of Visayan Village, Tagum City, presenting in
furtherance of his cause the pre-formed Deed of Absolute Sale and the two (2) REM instruments signed by the
latter.12 Upon checking the said documents, Salita discovered that the Deed of Absolute Sale had already been
notarized13 by Atty. Salve and his Community Tax Certificate Numbers were allegedly falsified. 14 During a
Barangay Conciliation proceeding, Rodriguez presented the same documents to reinforce her claims. Salita, for
his part, noticed that one copy of the Deed of Sale was purportedly notarized on August 12, 2007,15 while another
was notarized a month later, or on September 12, 2007.16 Thus, Salita went on to conclude that because of the
foregoing events, it appeared as if he had sold the subject property to Rodriguez and executed the same before
Atty. Salve.17 Aggrieved, Salita filed a criminal case for falsification of public documents against Rodriguez18 and
Atty. Salve.19 Salita likewise filed the instant administrative case against Atty. Salve.

In his defense,20 Atty. Salve vehemently denied that he falsified the Deed of Absolute Sale. He averred that the
said document was regular on its face except the month of sale, i.e., August 12, 2007 instead of September 12,
2007, which is a mere clerical error due to "sheer" inadvertence on the part of his secretary. Accounting for such,
Atty. Salve claimed that the date stamp accidentally slid to August instead of September as it was also being
used by three (3) other office clerks and two (2) lawyers for other office documents.21 Atty. Salve further narrated
that both Salita and Rodriguez went to him and brought the PN and other loan documents executed by Salita
himself. He also clarified that the PN was notarized in their presence on December 12, 2002 and both got a copy
right after. Atty. Salve then inferred that it was Salita who erased the PN’s machine printed numbers using his
own handwriting and thereafter photocopied it to make it appear that the document was not among the notarial
documents he submitted to the Office of the Clerk of Court of Tagum City for the year 2002. 22 Finally, Atty. Salve
averred that the certified electronic copies of the PN in the Office of the Clerk of Court of Tagum City and the
ones in his law office are identical and the same, while Salita’s alleged falsified photocopy is totally different. 23

The IBP Report and Recommendation

In a Report and Recommendation24 dated January 4, 2010, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Investigating Commissioner dismissed Salita’s complaint for lack of merit.25 He found that Salita was not able to
obtain the required quantum of proof to hold Atty. Salve administratively liable, especially considering that Salita’s
criminal complaint was dismissed for lack of probable cause.26

In a Resolution27 dated December 29, 2012 (December 29, 2012 Resolution), the IBP Board of Governors
adopted and approved the IBP Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation dismissing the case
for lack of merit.

On reconsideration,28 however, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution29 dated March 8, 2014 (March
8,2014 Resolution) setting aside its December 29, 2012 Resolution and accordingly, recommended the
suspension of Atty. Salve’s notarial commission for a period of three (3) months. It, however, failed to state the
reasons for imposing the suspension.
The Issue Before the Court

The sole issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not Atty. Salve should be held administratively liable.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court rules in the affirmative.

Before delving on the merits, the Court finds it proper to first call out the IBP for failing to articulate the reasons
behind its resolution. Section 12 (a), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court mandates that the decision of the IBP
Board of Governors shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on which it is based:

SEC. 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors. – (a) Every case heard by an investigator shall be
reviewed by the IBP Board of Governors upon the record and evidence transmitted to it by the Investigator with
his report. The decision of the Board upon such review shall be in writing and shall clearly and distinctly state
the facts and the reasons on which it is based. It shall be promulgated within a period not exceeding thirty (30)
days from the next meeting of the Board following the submittal of the Investigator’s Report. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 12 (b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court further states that:

SEC. 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors. – x x x

xxxx

(b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the respondent should be
suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and
recommendations which, together with the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the
Supreme Court for final action. (Emphasis supplied)

Notably, although the IBP’s recommendation only covers herein respondent’s notarial commission and not his
license to practice law, still, in view of the necessary connection between the two (for only members of the Bar
in good standing may be commissioned as notaries public30), the Court equally exhorts compliance with the
preceding provision requiring the IBP Board of Governors to set forth its findings, both of fact and law, and its
recommendations in the resolution it submits to this Court for final action.

With its March 8, 2014 Resolution barren of any reason to support the proffered recommendation, said body had
clearly failed to comply with the foregoing provisions. Thus, it is strongly prompted to be ever-mindful of the
above-mentioned rules.

Be that as it may, the Court takes up the cudgels and explains the reasons warranting the suspension of Atty.
Salve’s notarial commission.

To recount, records reveal that Rodriguez used, among others, the Deed of Absolute Sale notarized by Atty.
Salve to file an ejectment complaint against Salita. However, it must be remembered that Salita was merely
made to sign such document as collateral for his loan and that he had already fully paid the same, as evidenced
by the notarized Release of Real Estate Mortgage executed by Rodriguez herself. Considering the
circumstances, it is simply unfathomable for Salita to appear before Atty. Salve to have the said document
notarized, as it will be detrimental to his own interests. Hence, the Court finds that Atty. Salve notarized the pre-
formed Deed of Absolute Sale without Salita’s presence before him.

Verily, 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.31
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, Atty. Salve, as borne from the records of this case, effectively proclaimed to the
world that: (a) all the parties therein personally appeared before him; (b) they are all personally known to him;
(c) they were the same persons who executed the instruments; (d) he inquired into the voluntariness of execution
of the instrument; and (e) they acknowledged personally before him that they voluntarily and freely executed the
same.32As a lawyer commissioned to be a notary public, Atty. Salve 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.
Having failed in this regard, he must now accept the commensurate consequences of his professional
indiscretion. His act of certifying under oath an irregular Deed of Absolute Sale without requiring the personal
appearance of the persons executing the same constitutes gross negligence in the performance of duty as a
notary public.33

In the case of Atty. Dela Cruz v. Atty. Zabala,34 the Court revoked the errant lawyer’s notarial commission and
disqualified him from being commissioned as such for a period of two (2) years for similarly committing gross
negligence in the performance of his duty as a notary public through his failure to ascertain the identities of the
persons executing the Deed of Absolute sale he notarized.35 Thus, due to the infractions’ relative comparability,
the Court finds it apt to impose the same against Atty. Salve, thereby effectively modifying the suspension initially
recommended by the IBP.

As a final point, it bears noting that unlike the aforesaid misdeed – which palpably appears from the records –
the Court expresses its concurrence with the IBP Investigating Commissioner’s finding that Atty. Salve should
nevertheless be absolved from the falsification charges against him. Suffice it to state that Salita failed to prove
the allegations against Atty. Salve, especially considering the resolutions in the criminal case against the latter
finding no probable cause to indict him of the crime of Falsification of Public Documents. 36 That being said, only
Atty. Salve’s administrative liability for gross negligence in his conduct as a notary public stands. WHEREFORE,
respondent Atty. Reynaldo T. Salve is found GUILTY of gross negligence in his conduct as a notary public. His
notarial commission, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned
as a notary public for a period of two (2) years.

Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent's
personal record as attorney. Further, let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all courts in the country
for their information and guidance.

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

WILBERTO C. TALISIC, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. PRIMO R. RINEN, Respondent.

RESOLUTION

REYES, J.:

This is an administrative case instituted by complainant Wilberto C. Talisic (Wilberto) against Atty. Primo R.
Rinen1(Atty. Rinen), charging the latter with falsification of an Extra Judicial Partition with Sale 2 which allowed
the transfer to spouses Benjamin Durante and Eleonor Lavifia (Spouses Durante) of a parcel of land formerly
owned by Wilberto's mother, Aurora Corpuz (Aurora). The property, measuring 3,817 square meters and situated
in Barangay Langgas, Infanta, Quezon, was formerly covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-4875 under
Aurora's name.3 After Atty. Rinen filed his comment on the complaint, the Court referred the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Commission on Bar Discipline, for investigation, report and
recommendation.4

Wilberto claimed that his mother Aurora died on May 7, 1987, leaving behind as heirs her spouse, Celedonio
Talisic, and their three children, namely: Arlene Talisic Villarazo, Wilberto and Alvin Corpuz Talisic. It was only
after his father’s death on November 2, 2000 that Wilberto 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".5

For his defense, Atty. Rinen denied the charge against him and explained that it was only on April 7, 1994 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, Real, Quezon, 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.6 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 of Real, Quezon.7

After due proceedings, Investigating Commissioner Felimon C. Abelita III (Commissioner Abelita) issued the
Report and Recommendation8 dated November 20, 2012 for the cancellation of Atty. Rinen’s notarial
commission and his suspension from notarial practice for a period of one year.9 The report indicated that per
Atty. Rinen’s admission, the subject deed was prepared in his office and acknowledged before him. Although
there was no evidence of forgery on his part, he was negligent in not requiring from the parties to the deed their
presentation of documents as proof of identity. Atty. Rinen’s failure to properly satisfy his duties as a notary
public was also shown by the inconsistencies in the dates that appear on the deed, to wit: "1994 as to the
execution; 1995 when notarized; [and] entered as Series of 1992 in the notarial book x x x."10

In the meantime, Atty. Rinen filed a motion for reconsideration11 of Commissioner Abelita’s recommendation.
The IBP Board of Governors, nonetheless, adopted and approved on March 20, 2013, via Resolution No. XX-
2013-247, the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation.12

The Court agrees with the findings and recommendations of the IBP.

"[F]aithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is
sacrosanct."13 "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.1âwphi1 Thus, notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in
a substantial degree x x x."14

It must then be stressed that, "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."15 Towards
this end, the Court emphasized in Bautista v. Atty. Bernabe16 that "[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." 17

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 on April 7, 1994. 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 lapses he committed in relation to such function then justified the recommendations
presented by the IBP.

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."18 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."19 Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of public instruments would
be undermined.20

WHEREFORE, as recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, 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. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act
in the future shall merit a more severe sanction. He is DIRECTED to report to this Court the date of his receipt
of this Resolution to enable it to determine when the revocation of his notarial commission and his disqualification
from being commissioned as notary public shall take effect.

Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to Atty. Primo R.
Rinen's personal record. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts
in the country for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.
A.C. No. 5482, February 10, 2015

JIMMY ANUDON AND JUANITA ANUDON, Complainants, v. ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA, Respondent.

RESOLUTION

LEONEN, J.:

Whoever acts as Notary Public must ensure that the parties executing the document be present. Otherwise,
their participation with respect to the document cannot be acknowledged. Notarization of a document in the
absence of the parties is a breach of duty.

Complainants Jimmy Anudon (Jimmy) and Juanita Anudon (Juanita) are brother- and sister-in-
law.1 Complainants and Jimmy’s brothers and sister co-own a 4,446-square-meter parcel of land located in
Sison, Pangasinan covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 69244. 2cralawred

Respondent Atty. Arturo B. Cefra (Atty. Cefra) is a distant relative of Jimmy and Juanita. He was admitted to the
bar in 1996. He practices law and provides services as notary public in the Municipality of Sison,
Pangasinan.3cralawred

On August 12, 1998, Atty. Cefra notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale4 over a land covered by TCT No. 69244. The
names of Johnny Anudon (Johnny), Alfonso Anudon (Alfonso), Benita Anudon-Esguerra (Benita), and
complainants Jimmy and Juanita appeared as vendors, while the name of Celino Paran, Jr. (Paran) appeared
as the vendee.5cralawred

Jimmy and Juanita claimed that the Deed of Absolute Sale was falsified. They alleged that they did not sign the
Deed of Absolute Sale. Moreover, they did not sign it before Atty. Cefra.6 The National Bureau of Investigation’s
Questioned Documents Division certified that Jimmy and Juanita’s signatures were forged. 7 This is contrary to
Atty. Cefra’s acknowledgment over the document, which states:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for and in the Munici[pa]lity of Sison, personally appeared JOHNNY ANUDON,
ALFONSO ANUDON, BENITA ESGUERRA, JIMMY ANUDON and JUANITA ANUDON, who exhibited to me
their respective Community Tax Certificates as above-indicated, known to me and known to be the same persons
who executed the foregoing Deed of Absolute Sale and acknowledged to me that the same is their free act and
voluntary deed.

This instrument, which refers to a Deed of Absolute Sale over a parcel of lot, consists of two pages and have
[sic] been signed by the parties and the respective witnesses on each and every page thereof.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1998.

(Sgd.)
ARTURO B. CEFRA
Notary Public
Until December 31, 1999
PTR NO. 2461164; 1-7-98
SISON, PANGASINAN8cralawred
cralawlawlibrary

In addition to the forgery of their signatures, Jimmy and Juanita stated that it was physically impossible for their
brothers and sister, Johnny, Alfonso, and Benita, to sign the Deed of Absolute Sale. Johnny and Benita were in
the United States on the day the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed, while Alfonso was in Cavite. 9cralawred

Due to the forgery of the Deed of Absolute Sale, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, with Jimmy and Juanita as
witnesses, filed a case of falsification of public document against Atty. Cefra and Paran. 10cralawred
Jimmy and Juanita also initiated a disciplinary action by filing a Complaint11 with this court on August 6, 2001
questioning the propriety of Atty. Cefra’s conduct as lawyer and notary public.

In the Resolution12 dated September 19, 2001, this court required Atty. Cefra to comment on the administrative
complaint. Atty. Cefra filed multiple Motions for Extension of Time,13 which this court granted.14 Despite the
allowance for extension of time, Atty. Cefra did not comply with this court’s order to file a Comment. This court
fined Atty. Cefra in the Resolutions dated March 12, 200315 and November 17, 2003.16 In both Resolutions, this
court directed Atty. Cefra to file his Comment.17cralawred

Atty. Cefra’s continued refusal to file his Comment caused this court to order his arrest and commitment. 18 Thus,
the National Bureau of Investigation’s agents arrested Atty. Cefra at his residence on January 14,
2007.19cralawred

Atty. Cefra finally submitted his Comment20 on January 15, 2008.

In his defense, Atty. Cefra stated that Jimmy and Juanita were aware of the sale of the property covered by TCT
No. 69244. He narrated that on July 10, 1998, Juanita and Jimmy’s wife Helen Anudon went to his residence to
consult him on how they could sell the land covered by TCT No. 69244 to Paran. 21 Atty. Cefra claimed that he
assisted in the preparation of the documents for the sale, which included the deed of sale and the
acknowledgment receipts for payment.22cralawred

On August 13, 1998, Paran’s relatives, Viola Carantes and Lita Paran, brought the Deed of Absolute Sale to the
residences of Jimmy, Juanita, and Johnny’s son, Loejan Anudon (Loejan) to have the document signed.23 Viola
Carantes and Lita Paran informed Atty. Cefra that they witnessed Jimmy, Juanita, and Loejan sign the
document.24 Loejan affixed the signatures for his father, Johnny, and his uncle and aunt, Alfonso and
Benita.25cralawred

Atty. Cefra admitted knowing that Loejan affixed the signatures of Johnny, Alfonso, and Benita “with the full
knowledge and permission of the three[.]”26 He allowed this on the basis of his belief that this was justified since
Loejan needed the proceeds of the sale for the amputation of his mother’s leg.27 It clearly appeared that Loejan
forged the three (3) signatures. Loejan did not have formal authorization to sign on behalf of his father, uncle,
and aunt.

According to Atty. Cefra, he “notarized the questioned document in good faith, trusting in [complainants’] words
and pronouncements; with the only purpose of helping them out legally and financially[.]”28cralawred

After receiving Atty. Cefra’s Comment, this court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
investigation, report, and recommendation.29cralawred

During the investigation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Juanita appeared without any counsel and
manifested her intention to solicit the services of the Public Attorney’s Office. 30 She also informed the
Investigating Commissioner that her co-complainant, Jimmy, had already passed away.31 The mandatory
conference was held on February 20, 2009.32 On the same day, the Investigating Commissioner issued an
Order33 terminating the mandatory conference and requiring the parties to submit their respective Position
Papers.

The Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Cefra’s conduct in notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale violated
the Notarial Law.34 In addition, Atty. Cefra violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, 35 which
requires that “[a] lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and
legal processes.”

Hence, the Investigating Commissioner recommended the revocation of Atty. Cefra’s notarial commission and
the disqualification of Atty. Cefra from reappointment as notary public for two (2) years. The Investigating
Commissioner also recommended the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six (6)
months.36cralawred
In Resolution No. XIX-2011-24937 dated May 14, 2011, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines resolved to adopt the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. 38 However,
they recommended that the penalty imposed on Atty. Cefra be modifed:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Atty. Arturo B. Cefra is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and
immediate Revocation of his Notarial Commission and Perpetual Disqualification from re-appointment as
Notary Public.39 (Emphasis in the original)cralawlawlibrary

Atty. Cefra filed a Motion for Reconsideration,40 asking the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to temper the
recommended penalty against him.41 In Resolution No. XXI-2014-9342 dated March 21, 2014, the Board of
Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines proposed to lower its original penalty against Atty.
Cefra:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Atty. Arturo B. Cefra [is] SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year, his notarial practice, if
presently existing, immediately REVOKED and his notarial practice SUSPENDED for two (2)
years.43 (Emphasis in the original)cralawlawlibrary

On September 9, 2014, the Office of the Bar Confidant reported that both parties no longer filed a Petition for
Review of Resolution No. XXI-2014-93.44cralawred

We agree and adopt the findings of fact of the Investigating Commissioner. Respondent Atty. Arturo B. Cefra
violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility in notarizing a document without requiring
the presence of the affiants.

The notarization of documents ensures the authenticity and reliability of a document. As this court previously
explained:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court
without further proof of its authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to
rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument. Notarization
is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a substantial degree and the protection of
that interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing
upon the public and the courts and administrative offices generally.45 (Citation omitted)cralawlawlibrary

The earliest law on notarization is Act No. 2103.46 This law refers specifically to the acknowledgment and
authentication of instruments and documents. Section 1(a) of this law states that an 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 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice reiterates that acknowledgments require the affiant to appear in person
before the notary public. Rule II, Section 1 states:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

SECTION 1. Acknowledgment.—“Acknowledgment” refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:

(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents and integrally complete instrument or
document;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and

(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was voluntarily
affixed by him for the purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has executed the
instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative
capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that capacity. (Emphasis supplied)cralawlawlibrary
Rule IV, Section 2(b) states further:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

SEC. 2. Prohibitions.— . . .

(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document—

(1) is not in the notary’s presence personally at the time of the notarization; and

(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.cralawlawlibrary

The rules require the notary public to assess whether the person executing the document voluntarily affixes his
or her signature. Without physical presence, the notary public will not be able to properly execute his or her duty
under the law. In Gamido v. New Bilibid Prisons Officials,47 we stated that “[i]t is obvious that the party
acknowledging must . . . appear before the notary public[.]” 48 Furthermore, this court pronounced
that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

[a] document should not be notarized unless the persons who are executing it are the very same ones who are
personally appearing before the notary public. The affiants should be present to attest to the truth of the contents
of the document and to enable the notary to verify the genuineness of their signature. Notaries public are
enjoined from notarizing a fictitious or spurious document. In fact, it is their duty to demand that the document
presented to them for notarization be signed in their presence. Their function is, among others, to guard against
illegal deeds.49 (Citations omitted)cralawlawlibrary

Notarization is the act that ensures the public that the provisions in the document express the true agreement
between the parties. Transgressing the rules on notarial practice sacrifices the integrity of notarized
documents. It is the notary public who assures that the parties appearing in the document are the same parties
who executed it. This cannot be achieved if the parties are not physically present before the notary public
acknowledging the document.

Atty. Cefra claims that Jimmy and Juanita wanted to sell their land. Even if this is true, Jimmy and Juanita, as
vendors, were not able to review the document given for notarization. The Deed of Absolute Sale was brought
to Atty. Cefra by Paran’s representatives, who merely informed Atty. Cefra that the vendors signed the
document. Atty. Cefra should have exercised vigilance and not just relied on the representations of the vendee.

It is possible that the terms and conditions favorable to the vendors might not be in the document submitted by
the vendee for notarization. In addition, the possibility of forgery became real.

In Isenhardt v. Atty. Real,50Linco v. Atty. Lacebal,51Lanuzo v. Atty. Bongon,52 and Bautista v. Atty. Bernabe,53 the
respondent notaries were all guilty of notarizing documents without the presence of the parties. In Linco, Lanuzo,
and Bautista, the respondents notarized documents even if the persons executing those documents were already
dead at the time of notarization. In Bautista, the respondent, like Atty. Cefra, also allowed another individual to
sign on behalf of another despite lack of authorization.54 In these cases, this court imposed the penalty of
disqualification as notaries for two (2) years and suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.

In the recent case of De Jesus v. Atty. Sanchez-Malit,55 the respondent-lawyer notarized 22 public documents
even without the signatures of the parties on those documents.56 This court suspended the respondent-lawyer
from the practice of law for one (1) year and perpetually disqualified her from being a notary public. 57cralawred

Aside from Atty. Cefra’s violation of his duty as a notary public, Atty. Cefra is also guilty of violating Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. This canon requires “[a] lawyer [to] uphold the Constitution, obey the
laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.” He contumaciously delayed compliance with
this court’s order to file a Comment. As early as September 19, 2001, this court already required Atty. Cefra to
comment on the Complaint lodged against him. Atty. Cefra did not comply with this order until he was arrested
by the National Bureau of Investigation. Atty. Cefra only filed his Comment on January 15, 2008, more than
seven years after this court’s order. Atty. Cefra’s actions show utter disrespect for legal processes.

The act of disobeying a court order constitutes violation of Canon 1158 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which requires a lawyer to “observe and maintain the respect due to the courts[.]”

Under Rule 138, Section 27, paragraph 159 of the Rules of Court, “wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court” constitutes a ground for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. Atty. Cefra’s
disobedience to this court’s directive issued in 2001 was not explained even as he eventually filed his Comment
in 2008. Clearly, his disobedience was willful and inexcusable. Atty. Cefra should be penalized for this infraction.

In Sebastian v. Atty. Bajar,60 this court suspended a lawyer who refused to comply with this court’s directives to
submit a Rejoinder and to comment on complainant’s Manifestation.61 The lawyer complied with the order to file
a Rejoinder only after being detained by the National Bureau of Investigation for five (5) days. 62 Likewise, she
complied with the order to comment through a Manifestation filed after four (4) months without explaining her
delay.63 This court found that the lawyer’s “conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. . . . [Her] obstinate
refusal to comply with the Court’s orders ‘not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also underscores
her disrespect of the Court’s lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof.’” 64cralawred

We thus find that the penalty recommended against Atty. Cefra should be modified to take into account all his
acts of misconduct.

WHEREFORE, this court finds respondent Atty. Arturo B. Cefra GUILTY of notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale
dated August 12, 1998 in the absence of the affiants, as well as failure to comply with an order from this
court. Accordingly, this court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for two (2) years, REVOKES his
incumbent notarial commission, if any, and PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as
a notary public. Respondent is also STERNLY WARNED that more severe penalties will be imposed for any
further breach of the Canons in the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent’s
personal record as attorney. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all
courts in the country for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary
A.C. No. 4545 February 5, 2014

CARLITO ANG, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. JAMES JOSEPH GUPANA, Respondent.

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before us is a petition for review under Rule 139-B, Section 12(c) of the Rules of Court assailing Resolution Nos.
XVII-2005-1411 and XVIII-2008-6982 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
The IBP Board of Governors found respondent Atty. James Joseph Gupana administratively liable and imposed
on him the penalty of suspension for one year from the practice of law and the revocation of his notarial
commission and disqualification from reappointment as notary public for two years.

The case stemmed from an affidavit-complaint3 filed by complainant Carlito Ang against respondent. Ang alleged
that on May 31, 1991, he and the other heirs of the late Candelaria Magpayo, namely Purificacion Diamante and
William Magpayo, executed an Extra-judicial Declaration of Heirs and Partition4 involving Lot No. 2066-B-2-B
which had an area of 6,258 square meters and was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. (T-22409)-
6433. He was given his share of 2,003 square meters designated as Lot No. 2066-B-2-B-4, together with all the
improvements thereon.5 However, when he tried to secure a TCT in his name, he found out that said TCT No.
(T-22409)-6433 had already been cancelled and in lieu thereof, new TCTs6 had been issued in the names of
William Magpayo, Antonio Diamante, Patricia Diamante, Lolita D. Canque, Gregorio Diamante, Jr. and Fe D.
Montero.

Ang alleged that there is reasonable ground to believe 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
Loss7 and Deed of Absolute Sale8 that led to the transfer and issuance of the new TCTs. Ang pointed out that
the Deed of Absolute Sale which was allegedly executed by Candelaria Magpayo on April 17, 1989, was
antedated and Candelaria Magpayo’s signature was forged as clearly shown by the Certification 9 issued by the
Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu. Further, the certified true copy of page
37, Book No. XII, Series of 1989 of respondent’s Notarial Report indubitably showed that Doc. No. 181 did not
refer to the Deed of Absolute Sale, but to an affidavit.10 As to the Affidavit of Loss, which was allegedly executed
by the late Candelaria Magpayo on April 29, 1994, it could not have been executed by her as she Died11 three
years prior to the execution of the said affidavit of loss.

Ang further alleged that on September 22, 1995, respondent made himself the attorney-in-fact of William
Magpayo, Antonio Diamante, Patricia Diamante, Lolita Canque, Gregorio Diamante, Jr. and Fe D. Montero, and
pursuant to the Special Power of Attorney in his favor, executed a Deed of Sale 12 selling Lot No. 2066-B-2-B-4
to Lim Kim So Mercantile Co. on October 10, 1995. Ang complained that the sale was made even though a civil
case involving the said parcel of land was pending before the RTC of Mandaue City, Cebu.13

In his Comment,14 respondent denied any wrongdoing and argued that Ang is merely using the present
administrative complaint as a tool to force the defendants in a pending civil case and their counsel, herein
respondent, to accede to his wishes. Respondent averred that Ang had filed Civil Case No. Man-2202 before
Branch 55 of the Mandaue City RTC. He anchored his claim on the Extra-judicial Declaration of Heirs and
Partition and sought to annul the deed of sale and prayed for reconveyance of the subject parcel of land. During
the pre-trial conference in Civil Case No. Man-2202, Ang admitted that he is not an heir of the late Candelaria
Magpayo but insisted on his claim for a share of the lot because he is allegedly the son of the late Isaias Ang,
the common-law husband of Candelaria Magpayo. Because of his admission, the notice of lis pendens annotated
in the four certificates of title of the land in question were ordered cancelled and the land effectively became
available for disposition. Ang sought reconsideration of the order, but a compromise was reached that only one
TCT (TCT No. 34266) will be annotated with a notice of lis pendens. Respondent surmised that these
developments in Civil Case No. Man-2202 meant that Ang would lose his case so Ang resorted to the filing of
the present administrative complaint. 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 Civil Case No. Man-2202 allegedly because the issues in the present administrative case are similar
to the issues or subject matters involved in said civil case.

Investigating Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, to whom the case was
referred for investigation, report and recommendation, submitted her Report and Recommendation15 finding
respondent administratively liable. She recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law
for three months. She held that respondent committed an unethical act when he allowed himself to be an
instrument in the disposal of the subject property through a deed of sale executed between him as attorney-in-
fact of his client and Lim Kim So Mercantile Co. despite his knowledge that said property is the subject of a
pending litigation before the RTC of Mandaue City, Cebu. The Investigating Commissioner additionally found
that respondent "delegated the notarial functions to the clerical staff of their office before being brought to him
for his signature." This, according to the commissioner, "must have been the reason for the forged signatures of
the parties in the questioned document…as well as the erroneous entry in his notarial register…."16 Nonetheless,
the Investigating Commissioner merely reminded respondent to be more cautious in the performance of his
duties as regards his infraction of his notarial duties. She held, Respondent should have been more cautious in
his duty as notary public which requires that the party subscribing to the authenticity of the document should
personally appear and sign the same before respondent’s actual presence. As such notary public respondent
should not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed
by a member of the bar in accordance with Rule 9.0117 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.18

On November 12, 2005, the Board of Governors of the IBP issued Resolution No. XVII-2005-141,19 adopting the
findings of the Investigating Commissioner but modifying the recommended penalty. Instead of suspension for
three months, the Board recommended the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one year and
revocation of respondent’s notarial commission and disqualification from reappointment as notary public for two
years.

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration,20 arguing that it was neither illegal nor unethical for a lawyer to
accept appointment as attorney-in-fact of a client to sell a property involved in a pending litigation and to act as
such. He further contended that granting that his act was unethical, the modified penalty was evidently too harsh
and extremely excessive considering that the act complained of was not unlawful and done without malice.

On December 11, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors adopted Resolution No. XVIII-2008-69821 denying
respondent’s motion for reconsideration and affirming Resolution No. XVII-2005-141. Hence, this petition for
review.

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.22

We affirm the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors finding respondent administratively liable.

After reviewing the records of the case, 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 on April 17, 1989 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 Magpayo when he notarized the Affidavit of Loss which Candelaria
allegedly executed on April 29, 1994. Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, otherwise known as the Notarial Law,
explicitly provides:

Sec. 1. x x x
(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country
to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or
the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is
known to him and that he is the same person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act
and deed. The certificate shall be made under his official seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not,
his certificate shall so state.

From the foregoing, it is clear that the party acknowledging must appear before the notary public or any other
person authorized to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents.23 In the case at bar, the jurat of the
Affidavit of Loss stated that Candelaria subscribed to the affidavit before respondent on April 29, 1994, at
Mandaue City. Candelaria, however, was already dead since March 26, 1991. Hence, it is clear that the jurat
was made in violation of the notarial law. Indeed, respondent averred in his position paper before the IBP that
he did not in fact know Candelaria personally before, during and after the notarization24 thus admitting that
Candelaria was not present when he notarized the documents.

Time and again, we have held that notarization of a document is not an empty act or routine.25 Thus, in Bernardo
v. Atty. Ramos,26 the Court emphasized the significance of the act of notarization, to wit:

The importance attached to the act of notarization cannot be overemphasized. Notarization is not an empty,
meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified
or authorized may act as notaries public. 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 acknowledgment 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.
Hence a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very
same persons who xecuted and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are
stated therein. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the
signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party’s free act and deed.

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.27 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.1âwphi1Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent upon respondent and failing therein, he must
now accept the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion.28 As the Court has held in Flores
v. Chua,29

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. (Emphasis supplied.)

Respondent likewise violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9, of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that
"[a] lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be
performed by a member of the Bar in good standing." Respondent averred in his position paper that it had been
his consistent practice to course through clerical staff documents to be notarized. Upon referral, said clerical
staff investigates whether the documents are complete as to the fundamental requirements and inquires as to
the identity of the individual signatories thereto. If everything is in order, they ask the parties to sign the
documents and forward them to him and he again inquires about the identities of the parties before affixing his
notarial signature.30 It is also his clerical staff who records entries in his notarial report. As aforesaid, respondent
is mandated to observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties as a notary and
to ascertain that the persons who signed the documents are the very same persons who executed and personally
appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. In merely relying on his clerical
staff to determine the completeness of documents brought to him for notarization, limiting his participation in the
notarization process to simply inquiring about the identities of the persons appearing before him, and in notarizing
an affidavit executed by a dead person, respondent is liable for misconduct. Under the facts and circumstances
of the case, the revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary
public for a period of two years and suspension from the practice of law for one year are in order.31

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. James Joseph Gupana is found administratively liable for misconduct and is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year. Further, his notarial commission, if any, is REVOKED and
he is disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two years, with a stem warning that
repetition of the same or similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
and all courts all over the country. Let a copy of this Decision likewise be attached to the personal records of
respondent.

SO ORDERED.

A.C. No. 8103 December 3, 2014

ATTY. AURELIO C. ANGELES, JR., PROVINCIAL LEGAL OFFICER, BATAAN CAPITOL, BALANGA CITY,
BATAAN, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. RENATO C. BAGAY, Respondent.

DECISION

MENDOZA, J.:

Subject of this disposition is the September 28, 2013 Resolution1 or the IBP Board of Governors which reads:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report
and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner xxx and finding the recommendation fully supported
by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules and considering the Respondent guilty of negligence
in the performance of his notarial duty, Atty. Renato C. Bagay's Notarial Commission is hereby immediately
REVOKED. Further, he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as Notary Public for two (2) years.

It appears from the records that this case stemmed from the letter,2 dated June 11, 2008, submitted by Atty.
Aurelio C. Angeles, Jr. (Atty. Angeles, Jr.),the Provincial Legal Officer of Bataan, to Hon. Remigio M. Escalada,
Jr. (Executive Judge), Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Bataan against Atty. Renato C. Bagay
(respondent), for his alleged notarization of 18 documents at the time he was out of the country from March 13,
2008 to April 8, 2008. The notarized documents were as follows:

1. Deed of Donation executed by and between Renato Macalinao and Loida C. Macalinao and Trisha
Katrina Macalinao, notarized on April 3, 2008;

2. Deed of Donation executed by and between Renato S. Sese and Sandy Margaret L. Sese, notarized
on March 25, 2008;

3. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Josefina A. Castro married to Eduardo Samson and
Thelma Medina and Gina Medina notarized on April 3, 2008;
 4. Deed of Absolute Sale executedby Rowena Berja, notarized on March 17, 2008;

5. Deed of Donation executed by and between Crispulo Rodriguez and Luisa Rodriguez Jorgensen,
notarized on April 8, 2008;

6. Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights executed by the wife and sons of Rodrigo Dy
Jongco, notarized March 19, 2008;

7. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Sps. Rolando and Nelia Francisco and Violeta
Hernandez, notarized on April 3, 2008;

8. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Josefina Baluyot and Carmelita Padlan, notarized
on April 3, 2008;

9. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Gregorio Limcumpao and Simeona Limcumpao, notarized on
March 27, 2008;

10. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Sps. Eusebio and Libertad Bacricio and Carlos
Tamayo married to Teresa Tamayo notarized on March 18, 2008;

11. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Natividad S. Consengco and Sps. Gilvert and
Johanna Gervacio, notarized March 18, 2008;

12. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between the Rural Bank of Pilar and Mila Gatdula, notarized
on April 2, 2008;

13. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Natividad Cosengco and Sps. Jay and Helen
Zulueta, notarized on March 18, 2008;

14. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Cipriano and Salvacion Violago, notarized on April 1, 2008;

15. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Sahara Management and Development Corporation, notarized
on March 26, 2008;

16. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Danilo Arellano, Luzviminda Ramos and Sps.
Fernando and Agnes Silva, notarized on March 18, 2008;

17. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Vicente Banzon married to Elizabeth Banzon and
Sps. Dommel and Crystal Lima, notarized on April 2, 2008; and

18. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Marilyn T. Casupanan and Dominador M.
Manalansan notarized on March 14, 2008.

These documents were endorsed to the Provincial Legal Office by the Provincial Treasurer who had information
that they were notarized while respondent was outside the country attending the Prayer and Life Workshop in
Mexico. The letter contained the affidavits of the persons who caused the documents to be notarized which
showed a common statement that they did not see respondent sign the documents himself and it was either the
secretary who signed them or the documents cameout of the office already signed. Upon verification with the
Bureau of Immigration, it was found out that a certain Renato C. Bagay departed from the country on March 13,
2008 and returned on April 8, 2008. The copy of the Certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration was also
attached to the letter.3

The Executive Judge referred the matter to the IBP, Bataan Chapter, and the latter endorsed the same to the
IBP National Office for appropriate action. The latter endorsed it to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD).
When CBD Director Alicia Risos-Vidal (Atty. Risos-Vidal) required Atty. Angeles, Jr. to formalize the complaint,
the latter replied on September 30, 2008 stating, among others, that his June 11, 2008 Letter was not intended
to be a formal complaint but rather "a report on, and endorsement of, public documents by Atty. Bagay while he
was out of the country,"4 and that any advice on how to consider or treat the documents concerned would be
welcome.

On December 3, 2008, Atty. Risos-Vidal opted to endorse the matter to the Office of the Bar Confidant for
appropriate action.5

This Court, in its Resolution,6 dated February 2, 2009, resolved to note the letter of Atty. Angeles, Jr., dated
September 30,2008, and require respondent to comment on the said letter. In his comment, 7 dated 27 March
2009, respondent claimed that he was not aware that those were documents notarized using his name while he
was out of the country. Upon his own inquiry, he found out that the notarizations were done by his secretary and
without his knowledge and authority. The said secretary notarized the documents without realizing the import of
the notarization act. Respondent apologized to the Court for his lapses and averred that he had terminated the
employment of his secretary from his office.

The Court then referred the case tothe IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. When the case was
called for mandatory conference on September 16, 2009, only respondent appeared. Atty. Angeles filed a
manifestation reiterating his original position and requesting that his attendance be excused.8 The mandatory
conference was terminated and the parties were directed to file their respective position papers. Only respondent
submitted a position paper,9 to which he added that for 21 years that he had been practicing law, he acted as a
notary public without any blemish on record dutifully minding the rules of the law profession and notarial practice.

The Report and Recommendation10 of Atty. Felimon C. Abelita III (Atty. Abelita III)as Investigating Commissioner
found that the letter of Atty. Angeles, Jr., dated June11, 2008, was not verified, that most of the attachments
were not authenticated photocopies and that the comment of respondent was likewise not verified. Atty. Abelita
III, however, observed that respondent’s signature on his comment appeared to be strikingly similar to the
signatures in most of the attached documents which he admitted were notarized in his absence by his office
secretary.He admitted the fact that there were documents that were notarized while he was abroad and his
signature was affixed by his office secretary who was not aware of the import of the act. Thus, by his own
admission, it was established that by his negligence in employing an office secretary who had access to his
office, his notarial seal and records especially pertaining to his notarial documents without the proper training,
respondent failed to live up to the standard required by the Rules on Notarial Practice.

Finding respondent guilty of negligence in the performance of his notarial duty which gave his office secretary
the opportunity to abuse his prerogative authority as notary public, the Investigating Commissioner
recommended the immediate revocation of respondent’s commission as notary public and his disqualification to
be commissioned as such for a period of two (2) years.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the said recommendation in its Resolution, 11 dated
September 28, 2013.

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration12 of the said resolution of the IBP. He contended that by admitting
and owning up to what had happened, but without any wrongful intention, he should be merited with leniency.
Moreover, he claimed that he only committed simple negligence which did not warrant such harsh penalty.

On May 4, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors denied the motion for reconsideration of respondent stating:

RESOLVED to DENY Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration, there being no cogent reason to reverse the
findings of the Commission and the resolution subject of the motion, it being a mere reiteration of the matters
which had already been threshed out and taken into consideration. Thus, Resolution No. XX-2013-85 dated
September 28, 2013 is hereby affirmed.13
On August 1, 2014, the Director for Bar Discipline endorsed the May 4, 2014 Resolution of the IBP Board of
Governors to the Office of the Chief Justice for appropriate action.

The sole issue to resolve in this case is whether the notarization of documents by the secretary of respondent
while he was out of the country constituted negligence.

The Court answers in the affirmative.

Respondent admitted in his commentand motion for reconsideration that the 18 documents were notarized under
his notarial seal by his office secretary while he was out of the country. This clearly constitutes negligence
considering that respondent is responsible for the acts of his secretary. Section 9 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice provides that a "Notary Public" refers to any person commissioned to perform official acts under these
Rules. A notary public’s secretary is obviously not commissioned to perform the official acts of a notary public.
Respondent cannot take refuge in his claim that it was his secretary’s act which he did not authorize. He is
responsible for the acts of the secretary which he employed. He left his office open to the public while leaving
his secretary in charge. He kept his notarial seal and register within the reach of his secretary, fully aware that
his secretary could use these items to notarize documents and copy his signature. Such blatant negligence
cannot be countenanced by this Court and it is far from being a simple negligence. There is an inescapable
likelihood that respondent’s flimsy excuse was a mere afterthought and such carelessness exhibited by him
could be a conscious act of what his secretary did.

Respondent must fully bear the consequence of his negligence. A person who is commissioned as a notary
public takes full responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register.14 He cannot relieve himself of this
responsibility by passing the buck to his secretary.

As to his plea of leniency, the Court cannot consider it. Respondent claims that for the 21 years that he has been
practicing law, he acted as a notary public without any blemish and this was his first and only infraction. His
experience, however, should have placed him on guard and could have prevented possible violations of his
notarial duty. By his sheer negligence, 18 documents were notarized by an unauthorized person and the public
was deceived. Such prejudicial act towards the public cannot be tolerated by this Court. Thus, the penalty of
revocation of notarial commission and disqualification from reappointment as Notary Public for two (2) years is
appropriate.

Because of the negligence of respondent, the Court also holds him liable for violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).His failure to solemnly perform his duty as a notary public not only damaged those directly
affected by the notarized documents but also undermined the integrity of a notary public and degraded the
function of notarization. He should, thus, be held liable for such negligence not only as a notary public but also
as a lawyer.15 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.16 Respondent violated
Canon 9 of the CPR which requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
Due to his negligence that allowed his secretary to sign on his behalf as notary public, he allowed an
unauthorized person to practice law. By leaving his office open despite his absence in the country and with his
secretary in charge, he virtually allowed his secretary to notarize documents without any restraint.

Respondent also violated his obligation under Canon 7 of the CPR, which directs every lawyer to uphold at all
times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The people who came into his office while he was away,
were clueless as to the illegality of the activity being conducted therein. They expected that their documents
would be converted into public documents. Instead, they later found out that the notarization of their documents
was a mere sham and without any force and effect. By prejudicing the persons whose documents were notarized
by an unauthorized person, their faith in the integrity and dignity of the legal profession was eroded.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, an additional penalty of suspension from the practice of
law for three (3) months is in order.
Respondent should remember that a notarial commission is a privilege and a significant responsibility. It is a
privilege granted only to those who are qualified to perform duties imbued with public interest. As we have
declared on several occasions, 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 notary 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.17

It must be underscored that notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document,
making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, notaries pub! ic must
observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence
of the public in the integrity of pub! ic instruments would be undermined.18

Let this serve as a reminder to the members of the legal profession that the Court will not take lightly complaints
of unauthorized acts of notarization, especially when the trust and confidence reposed by the public in our legal
system hang in the balance.

WHEREFORE, the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is ADOPTED with
MODIFICATION.1âwphi1Finding Atty. Renato C. Bagay grossly negligent in his duty as a notary public, the
Court REVOKES his notarial commission and DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as notary public
for a period of two (2) years. The Court also SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for three (3) months
effective immediately, with a WARNING that the repetition of a similar violation will be dealt with even more
severely.

The respondent is DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this Decision to enable this Court to determine
when his suspension shall take effect.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to Atty. Renato C. Bagay's
personal record; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and all courts in the country for their information and
guidance.

SO ORDERED.