A.M. No.

02-8-13-SC 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice RESOLUTION Acting on the compliance dated 05 July 2004 and on the proposed Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 submitted by the SubCommittee for the Study, Drafting and Formulation of the Rules Governing the Appointment of Notaries Public and the Performance and Exercise of Their Official Functions, of the Committees on Revision of the Rules of Court and on Legal Education and Bar Matters, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the proposed Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, with modifications, thus: 2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE RULE IMPLEMENTATION I

these Rules; (c) avows under penalty of law to the whole truth of the contents of the instrument or document. SEC. 3. Commission. - Commission refers to the grant of authority to perform notarial acts and to the written evidence of the authority. SEC. 4. Copy Certification. - Copy Certification refers to a notarial act in which a notary public: (a) is presented with an instrument or document that is neither a vital record, a public record, nor publicly recordable; (b) copies or supervises the copying of the instrument or document; (c) compares the instrument or document with the copy; and (d) determines that the copy is accurate and complete. SEC. 5. Notarial Register. - Notarial Register refers to a permanently bound book with numbered pages containing a chronological record of notarial acts performed by a notary public.

SEC. 6. Jurat. - Jurat refers to an act in which an individual on a SECTION 1. Title. - These Rules shall be known as the 2004 Rules on single occasion: Notarial Practice. (a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an SEC. 2. Purposes. - These Rules shall be applied and construed to instrument or document; advance the following purposes: (b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by (a) to promote, serve, and protect public interest; these Rules; (b) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the rules governing notaries (c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; public; and (c) to foster ethical conduct among notaries public. (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such SEC. 3. Interpretation. - Unless the context of these Rules otherwise instrument or document. indicates, words in the singular include the plural, and words in the SEC. 7. Notarial Act and Notarization. - Notarial Act and plural include the singular. Notarization refer to any act that a notary public is empowered to perform under these Rules. RULE II DEFINITIONS SEC. 8. Notarial Certificate. - Notarial Certificate refers to the part of, or attachment to, a notarized instrument or document that is SECTION 1. Acknowledgment. - Acknowledgment refers to an act completed by the notary public, bears the notary's signature and seal, and states the facts attested to by the notary public in a in which an individual on a single occasion: particular notarization as provided for by these Rules. (a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument or document; SEC. 9. Notary Public and Notary. - Notary Public and Notary (b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or refer to any person commissioned to perform official acts under identified by the notary public through competent evidence of these Rules. identity as defined by these Rules; and (c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the SEC. 10. Principal. - Principal refers to a person appearing before instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the the notary public whose act is the subject of notarization. purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act SEC. 11. Regular Place of Work or Business. - The term regular place and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that of work or business refers to a stationary office in the city or he has the authority to sign in that capacity. province wherein the notary public renders legal and notarial SEC. 2. Affirmation or Oath. - The term Affirmation or Oath refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary public; (b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by services. SEC. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. - The phrase competent evidence of identity refers to the identification of an individual based on:

(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; (b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification.

(1) must be a citizen of the Philippines; (2) must be over twenty-one (21) years of age; (3) must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one (1) year and maintains a regular place of work or business in the city or province where the commission is to be issued; (4) must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing with clearances from the Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and (5) must not have been convicted in the first instance of any crime SEC. 13. Official Seal or Seal. - Official seal or Seal refers to a device for affixing a mark, image or impression on all papers officially involving moral turpitude. signed by the notary public conforming the requisites prescribed by SEC. 2. Form of the Petition and Supporting Documents. - Every these Rules. petition for a notarial commission shall be in writing, verified, and shall include the following: SEC. 14. Signature Witnessing. - The term signature witnessing (a) a statement containing the petitioner's personal qualifications, refers to a notarial act in which an individual on a single including the petitioner's date of birth, residence, telephone number, professional tax receipt, roll of attorney's number and IBP occasion:chan robles virtual law library membership number; (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 as defined by these Rules; (c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary public. (b) certification of good moral character of the petitioner by at least two (2) executive officers of the local chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines where he is applying for commission; (c) proof of payment for the filing of the petition as required by these Rules; and

SEC. 15. Court. - Court refers to the Supreme Court of the (d) three (3) passport-size color photographs with light background Philippines. taken within thirty (30) days of the application. The photograph should not be retouched. The petitioner shall sign his name at the SEC. 16. Petitioner. - Petitioner refers to a person who applies for a bottom part of the photographs. notarial commission. SEC. 3. Application Fee. - Every petitioner for a notarial commission shall pay the application fee as prescribed in the Rules of Court SEC. 17. Office of the Court Administrator. - Office of the Court Administrator refers to the Office of the Court Administrator of the SEC. 4. Summary Hearing on the Petition. - The Executive Judge shall Supreme Court. conduct a summary hearing on the petition and shall grant the same if: SEC. 18. Executive Judge. - Executive Judge refers to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of a city or province who issues a (a) the petition is sufficient in form and substance; notarial commission. (b) the petitioner proves the allegations contained in the petition; and SEC. 19. Vendor. - Vendor under these Rules refers to a seller of a (c) the petitioner establishes to the satisfaction of the Executive notarial seal and shall include a wholesaler or retailer. Judge that he has read and fully understood these Rules. The Executive Judge shall forthwith issue a commission and a SEC. 20. Manufacturer. - Manufacturer under these Rules refers to Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal in favor of the one who produces a notarial seal and shall include an engraver and petitioner. seal maker. RULE III COMMISSIONING OF NOTARY PUBLIC SEC. 5. Notice of Summary Hearing. -

(a) The notice of summary hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or province where the hearing shall SECTION 1. Qualifications. - A notarial commission may be issued by be conducted and posted in a conspicuous place in the offices of the an Executive Judge to any qualified person who submits a petition in Executive Judge and of the Clerk of Court. The cost of the publication accordance with these Rules.chan robles virtual law library shall be borne by the petitioner. The notice may include more than one petitioner. To be eligible for commissioning as notary public, the petitioner: (b) The notice shall be substantially in the following form: NOTICE OF HEARING

Notice is hereby given that a summary hearing on the petition for notarial commission of (name of petitioner) shall be held on (date) at (place) at (time). Any person who has any cause or reason to object to the grant of the petition may file a verified written opposition thereto, received by the undersigned before the date of the summary hearing. Executive Judge

December (year) to purchase a notarial seal.chan robles virtual law library Issued this (day) of (month) (year). ________________________ Executive Judge

SEC. 6. Opposition to Petition. - Any person who has any cause or SEC. 10. Official Seal of Notary Public. - Every person commissioned as reason to object to the grant of the petition may file a verified notary public shall have only one official seal of office in accordance written opposition thereto. The opposition must be received by the with these Rules. Executive Judge before the date of the summary hearing. SEC. 11. Jurisdiction and Term. - A person commissioned as notary SEC. 7. Form of Notarial Commission. - The commissioning of a notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial public shall be in a formal order signed by the Executive Judge jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2) years substantially in the following form: commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked or the notary public REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF SEC. 12. Register of Notaries Public. - The Executive Judge shall keep This is to certify that (name of notary public) of (regular place of and maintain a Register of Notaries Public in his jurisdiction which work or business) in (city or province) was on this (date) day of shall contain, among others, the dates of issuance or revocation or (month) two thousand and (year) commissioned by the undersigned suspension of notarial commissions, and the resignation or death of as a notary public, within and for the said jurisdiction, for a term notaries public. The Executive Judge shall furnish the Office of the ending the thirty-first day of December (year)chan robles virtual law Court Administrator information and data recorded in the register of library notaries public. The Office of the Court Administrator shall keep a permanent, complete and updated database of such records. ________________________ Executive Judge SEC. 13. Renewal of Commission. - A notary public may file a written application with the Executive Judge for the renewal of his SEC. 8. Period Of Validity of Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a commission within forty-five (45) days before the expiration thereof. Notarial Seal. - The Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a A mark, image or impression of the seal of the notary public shall be Notarial Seal shall be valid for a period of three (3) months from date attached to the application. of issue, unless extended by the Executive Judge. Failure to file said application will result in the deletion of the name A mark, image or impression of the seal that may be purchased by of the notary public in the register of notaries public. the notary public pursuant to the Certificate shall be presented to the Executive Judge for approval prior to use. The notary public thus removed from the Register of Notaries Public may only be reinstated therein after he is issued a new commission in SEC. 9. Form of Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial accordance with these Rules. Seal. - The Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal shall substantially be in the following form: SEC. 14. Action on Application for Renewal of Commission. - The Executive Judge shall, upon payment of the application fee mentioned in Section 3 above of this Rule, act on an application for the renewal of a commission within thirty (30) days from receipt REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES thereof. If the application is denied, the Executive Judge shall state REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF_____________ the reasons therefore. CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A NOTARIAL SEAL RULE IV POWERS AND LIMITATIONS OF NOTARIES PUBLIC

This is to authorize (name of notary public) of (city or province) who was commissioned by the undersigned as a notary public, within SECTION 1. Powers. - (a) A notary public is empowered to perform and for the said jurisdiction, for a term ending, the thirty-first of the following notarial acts:

(1) acknowledgments; (2) oaths and affirmations; (3) jurats; (4) signature witnessings; (5) copy certifications; and (6) any other act authorized by these Rules.

(a) is a party to the instrument or document that is to be notarized; (b) will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any commission, fee, advantage, right, title, interest, cash, property, or other consideration, except as provided by these Rules and by law; or (c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree. (b) A notary public is authorized to certify the affixing of a signature SEC. 4. Refusal to Notarize. - A notary public shall not perform any by thumb or other mark on an instrument or document presented for notarial act described in these Rules for any person requesting such notarization if: an act even if he tenders the appropriate fee specified by these Rules (1) the thumb or other mark is affixed in the presence of the notary if: public and of two (2) disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the (a) the notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial instrument or document; (2) both witnesses sign their own names in addition to the thumb or act or transaction is unlawful or immoral; (b) the signatory shows a demeanor which engenders in the mind of other mark; the notary public reasonable doubt as to the former's knowledge of (3) the notary public writes below the thumb or other mark: "Thumb the consequences of the transaction requiring a notarial act; and or Other Mark affixed by (name of signatory by mark) in the (c) in the notary's judgment, the signatory is not acting of his or her presence of (names and addresses of witnesses) and undersigned own free will. notary public"; SEC. 5. False or Incomplete Certificate. - A notary public shall (4) the notary public notarizes the signature by thumb or other mark not:chan robles virtual law library through an acknowledgment, jurat, or signature witnessing. (c) A notary public is authorized to sign on behalf of a person who is (a) execute a certificate containing information known or believed by the notary to be false. physically unable to sign or make a mark on an instrument or (b) affix an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is document if: (1) the notary public is directed by the person unable to sign or make incomplete. SEC. 6. Improper Instruments or Documents. - A notary public shall a mark to sign on his behalf; not notarize: (2) the signature of the notary public is affixed in the presence of (a) a blank or incomplete instrument or document; two disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or (b) an instrument or document without appropriate notarial document; certification. (3) both witnesses sign their own names ; (4) the notary public writes below his signature: Signature affixed by notary in presence of (names and addresses of person and two [2] RULE V FEES OF NOTARY PUBLIC witnesses); and (5) the notary public notarizes his signature by acknowledgment or SECTION 1. Imposition and Waiver of Fees. - For performing a notarial jurat. act, a notary public may charge the maximum feeas prescribed by the SEC. 2. Prohibitions. - (a) A notary public shall not perform a notarial act outside his regular place of work or business; provided, however, Supreme Court unless he waives the fee in whole or in part. that on certain exceptional occasions or situations, a notarial act may be performed at the request of the parties in the following sites SEC. 2. Travel Fees and Expenses. - A notary public may charge travel located within his territorial jurisdiction: (1) public offices, convention halls, and similar places where oaths of fees and expenses separate and apart from the notarial fees office may be administered; prescribed in the preceding section when traveling to perform a (2) public function areas in hotels and similar places for the signing notarial act if the notary public and the person requesting the of instruments or documents requiring notarization; notarial act agree prior to the travel. (3) hospitals and other medical institutions where a party to an instrument or document is confined for treatment; and SEC. 3. Prohibited Fees. No fee or compensation of any kind, except (4) any place where a party to an instrument or document requiring those expressly prescribed and allowed herein, shall be collected or notarization is under detention. received for any notarial service. (b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document SEC. 4. Payment or Refund of Fees. - A notary public shall not require (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the payment of any fees specified herein prior to the performance of a notarization; and notarial act unless otherwise agreed upon. (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of Any travel fees and expenses paid to a notary public prior to the identity as defined by these Rules. performance of a notarial act are not subject to refund if the notary SEC. 3. Disqualifications. - A notary public is disqualified from public had already traveled but failed to complete in whole or in part performing a notarial act if he:

the notarial act for reasons beyond his control and without negligence on his part. SEC. 5. Notice of Fees. - A notary public who charges a fee for notarial services shall issue a receipt registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue and keep a journal of notarial fees. He shall enter in the journal all fees charged for services rendered.chan robles virtual law library A notary public shall post in a conspicuous place in his office a complete schedule of chargeable notarial fees. RULE VI NOTARIAL REGISTER SECTION 1. Form of Notarial Register. - (a) A notary public shall keep, maintain, protect and provide for lawful inspection as provided in these Rules, a chronological official notarial register of notarial acts consisting of a permanently bound book with numbered pages. The register shall be kept in books to be furnished by the Solicitor General to any notary public upon request and upon payment of the cost thereof. The register shall be duly paged, and on the first page, the Solicitor General shall certify the number of pages of which the book consists. For purposes of this provision, a Memorandum of Agreement or Understanding may be entered into by the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the Court Administrator. (b) A notary public shall keep only one active notarial register at any given time. SEC. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. - (a) For every notarial act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of notarization the following: (1) the entry number and page number; (2) the date and time of day of the notarial act; (3) the type of notarial act; (4) the title or description of the instrument, document or proceeding; (5) the name and address of each principal (6) the competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules if the signatory is not personally known to the notary; (7) the name and address of each credible witness swearing to or affirming the person's identity; (8) the fee charged for the notarial act; (9) the address where the notarization was performed if not in the notary's regular place of work or business; and (10) any other circumstance the notary public may deem of significance or relevance.

(c) A notary public shall record in the notarial register the circumstances of any request to inspect or copy an entry in the notarial register, including the requester's name, address, signature, thumbmark or other recognized identifier, and evidence of identity. The reasons for refusal to allow inspection or copying of a journal entry shall also be recorded. (d) When the instrument or document is a contract, the notary public shall keep an original copy thereof as part of his records and enter in said records a brief description of the substance thereof and shall give to each entry a consecutive number, beginning with number one in each calendar year. He shall also retain a duplicate original copy for the Clerk of Court. (e) The notary public shall give to each instrument or document executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state on the instrument or document the page/s of his register on which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries. (f) In case of a protest of any draft, bill of exchange or promissory note, the notary public shall make a full and true record of all proceedings in relation thereto and shall note therein whether the demand for the sum of money was made, by whom, when, and where; whether he presented such draft, bill or note; whether notices were given, to whom and in what manner; where the same was made, when and to whom and where directed; and of every other fact touching the same. (g) At the end of each week, the notary public shall certify in his notarial register the number of instruments or documents executed, sworn to, acknowledged, or protested before him; or if none, this certificate shall show this fact. (h) A certified copy of each month's entries and a duplicate original copy of any instrument acknowledged before the notary public shall, within the first ten (10) days of the month following, be forwarded to the Clerk of Court and shall be under the responsibility of such officer. If there is no entry to certify for the month, the notary shall forward a statement to this effect in lieu of certified copies herein required. SEC. 3. Signatures and Thumbmarks. - At the time of notarization, the notary's notarial register shall be signed or a thumb or other mark affixed by each: (a) principal; (b) credible witness swearing or affirming to the identity of a principal; and (c) witness to a signature by thumb or other mark, or to a signing by the notary public on behalf of a person physically unable to sign.

SEC. 4. Inspection, Copying and Disposal. - (a) In the notary's presence, any person may inspect an entry in the notarial register, during regular business hours, provided; (b) A notary public shall record in the notarial register the reasons (1) the person's identity is personally known to the notary public or and circumstances for not completing a notarial act. proven through competent evidence of identity as defined in these

Rules; (2) the person affixes a signature and thumb or other mark or other recognized identifier, in the notarial register in a separate, dated entry; (3) the person specifies the month, year, type of instrument or document, and name of the principal in the notarial act or acts sought; and (4) the person is shown only the entry or entries specified by him. (b) The notarial register may be examined by a law enforcement officer in the course of an official investigation or by virtue of a court order. (c) If the notary public has a reasonable ground to believe that a person has a criminal intent or wrongful motive in requesting information from the notarial register, the notary shall deny access to any entry or entries therein.

(b) The official seal shall be affixed only at the time the notarial act is performed and shall be clearly impressed by the notary public on every page of the instrument or document notarized. (c) When not in use, the official seal shall be kept safe and secure and shall be accessible only to the notary public or the person duly authorized by him. (d) Within five (5) days after the official seal of a notary public is stolen, lost, damaged or other otherwise rendered unserviceable in affixing a legible image, the notary public, after informing the appropriate law enforcement agency, shall notify the Executive Judge in writing, providing proper receipt or acknowledgment, including registered mail, and in the event of a crime committed, provide a copy or entry number of the appropriate police record. Upon receipt of such notice, if found in order by the Executive Judge, the latter shall order the notary public to cause notice of such loss or damage to be published, once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks, in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or province where the notary public is commissioned. Thereafter, the Executive Judge shall issue to the notary public a new Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal.

SEC. 5. Loss, Destruction or Damage of Notarial Register. - (a) In case the notarial register is stolen, lost, destroyed, damaged, or otherwise rendered unusable or illegible as a record of notarial acts, the notary public shall, within ten (10) days after informing the appropriate law enforcement agency in the case of theft or vandalism, notify the Executive Judge by any means providing a proper receipt or acknowledgment, including registered mail and also provide a copy (e) Within five (5) days after the death or resignation of the notary or number of any pertinent police report. public, or the revocation or expiration of a notarial commission, the official seal shall be surrendered to the Executive Judge and shall be (b) Upon revocation or expiration of a notarial commission, or death destroyed or defaced in public during office hours. In the event that of the notary public, the notarial register and notarial records shall the missing, lost or damaged seal is later found or surrendered, it immediately be delivered to the office of the Executive Judge. shall be delivered by the notary public to the Executive Judge to be disposed of in accordance with this section. Failure to effect such surrender shall constitute contempt of court. In the event of death of SEC. 6. Issuance of Certified True Copies. - The notary public shall the notary public, the person in possession of the official seal shall supply a certified true copy of the notarial record, or any part have the duty to surrender it to the Executive Judge. thereof, to any person applying for such copy upon payment of the legal fees. SEC. 3. Seal Image. - The notary public shall affix a single, clear, legible, permanent, and photographically reproducible mark, image RULE VII or impression of the official seal beside his signature on the notarial SIGNATURE AND SEAL OF NOTARY PUBLIC certificate of a paper instrument or document. SECTION 1. Official Signature. In notarizing a paper instrument or document, a notary public shall: (a) sign by hand on the notarial certificate only the name indicated and as appearing on the notary's commission; (b) not sign using a facsimile stamp or printing device; and (c) affix his official signature only at the time the notarial act is performed. SEC. 2. Official Seal. - (a) Every person commissioned as notary public shall have a seal of office, to be procured at his own expense, which shall not be possessed or owned by any other person. It shall be of metal, circular in shape, two inches in diameter, and shall have the name of the city or province and the word Philippines and his own name on the margin and the roll of attorney's number on the face thereof, with the words "notary public" across the center. A mark, image or impression of such seal shall be made directly on the paper or parchment on which the writing appears. SEC. 4. Obtaining and Providing Seal. - (a) A vendor or manufacturer of notarial seals may not sell said product without a written authorization from the Executive Judge. (b) Upon written application and after payment of the application fee, the Executive Judge may issue an authorization to sell to a vendor or manufacturer of notarial seals after verification and investigation of the latter's qualifications. The Executive Judge shall charge an authorization fee in the amount of PhP 4,000 for the vendor and PhP 8,000 for the manufacturer. If a manufacturer is also a vendor, he shall only pay the manufacturer's authorization fee. (c) The authorization shall be in effect for a period of four (4) years from the date of its issuance and may be renewed by the Executive Judge for a similar period upon payment of the authorization fee mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

(d) A vendor or manufacturer shall not sell a seal to a buyer except upon submission of a certified copy of the commission and the Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal issued by the Executive Judge. A notary public obtaining a new seal as a result of change of name shall present to the vendor or manufacturer a certified copy of the Confirmation of the Change of Name issued by the Executive Judge.

on the attached document, is a Notary Public in and for the (City/Municipality/Province) of the Republic of the Philippines and authorized to act as such at the time of the document's notarization. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed below my signature and seal of this office this (date) day of (month) (year).

_________________ (e) Only one seal may be sold by a vendor or manufacturer for each Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal. (seal of Executive Judge) (f) After the sale, the vendor or manufacturer shall affix a mark, image or impression of the seal to the Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal and submit the completed Certificate to the Executive Judge. Copies of the Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal and the buyer's commission shall be kept in the files of the vendor or manufacturer for four (4) years after the sale.

(official

signature)

RULE CHANGES OF STATUS OF NOTARY PUBLIC SECTION 1. Change of Name and Address. -

Within ten (10) days after the change of name of the notary public by court order or by marriage, or after ceasing to maintain the regular place of work or business, the notary public shall submit a signed and (g) A notary public obtaining a new seal as a result of change of name dated notice of such fact to the Executive Judge. shall present to the vendor a certified copy of the order confirming the change of name issued by the Executive Judge. The notary public shall not notarize until: RULE NOTARIAL CERTIFICATES VIII (a) he receives from the Executive Judge a confirmation of the new name of the notary public and/or change of regular place of work or business; and

SECTION 1. Form of Notarial Certificate. - The notarial form used for any notarial instrument or document shall conform to all the (b) a new seal bearing the new name has been obtained. requisites prescribed herein, the Rules of Court and all other The foregoing notwithstanding, until the aforementioned steps have provisions of issuances by the Supreme Court and in applicable laws. been completed, the notary public may continue to use the former name or regular place of work or business in performing notarial acts SEC. 2. Contents of the Concluding Part of the Notarial Certificate. for three (3) months from the date of the change, which may be The notarial certificate shall include the following: extended once for valid and just cause by the Executive Judge for another period not exceeding three (3) months. (a) the name of the notary public as exactly indicated in the commission; SEC. 2. Resignation. - A notary public may resign his commission by (b) the serial number of the commission of the notary public; personally submitting a written, dated and signed formal notice to (c) the words "Notary Public" and the province or city where the the Executive Judge together with his notarial seal, notarial register notary public is commissioned, the expiration date of the and records. Effective from the date indicated in the notice, he shall commission, the office address of the notary public; and immediately cease to perform notarial acts. In the event of his (d) the roll of attorney's number, the professional tax receipt number incapacity to personally appear, the submission of the notice may be and the place and date of issuance thereof, and the IBP membership performed by his duly authorized representative. number. RULE IX CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY OF NOTARIES PUBLIC SEC. 3. Publication of Resignation. - The Executive Judge shall immediately order the Clerk of Court to post in a conspicuous place in the offices of the Executive Judge and of the Clerk of Court the SECTION 1. Certificate of Authority for a Notarial Act. - A certificate of names of notaries public who have resigned their notarial authority evidencing the authenticity of the official seal and signature commissions and the effective dates of their resignation. of a notary public shall be issued by the Executive Judge upon request in substantially the following form: RULE XI REVOCATION OF COMMISSION AND DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY FOR A NOTARIAL ACT SECTION 1. Revocation and Administrative Sanctions. - (a) The I, (name, title, jurisdiction of the Executive Judge), certify that Executive Judge shall revoke a notarial commission for any ground (name of notary public), the person named in the seal and signature on which an application for a commission may be denied.

(b) In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of, or impose appropriate administrative sanctions upon, any notary public who: (1) fails to keep a notarial register; (2) fails to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register concerning his notarial acts; (3) fails to send the copy of the entries to the Executive Judge within the first ten (10) days of the month following; (4) fails to affix to acknowledgments the date of expiration of his commission; (5) fails to submit his notarial register, when filled, to the Executive Judge; (6) fails to make his report, within a reasonable time, to the Executive Judge concerning the performance of his duties, as may be required by the judge; (7) fails to require the presence of a principal at the time of the notarial act; (8) fails to identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge or competent evidence; (9) executes a false or incomplete certificate under Section 5, Rule IV; (10) knowingly performs or fails to perform any other act prohibited or mandated by these Rules; and (11) commits any other dereliction or act which in the judgment of the Executive Judge constitutes good cause for revocation of commission or imposition of administrative sanction. (c) Upon verified complaint by an interested, affected or aggrieved person, the notary public shall be required to file a verified answer to the complaint. If the answer of the notary public is not satisfactory, the Executive Judge shall conduct a summary hearing. If the allegations of the complaint are not proven, the complaint shall be dismissed. If the charges are duly established, the Executive Judge shall impose the appropriate administrative sanctions. In either case, the aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the Supreme Court for review. Pending the appeal, an order imposing disciplinary sanctions shall be immediately executory, unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.

SEC. 4. Death of Notary Public. - If a notary public dies before fulfilling the obligations in Section 4(e), Rule VI and Section 2(e), Rule VII, the Executive Judge, upon being notified of such death, shall forthwith cause compliance with the provisions of these sections. RULE XII SPECIAL PROVISIONS SECTION 1. Punishable Acts. - The Executive Judge shall cause the prosecution of any person who: (a) knowingly acts or otherwise impersonates a notary public; (b) knowingly obtains, conceals, defaces, or destroys the seal, notarial register, or official records of a notary public; and (c) knowingly solicits, coerces, or in any way influences a notary public to commit official misconduct. SEC 2. Reports to the Supreme Court. - The Executive Judge concerned shall submit semestral reports to the Supreme Court on discipline and prosecution of notaries public. RULE XIII REPEALING AND EFFECTIVITY PROVISIONS SECTION 1. Repeal. - All rules and parts of rules, including issuances of the Supreme Court inconsistent herewith, are hereby repealed or accordingly modified. SEC. 2. Effective Date. - These Rules shall take effect on the first day of August 2004, and shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines which provides sufficiently wide circulation. Promulgated this 6th day of July, 2004.

G.R. No. 129416. November 25, 2004

(d) The Executive Judge may motu proprio initiate administrative ZENAIDA B. TIGNO, IMELDA B. TIGNO and ARMI B. TIGNO, petitioners, proceedings against a notary public, subject to the procedures vs. SPOUSES ESTAFINO AQUINO and FLORENTINA AQUINO and the prescribed in paragraph (c) above and impose the appropriate HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. administrative sanctions on the grounds mentioned in the preceding paragraphs (a) and (b). DECISION SEC. 2. Supervision and Monitoring of Notaries Public. - The Executive TINGA, J.: Judge shall at all times exercise supervision over notaries public and The controversy in the present petition hinges on the shall closely monitor their activities. admissibility of a single document, a deed of sale involving interest SEC. 3. Publication of Revocations and Administrative Sanctions. - The over real property, notarized by a person of questionable capacity. Executive Judge shall immediately order the Clerk of Court to post in The assailed ruling of the Court of Appeals, which overturned the a conspicuous place in the offices of the Executive Judge and of the findings of fact of the Regional Trial Court, relied primarily on the Clerk of Court the names of notaries public who have been presumption of regularity attaching to notarized documents with administratively sanctioned or whose notarial commissions have respect to its due execution. We conclude instead that the document has not been duly notarized and accordingly reverse the Court of been revoked. Appeals.

The facts are as follow: On 11 January 1980, respondent spouses Estafino and Florentina Aquino (the Aquinos) filed a complaint for enforcement of contract and damages against Isidro Bustria (Bustria).[1] The complaint sought to enforce an alleged sale by Bustria to the Aquinos of a one hundred twenty thousand (120,000) square meter fishpond located in Dasci, Pangasinan. The property was not registered either under the Land Registration Act or under the Spanish Mortgage Law, though registrable under Act No. 3344.[2] The conveyance was covered by a Deed of Sale dated 2 September 1978. Eventually, Bustria and the Aquinos entered into a compromise agreement, whereby Bustria agreed to recognize the validity of the sale, and the Aquinos in turn agreed to grant to Bustria the right to repurchase the same property after the lapse of seven (7) years.

Upon submission, the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, The Aquinos interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals. [18] In Branch VII, approved and incorporated the compromise agreement the meantime, the RTC allowed the execution pending appeal of in a Decision which it rendered on 7 September 1981. itsDecision.[19] On 23 December 1996, the Court of Appeals Tenth [3] Bustria died in October of 1986. On 1 December 1989, Division promulgated a Decision[20] reversing and setting aside the petitioner Zenaida B. Tigno (Tigno), in substitution of her deceased RTCDecision. The appellate court ratiocinated that there were no father Isidro Bustria,[4] attempted to repurchase the property by material or substantial inconsistencies between the testimonies of filing a Motion for Consignation. She deposited the amount of Two Cario and De Francia that would taint the document with doubtful Hundred Thirty Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) with the trial court, authenticity; that the absence of the acknowledgment and now Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 55 at Alaminos, Pangasinan. substitution instead of a jurat did not render the instrument invalid; On 18 December 1989, the Aquinos filed an opposition, arguing that and that the non-assistance or representation of Bustria by counsel the right to repurchase was not yet demandable and that Tigno had did not render the document null and ineffective.[21] It was noted that failed to make a tender of payment. In an Order dated 10 October a notarized document carried in its favor the presumption of 1999, the RTC denied the Motion for Consignation.[5] regularity with respect to its due execution, and that there must be In June of 1991, Tigno filed a Motion for a Writ of Execution, clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant evidence to which was likewise opposed by the Aquinos, and denied by the RTC. contradict the same. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that the Then, on 6 September 1991, Tigno filed an action for Revival of RTC erred in refusing to admit the Deed of Sale, and that the Judgment,[6] seeking the revival of the decision in Civil Case No. A- document extinguished the right of Bustrias heirs to repurchase the 1257, so that it could be executed accordingly.[7] The Aquinos filed an property. answer, wherein they alleged that Bustria had sold his right to After the Court of Appeals denied Tignos Motion for repurchase the property to them in a deed of sale dated 17 October Reconsideration,[22] the present petition was filed before this Court. 1985.[8] Tigno imputes grave abuse of discretion and misappreciation of facts Among the witnesses presented by the Aquinos during trial to the Court of Appeals when it admitted the Deed of Sale. He also were Jesus De Francia (De Francia), the instrumental witness to the argues that the appellate court should have declared the Deed of deed of sale, and former Judge Franklin Cario (Judge Cario), who Sale as a false, fraudulent and unreliable document not supported by notarized the same. These two witnesses testified as to the occasion any consideration at all. of the execution and signing of the deed of sale by Bustria. Thereafter, in their Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence, the Aquinos offered for admission as their Exhibit No. 8, the deed of sale (Deed of Sale)[9] purportedly executed by Bustria. The admission of the Deed of Sale was objected to by Tigno on the ground that it was a false and fraudulent document which had not been acknowledged by Bustria as his own; and that its existence was suspicious, considering that it had been previously unknown, and not even presented by the Aquinos when they opposed Tignos previous Motion for Consignation.[10] The general thrusts of the arguments posed by Tigno are factually based. As such, they could normally lead to the dismissal of this Petition for Review. However, while this Court is not ordinarily a trier of facts,[23] factual review may be warranted in instances when the findings of the trial court and the intermediate appellate court are contrary to each other.[24] Moreover, petitioner raises a substantial argument regarding the capacity of the notary public, Judge Cario, to notarize the document. The Court of Appeals was unfortunately silent on that matter, but this Court will take it up with definitiveness.

Then, on 18 August 1994, a Decision was rendered by the RTC in favor of Tigno. The RTC therein expressed doubts as to the authenticity of the Deed of Sale, characterizing the testimonies of De Francia and Cario as conflicting.[13] The RTC likewise observed that nowhere in the alleged deed of sale was there any statement that it was acknowledged by Bustria;[14] that it was suspicious that Bustria was not assisted or represented by his counsel in connection with the preparation and execution of the deed of sale [15] or that Aquino had raised the matter of the deed of sale in his previous Opposition to the Motion for Consignation.[16] The RTC then stressed that the previous Motion for Execution lodged by Tigno had to be denied since more than five (5) years had elapsed from the date the judgment in Civil Case No. A-1257 had become final and executory; but the judgment could be revived by action such as the instant complaint. Accordingly, the RTC ordered the revival of the judgment dated 7 September 1981 in Civil Case No. A-1257.[17]

In an Order dated 6 April 1994, the RTC refused to admit The notarial certification of the Deed of Sale reads as follows: the Deed of Sale in evidence.[11] A Motion for Reconsideration praying for the admission of said exhibit was denied in an Order dated 27 ACKNOWLEDGMENT April 1994.[12]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN ) S.S. MUNICIPALITY OF ALAMINOS )

In the instant case, it was not proper that a city judge should notarize documents involving private transactions and sign the document in this wise: "GUMERSINDO ARCILLA, Notary Public Ex-Officio, City Judge" (p. 16, Rollo, Annex D of Complaint). In doing so, he SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 17th day of October obliterated the distinction between a regular notary and a notary ex [36] 1985 at Alaminos, Pangasinan both parties known to me to be the officio. same parties who executed the foregoing instrument. There are possible grounds for leniency in connection with this matter, as Supreme Court Circular No. I-90 permits notaries public ex FRANKLIN CARIO officioto perform any act within the competency of a regular notary Ex-Officio Notary Public public provided that certification be made in the notarized Judge, M.T.C. documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in Alaminos, Pangasinan such municipality or circuit. Indeed, it is only when there are no [37] There are palpable errors in this certification. Most glaringly, the lawyers or notaries public that the exception applies. The facts of document is certified by way of a jurat instead of an this case do not warrant a relaxed attitude towards Judge Carios acknowledgment. Ajurat is a distinct creature from an improper notarial activity. There was no such certification in the Deed acknowledgment. An acknowledgment is the act of one who has of Sale. Even if one was produced, we would be hard put to accept executed a deed in going before some competent officer or court the veracity of its contents, considering that Alaminos, Pangasinan, [38] and declaring it to be his act or deed; while a jurat is that part of an now a city, was even then not an isolated backwater town and had affidavit where the officer certifies that the same was sworn before its fair share of practicing lawyers. him.[25] Under Section 127 of the Land Registration Act, [26] which has There may be sufficient ground to call to task Judge Cario, who been replicated in Section 112 of Presidential Decree No. ceased being a judge in 1986, for his improper notarial activity. 1529,[27] the Deed of Sale should have been acknowledged before a Perhaps though, formal sanction may no longer be appropriate notary public.[28] considering Judge Carios advanced age, assuming he is still [39] But there is an even more substantial defect in the notarization, alive. However, thisDecision should again serve as an affirmation of one which is determinative of this petition. This pertains to the the rule prohibiting municipal judges from notarizing documents not connected with the exercise of their official duties, subject to the authority of Judge Franklin Cario to notarize the Deed of Sale. exceptions laid down in Circular No. 1-90. It is undisputed that Franklin Cario at the time of the Most crucially for this case, we should deem the Deed of Sale as notarization of the Deed of Sale, was a sitting judge of the [29] not having been notarized at all. The validity of a notarial certification Metropolitan Trial Court of Alaminos. Petitioners point out, citing Tabao v. Asis,[30] that municipal judges may not undertake the necessarily derives from the authority of the notarial officer. If the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents, contracts, notary public does not have the capacity to notarize a document, but and other acts of conveyance which bear no relation to the does so anyway, then the document should be treated as performance of their functions as judges.[31] In response, unnotarized. The rule may strike as rather harsh, and perhaps may respondents claim that the prohibition imposed on municipal court prove to be prejudicial to parties in good faith relying on the judges from notarizing documents took effect only in December of proferred authority of the notary public or the person pretending to be one. Still, to admit otherwise would render merely officious the 1989, or four years after the Deed of Sale was notarized by Cario.[32] elaborate process devised by this Court in order that a lawyer may Respondents contention is erroneous. Municipal Trial Court receive a notarial commission. Without such a rule, the notarization (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) judges are of a document by a duly appointed notary public will have the same empowered to perform the functions of notaries public ex legal effect as one accomplished by a non-lawyer engaged in officio under Section 76 of Republic Act No. 296, as amended pretense. (otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948) and Section 242 of The notarization of a document carries considerable legal the Revised Administrative Code.[33] However, as far back as 1980 [34] effect. Notarization of a private document converts such document in Borre v. Moya, the Court explicitly declared that municipal court judges such as Cario may notarize only documents connected with into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further [40] the exercise of their official duties.[35] TheDeed of Sale was not proof of its authenticity. Thus, notarization is not an empty connected with any official duties of Judge Cario, and there was no routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a substantial reason for him to notarize it. Our observations as to the errant judge degree and the protection of that interest requires preventing those in Borre are pertinent in this case, considering that Judge Cario who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from upon the public and the courts and administrative offices identified himself in the Deed of Sale as Ex-Officio Notary Public, imposing [41] generally. Judge, MTC: On the other hand, what then is the effect on the Deed of Sale if [A notary ex officio] should not compete with private law it was not notarized? True enough, from a civil law perspective, the practitioners or regular notaries in transacting legal conveyancing absence of notarization of the Deed of Sale would not necessarily business. invalidate the transaction evidenced therein. Article 1358 of the Civil

10

Code requires that the form of a contract that transmits or (a) By anyone who saw the document executed or extinguishes real rights over immovable property should be in a written; or public document, yet it is also an accepted rule that the failure to observe the proper form does not render the transaction invalid. (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or Thus, it has been uniformly held that the form required in Article 1358 handwriting of the maker. is not essential to the validity or enforceability of the transaction, but required merely for convenience.[42] We have even affirmed that a Any other private document need only be identified as that which is sale of real property though not consigned in a public instrument or claimed to be. formal writing, is nevertheless valid and binding among the parties, for the time-honored rule is that even a verbal contract of sale or real The Deed of Sale was offered in evidence as authentic by the estate produces legal effects between the parties.[43] Aquinos, who likewise insist that its enforceability militates against Still, the Court has to reckon with the implications of the lack of Tignos claim. Correspondingly, the burden falls upon the Aquinos to valid notarization of the Deed of Sale from the perspective of the law prove its authenticity and due execution. The Court of Appeals on evidence. After all, the case rests on the admissibility of the Deed clearly erred in not appreciating the Deed of Sale as a private document and in applying the presumption of regularity that of Sale. attaches only to duly notarized documents, as distinguished from Clearly, the presumption of regularity relied upon by the Court private documents. of Appeals no longer holds true since the Deed of Sale is not a Did the RTC err then in refusing to admit the Deed of Sale? We notarized document. Its proper probative value is governed by the hold that it did not. Section 20, Rule 132 provides ample discretion on Rules of Court. Section 19, Rule 132 states: the trier of fact before it may choose to receive the private Section 19. Classes of documents.For the purpose of their document in evidence. The RTC wisely refused to admit the Deed of Sale, taking great lengths as it did to explain its doubts as to its presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private. veracity. The RTC was not convinced of the proffered proof by the Aquinos, and the exercise of its sound discretion as the primary trier Public documents are: of fact warrants due respect. (a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the The most telling observation of the RTC relates to the fact that sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, for the very first time respondents alleged the existence of the Deed whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country; of Salewhen they filed their answer to petitioners current action to revive judgment.[44] Prior to the initiation of the present action, Tigno (b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last had tried to operationalize and implement the Compromise Agreement through two judicial means: consignation and execution wills and testaments; and of judgment. The Aquinos duly opposed these prior attempts of the (c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents petitioner to exercise the right to repurchase, but they did not raise then the claim that such right to repurchase was already required by law to be entered therein. extinguished by the Deed of Sale. Tigno attempted to exercise the right to repurchase only a few years after the execution of the Deed All other writings are private. (Emphasis supplied.) of Sale to which respondents themselves were signatories. Thus, it is incredulous that the Aquinos did not invoke theDeed of Sale when The Deed of Sale, invalidly notarized as it was, does not fall they opposed in court petitioners successive attempts at under the enumeration of public documents; hence, it must be consignation and execution of judgment. The Deed of Sale, if in considered a private document. The nullity of the alleged or existence and valid, would have already precluded Tignos causes of attempted notarization performed by Judge Cario is sufficient to action for either consignation or execution of judgment. The only exclude the document in question from the class of public believable conclusion, as drawn by the RTC, was that the Deed of documents. Even assuming that the Deed of Sale was validly Sale had yet to be created when petitioner moved in 1990 for notarized, it would still be classified as a private document, since it consignation and execution of judgmentan existential anomaly if was not properly acknowledged, but merely subscribed and sworn to we were to agree with the respondents that such document had by way of jurat. been signed and notarized back in 1985. Being a private document, the Deed of Sale is now subject to the The dubiousness in origin of the Deed of Sale is not alleviated by requirement of proof under Section 20, Rule 132, which states: the other observations of the RTC. It also pointed to certain incredible aspects in the Aquinos tale of events. It noted that no Section 20. Proof of private document.Before any private receipts were ever presented by the respondents to evidence actual document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due payment of consideration by them to Bustria, despite the allegation execution and authenticity must be proved either: of the respondents that the amount was covered by seven (7) receipts.[45] The Aquinos claimed that Bustria kept all the receipts, an assertion which the RTC found as unbelievable, citing ordinary

11

human nature to ask for receipts for significant amounts given and to keep the same.[46] In itself, the absence of receipts, or any proof of consideration, would not be conclusive since consideration is always presumed. However, given the totality of the circumstances surrounding this case, the absence of such proof further militates against the claims of the Aquinos. We can appreciate in a similar vein the observation of the Court of Appeals that Bustria did not bother to seek his lawyers assistance as regards the execution of the Deed of Sale, considering that the subject property had previously been fiercely litigated. Although the Court of Appeals was correct in ruling that the document would not be rendered null or ineffective due to the lack of assistance of counsel, the implausibility of the scenario strikes as odd and therefore reinforces the version found by the RTC as credible. The Court likewise has its own observations on the record that affirm the doubts raised by the Court of Appeals. Isidro Bustria, who would die in 1986, was already ninety-three (93) years old when he allegedly signed the Deed of Sale in 1985. Still, the Aquinos asserted before the RTC that Bustria traveled unaccompanied from his home in Dasol, Pangasinan, passing through two towns to Alaminos, to execute the Deed of Sale. Without discrediting the accomplishments of nonagenarians capable of great physical feats, it should be acknowledged as a matter of general assumption that persons of Bustrias age are typically sedentary and rarely so foolhardy as to insist on traveling significant distances alone. Also of note is the fact that there are glaring differences as to the alleged signature of Bustria on the Deed of Sale and as it otherwise appears on the judicial record. Bustrias signature in the 1981 Compromise Agreement is noticeably shaky which is not surprising, considering that it was subscribed when Bustria was eighty-nine (89) years old. However, Bustrias signature on the Deed of Sale, which if genuine was affixed when he was already ninetythree (93) years old, is remarkably steady in its strokes. There are also other evident differences between Bustrias signature on the Deed of Sale and on other documents on the record. Admittedly, these doubts cast above arise in chief from an appreciation of circumstantial evidence. These have to be weighed against the findings of the Court of Appeals that the fact that Bustria signed the Deed of Sale was established by the respective testimonies of witnesses De Francia and Judge Cario. In its own appreciation of these testimonies, the RTC alluded to notable inconsistencies in their testimonies. As a final measure of analysis, the Court shall now examine whether the appellate court was in error in reversing the conclusion of the RTC on these testimonies.

Strangely, the appellate court made no comment as to the inconsistency pointed out by the RTC as to who prepared the Deed of Sale. If the only point of consideration was the due execution of the Deed of Sale, then the Court of Appeals should have properly come out with its finding. Other variances aside, there are no contradictions in the testimonies of Judge Cario and De Francia on the question of whether or not Bustria signed the Deed of Sale. However, as earlier established, the Deed of Sale is a private document. Thus, not only the due execution of the document must be proven but also its authenticity. This factor was not duly considered by the Court of Appeals. The testimonies of Judge Cario and De Francia now become material not only to establish due execution, but also the authenticity of the Deed of Sale. And on this point, the inconsistencies pointed out by the RTC become crucial. The matter of authenticity of the Deed of Sale being disputed, the identity of the progenitor of this all-important document is a material evidentiary point. It is disconcerting that the very two witnesses of the respondent offered to prove the Deed of Sale, flatly contradict each other on the basis of their own personal and sensory knowledge. Worse, the purported author of the Deed of Sale disavowed having drafted the document, notwithstanding the contrary testimony grounded on personal knowledge by the documentary witness. Establishing the identity of the person who wrote the Deed of Sale would not ordinarily be necessary to establish the validity of the transaction it covers. However, since it is the authenticity of the document itself that is disputed, then the opposing testimonies on that point by the material witnesses properly raises questions about the due execution of the document itself. The inconsistencies in the testimonies of Judge Cario and De Francia are irreconcilable. It is not possible to affirm the testimony of either without denigrating the competence and credibility of the other as a witness. If Judge Cario was truthful in testifying that he did not write the Deed of Sale, then doubt can be cast as to the reliability of the notarial witness De Francia. It takes a leap of imagination, a high level of gumption, and perverse deliberation for one to erroneously assert, under oath and with particularities, that a person drafted a particular document in his presence.

However, if we were to instead believe De Francia, then the integrity of the notary public, Judge Cario, would be obviously compromised. Assuming that Judge Cario had indeed authored the Deed of Sale, it would indeed be odd that he would not remember having written the document himself yet sufficiently recall notarizing the same. If his testimony as to authorship of the document is deemed as dubious, then there is all the reason to make The inconsistencies cited by the RTC were that De Francia a similar assumption as to his testimony on the notarization of testified that Judge Cario himself prepared and typed the Deed of the Deed of Sale. Sale in his office, where the document was signed, [47] while Judge Cario testified that he did not type the Deed of Sale since it was These inconsistencies are not of consequence because there is already prepared when the parties arrived at his office for the need to indubitably establish the author of the Deed of Sale. They are signing.[48] On this point, the Court of Appeals stated with utter important because they cast doubt on the credibility of those nonchalance that a perusal of the record revealed no material or witnesses of the Aquinos, presented as they were to attest to the substantial inconsistencies between the testimonies of Judge Cario due execution and authenticity of the Deed of Sale. The Court of and De Francia. Appeals was clearly in error in peremptorily disregarding this observation of the RTC.

12

documents: (1) a Deed of Absolute Sale4 dated July 16, 1979 which disposed of her property in Jaen, Nueva Ecija in favor of Asterio, Estrella and Rodolfo, all surnamed Gonzales; (2) a Subdivision Agreement5 dated September 7, 1988 which subdivided her property among the same persons; and (3) an affidavit of Non-Tenancy6 dated March 3, 1988 which certified that her property was not tenanted. All three documents were purportedly signed and executed by complainant. All three documents carried forged signatures and falsely certified that the complainant personally appeared before the respondent and that she was "known to me (the respondent) to be the same person who executed the foregoing and acknowledged to me that the same is her own free act and voluntary deed." The complainant claimed that she never appeared before respondent on the dates the documents were notarized because she was then in the Since the validity of the Deed of Sale has been successfully United States. assailed, Tignos right to repurchase was not extinguished at the time of the filing of the Petition for revival of judgment, as correctly The respondent filed his Answer7 on June 16, 2003. He admitted that concluded by the RTC. The Court of Appeals being in error when it he notarized the three documents, but denied the "unfounded and concluded otherwise, the reinstatement of the RTC Decision is malicious imputation" that the three documents contained the warranted. complainant's forged signatures. On the false certification aspect, he WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The countered that "with the same or identical facts obtained in the assailed Decision dated 23 December 1996 and Resolution dated 9 instant case, the Highest Tribunal, the Honorable Supreme Court had June 1997 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 49879 is this to say That it is not necessary to know the signatories REVERSED, and the Decision dated 18 August 1994 of the Regional personally, provided he or she or they signed in the presence of the Trial Court of Alaminos, Pangasinan, Branch 55, in Civil Case No. A- Notary, alleging that they are the same persons who signed the names." 1918 is REINSTATED. Costs against respondents. As a result, we are less willing than the Court of Appeals to impute conclusive value to the testimonies of de Francia and Judge Cario. The totality of the picture leads us to agree with the trial court that the Deed of Sale is ineluctably dubious in origin and in execution. The Court deems as correct the refusal of the RTC to admit the Deed of Sale, since its due execution and authenticity have not been proven. The evidence pointing to the non-existence of such a transaction is so clear and convincing that it is sufficient even to rebut the typical presumption of regularity arising from the due execution of notarial documents. However, for the reasons stated earlier, the Deed of Sale is ineluctably an unnotarized document. And the lower court had more than sufficient basis to conclude that it is a spurious document. SO ORDERED. A.C. No. 6713 December 8, 2008 On October 13, 2003, the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of verification and notification of the date of hearing. 8 On December 19, 2003, complainant amended her complaint.9 This time, she charged respondent with gross negligence and failure to exercise the care required by law in the performance of his duties as a notary public, resulting in the loss of her property in Jaen, Nueva Ecija, a 141,497 square meters of mango land covered by TCT NT29578. The complainant claimed that because of the respondents negligent acts, title to her property was transferred to Asterio Gonzales, Estrella Gonzales and Rodolfo Gonzales. She reiterated that when the three documents disposing of her property were notarized, she was out of the country. Estrella Gonzales Mendrano, one of the vendees, was also outside the country as shown by a certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) on September 14, 1989.10 She likewise claimed that Guadalupe Ramirez Gonzales (the widow of Rodolfo Gonzales, another vendee) executed an affidavit describing the "Deed of Absolute Sale and Subdivision Agreement" as spurious and without her husband's participation.11 The affidavit further alleged that the complainants signatures were forged and the respondent did not ascertain the identity of the person who came before him and posed as vendor despite the fact that a large tract of land was being ceded and transferred to the vendees.

ZENAIDA B. GONZALES, petitioner, vs. ATTY. NARCISO PADIERNOS, respondent. BRION, J.: Before the Court is the Complaint for Disbarment of Atty. Narciso Padiernos (respondent) filed on May 12, 2003 by Ms. Zenaida B. Gonzales (complainant) with the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan conducted the fact-finding investigation on the complaint. Commissioner San Juan submitted a Report and Recommendation1 dated September 10, 2004 to the IBP Board of Governors who approved this Report and Recommendation in a resolution dated November 4, 2004. In a letter2 dated March 14, 2005, IBP Director for Bar Discipline Rogelio A. Vinluan transmitted to the Office of Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (retired) a Notice of Resolution3 and the records of the case. The Factual Background

The complainant prayed for the revocation of the respondent's notarial commission and his suspension from the practice of law due The complainant alleged in her complaint for disbarment that on to "his deplorable failure to hold the importance of the notarial act three (3) separate occasions the respondent notarized the following and observe [with] utmost care the basic requirements in the

13

performance of his duties as a notary public which include the and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity that ascertainment that the person who signed the document as the very he has the authority to sign in that capacity." person who executed and personally appeared before him." Under the given facts, the respondent clearly failed to faithfully On May 3, 2004, the complainant moved that the case be considered comply with the foregoing rules when he notarized the three submitted for resolution in view of respondent's failure to answer documents subject of the present complaint. The respondent did not the amended complaint.12 know the complainant personally, yet he did not require proof of identity from the person who appeared before him and executed and authenticated the three documents. The IBP Report observed that The IBP Findings had the respondent done so, "the fraudulent transfer of In her report to the IBP Board of Governors,13 Commissioner San Juan complainant's property could have been prevented." categorically noted the respondents admission that he notarized the three documents in question the Deed of Absolute Sale on July 16, 1979; the Subdivision Agreement on September 7, 1988 and the affidavit of Non-Tenancy on March 3, 1988. Commissioner San Juan also noted that the complainants documentary evidence supported her claim that she never executed these documents and never appeared before the respondent to acknowledge the execution of these documents. These documentary evidence consisted of the certification from the BID that complainant did not travel to the Philippines on the dates the documents were allegedly notarized;14 and the affidavit of Guadalupe Ramirez Gonzales described above.15 Commissioner San Juan found that the respondent had no participation in the preparation or knowledge of the falsity of the spurious documents, and found merit in the complainant's contention that the respondent "was negligent in the performance of his duties as a notary public." She faulted the respondent for not demanding proof of the identity of the person who claimed to be complainant Zenaida Gonzales when the documents were presented to him for notarization. She concluded that the respondent failed to exercise the diligence required of him as notary public to ensure the integrity of the presented documents. She recommended that the respondent's notarial commission be revoked and that he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months. The Court's Ruling Rule II of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice16 provides: 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 present an integrally complete instrument on document; (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 purpose stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act Through his negligence in the performance of his duty as a notary public resulting in the loss of property of an unsuspecting private citizen, the respondent eroded the complainants and the publics confidence in the notarial system; he brought disrepute to the system. As we held in Pantoja Mumar vs. Flores,17 he thereby breached Canon 1 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) as well as Rule 1.01 of the same Code (which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct). The respondent should be reminded that a notarial document is, on its face and by authority of law, entitled to full faith and credit. For this reason, notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with the formalities intended to ensure the integrity of the notarized document and the act or acts it embodies.18 We are not persuaded by the respondent's argument that this Court, in a similar case or one with identical facts, said "that it is not necessary to know the signatories personally provided he or she or they signed in the presence of the notary, alleging that they are the persons who signed the names." The respondent not only failed to identify the cited case; he apparently also cited it out of context. A notary public is duty bound to require the person executing a document to be personally present, and to swear before him that he is the person named in the document and is voluntarily and freely executing the act mentioned in the document.19 The notary public faithfully discharges this duty by at least verifying the identity of the person appearing before him based on the identification papers presented. For violating his duties as a lawyer and as a notary public, as well as for the grave injustice inflicted on the complainant, it is only proper that the respondent be penalized and suffer the consequences of his acts. We note in this regard that in her amended complaint, the complainant no longer sought the disbarment of respondent; she confined herself to the revocation of the respondents notarial commission and his suspension from the practice of law. Thus, the recommendation of the IBP is for revocation of his notarial commission and for his suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months. We approve this recommendation as a sanction commensurate with the transgression committed by the respondent as a member of the bar and as a notary public.

14

WHEREFORE, premises considered, ATTY. NARCISO PADIERNOS of Association under entry number 1226 was allegedly entered in the 103 Del Pilar Street, Cabanatuan City, isSUSPENDED from the practice notarial registry of the Respondent for 1991 when he wasnt of law for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS, and his notarial commissioned as notary public. commission is herebyREVOKED. The aforesaid acts of Respondent allegedly constitute not only SO ORDERED. unprofessional and unethical misconduct unbecoming of a lawyer but also gross and serious malpractice which justifies disbarment. [A.C. No. 4758. April 30, 1999] Respondent for his part alleged in his comment that complainant holds no position at the Masantol Rural Bank Inc. [i]n 1987 and 1997, VICTOR NUNGA, complainant, but is facing criminal charges for having plundered the said bank of vs. ATTY. VENANCIO VIRAY, respondent millions of pesos and [for] trespass to dwelling; while his father is DAVIDE, JR., C.J.: facing a case before the Securities and Exchange Commission. The sale of the lot by the Masantol Rural Bank Inc. to his son was In his complaint, Victor Nunga seeks the disbarment of allegedly done in good faith all the formalities required by law [were] respondent Venancio Viray on the ground of grave misconduct for properly complied with and the complaint from all indications is a notarizing documents without a commission to do so. After issues leverage in persuading him into a possible compromise. were joined, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines conducted an investigation. From 1965 to date Respondent alleged that he was always commissioned as notary public and the fact that Pampanga is under The Investigating Commissioner was Atty. Lydia A. Navarro. several feet of floodwaters, he could not annex all the needed Report dated 4 August 1998 reads as follows: documents to support the allegations. According to Respondent, there was no year in his practice of law that he was not Victor D. Nunga, president of the Masantol Rural Bank filed a commissioned as notary public. In fact, in the alleged documents he complaint for disbarment against Atty. Venancio M. Viray on the had PTR for that purpose [, and] he would not [have obtained] a ground of gross and serious misconduct for notarizing documents commission without the PTR. when he was not commissioned to do so at the time the said documents were executed. After going over the records of this case, the Undersigned noted that although both parties were required to submit their respective Complainant alleged that in May 1996, he was appointed by the memorand[a], only complainant complied with the order. board of directors of Masantol Rural Bank after his fathers resignation as its president. Complainant submitted certification and the respective orders of the Clerk of Court and presiding judges in support of his contention, A few month[] thereafter, he allegedly discovered that one of the and previous certification issued by the Clerk of Court of Pampanga banks assets consisting of 250 square meters house and lot in to the effect that Respondent Atty. Venancio Viray had been Kalookan City was sold without proper bidding by its manager Jesus commissioned to act as notary public for the said province on B. Manansala to Jesus Carlo Gerard M. Viray, a minor born February 2, January 2, 1981 to December 31, 1982; January 10, 1983 to December 1969 during the transaction on May 22, 1987. The deed of absolute 31, 1984; and January 8, 1995 to December 31, 1996 and had no record sale was notarized by the respondent who is not only the father of of any notarial reports. These therefore negate respondents the buyer minor but also a stockholder and legal counsel of the allegation that he [has been] commissioned as notary public since vendor bank and was not duly commissioned as notary public as of 1965 to the present. that date. Complainant further alleged that the said minor vendee wasnt capable to buy the said property at its value of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00) but his parents Atty. and Mrs. Venancio Viray, respondent herein [sic]. Being a minor he must [have been] represented by a guardian in the said transaction. After the title was allegedly issued in the name of the minor vendee Jesus Carlo [M.] Viray, the same title was allegedly used by Respondent and his wife in mortgaging the property to Crown Savings and Loan Association for THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00) on July 15, 1991 both by virtue of Special Powers of Attorney annotated at the back of the TCT No. 362813 PR 9907. The annotation of the cancellation of the THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00) loan in favor of Crown Savings and Loan Complainant likewise submitted a copy of the Resolution which dismissed the cases filed against the Complainant and his father and the xerox copy of the TCT No. 362813 PR 9907 where the special power of attorney and the annotations for the cancellation of mortgage showed inscription of the same in the notarial register of Venancio Viray on June 4, 1991. Nowhere from the records and evidence[] submitted was there any proof that Respondent was commissioned as notary public in 1987 and 1991, the years the Absolute Deed of Sale was notarized by Respondent as appearing to be May 22, 1987 and the inscription for cancellation of mortgage on the dorsal side of TCT 362813 as June 4, 1991 [sic]. The respondents contention that he had a PTR for all the documents he prepared is only an indication that the Professional Tax Receipt is

15

a license for him to engage in the practice of his profession as a similarly proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the lawyer but not a commission for him to act as notary public. prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: A lawyer shall not engage in Inasmuch as Respondent was not able to counteract the averments unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. of Complainant which were duly supported with evidence[], it is By such misconduct as a notary public, the lawyer likewise apparent that Respondent violated the provisions of the notarial law violates Canon 7 of the same Code, which directs every lawyer to by having affixed his official signatures to the aforesaid documents uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal with the intent to impart the appearance of notarial authenticity profession. Elaborating on this, we said in Maligsa v. thereto when in fact as of those dates 1987 and 1991 he was not Cabanting (supra): commissioned as notary public. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that if his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To Respondent is presently commissioned as notary public, the same this end a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing should be revoked, and [he should] not be granted any commission any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust as notary public up to December 31, 2002. reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession. (Citing Marcelo v. Javier, 214 SCRA 1 [1992]). On 5 November 1998, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar promulgated Resolution No. XIII-98-196 adopting the Report of What aggravated respondents unlawful notarization in 1987 the Investigating Commissioner and recommending that was the fact that the transaction involved was in favor of his son, respondents commission as a notary public be revoked and that who was then only eighteen years old and, therefore, a minor. Under respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three months. Article 402 of the Civil Code, which was the governing law as of 22 We concur with the finding of the Investigating Commissioner May 1987 when the said transaction was made, the age of majority that respondent Atty. Venancio Viray did not have a commission as was twenty-one years. Republic Act No. 6809, which reduced the notary public in 1987 and 1991 when he notarized the assailed age of majority to eighteen years was approved only on 13 December documents. Respondent knew that he could not exercise the 1989 and became effective two weeks after publication in two powers or perform the duties of a notary public unless he was duly newspapers of general circulation. appointed as such pursuant to the Notarial Law (Chapter 11, Title IV, Needless to state, respondent cannot escape from disciplinary Book I, Revised Administrative Code). He tried to impress upon the action in his capacity as a notary public and as a member of the investigating commissioner that since 1965 to date he has always Philippine Bar. been commissioned as a notary public. Yet, he was unable to rebut complainants evidence that he was not so commissioned for the However, the penalty recommended by the Board of Governors years in question. of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is too light. Respondent must be barred from being commissioned as a notary public for three We have emphatically stressed that notarization is not an (3) years, and suspended from the practice of law for also three (3) empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive years. public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. The protection of that interest necessarily WHEREFORE, the Court hereby adopts the findings and requires that those not qualified or authorized to act must be conclusions of Investigating Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro, which prevented from imposing upon the public, the courts, and the the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines administrative offices in general. It must be underscored that the adopted and approved, but MODIFIES the penalty recommended by notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a the said Board of Governors. As modified, respondent ATTY. public document making that document admissible in evidence VENANCIO VIRAY is hereby BARRED from being commissioned as without further proof of the authenticity thereof. A notarial notary public for THREE (3) years and his present commission, if any, document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. For is revoked, and SUSPENDED from the practice of law also for THREE this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic (3) years, effective upon receipt of a copy of this Resolution. requirements in the performance of their duties. (Maligsa v. SO ORDERED. Cabanting, 272 SCRA 408, 413 [1997]; Arrieta v. Llosa, 282 SCRA 248, 252-253 [1997]). Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or A.C. No. 6492. November 18, 2004 commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary MELANIO L. ZORETA, complainant, action. For one, performing a notarial without such commission is a vs. ATTY. HEHERSON ALNOR G. SIMPLICIANO, respondent violation of the lawyers oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyers oath

16

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

7. Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping[8] executed by one Celso N. Sarto, alleged Executive Vice President and Claims Manager of defendant SPAC and notarized by Atty. Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano on 19 August 2002, attached to the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, etc., filed before the Court Complainant Melanio L. Zoreta alleged that on 02 August 2001, of Appeals; and he filed before Branch 4 of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, a complaint for Breach of Contract and Damages against Security 8. Affidavit of Service[9] signed by a certain Joseph B. Aganan, Pacific Assurance Corporation (SPAC) dated 22 June 2001 due to the Legal Assistant of Simpliciano and Capela Law Office, subscribed and latters failure to honor SPACs Commercial Vehicle Policy No. 94286, sworn to before Atty. Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano on 19 August where respondent Atty. Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano was the 2002, as alleged Notary Public for Quezon City with notarized latters counsel. In said cases, respondent who was not a duly commission to expire by December 31, 2002. [1] commissioned Notary Public in 2002 per Certifications issued by the Clerk of Court of Quezon City Mercedes S. Gatmaytan, performed On 23 April 2003, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) of acts of notarization, as evidenced by the following documents, viz: Pasig required respondent Atty. Simpliciano to submit his answer within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Order. [10] 1. Verification[2] executed by Aurora C. Galvez, President of defendant SPAC, subscribed and sworn to before Atty. Heherson On 26 May 2003, counsel of respondent filed an exAlnor G. Simpliciano on February 18, 2002 as alleged notary public, in parte motion[11] for extension of time to file answer. Quezon City and attached to defendants Very Urgent Motion (1) To On 30 June 2003, petitioner filed a motion[12] to resolve the Lift the Order of Default; and (2) To defer Plaintiffs Presentation of complaint after the extension requested by respondent ended on 30 Evidence Ex-Parte dated February 18, 2002; May 2003, and almost a month had lapsed from 30 May 2003, with no comment or pleading filed by respondent. [3] 2. Affidavits of Merit signed by Aurora Galvez attached to the pleading mentioned in par. 1 hereof, likewise notarized by Atty. On 17 July 2003, Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro issued an Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano as alleged Notary Public in Quezon order,[13] giving respondent a last chance to file his answer, otherwise City, on February 18, 2002; the case shall be deemed submitted for resolution. Respondent failed to do so. 3. The Affidavit of Service [4] signed by a certain Renee L. Ramos, a Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro submitted her report and Legal Assistant in Simpliciano and Capela Law Office, and subscribed recommendation[14] dated 12 February 2004, pertinent portions of and sworn to before Atty. Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano on February 19, 2002 as alleged Notary Public in Quezon City. Said Affidavit of which read: Service was attached to the pleading mentioned in Par. 1 hereof; A careful examination and evaluation of the evidence submitted by [5] 4. The Affidavit of Service of one Nestor Abayon, another Legal the petitioner showed that respondent notarized up to Document Assistant of Simpliciano and Capela Law Office, subscribed and No. 590, Page 118, Book No. II, Series of 2002 and his commission sworn to before Atty. Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano on 01 April 2002 expires December 31, 2002 which referred to the Affidavit of Service at Quezon City, as Notary Public. This Affidavit of Service was signed and executed by Joseph B. Aganan Legal Assistant of attached to defendants Motion (1) For Reconsideration of the Order Simpliciano and Capela Law Office subscribed and sworn to before dated 05 March 2002; and (2) To allow defendants to Present Notary Public Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano whose commission expires December 31, 2002. Defensive Evidence dated 27 March 2002. 5. The Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping[6] signed this time by a certain Celso N. Sarto, as affiant, notarized on 16 August 2002 by Atty. Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano. This Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping was attached to defendants Motion For Extension of Time To File Petition Under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals; All the other documents aforementioned were entered in Book II of respondents alleged notarial book which reflected that his commission expires on December 31, 2002 as notary public.

However, the Clerk of Court of Quezon City in her certification dated October 4, 2002 stated that as per records on file with their office respondent was not duly commissioned notary public for and in [7] 6. The Affidavit of Service signed by a certain Joseph B. Aganan, Quezon City for the year 2002. another Legal Assistant in Simpliciano and Capela Law Office subscribed and sworn to before Atty. Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano Another certification issued by the Clerk of Court of RTC Quezon City as Notary Public on 16 August 2002. This Affidavit of Service dated April 15, 2003 showed that as per records on file with their signed by Aganan was also attached to that Motion For Extension of office respondent was commissioned notary public for and in Quezon City from January 14, 2000 to December 31, 2001 and for the year Time To File Petition under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals; 2002 and 2003 he did not apply for notarial commission for Quezon City.

17

It is evident from the foregoing that when respondent notarized the aforementioned documents, he was not commissioned as notary public, which was in violation of the Notarial Law; for having notarized the 590 documents after the expiration of his commission as notary public without having renewed said commission amounting to gross misconduct as a member of the legal profession. Wherefore, in view of the foregoing the Undersigned respectfully recommends the revocation of respondents commission as notary public permanently if he is commissioned as such at present and his suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months from receipt hereof furnishing the IBP Chapter where he is a registered member a copy hereof for implementation should this recommendation be approved by the Honorable members of the Board of Governors.[15] Per Resolution No. XVI-2004-236 dated 16 April 2004, the Board of Governors modified the report and recommendation of Commissioner Navarro of suspension of three (3) months to a suspension of six (6) months.[16] We concur in the finding of the Investigating Commissioner that respondent Atty. Simpliciano did not have a commission as notary public in 2002 when he notarized the assailed documents as evidenced by the two (2) certifications issued by the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City dated 04 October 2002.[17] Records also show, and as confirmed by IBP Commissioner Navarro, that as of 02 August 2002, respondent had already notarized a total of 590 documents.[18] The evidence presented by complainant conclusively establishes the misconduct imputed to respondent. The eight (8) notarized documents for the year 2002 submitted by complainant, consisting of affidavits of merit, certifications and verifications against non-forum shopping, and affidavits of service, were used and presented in the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 74, in Civil Case No. 01-6240, and in respondents petition for certiorari filed in the Court of Appeals. Against the evidence presented by complainant, respondent did not even attempt to present any evidence. His counsel filed an expartemotion for extension to file answer, which was granted, but no answer was forthcoming. Still, Hearing Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro gave respondent a last chance to file his answer; which was again unheeded. Thus, respondent was unable to rebut complainants evidence that he was not so commissioned for the year in question. His lack of interest and indifference in presenting his defense to the charge and the evidence against him can only mean he has no strong and valid defense to offer. Conclusively, respondent Atty. Simpliciano is not a duly commissioned Notary Public for and in Quezon City for the year 2002. At the threshold, it is worth stressing that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.[19] Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law only during good behavior and can

only be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard has been afforded him. Without invading any constitutional privilege or right, an attorneys right to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to suspend him, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to exercise the duties and responsibilities of an attorney. It must be understood that the purpose of suspending or disbarring him as an attorney is to remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to an office of attorney, and thus to protect the public and those charged with the administration of justice, rather than to punish an attorney.[20] Elaborating on this, we said in Maligsa v. Cabanting[21] that [t]he bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession.[22] Towards this end, an attorney may be disbarred, or suspended for any violation of his oath or of his duties as an attorney and counselor, which include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, all of these being broad enough to cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity.[23] Apropos to the case at bar, it has been emphatically stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. The protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from imposing upon the public, the courts, and the administrative offices in general. It must be underscored that the notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. 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. [24] The requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public must not be treated as a mere casual formality. The Court has characterized a lawyers act of notarizing documents without the requisite commission therefore as reprehensible, constituting as it does not only malpractice but also x x x the crime of falsification of public documents.[25] For such reprehensible conduct, the Court has sanctioned erring lawyers by suspension from the practice of law, revocation of the notarial commission and disqualification from acting as such, and even disbarment.[26] In the case of Nunga v. Viray,[27] the Court had occasion to state that where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action. For one, performing a notarial without such commission is a violation of the lawyers oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and

18

purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyers oath Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant, and recorded in the similarly proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the personal files of respondent himself. prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional SO ORDERED. Responsibility, which provides: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. By such misconduct as a notary public, the lawyer likewise violates Canon 7 of the same Code, which directs every lawyer to A.C. No. 7860 uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. January 15, 2009

On different occasions, this Court had disbarred or suspended ROSALINA O. ANGELES, CONNIE M. ANGELES, Complainants, lawyers for notarizing documents with an expired commission:

AVELINO O. ANGELES, LAURO O. ANGELES, MARIA O. ANGELES, vs. ATTY. AMADO O. IBAEZ, Respondent

1. In Flores v. Lozada, the court disbarred a lawyer who notarized six documents such as the extrajudicial partition of an estate, deed of CARPIO, J.: sale with right of repurchase, and four (4) deeds of absolute sale - all involving unregistered lands, after his commission as Notary Public The Case expired; This is a complaint filed by Avelino O. Angeles, Maria O. Angeles, 2. In Joson v. Baltazar,[29] the court suspended the lawyer for three Lauro O. Angeles, Rosalina O. Angeles, and Connie M. Angeles in (3) months since only one (1) instance of unauthorized notarization representation of the deceased Loreto Angeles (collectively, complainants) against Atty. Amado O. Ibaez (respondent) for of a deed of sale was involved. disbarment for notarizing the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute [30] 3. In Nunga v. Viray, the court suspended the lawyer for three Sale" without a notarial commission and in the absence of the (3) years when he notarized an absolute deed of sale of the buyer affiants. minor, who was his son and, at the same time, he was a stockholder and legal counsel of the vendor bank, and when he entered in his notarial registry an annotation of the cancellation of the loan in favor of a certain bank, at a time when he was not commissioned as a Notary Public. What aggravated respondents unlawful notarization was the fact that the transaction involved was in favor of his son, who was then only eighteen years old and, therefore, a minor. The Facts The facts of CBD Case No. 06-1830, as stated in the Report and Recommendation of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), read as follows:

[28]

II. Statement of the Complaint 4. In Buensuceso v. Barrera,[31] the lawyer was suspended for one (1) year when he notarized five (5) documents such as a complaint Complainants ... are residents of Highway, Sapang I, Ternate, Cavite. for ejectment, affidavit, supplemental affidavit, a deed of sale and a contract to sell, after his commission as Notary Public expired. Respondent Atty. Amado Ibaez is a practicing lawyer who holds office at 2101 Carolina (now Madre Ignacia) St., Malate, Manila. Needless to state, respondent cannot escape from disciplinary action in his capacity as a notary public and as a member of the The lengthy and confusing narrative of what appears to be a bitter Philippine Bar. However, the penalty recommended by the Board of land dispute notwithstanding, it can be gleaned from the Complaint Governors of the IBP must be increased. Respondent must be barred and Position Paper, and the personal clarification by the from being commissioned as a notary public permanently and complainants themselves after questioning by the undersigned suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years. during the Mandatory Conference, that the present administrative WHEREFORE, this Court hereby adopts the findings of Investigating Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro, which the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted and approved, but hereby MODIFIES the penalty recommended by the Board of Governors. As modified, respondent ATTY. HEHERSON ALNOR G. SIMPLICIANO is hereby BARRED PERMANENTLY from being commissioned as Notary Public. He is furthermore SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years, effective upon receipt of a copy of this Decision. case is limited to an "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" which respondent Atty. Amado Ibaez allegedly notarized in the City of Manila on 18 February 1979, and entered in his Notarial Book as Doc. No. 735, p. 157 and Book No. II, Series of 1979.

The complainants denied that they executed the said document or that they ever appeared before respondent Atty. Ibaez for this purpose. They alleged that respondent Atty. Ibaez did not even have the authority to notarize the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" as he did not have a commission as a notary public at Let copies of this Decision be furnished all the courts of the land that time. through the Court Administrator as well as the Integrated Bar of the

19

The complainants alleged that the respondent and his relatives are List of Notaries Public shows that Atty. Amado O. Ibaez was not presently using the said document in judicial proceedings pending appointed as such for and in the year 1978-1979. before the Regional Trial Court of Naic, Cavite to their damage and prejudice. 9. "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" (with various marginal notes made by the complainants) notarized by Atty. Amado Ibaez in The complainants contend that respondent Atty. Ibaezs act of the City of Manila on 18 February 1979, and entered in his Notarial notarizing the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" without Book as Doc. No. 735, p. 147 and Book No. II, Series of 1979. requiring the presence of the parties thereto, and despite his alleged lack of a notarial commission, constitutes professional misconduct 10. Real Estate Mortgage executed by Flora Olano in favor of the for which reason he should be disbarred. Rural Bank of Naic, Inc., in the amount of Php350.00, covering property located in Zapang, Ternate, Cavite and described in Tax In support of their allegations, the complainants attached to their Declaration No. 1657-1658. Complaint and Position Paper the following documents: 11. Certification dated 12 January 2007 issued by the Office of the 1. Tax Declaration Nos. 20-004-00052, 1356, 1809 in the name of Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Trece Martires City Barselisa Angeles, and Tax Declarations 198, 283, 403 and 1544, in the stating that Atty. Amado O. Ibaez was not duly commissioned as a name of Juan Angeles. notaryt [sic] public for and within the Province of Cavite in the year 1979, and that it has no copy in its records of an "Extrajudicial 2. Certification dated 24 March 2006 issued by the Office of the Clerk Partition with Absolute Sale" allegedly notarized by Atty. Amado of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Manila stating that the Master Ibaez on 18 February 1979 and entered in his Notarial Book as Doc. List of Notaries Public shows that Atty. Amado O. Ibaez was not No. 735, p. 147 and Book No. II. Series of 1979. appointed as such for and in the City of Manila for the year 1976-1977. III. Respondents Position/Defense 3. Certification dated 28 April 2006 issued by the National Archives stating that there is no notarial record on file with the said office of In his Motion to Dismiss and Position Paper, respondent Atty. Ibaez Amado Ibaez, a notary public for and within the City of Manila, and contended that the complainants are guilty of forum-shopping it has no copy on file of an affidavit allegedly executed by Gabriel, inasmuch as they had previously filed the same complaint, docketed Estebana, Eutiquio, Gloria, Leocadio, Jovita, Samonte, and Renato, all as Administrative Case No. 3581, which was eventually dismissed by surnamed Angeles, ratified sometime in 1977 by the said notary then IBP CBD Comm. Victor Fernandez. public and acknowledged as Doc. No. 202, Page No. 42, Book No. 1, Series of 1977. The respondent admitted that he notarized the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" but clarified that he did so as Notary 4. Certification dated 11 April 2006 issued by the National Archives Public of the Province of Cavite, with a notarial commission issued by stating that there is no notarial record on file with the said office of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 1, Trece Martires City. He Amado Ibaez, a notary public for and within the City of Manila, and explained that the designation of "Manila" as the place of execution it has no copy on file of a partition w/renunciation [sic] and affidavit of the said document was a mistake of his former legal secretary, allegedly executed by and among Gabriela, Estebana, Eutiquio, who failed to correct the same through oversight. Gloria, Leocadio, Jovita, Samonte and Renato, all surnamed Angeles, ratified sometime in 1977 by the said notary public and acknowledged Respondent Atty. Ibaez alleged that he notarized the "Extrajudicial as Doc. No. 201, Page No. 41, Series of 1977. Partition with Absolute Sale" in his capacity as the official Notary Public of Puerto Azul, and the same was actually prepared and 5. Two (2) versions of a "Partihang Labas sa Hukuman at Ganap na typewritten by complainant Rosalina Angeles for a consideration of Bilihan" dated 28 March 1978, executed by and between Gloria Php20,000.00 as evidenced by a photocopy of Commercial Bank & Angeles, Leocadio Angeles and Gabriela, Estebana, Eutiquio, Jovita, Trust Co. Cashiers Check dated 31 January 1979 on file with the Samonte and Renato, all surnamed Torres. Puerto Azul office, as well as an "Exclusive Authority" attached to the said document. The respondent also alleged that complainant 6. Flow chart showing the history of Tax Declaration No. 403, from Rosalina Angeles was at that time employed as a typist at Puerto Azul and that she enjoyed the trust and confidence of the Puerto Azul 1948 to 1974. management. 7. Application for Free Patent over Cadastral Lot No. 460-C of the Ternate Cadastral Sketching (CADS-617-D), SWO-04-000598 and The respondent stated that the land subject of the sale was surveyed for Mrs. Trinidad Diaz-Enriquez by the late Angel Salvacion, the Cadastral Lot No. 460-B, executed by Atty. Amado O. Ibaez. official surveyor of Puerto Azul, and was submitted to the Bureau of 8. Certification dated 24 March 2006 issued by the Office of the Clerk Lands for verification and approval and was approved on 14 February of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Manila stating that the Master 1985 as CCN No. 04-000038-D. Respondent Atty. Ibaez alleged that

20

the property is presently in the actual possession of Puerto Azul, with Angeles, Flora Angeles, Lauro Angeles and Avelino Angeles in favor former Sapang I Bgy. Captain Johnny Andra as tenant. of Rosalina Angeles.1 The respondent alleged that Puerto Azuls ownership of the property The IBPs Report and Recommendation is anchored on the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale," which is in turn the subject of a case, CA GR SP No. 2006-1668, which is In a Report2 dated 21 January 2008, IBP Commissioner for Bar presently pending in the Court of Appeals. Discipline Rico A. Limpingco (Commissioner Limpingco) found that respondent notarized the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" Respondent Atty. Ibaez alleged that a defect in the notarization of a in the absence of affiants and without a notarial commission. Thus: document of sale does not invalidate the transaction, and he stated that his failure to require the presence of the parties to the As stated earlier, the present administrative complaint may seem at "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" is wholly justified because first to be one for falsification, land grabbing, etc., but a closer of the assurance of complainant Rosalina Angeles that the signatures examination of the complainants allegations coupled with their own appearing in the said document were indeed those of her co-heirs. verbal confirmation during the Mandatory Conference, shows that The respondent also alleged that almost all the complainants the complainants are actually accusing respondent Atty. Amado submitted their residence certificates, the numbers of which were Ibaez of notarizing an "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" in recorded in the acknowledgement portion of the document. the City of Manila on 18 February 1979 (entered in his Notarial Book as Doc. No. 735, p. 147 and Book No. II, Series of 1979) without The respondent denied that he had committed any crime when he requiring the presence of the parties thereto, and further, for notarized the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" because the notarizing the said document even if he did not have a notarial offenses in the Revised Penal Code are "mala in se" where the commission at that time. intention to commit the crime is required, which is lacking in his case. The respondent added that there is regularity in the performance of The respondent contends that the complainants have previously filed his duty as the official notary public of Puerto Azul. the same administrative complaint against him, docketed as Administrative Case No. 3581, and that the same was eventually The respondent pointed out that nearly twenty eight (28) years have dismissed by the Supreme Court. He alleged that as in this prior lapsed without anyone questioning not only the sale of the said complaint, the present case must likewise be dismissed for forum property, but Puerto Azuls long possession of the same as well. He shopping. alleged that the complainants are now denying the sale because they want to make it appear that they have land within or adjoining a It appears, however, that Administrative Case No. 3581 is entirely quarry site which they have invaded and taken over. He reiterated different and distinct from the present complaint. A reading of the that the defect in his notarization of the sale document photocopy of IBP Board of Governors Resolution dated 27 June 1999, notwithstanding, the sale remains valid. adopting and approving the attached Report and Recommendation of Comm. Victor Fernandez dismissing Administrative Case No. 3581, By way of his defense, respondent Atty. Ibaez submitted the entitled "Rosalina Angeles, et al. vs. Atty. Amado Ibaez" (as attached following documents: by the respondent himself in his Motion to Dismiss) shows that this earlier complaint pertains to herein respondents alleged "land1. Photocopy of a Supreme Court Resolution dated 31 July 2000 grabbing" of two (2) parcels of land in Bgy. Zapang, Ternate, Cavite. denying the complainants motion for reconsideration in As stated in the report authored by then Commissioner Victor Administrative Case No. 3581, entitled "Rosalina Angeles, et al. vs. Fernandez, the earlier administrative case relates to the sale of the said property to the Sps. Danilo Andra and Angela Olano, and its Atty. Amado Ibaez" subsequent sale to the respondent, Atty. Amado Ibaez, who for his 2. Photocopy of IBP Board of Governors Resolution dated 27 June part later applied for, and was granted, free patent titles over the 1999, adopting and approving the Report and Recommendation of same. Branding the transaction as land-grabbing, the complainants Comm. Victor Fernandez dismissing Administrative Case No. 3581, filed an action in court to recover possession and annul the titles but the case was eventually dismissed by the Supreme Court for lack of entitled "Rosalina Angeles, et al. vs. Atty. Amado Ibaez" merit. The complainants then filed the same complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, the Dept. of Justice, the Bureau of 3. Photocopy of a Counter-Affidavit filed by Atty. Amado Ibaez in Internal Revenue and the Supreme Court, which eventually referred OMB-1-C 06-0368-C/OMB-L C 06-0272-C, entitled "Mario O. Angeles vs. the matter to the IBP. In his report, then-Commissioner Victor Sony Peji, et al.," Fernandez declared that the complainants were engaged in forumshopping, reasoning that unsuccessful in their effort to obtain the 4. "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" notarized by Atty. result they desire from the courts, they would attempt to refile their Amado Ibaez in the City of Manila on 18 February 1979, and entered dismissed action under the guise of an administrative case. in his Notarial Book as Doc. No. 735, p. 147 and Book No. II, Series of 1979, with attached "Exclusive Authority" executed by Maria

21

The present administrative complaint may be in one way or another related to the alleged land-grabbing which was the subject of Administrative Case No. 3581, but it pertains to an altogether different matter. In the present complaint, respondent Atty. Ibaez is not being accused of land-grabbing or falsification, but rather, for misconduct in notarizing a document.

Respondent filed a supplemental position paper on 28 May 2008 before the IBP Board of Governors. In a Resolution dated 29 May 2008, the IBP Board of Governors referred respondents submission to the Office of the Bar Confidant. Respondent attached photocopies of the following: respondents Petition for Commission as Notary Public for and within the Province of Cavite filed before the said Court on 16 February 1978; respondents commission as Notary Public We would point out that respondent Atty. Amado Ibaez admitted for the province of Cavite for the term 1978 until 1979 issued by that he did not require the presence of the parties to the document Executive Judge Pablo D. Suarez on 21 February 1978; and because he was assured as to the authenticity of their signatures. We respondents oath of office as notary public dated 21 February 1978. would also stress that the respondent never denied that he notarized the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale," but claimed that he The Ruling of the Court did so not in Manila as stated in document, but in Cavite where he claimed to be a commissioned notary public; he attributed the We sustain the findings of the IBP and adopt its recommendations mistake to his legal secretary, and he insisted that the sale remained with modification. Respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and the valid despite the defects in notarization. Code of Professional Responsibility when he notarized the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" in the absence of the That is not the point, however. The validity of the transaction affiants. covered by the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" is not at issue in this administrative case for that is a matter for the courts to Respondent Notarized the "Extrajudicial Partition with adjudicate, if they have not already done so. Absolute Sale" in the Absence of the Affiants As it is, no less than the respondent himself categorically admitted that he notarized the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" in the absence of the parties thereto. To make matters worse, the certifications submitted by the complainants clearly indicate that respondent Atty. Amado Ibaez didnot have any notarial commission whether for Manila or Cavite, in 18 February 1979 when he notarized the subject document. The respondent, for his part, has been completely unable to proffer any kind of proof of his claim that he had a commission as a notary public for and in the Province of Cavite in 1979, or of his submission of notarial reports and notarial register during the said period. Respondent himself admits that he merely relied on the representation of Rosalina Angeles that the signatures appearing on the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" subject of the present complaint are those of her co-heirs.5 Respondent claims that he reposed confidence upon Rosalina Angeles because she is his confidential secretary. Unfortunately for respondent, he cannot exculpate himself from the consequences of his recklessness and his failure to comply with the requirements of the law by relying on his confidential secretary.

Time and again, we have reminded lawyers commissioned as notaries public that the affiants must personally appear before them. Section While the case of respondent Atty. Amado Ibaez is not perfectly 1 of Public Act No. 2103, or the Notarial Law, provides: identical to the facts and circumstances obtaining in these cases, his act of notarizing a document without the necessary commission is Sec. 1. (a) The acknowledgement shall be before a notary public or an nonetheless clear and undeniable. Guided by the foregoing rulings of officer duly authorized by law of the country to take the Supreme Court vis-a-vis the facts in the present complaint, it is acknowledgements of instruments or documents in the place where therefore respectfully recommended that respondent Atty. Amado the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the Ibaez: acknowledgement shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same 1. Be barred from being commissioned as a notary public for a period person who executed it, acknowledged that the same is his free act of two (2) years, and in the event that he is presently commissioned and deed. The certificate shall be made under the official seal, if he is as a notary public, that his commission be immediately revoked and required by law to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state. suspended for such period; and 2. Be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year. Respectfully submitted.3 (Emphasis added) Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 reads: A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document -

In a Resolution4 dated 6 February 2008, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of (1) is not in the notarys presence personally at the time of the Commissioner Limpingco. The Office of the Bar Confidant received notarization; and the notice of the Resolution and the records of the case on 10 April 2008.

22

(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise On June 8, 1992, complainant filed a petition for the disbarment identified by the notary public through competent evidence of or indefinite suspension of respondent Atty. Jose R. Restauro of identity as defined by these Rules. Davao City for malpractice, deceit and grave misconduct. Complainant averred that on July 19, 1990, respondent prepared The physical presence of the affiants enables the notary public to and notarized a Special Power of Attorney [2] making it appear that verify the genuineness of the signatures of the acknowledging she, Felicidad G. Soriano (complainants full maiden name), her parties and to ascertain that the document is the parties free act and deceased spouse, Alberto Bernardo and Hildegarda Mejia appointed 6 deed. Marcelino G. Soriano, Jr. as their attorney-in-fact to sell a parcel of land situated in Davao City covered by TCT No. T-39100 when they Notarization of a private document converts such document into a neither appeared nor executed and acknowledged said document public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of before respondent. The Special Power of Attorney was entered in its authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at the Notarial Register of respondent as Doc. No. 380, Page No. 76, large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a Book No. XIX, Series of 1990. notary public and appended to a private instrument. Notarization is Complainant further alleged that her husband, Alberto not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires Bernardo, could not have appeared and executed said Special Power preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as of Attorney before respondent on July 19, 1990 since her husband notaries public from imposing upon the public and the courts and died on January 30, 1980 at the Pangasinan Medical Center, as evidenced by a death certificate.[3] Hence, when the Special Power administrative offices generally.7 of Attorney was executed, her husband was dead for more than ten Under the facts and circumstances of the case, respondents notarial years. commission should not only be suspended but respondent must also Complainant also alleged that to recover her share of the be suspended from the practice of law. property which was sold to a third party, she hired the services of her counsel whom she promised to pay 25 percent (on a contingent WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Amado O. basis) of the value of her share. Ibaez GUILTY of notarizing the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Complainant prayed that respondent be disbarred or Sale" in the absence of the affiants. Accordingly, the indefinitely suspended, and that he be ordered to pay the value of Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one year, REVOKES his incumbent notarial commission, if any, her pro indiviso half share of said property, the attorneys fees and and PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public for the costs of the suit. one year, effective immediately, with a stern warning that a In his Answer, respondent asserted that he would not have repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more known the names of Felicidad Soriano, Alberto Bernardo and severely. Hildegarda Mejia if said persons did not go to his office to request Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondents 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. [AC. No. 3849. June 25, 2003] that he prepare the Special Power of Attorney. Moreover, he stated that he would not have notarized the document if they did not appear before him and acknowledge that it was their act and deed. He also mentioned that said persons brought with them the title (TCT No. T-39100) to the property. Respondent further averred that a living Alberto Bernardo appeared before him in Davao City and signed the Special Power of Attorney at the time of its execution. He also stated that Pangasinan and Davao City are far apart; hence, events happening in either places (alluding to the death of complainants husband, Alberto Bernardo) are not always known to everybody. Atty. Restauro prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. On September 14, 1992, this case was referred by the Court to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation.

FELICIDAD VDA. DE BERNARDO, complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSE R. RESTAURO, respondent.

AZCUNA, J.:

Complainant Felicidad Vda. de Bernardo (married to the late The Investigating Commissioner set the case for hearing on Alberto Bernardo) and Marcelino G. Soriano (married to Hildegarda November 16, 1993. During the hearing, only complainant and her Mejia) were co-owners of a parcel of land, with an area of 561 square counsel were present. Complainant testified and identified the meters, situated in Davao City, and covered by TCT No. T-39100.[1] documents mentioned in her Complaint. Thereafter, she submitted a Formal Offer of Evidence dated November 19, 1993.

23

On November 18, 1993, the Commissioner received from respondent a Manifestation dated November 9, 1993 stating that he could not attend the hearing set on November 16, 1993 due to previous commitments and that if the hearing could not be postponed to a later date, he was waiving his right to attend it. In his Comments/Objections on Complainants Formal Offer of Evidence, respondent stated that he acted in good faith when he prepared the Special Power of Attorney and that the persons involved were all present, otherwise, the execution of said document would not have been possible. He prayed for the non-admission of the evidence submitted by complainant. As directed by the Commissioner, complainant filed a Memorandum. But respondent did not. In her Memorandum, complainant stated that whoever appeared before respondent at the time of the execution of the Special Power of Attorney and claimed to be her, Felicidad G. Soriano, and her deceased husband, Alberto Bernardo, were impostors. According to complainant, respondent could have been in good faith when the supposed Alberto Bernardo went to his office for the first time for the preparation and notarization of the Special Power of Attorney. Nevertheless, after complainant, through her counsel, had informed respondent on May 6, 1992 (nearly 2 years after the execution of said Special Power of Attorney) that the persons who appeared before him were impostors, respondent was already in bad faith for not contacting said persons and for not retracting the unauthorized Special Power of Attorney. In her report, the Investigating Commissioner found that it was not satisfactorily established that respondent was a party to the fraudulent execution of said Special Power of Attorney. Respondents participation was only in the preparation and notarization of said document based on the parties identification papers and their representations that they were the persons who they claimed to be. The notarial acknowledgment of said document showed that the alleged impostors presented their Community Tax Certificates bearing the names of complainant Felicidad G. Soriano and her deceased husband, Alberto Bernardo.

authorized to act as Notary Public would accept the job and perform its functions. However, the foregoing rule does not disregard the nature of the corresponding responsibilities of a Notary Public. His office is [imbued] with public trust and public service. He is obliged to exercise due diligence in ascertaining the true identity of the person executing a document. In this particular case, the Notary Public should have exerted utmost efforts to determine the real identity of the persons executing the Special Power of Attorney considering that it was a document which authorizes a certain Marcelino G. Soriano, Jr. to sell one half of the pro-indiviso share of the complainant over a parcel of land situated in Davao City. On the basis of her investigation, the Commissioner recommended the following: Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that respondent Atty. Restauro be penalized for his aforementioned acts and negligence and that the penalty of reprimand be meted out on him. It is further recommended that his Commission as Notary Public be revoked for an indefinite period until the time that he will be able to show to the Honorable Supreme Court that he again deserves to be allowed to act as Notary Public in his place. Subsequently, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the following Resolution of August 3, 2002:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex A; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering respondents failure to exercise utmost diligence in the performance [of] his functions as Notary Public and for his disregard without justifiable reason of the Orders of the Commission, Respondent is hereby REPRIMANDED with REVOCATION of his Commission as Notary Public for an indefinite period until the time that he will be The Investigating Commissioner also stated, thus: able to demonstrate to the court that he again deserves to be It is noteworthy to stress here that a notary public is duty bound to allowed to act as Notary Public. require the person executing a document to be personally present, On January 13, 2003, this Court noted the aforesaid Resolution. to swear before him that he is that person and ask the latter if he has voluntarily and freely executed the same; also to require him to sign The principal function of a notary public is to authenticate in his presence if it is an affidavit or any other sworn statement. But documents.[4] When a notary public certifies to the due execution if it is a document with an acknowledgment, it is sufficient that the and delivery of a document under his hand and seal, he gives the party thereto personally appears before the notary public and document the force of evidence.[5] Indeed, one of the purposes of acknowledges that he was the one who executed such document. It requiring documents to be acknowledged before a notary public, in is enough that the Notary Public requires the party to produce addition to the solemnity which should surround the execution and identification papers like his Community Tax Certificate, and I.D. The delivery of documents, is to authorize such documents to be given Notary Public is not obliged to go beyond the identification without further proof of their execution and delivery. [6] A notarial papers/documents presented and to investigate further to ascertain document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its the real identity of the executing party. What suffices is for the face.[7] Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must Notary Public to determine if he has the required identification be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed before a notary papers. If this were not the rule, no lawyer or any other person public and appended to a private instrument.[8] Hence, a notary

24

public must discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed C A G A Y A N D E O R O C I T Y) S.S. with public interest,[9] with accuracy and fidelity. "WE, REV. PASTORS PATERNO M. DIAZ, MANUEL DONATO, ULYSSES The Court agrees with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines that CAMAGAY, LEVI PAGUNSAN, ALEJANDRO BOFETIADO, All of legal in this case, respondent, as notary public, should have exercised ages after having been sworn in accordance with law depose and utmost diligence in ascertaining the true identity of the persons say: executing the said Special Power of Attorney considering that it authorized Marcelino G. Soriano, Jr. to sell the pro indiviso half share "1. That we were the one who caused the above writings to be of complainant in the land covered by TCT No. T-39100. written; However, the act of respondent does not warrant his disbarment or indefinite suspension. Considering all the "2. That we have read and understood all statements therein and circumstances in this case, particularly the absence of any evidence believed that all are true and correct to the best of our knowledge of fraud involved, this Court finds a suspension of six (6) months as and belief. notary public sufficient. Respondent, and for that matter, all notaries public, are hereby cautioned to be very careful and diligent in "IN WITNESS WHEREOF hereunto affixed our signatures on the ascertaining the true identities of the parties executing a document 6th day of February, 1989 at the City of Cagayan de Oro, Philippines. before them, especially when it involves disposition of a property, as this Court will deal with such cases more severely in the future. By: (Sgd.) Lilian C. Diaz (Sgd..) Camagay (Sgd.) M Donato WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jose R. Restauro is hereby SUSPENDED as notary public for six (6) months for failure to exercise By (Sgd.) Atty. Restituto B. Sabate utmost diligence in the performance of his functions as notary public, and WARNED that a similar incident in the future shall be dealt with (Sgd.) Dr. Levi Pagunsan (Sgd.) Pastor A. Bofetiado more severely. No costs. SO ORDERED. [A.C. No. 3324. February 9, 2000] "SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before the above-named affiants on the 6th day of February, 1989 at the City of Cagayan de Oro, Philippines. (Sgd.) RESTITUTO B. SABATE, JR. Notary Public"[3]

PASTOR EDWIN VILLARIN, PACIANO DE VEYRA, SR., and BARTOLOME EVAROLO, SR., complainants, vs. ATTY. RESTITUTO SABATE, JR., respondent.
RESOLUTION

Complainants alleged that the signature of Paterno Diaz was not his, but that of a certain Lilian Diaz; that with regard to the signatures of Levi Pagunsan and Alejandro Bofetiado, it was Atty. Sabate, Jr. who BUENA, J.: signed for them; and that herein respondent Sabate, Jr. made it appear that said persons participated in the said act when in fact Complainants Pastor Edwin Villarin, Paciano de Veyra, Sr. and they did not do so. Complainants averred that respondents act Bartolome Evarolo, Sr. prays that administrative sanctions be undermined the publics confidence for which reason administrative imposed on respondent Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr. for not having sanctions should be imposed against him. observed honesty and utmost care in the performance of his duties as notary public. In his Answer,[4] respondent alleged that Paterno Diaz, Levi Pagunsan and Alejandro Bofetiado swore to the correctness of the allegations in the motion to dismiss / pleading for the SEC through their authorized representatives known by their names as Lilian C. Diaz, wife of Paterno Diaz, and Atty. Restituto B. Sabate, Jr. manifested by the word "By" which preceded every signature of said representatives. Respondent allegedly signed for and in the interest Respondents in the SEC Case filed their "Motion to Dismiss With of his client backed-up by their authorization[5]; and Lilian Diaz was Answer To Villarins Et. Al., Complaint To The Securities and Exchange authorized to sign for and in behalf of her husband as evidenced by a Commission"[2] prepared and notarized by Atty. Resituto Sabate, Jr. written authority.[6] Respondent alleged that on the strength of the The verification of the said pleading reads: said authorization he notarized the said document. In their Affidavit-Complaint,[1] complainants alleged that through their counsel Atty. Eduardo D. Estores, they filed a complaint against Paterno Diaz, et al. under SEC Case No. DV091, Region XI Davao Extension Office, Davao City. "V E R I F I C A T I O N "REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) Respondent also alleged that in signing for and in behalf of his client Pagunsan and Bofetiado, his signature was preceded by the word "By" which suggests that he did not in any manner make it appear

25

that those persons signed in his presence; aside from the fact that his clients authorized him to sign for and in their behalf, considering the distance of their place of residence to that of the respondent and the reglementary period in filing said pleadings he had to reckon with. Respondent further alleged that the complaint is malicious and anchored only on evil motives and not a sensible way to vindicate complainants court losses, for respondent is only a lawyer defending a client and prayed that the case be dismissed with further award for damages to vindicate his honor and mental anguish as a consequence thereof.

A member of the bar who performs an act as a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before said notary public to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The acts of affiants cannot be delegated to anyone for what are stated therein are facts they have personal knowledge of and swore to the same personally and not through any representative. Otherwise, their representatives names should appear in the said documents as the ones who executed the same and that is only the time they can affix their signatures and personally appear before the notary public for notarization of said The designated Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of document. the Philippines recommended that respondent Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr. be suspended from his Commission as Notary Public for a As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent is mandated period of six (6) months. The Board of Governors of the Integrated to subscribe to the sacred duties pertaining to his office, such duties Bar of the Philippines adopted the said recommendation and being dictated by public policy impressed with public interest. resolved to suspend the respondents Commission for six (6) months Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the for failure to exercise due diligence in upholding his duty as a notary oath in an acknowledgement or jurat is sacrosanct. Simply put, such public. responsibility is incumbent upon and failing therein, he must now accept the commensurate consequences of his professional [10] From the facts obtaining, it is apparent that respondent Atty. indiscretion. Restituto Sabate, Jr. notarized the Motion to Dismiss With Answer prepared by him which pleading he signed for and in behalf of Levi That respondent acted the way he did because he was confronted Pagunsan and Alejandro Bofetiado (while Lilian Diaz signed for her with an alleged urgent situation is no excuse at all. As an individual, husband Pastor Diaz), three of the respondents in the SEC case, with and even more so as a member of the legal profession, he is required the word "By" before their signatures, because he was their counsel to obey the laws of the land at all times.[11] For notarizing the in said case and also because he was an officer of the religious sect Verification of the Motion to Dismiss With Answer when three of the and corporation respondents-Pastors. affiants thereof were not before him and for notarizing the same instrument of which he was one of the signatories, he failed to But while it would appear that in doing so, he acted in good faith, the exercise due diligence in upholding his duty as a notary public. fact remains that the same cannot be condoned. He failed to state in the preliminary statements of said motion/answer that the three WHEREFORE, for lack of diligence in the observance of the Notarial respondents were represented by their designated attorneys-in-fact. Law, respondent Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr. is SUSPENDED from his Besides, having signed the Verification of the pleading, he cannot Commission as Notary Public for a period of one (1) year. swear that he appeared before himself as Notary Public. SO ORDERED. The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements.[7] That function would be defeated [A.C. No. 6186. February 3, 2004] if the notary public were one of the signatories to the instrument. For VICENTE FOLLOSCO and HERMILINA FOLLOSCO, complainants, then, he would be interested in sustaining the validity thereof as it vs. ATTY. RAFAEL MATEO, respondent. directly involves himself and the validity of his own act. It would place him in an inconsistent position, and the very purpose of the DECISION acknowledgment, which is to minimize fraud, would be thwarted.[8] AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 provides: "(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgment 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."[9] The present administrative complaint against Atty. Rafael Mateo was originally filed by the spouses Vicente and Hermilina Follosco with the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) some time in 1994. In August of the same year, the CHR referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for appropriate action. A complaint for disbarment, docketed as Administrative Case No. 4375, was also filed by the spouses Follosco against herein respondent, based on the same acts complained of in the present complaint.

26

The complaint was then raffled to Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo, Jr.. After the parties submitted their respective position papers and other pertinent pleadings, Commissioner Magpayo, Jr., rendered his Report and Recommendation dated July 24, 2003. Based on the following findings of facts, to wit:

By the use of this forged documents, new tax declarations bearing Nos. 00-TN-001-3661 and 00-TN-001-3147 were issued in the name of Dr. Epitacio Tongohaneffectively canceling Tax Declaration Nos. 00001-1158 and 001-3217 in the name of complainant Vicente Follosco.[1]

Commissioner Magpayo, Jr. found respondent guilty of negligence in the performance of his duty as a notary public and recommended his Respondent was a notary public during all the time (1992 and 1993) suspension from the practice of law for a period of three months material to the complaint. with warning that repetition of the same or similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more severely.[2] Complainants are the owners of a certain property (house and lot) In its Resolution dated August 30, 2003, The IBP Board of located in Tanay, Rizal which was mortgaged to Governors approved the report and recommendation of Dr. Epitacio R. Tongohan for a loan ofP50,000.00. Commissioner Magpayo, Jr., with the modification that instead, Pursuant to this transaction, several related documents were caused respondents notarial commission be suspended for one year and that respondent be reprimanded with warning that repetition of the to be executed namely: same or similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more (1) Sinumpaang Kasunduan Salaysay Tungkol sa Lupang Sanlaan; severely. (2)Dagdag na Paglilinaw Tungkol sa Lupang Sanlaan; (3) Sinumpaang Salaysay; (4) Sinumpaang Pangako Tungkol sa Lupang Sanglaang; and (5) Promissory Note (Sinumpaang Pangako) which were all notarized by herein respondent in his official capacity as notary public for the Province of Rizal. Claiming that the signatures appearing on the documents to be forged, complainants filed criminal complaints for falsification of public documents against Dr.Tongohan, respondent Mateo and the instrumental witnesses which complaints were docketed as I.S. Nos. 94-269 and 94-2064 of the Provincial Prosecutors Office of Rizal. The Court agrees with the finding of the IBP that respondent failed to exercise utmost diligence in the performance of his duties as notary public. Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, otherwise known as the Notarial Law, explicitly provides: Sec. 1. (a) The acknowledgment shall be 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, acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under the official seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.

I.S. No. 94-269 which involves the document entitled Dagdag na Paglilinaw Tungkol sa Lupang Sanglaan was dismissed by Pros. Marianito Santos while I.S. No. 94-2064 which was filed at a later time was dismissed as against respondent, but four (4) counts of falsification of public documents were filed in court From the foregoing, it is clear that the party acknowledging againstTongohan and Trinidad Iposadas and one (1) count of falsification against Veronica Regondola. The latter two were the must appear before the notary public or any other person authorized to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents.[3] witnesses to the documents.

In this case, respondent does not deny notarizing the Herein complainants not entirely satisfied with the resolution of questioned documents. According to him, these documents were investigating prosecutor Jison D. Julian elevated I.S. No. 94-2064 to already prepared and executed at the time it was submitted to him the Department of Justice on a petition for review. for notarization; and because he was familiar with the complainants, he unsuspectingly affixed his signatures thereon. Respondent also The Department of Justice, speaking thru Chief State stated that he does not have the slightest intention of causing Prosecutor Jovencito Zuo, reversed the resolution in I.S. No. 94- damage to complainants.[4] 2064 and directed that the questioned documents be referred to the It cannot be said that respondent acted in good faith in NBI or PNP Crime Laboratory for appropriate examination and notarizing the questioned documents without requiring the affiants thereafter to conduct a re-investigation of the case and resolve the to personally appear before him and ensuring that the signatures case anew based on the evidence adduced by the parties. were indeed theirs. Respondents claim of good faith cannot relieve After due examination of the questioned document him from the consequences of his reckless failure to comply with the (Sinumpaang Pangako Tungkol sa Lupang Sanglaan), the NBI issued dictates of the law. Questioned Documents Report No. 661-900 containing the Acknowledgment of a document is not an empty act or conclusion: The questioned signatures on one hand and the routine.[5] Thus, in Vda. de Rosales vs. Ramos,[6] the Court emphasized standard sample signatures on the other hand were not written by the significance of the act of notarization, to wit: one and the same person.

27

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 executed 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.

respondent and failing therein, he must now accept the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion.[9] As the Court has held in Flores vs. Chua: 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. In Maligsa v. Cabanting, we emphatically pronounced: As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent is mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent upon and failing therein, he must now accept the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion. By his effrontery of notarizing a fictitious or spurious document, he has made a mockery of the legal solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment.[10] (Emphasis supplied)

A notary publics function should not be trivialized and a notary public must discharge his powers and duties which are impressed Under the facts and circumstances of the case, with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity. [7] respondents notarial commission should not only be suspended as The Court is not unaware of the careless practice of some recommended by the IBP Board of Governors but respondent must lawyers who notarize documents without requiring the physical also be suspended from the practice of law as recommended by the presence of the affiants. For one reason or another, they forego this investigating commissioner. essential requirement without taking into account the likelihood that WHEREFORE, Atty. Rafael Mateo is SUSPENDED from practice the documents may be spurious or that the affiants may not be who of law for three (3) months; his incumbent notarial commission, if they purport to be. The Court had resolved numerous cases involving unauthentic notarized deeds and documents. Sadly, public any, isREVOKED; and he is prohibited from being commissioned as faith in the integrity of public documents is continually eroding, and notary public, for one year, effective immediately, with a stern the Court must, once more, exhort notaries public to be more warning that repetition of the same or similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more severely. circumspect in the discharge of their functions. It devolves upon herein respondent to act with due care and diligence in stamping fiat on the questioned documents. A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.[8] As borne by the records, respondents failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only in damaging complainants rights over the property subject of the documents but also in undermining the integrity of a notary public and in degrading the function of notarization. Hence, he should be liable for such negligence, not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer. Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be attached to the personal record of respondent; the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Court for dissemination to all lower courts; and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, for proper guidance and information. SO ORDERED.

A.C. No. 6270 January 22, 2007 HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES LUCAS and FRANCISCA VILLANUEVA, Complainants, vs. ATTY. SALUD P. BERADIO, Respondent

As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent is mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties appertaining to his CARPIO, J.: office, such duties being dictated by public policy impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal The Case solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent upon

28

This is a disbarment case against Atty. Salud P. Beradio (respondent), filed by the heirs of the late spouses Lucas and Francisca Villanueva (spouses Villanueva), namely: Ardenio M. Fonacier, Araceli M. Fonacier, Alano M. Fonacier, Eusebio M. Fonacier, Jr., Rolando V. Nazarro, Alejandro V. Nazarro, Margarita V. Collado, Felisa Collado, and Herminigildo Ylhi (complainants). The Facts During their lifetime, the spouses Villanueva acquired several parcels of land in Pangasinan, one of which was covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 2522. Francisca died in 1968, and Lucas in 1974. Their five children, namely, Simeona, Susana, Maria, Alfonso, and Florencia, survived them. On 22 May 1984, Alfonso executed an Affidavit of Adjudication 1 (affidavit of adjudication) stating that as "the only surviving son and sole heirs (sic)" of the spouses Villanueva, he was adjudicating to himself the parcel of land under OCT No. 2522. Alfonso then executed a Deed of Absolute Sale 2 (deed of sale) on 5 July 1984, conveying the property to Adriano Villanueva. Respondent appeared as notary public on both the affidavit of adjudication and the deed of sale.

Villanueva]. This fact was also known to me because [Lucas] and [Alfonso] lived across the street from our house and I was requested to the house of the old man when he gave said title to [Alfonso and Tomasa, his wife]. The other compulsory heirs who were still alive at the time just made visits to their parents and never stayed in their old house to help in the care of their parents. Even [when] the parents died, it was [Alfonso and his wife] who took charge of the funeral and all other acts relative thereto. That said title remain[ed] in the custody of [Alfonso] and after the death of the old man, when the spouses Alfonso [and Tomasa] needed money to finance the schooling of their children, it was then that they thought of disposing the land x x x and said land was sold by them to one Adriano Villanueva of which in both documents, I notarized the same (sic). I can say with all clean and good intentions, that if ever I notarized said documents, it was done in good faith, to do my job as expected of me, to help, assist and to guide people who come to me for legal assistance, as contained in my oath as a lawyer when I passed the bar. x x x 4 (Emphasis supplied) According to respondent, the fact that none of Alfonsos co-heirs filed their objections at the time he executed the affidavit of adjudication proved that most of the properties of the spouses Villanueva had earlier been distributed to the other heirs. It also proved that the heirs had agreed to abide by the intention of the spouses Villanueva to leave the property to Alfonso. Respondent asserted that "the personal appearances and acknowledgment by the party to the document are the core of the ritual that effectively convert a private document into a public document x x x."

Contrary to the misrepresentations of Alfonso, his sister Florencia was still alive at the time he executed the affidavit of adjudication and the deed of sale, as were descendants of the other children of the spouses Villanueva. Complainants claimed that respondent was aware of this fact, as respondent had been their neighbor in Balungao, Pangasinan, from the time of their birth, and respondent constantly mingled with their family. Complainants accused respondent of knowing the "true facts and surrounding circumstances" regarding the properties of the spouses Villanueva, On 26 May 2004, we resolved to refer the complaint to the yet conspiring with Alfonso to deprive his co-heirs of their rightful Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which designated shares in the property. Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. (IBP Commissioner Villadolid) to investigate, and submit his report and recommendation on, the In a resolution dated 11 February 2004, this Court required complaint. respondent to comment on the complaint. The IBPs Findings In her Comment, 3 respondent admitted that she notarized the affidavit of adjudication and the deed of sale executed by Alfonso in In his Report dated 16 September 2005, IBP Commissioner Villadolid 1984. However, respondent denied that she conspired with Alfonso found that respondent violated the provisions of the Code of to dispose of fraudulently the property. Respondent alleged that Professional Responsibility and the spirit and intent of the notarial Alfonso executed the two documents under the following law when she notarized the affidavit knowing that Alfonso was not circumstances: the sole compulsory heir of the spouses Villanueva. Although he found no evidence of fraudulent intent on respondents part, IBP That the properties of the late spouses [Villanueva] have been Commissioner Villadolid held that respondent "engaged in conduct divided equally among their compulsory heirs, but said old couple left that lessened confidence in the legal system." Thus, he for themselves one titled lot, the subject now of the complaint x x x recommended suspension of respondents notarial commission for That said titled property was the only property left by the old couple, one year. He further recommended that respondent be reprimanded to answer for their needs while they are still alive until their deaths x or suspended from the practice of law for up to six months. x x.Alfonso [and his wife] were tasked to take care of the old couple, as they were the ones living in the same compound with their late The Courts Ruling parents. This fact was and is known by the other compulsory heirs, and they never questioned the said act of their parents, as they We sustain partly the IBPs findings and recommendations. already had their own share on the estate of the late [spouses

29

A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most common of which are the acknowledgment and affirmation of a document or instrument. In the performance of such notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the significance of the notarial seal as affixed on a document. The notarial seal converts the document from private to public, after which it may be presented as evidence without need for proof of its genuineness and due execution. 5 Thus, notarization should not be treated as an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. 6 As early as Panganiban v. Borromeo, 7 we held that notaries public must inform themselves of the facts to which they intend to certify and to take no part in illegal transactions. They must guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements. 8

We also view with disfavor respondents lack of candor before the IBP proceedings. The transcript of hearings shows that respondent denied preparing or notarizing the deed of sale, 9 when she already admitted having done so in her Comment. WHEREFORE, for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, we REVOKE the commission of respondent Atty. Salud P. Beradio as Notary Public, if still existing, and DISQUALIFY her from being commissioned a notary public for one (1) year. We further SUSPEND respondent from the practice of law for six (6) months effective upon finality of this decision.

Let copies of this decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondents personal record as On its face, Alfonsos affidavit does not appear to contain any "illegal attorney. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the Integrated Bar of or immoral" declaration. However, respondent herself admitted that the Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and she knew of the falsity of Alfonsos statement that he was the "sole guidance. heir" of the spouses Villanueva. Respondent therefore notarized a document while fully aware that it contained a material SO ORDERED. falsehood, i.e., Alfonsos assertion of status as sole heir. The affidavit of adjudication is premised on this very assertion. By this instrument, Alfonso claimed a portion of his parents estate all to himself, to the A.C. No. 6252 exclusion of his co-heirs. Shortly afterwards, respondent notarized JONAR SANTIAGO, Complainant, the deed of sale, knowing that the deed took basis from the unlawful versus Atty. EDISON V. RAFANAN, Respondent affidavit of adjudication. October 5, 2004 Respondent never disputed complainants allegation of her close relationship with the Villanueva family spanning several decades. Respondent even underscored this closeness by claiming that Lucas himself requested her to come to his house the day Lucas handed to Alfonso a copy of OCT No. 2522, allegedly so she could hear the conversation between them. DECISIONPANGANIBAN, J.:

Notaries public are expected to exert utmost care in the performance of their duties, which are impressed with public interest. They are enjoined to comply faithfully with the solemnities and requirements of the Notarial Law. This Court will not hesitate to mete out appropriate sanctions to those who violate it or neglect Respondent claims she is not administratively liable because at the observance thereof. time Alfonso executed the affidavit, his co-heirs had already received their respective shares from the estate of the spouses Villanueva. The Case and the Facts However, we are not concerned here with the proper distribution of the spouses Villanuevas estates. Rather, respondents liability Before us is a verified Complaint[1] filed by Jonar Santiago, an springs from her failure to discharge properly her duties as a notary employee of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), public and as a member of the bar. for the disbarment of Atty. Edison V. Rafanan. The Complaint was filed with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Where admittedly the notary public has personal knowledge of a Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on January 16, 2001. It charged Atty. false statement or information contained in the instrument to be Rafanan with deceit; malpractice or other gross misconduct in office notarized, yet proceeds to affix his or her notarial seal on it, the under Section 27 of Rule 138[2] of the Rules of Court; and violation of Court must not hesitate to discipline the notary public accordingly as Canons 1.01, 1.02 and 1.03[3], Canon 5[4], and Canons 12.07[5] and the circumstances of the case may dictate. Otherwise, the integrity 12.08 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). and sanctity of the notarization process may be undermined and public confidence on notarial documents diminished. In this case, In his Report, IBP Investigating Commissioner Leland R. respondents conduct amounted to a breach of Canon 1 of the Code Villadolid Jr. summarized the allegations of the complainant in this of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to obey the wise: laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. Respondent also violated Rule 1.01 of the Code which x x x. In his Letter-Complaint, Complainant alleged, among proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or others, that Respondent in notarizing several documents on deceitful conduct.

different dates failed and/or refused to: a)make the proper notation regarding the cedula or community tax certificate of the affiants; b) enter the details of the notarized documents in the 30

notarial register; and c) make and execute the certification and alleged crime occurred, his testimony is very essential to the ends of enter his PTR and IBP numbers in the documents he had notarized, all in violation of the notarial provisions of the justice. Revised Administrative Code.
Respondent alleged that it was complainant who had threatened and

Complainant likewise alleged that Respondent executed an Affidavit in favor of his client and offered the same as evidence in the case wherein he was actively representing his client. Finally, Complainant alleges that on a certain date, Respondent accompanied by several persons waited for Complainant after the hearing and after confronting the latter disarmed him of his sidearm and thereafter uttered insulting words and veiled threats.[6]
On March 23, 2001, pursuant to the January 19, 2001 Order of the CBD,[7] Atty. Rafanan filed his verified Answer.[8] He admitted having administered the oath to the affiants whose Affidavits were attached to the verified Complaint. He believed, however, that the non-notation of their Residence Certificates in the Affidavits and the Counter-affidavits was allowed.

harassed his clients after the hearing of their case by the provincial prosecutor on January 4, 2001. Respondent requested the assistance of the Cabanatuan City Police the following day, January 5, 2001, which was the next scheduled hearing, to avoid a repetition of the incident and to allay the fears of his clients. In support of his allegations, he submitted Certifications[10] from the Cabanatuan City Police and the Joint

Affidavit[11] of the two police officers who had assisted them. Lastly, he contended that the case had been initiated for no other purpose than to harass him, because he was the counsel of Barangay Captain Ernesto Ramos in the cases filed by the latter before the ombudsman and the BJMP against complainant.

After receipt of respondents Answer, the CBD, through Commissioner Tyrone R. Cimafranca, set the case for hearing on June 5, 2001, at two oclock

He opined that the notation of residence certificates applied only to documents acknowledged by a notary public and was not mandatory for affidavits related to cases pending before courts and other government offices. He pointed out that in the latter, the affidavits, which were sworn to before government prosecutors, did not have to indicate the residence certificates of the affiants. Neither did other notaries public in Nueva Ecija -some of whom were older practitioners -- indicate the affiants residence certificates on the documents they notarized, or have entries in their notarial register for these documents.

in the afternoon. Notices[12] of the hearing were sent to the parties by registered mail. On the scheduled date and time of the hearing, only complainant appeared. Respondent was unable to do so, apparently because he had received the Notice only on June 8, 2001.[13] The hearing was reset to July 3, 2001 at two oclock in the afternoon. On the same day, June 5, 2001, complainant filed his Reply[14] to the verified Answer of respondent. The latters Rejoinder was received by the CBD on July 13, 2001.[15] It also received complainants LetterRequest[16] to dispense with the hearings. Accordingly, it granted that request in its Order[17] dated July 24, 2001, issued through Commissioner

As to his alleged failure to comply with the certification required by Section 3 of Rule 112[9] of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, respondent explained that

Cimafranca. It thereby directed the parties to submit their respective memoranda within fifteen days from receipt of the Order, after which the

as counsel of the affiants, he had the option to comply or not with the case was to be deemed submitted for resolution. certification. To nullify the Affidavits, it was complainant who was dutybound to bring the said noncompliance to the attention of the prosecutor conducting the preliminary investigation. The CBD received complainants Memorandum[18] on September 26, 2001. Respondent did not file any. The IBPs Recommendation On September 27, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. As to his alleged violation of Rule 12.08 of the CPR, respondent argued that lawyers could testify on behalf of their clients on substantial matters, in cases where [their] testimony charged is essential to the with ends of XVI-2003-172[19] approving and adopting the Investigating Commissioners Report that respondent had violated specific requirements of the Notarial Law on the execution of a certification, the entry of such certification in the notarial register, and the indication of the affiants residence certificate. The IBP Board of Governors found his excuse for the violations unacceptable. It modified, however, the recommendation[20] of the investigating

justice. Complainant

respondents

clients

attempted

murder. Respondent averred that since they were in his house when the

31

commissioner by increasing the fine to P3,000 with a warning that any repetition of the violation will be dealt with a heavier penalty. The other charges -- violation of Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court; and Canons 1.01 to 1.03, 12.07 and 12.08 of the CPR -- were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. The Courts Ruling We agree with the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors.

Respondents Administrative Liability Violation of the Notarial Law The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of notaries public. They are required to certify that the party to every document acknowledged before them has presented the proper residence certificate (or exemption from the residence tax); and to enter its number, place of issue and date as part of such certification.[21] They are also required to maintain and keep a notarial register; to enter therein all instruments notarized by them; and to give to each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before [them] a number corresponding to the one in [their] register [and to state therein] the page or pages of [their] register, on which the same is recorded.[22] Failure to perform these duties would result in the revocation of their commission as notaries public.[23] These formalities are mandatory and cannot be simply neglected, considering the degree of importance and evidentiary weight attached to notarized documents. Notaries public entering into their commissions are presumed to be aware of these elementary requirements. In Vda. de Rosales v. Ramos,[24] the Court explained the value and meaning of notarization as follows: 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 should not take for granted the solemn duties pertaining to their office. Slipshod methods in their performance of the notarial act are never to be countenanced. They are expected to exert utmost care in

the performance of their duties,[25] which are dictated by public policy and are impressed with public interest. It is clear from the pleadings before us -- and respondent has readily admitted -- that he violated the Notarial Law by failing to enter in the documents notations of the residence certificate, as well as the entry number and the pages of the notarial registry. Respondent believes, however, that noncompliance with those requirements is not mandatory for affidavits relative to cases pending before the courts and government agencies. He points to similar practices of older notaries in Nueva Ecija. We cannot give credence to, much less honor, his claim. His belief that the requirements do not apply to affidavits is patently irrelevant. No law dispenses with these formalities. Au contraire, the Notarial Law makes no qualification or exception. It is appalling and inexcusable that he did away with the basics of notarial procedure allegedly because others were doing so. Being swayed by the bad example of others is not an acceptable justification for breaking the law. We note further that the documents attached to the verified Complaint are the Joint Counter-Affidavit of respondents clients Ernesto Ramos and Rey Geronimo, as well as their witnesses Affidavits relative to Criminal Case No. 692000 for attempted murder, filed by complainants brother against the aforementioned clients. These documents became the basis of the present Complaint. As correctly pointed out by the investigating commissioner, Section 3 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly requires respondent as notary -- in the absence of any fiscal, state prosecutor or government official authorized to administer the oath -- to certify that he has personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits. Respondent failed to do so with respect to the subject Affidavits and Counter-Affidavits in the belief that -- as counsel for the affiants -- he was not required to comply with the certification requirement. It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes.[26] They are expected to be in the forefront in the observance and maintenance of the rule of law. This duty carries with it the obligation to be well-informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal developments, recent enactments and jurisprudence.[27] It is imperative that they be conversant with basic legal principles. Unless they faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be able to discharge competently and diligently their obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they may become susceptible to committing mistakes. 32

Where notaries public are lawyers, a graver responsibility is placed upon them by reason of their solemn oath to obey the laws.[28] No custom or age-old practice provides sufficient excuse or justification for their failure to adhere to the provisions of the law. In this case, the excuse given by respondent exhibited his clear ignorance of the Notarial Law, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the importance of his office as a notary public. Nonetheless, we do not agree with complainants plea to disbar respondent from the practice of law. The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution.[29] Disbarment will be imposed as a penalty only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and the character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. Where any lesser penalty can accomplish the end desired, disbarment should not be decreed.[30] Considering the nature of the infraction and the absence of deceit on the part of respondent, we believe that the penalty recommended by the IBP Board of Governors is a sufficient disciplinary measure in this case. Lawyer as Witness for Client Complainant further faults respondent for executing before Prosecutor Leonardo Padolina an affidavit corroborating the defense of alibi proffered by respondents clients, allegedly in violation of Rule 12.08 of the CPR: A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client. Rule 12.08 of Canon 12 of the CPR states: Rule 12.08 A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except: a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument and the like; b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in which event he must, during his testimony, entrust the trial of the case to another counsel. Parenthetically, under the law, a lawyer is not disqualified from being a witness,[31] except only in certain cases pertaining to privileged communication arising from an attorney-client relationship.[32] The reason behind such rule is the difficulty posed upon lawyers by the task of dissociating their relation to their clients as witnesses from that as advocates. Witnesses are expected to tell the facts as they recall them. In contradistinction, advocates are partisans -- those who actively plead and defend the cause of others. It is difficult to distinguish the fairness and impartiality of a disinterested witness from the zeal of an advocate. The question is one of propriety rather than of competency of the lawyers who testify for their clients. Acting or appearing to act in the double capacity of lawyer and witness for the client will provoke unkind criticism and leave many people to suspect the truthfulness of the

lawyer because they cannot believe the lawyer as disinterested. The people will have a plausible reason for thinking, and if their sympathies are against the lawyers client, they will have an opportunity, not likely to be neglected, for charging, that as a witness he fortified it with his own testimony. The testimony of the lawyer becomes doubted and is looked upon as partial and untruthful.[33] Thus, although the law does not forbid lawyers from being witnesses and at the same time counsels for a cause, the preference is for them to refrain from testifying as witnesses, unless they absolutely have to; and should they do so, to withdraw from active management of the case.[34] Notwithstanding this guideline and the existence of the Affidavit executed by Atty. Rafanan in favor of his clients, we cannot hastily make him administratively liable for the following reasons: First, we consider it the duty of a lawyer to assert every remedy and defense that is authorized by law for the benefit of the client, especially in a criminal action in which the latters life and liberty are at stake.[35] It is the fundamental right of the accused to be afforded full opportunity to rebut the charges against them. They are entitled to suggest all those reasonable doubts that may arise from the evidence as to their guilt; and to ensure that if they are convicted, such conviction is according to law. Having undertaken the defense of the accused, respondent, as defense counsel, was thus expected to spare no effort to save his clients from a wrong conviction. He had the duty to present -- by all fair and honorable means -- every defense and mitigating circumstance that the law permitted, to the end that his clients would not be deprived of life, liberty or property, except by due process of law.[36] The Affidavit executed by Atty. Rafanan was clearly necessary for the defense of his clients, since it pointed out the fact that on the alleged date and time of the incident, his clients were at his residence and could not have possibly committed the crime charged against them. Notably, in his Affidavit, complainant does not dispute the statements of respondent or suggest the falsity of its contents. Second, paragraph (b) of Rule 12.08 contemplates a situation in which lawyers give their testimonies during the trial. In this instance, the Affidavit was submitted during the preliminary investigation which, as such, was merely inquisitorial.[37] Not being a trial of the case on the merits, a preliminary investigation has the oft-repeated purposes of securing innocent persons against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecutions; protecting them from open and public accusations of crime and from the trouble as well as expense and anxiety of a public trial; and protecting the State from useless and expensive prosecutions.[38] The investigation is advisedly called preliminary, as it is yet to be followed by the trial proper. 33

Nonetheless, we deem it important to stress and remind respondent to refrain from accepting employment in any matter in which he knows or has reason to believe that he may be an essential witness for the prospective client. Furthermore, in future cases in which his testimony may become essential to serve the ends of justice, the canons of the profession require him to withdraw from the active prosecution of these cases. No Proof of Harassment The charge that respondent harassed complainant and uttered insulting words and veiled threats is not supported by evidence. Allegation is never equivalent to proof, and a bare charge cannot be equated with liability.[39] It is not the selfserving claim of complainant but the version of respondent that is more credible, considering that the latters allegations are corroborated by the Affidavits of the police officers and the Certifications of the Cabanatuan City Police. WHEREFORE, Atty. Edison V. Rafanan is found guilty of violating the Notarial Law and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby FINED P3,000 with a warning that similar infractions in the future will be dealt with more severely. SO ORDERED.

34