Licerio Dizon, Complainant

Vs
Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr., Respondent.
A.C. No. 10185, March 12, 2014
Mendoza, J.:
Facts:
Licerio Dizon was one of the would-be-buyers of a parcel of land owned
by the heirs of the late Florentino Callangan, who were the parties in Civil Case No.
1-689. The parties executed a compromise agreement in the said case and
notarized by Atty. Cabucana. At the hearing conducted regarding the due execution
of the compromise agreement, the signatories therein testified that they signed the
instrument but not in the presence of the respondent. Because of the irregularity in
the due execution of the agreement, there was an undue delay in the resolution of
the Civil Case No. 1-689 which caused injury to complainant. The complainant prays
for the disbarment of the respondent for violating the Notarial Law.
In his answer, respondent averred that the complainant was intended to
harass him because he was the private prosecutor in a criminal case filed against
the complainant. In addition, he contends that the complainant had no cause of
action because he was just a would be buyer and his right was not violated.
Issue:
Is the respondent guilty in violation of the Notarial Law for notarizing
the documents without the presence of all the parties therein?
Held:

Yes. The court agreed that Atty. Cabucana violated the Notarial Law.
The affiants personal appearance was established in Section 1, Public Act No.
2103 and Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, that as a
Notary Public, the respondent should notarize a document unless the person who
signs it is the same person executing it and personally before him to attest the truth
and its contents.
Thus, the court finds the respondent guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Efigenia M. Tenoso, Complainant,

vs.
Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez, Respondent.
A.C. No. 8384, April 11, 2013
Leonen, J:
Facts:
Etigenia Tenoso filed complaint against the respondent for violating
Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice for engaging in practice as a notary
public in Cordon, Isabela without having been properly commissioned by the RTC of
Santiago exercising jurisdiction over the Municipality of Cordon. The complaint was
supported by documents which were notarized by the respondent.
The respondent denied the allegations and contends that he have never been
notarizing any document and never committed any malpractice. He contends that
the allegations were preposterous, full of lies, politically motivated and meant to
harass him and further contended that the attached documents were tampered.
However, he failed to attend the mandatory conference and failed to file his position
paper.
Issue:
Is the respondent guilty of engaging in notarial practice without
commission?
Held:
Yes. The court finds that the respondents conduct falls short of the
high standards of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing required from lawyers
for his acts of deceit and falsehood in open violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and in misrepresenting himself as a notary public, he exposed partylitigants, courts, other lawyers and the general public to the perils of ordinary
documents posing as public instruments. The court emphasizes that the practice of
law is imbued with public interest and a lawyers owes duties not only to his client,
but also to the profession, to the courts and to the society.
Further, the complainant provided evidence supporting her claim but the
respondent failed to present any proof to rebut such allegations and merely posited
that the documents were tampered and adulterated.
Thus, the court finds Atty. Anselmo Echanez guilty of engaging in notarial
practice without a notarial commission.

Bernardo N. Jandoquile, Complainant,

vs.
Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr., Respondent.
Villarama, Jr., J:
Facts: Jandoquile filed a disbarment case against Atty. Revilla, Jr. for notarizing a
complaint-affidavit signed by the relatives of the latter. Jandoquile complains that
the respondent is disqualified to perform the notarial act per Section 3 (c ), Rule IV
of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He also complains that the respondent did
not require the affiants to show their valid identification cards.
In his comments, Atty. Revilla, Jr. admitted the material allegations, however,
submits that his act is not a ground for disbarment. He contends that as he acts as
the counsel of the three affiants, thus he should be considered more as a counsel
than as a notary public and he did not require their valid identification cards since
he knows them personally.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the contention of the respondent that he should be
considered more as a counsel than as a notary public when he notarized the
complaint-affidavit valid?
2. Whether or not the respondent is liable for not requiring the affiants to
present their valid identification cards?
3. Whether or not the violation of the disqualification committed by the
respondent a sufficient ground for disbarment?
Held:
On the first issue, the court ruled in negative. The clear provision of the
disqualification rule, it behooved upon Atty. Revilla, Jr. to act with prudence and
refuse notarizing the document. The court cannot consider him to have acted more
as counsel than as a notary public when he notarized the documents. The notarial
certificate at the bottom of the complaint-affidavit shows his signature as a notary
public with valid notarial commission.
On the second issue, the court held that the respondent is not liable for the
reason that he personally knows the affiants which supported by the definition of
jurat under Sec. 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Hence, the respondents violation of the disqualification rule under Section 3
(c ), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice is not a sufficient ground for
disbarment. However, the court imposes a less severe penalty against Atty. Revilla,
Jr. for the single violation he committed.

Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum, complainant,

vs.
Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana, respondent.
A.C. No. 7036, June 29, 2009
Puno, CJ.:
Facts:
Pursuant to A.M. 03-8-02-SC requiring judges to monitor the activities
of notaries public within the territorial bounds of their jurisdiction, Judge
Laquindanum of RTC of Midsayap, Cotabato wrote a letter to Atty. Quintana directing
him to stop notarizing documents within the territorial jurisdiction of RTC of
Midsayap, Cotabato since certain documents notarized by him had been reaching
her office.
Under Sec. 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the respondent
could not extend his notarial acts beyond Cotabato City and the Province of
Maguindanao because Midsayap is not part of Cotabato City or Maguindanao.
However, despite such directive, Atty. Quintana continuously performed
notarial function in Midsayap as evidenced by certain documents. This prompted
the complainant to write a letter to the Court requesting that proper disciplinary
action be imposed against the respondent for his acts and further alleged that hes
allowing his wife in performing notarial acts in his absence.
In his answer, Atty. Quintana contends that he subscribed documents in his
office at Midsayap, Cotabato and Midsayap is part of the Province of Cotabato and
he did not violate any provision of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice because he
was equipped with a notarial commission. He further claimed that as a lawyer of
good moral standing, he could practice his legal profession in the entire Philippines.
In addition, he argued that Judge Laquindam had no authority to issue such
directive.
Further, Atty. Quintana asked for forgiveness and that he be given a chance
and not divested his privilege to notarize as it was the only bread and butter of his
family.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Quintana is guilty for violating the provisions of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice for exercising his notarial acts outside his territorial
jurisdiction?
Held: Yes. They court ruled in affirmative.
Under Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the respondent may
perform his notarial acts in Cotabato City and Maguindanao but definitely he cannot
extend it in Midsayap. While it is true that lawyers in good standing are allowed to
engage in the practice of law in the Philippines, however, not every lawyer can
perform notarial functions without having been commissioned.
The act of the
respondent also partakes of malpractice of law and falsification.

Thus, the court finds Atty. Quintana fell short miserably of his obligation
under Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which directs every lawyer
to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

G.R. No. 114829 March 1, 1995

MAXIMINO GAMIDO Y BUENAVENTURA, petitioner,
vs.
NEW BILIBID PRISONS (NBP) OFFICIALS, respondents.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

Facts: On September 7, 1994 resolution, the Court required Atty. Icasiano M. dela
Rea to show cause why there should be no caused of action taken against him for
making it appear in the jurat of the petition in the present case that Gamido,
petitioner herein subscribed and swore the verification before him as notary public,
on April 19, 1994, when in truth and in fact the petitioner did not.
In his answer, Atty. dela Rea admitted having executed the jurat without the
presence of Gamido contending that it is in his honest belief that since it is a jurat
and not an acknowledgment, it is alright to do so since he know the petitioner. He
further contends that the family of Gamido use to come to him hiring his legal
services and as a practicing lawyer; he could modestly contribute in the
administration of justice.
He then apologizes to the Court and assures he would be more careful.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. dela Rea is guilty for grave misconduct for executing the
jurat in the absence of the petitioner herein?
Held: Yes. The court finds Atty. dela Reas explanation unsatisfactory but his
voluntary admission was considered as mitigation to his liability.
The Court ruled that as a notary public for a long time,
Atty.
dela Rea
should know the similarities and differences between a jurat and
an
acknowledgment. The court provides that both jurat and acknowledgment be made
before the notary public.
The acquaintance and friendship of Atty. dela Rea with Gamido is not an
excuse for non-compliance of his duty as notary public.
Thus, the Court finds Atty. dela Rea guilty for grave misconduct when he
agreed to prepare the jurat in absence of Gamido.

A.C. No. 5645

July 2, 2002

ROSALINDA BERNARDO VDA DE ROSALES, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. MARIO G. RAMOS, respondent.
BELLOSILLO, J.:

Facts: The NBI filed a disbarment case against the respondent Atty. Ramos in behalf
of the complainant for violation of the Notarial Law for notarizing a Deed of Absolute
Sale allegedly executed by the complainant. Rosalinda denied such execution.
Manuel, brother of Rosalinda borrowed from her the OTC of Title No. 194464
but Manuel refused to return the title when she asked for it. This prompted
Rosalinda to execute an Affidavit of Loss of her title before the Register of Deeds;
however, the Register of Deeds informed her that it was already transferred to
Manuel through a Deed of Absolute Sale notarized by respondent Atty. Ramos.
Rosalinda however denied having signed any deed of sale in favor of Manuel.
The respondent admitted that he notarized the document but failed to enter
the document in his Notarial Registry Book and prayed for the dismissal of the
complaint contending that his signature was obtained through mistake, fraud,
undue influence or excusable negligence.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Ramos is guilty for violation of the Notarial Law after
failing to enter into his records the documents he notarized?
Held: Yes. The Court finds the respondent guilty for violation of the Notarial Law
after failing to enter into his registry the documents he notarized.
The Court emphasized that the Notarial Law requires the respondent to keep
a notarial register where he shall record all his official acts as notary. The court
came from the respondents admission and held that he failed to exercise due
diligence required of him in the performance of the duties of notary public.
However, the Court finds the act of the respondent should merit disbarment
but he is subject for a less severe sanction.

A.C. No. 3324

February 9, 2000
PASTOR EDWIN VILLARIN, PACIANO DE VEYRA, SR., and BARTOLOME EVAROLO,
SR., complainants,
vs.
ATTY. RESTITUTO SABATE, JR., respondent.
BUENA, J.:
Facts:
The complainants prayed that administrative sanctions be imposed upon
the respondent for not having observed honesty and utmost care in the performance of
his duties as notary public.
The complainants were parties in SEC Case No. DV091. The respondents in the
SEC case filed a Motion to Dismiss with Answer to Villarins Et. Al., Complaint to SEC
prepared and notarized by Atty. Restituto Sabate Jr.
The complainants alleged that the signatures appearing in the verification which
was prepared and notarized by Atty. Sabate Jr for the respondents in the SEC case,
Paterno Diaz was not his but of a certain Lilian Diaz and the signatures of Levi Pagunsan
and Alejandro Bofetiado was signed by Atty. Sabate Jr and made it appear that the
parties participated in the said act when in fact, they did not.
In his answer, Atty. Sabate Jr. contends that the parties swore the correctness of
the allegations in the motion to dismiss through their authorized representatives, Lilian
Diaz, wife of Paerno and Atty. Restituto Sabate Jr. manifested by the word By which
preceded every signature of said representatives which suggests that he did not make
it appear that those persons sigend in his presence.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Sabate, Jr. is guilty of violation of Notarial Law for signing for
and in behalf of his client?
Held: Yes. The court held that Atty. Sabate, Jr. violated the Notarial Law for notarizing
the Motion to Dismiss he prepared and signed it for and in behalf of his clients.
The Court ruled that while Atty. Sabate, Jr. acted in good faith, his acts cannot be
condoned. A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who
signed the document is the same person executing it is clearly elaborated under Sec. 1

of Public Act No. 2013. The acts of the affiants could not be delegated to anyone;
otherwise their representatives name should appear in the documents as the ones who
executed the same.
Hence, the Court finds Atty. Sabate Jr guilty for lack of diligence in the
observance of the Notarial Law.

A.C. No. 4958

April 3, 2003
FIDEL D. AQUINO, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. OSCAR MANESE, respondent.
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Facts:
Fidel Aquino is a tenant of the now deceased owner of the land subject of
the Deed of Absolute Sale, Luis M. Cardona and has been tilling the land since 1960. In
1975, spouses Antonio and Fe Perez unlawfully took possession of the land but the Court
of Appeals recognized the complainant as the lawful owner. And on September 15,
1994, without the knowledge of the complainant, the Deed of Absolute Sale was
executed in favor of Ma. Cita Perez, daughter of spouses Perez, by the three heirs of Luis
Cardona, including Lilia Cardona who died on November 25, 1990, four years earlier
before the execution of the Deed of Sale, prepared and notarized by respondent Atty.
Oscar Manese. This prompted the complainant to charge the respondent with
falsification of documents.
With his answer, the respondent contends that the complainant has no
personality to complain as he has neither a legal right over the land or any personality
to challenge the sale. He further asserted that even assuming that Lilia Cardona was
already dead, no interested party had complained and as a notary public, he is not
expected to know every person goes to him and he was only performing his duty as
notary public when he notarized the document.

Issues: Whether or not Atty. Manese is guilty of violation of the Notarial Law for
preparing and notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale without the presence of one of the
signatories?
Held: Yes. The Court sustains that the respondent's reckless act of notarizing the Deed
of Absolute Sale without ascertaining that the vendors-signatories were the very same
persons who executed it and personally appeared before him to attest to the
contents and truth of what were stated therein, he has undermined the confidence of
the public on notarial documents and he thereby breached Canon I of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the
laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes, and Rule 1.01
thereof which proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Thus, the Court finds the respondent guilty of violation of the Notarial Law and
the Code of Professional Responsibility.

A.C. No. 7350

February 18, 2013
PATROCINIO V. AGBULOS, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. ROSELLER A. VIRAY, Respondent.
PERALTA, J.:
Facts:
Patrocinio V. Agbulos filed a complaint against the respondent; Atty.
Roseller A. Viray for allegedly notarizing an Affidavit of Non-Tenancy purportedly
executed by the complainant but denied executing the same. She further alleged that
the signature and the CTC presented was not hers but belongs to other person. She
added that she did not personally appear before the respondent for the notarization of
the document. Likewise, she states that respondents client, Rolando Dollente benefited
from the said falsified document.

In his comment, respondent admitted that he prepared and notarized the

document at the request of his client, Dollente who assured him the genuineness of the
facts and documents presented before him.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Viray is guilty of violation of the Notarial Law for
preparing and notarizing the Affidavit of Non-Tenancy without the presence of the party
executing the document?
Held: Yes. The Court ruled that Atty. Viray violated the Notarial Law and the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice emphasizes the necessity
of the affiants personal appearance before the notary public. The respondents admits
that he prepare and notarize the affidavit but he notarized it without the personal
appearance of the affiant by contending that he merely rely upon the assurance of his
client Dollente that the documents were executed by the complainant. It is also proven
that the CTC presented belong to other person and not to the affiant.
The respondents failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only
damage to those directly affected but also undermining the integrity of a notary public.
Thus, the court finds the respondent guilty of breach of the Notarial Law and
Code of Professional Responsibility.