September 3, 2018.*
A.C. No. 12196.
 
PABLITO L. MIRANDA, JR., complainant,  vs.
ATTY. JOSE B. ALVAREZ, SR., respondent.

Public Documents; Notarized Documents; Notarization

converts a private document into a public document, thus,
making that document admissible in evidence without
further proof of its authenticity.—Time and again, the
Court has held “[t]hat notarization of a document is not an
empty act or routine.  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 ain
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 the 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.”

_______________

*  SECOND DIVISION.

 
 

490

490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Miranda, Jr. vs. Alvarez, Sr.

Notarial Law; 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; The

basic requirements a notary public must observe in the
performance of his duties are presently laid down in the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The failure to observe the
requirements and/or comply with the duties prescribed
therein shall constitute grounds for the revocation of the
notarial commission of, as well as the imposition of the
appropriate administrative sanction/s against, the erring
notary public.—The basic requirements a notary public
must observe in the performance of his duties are
presently laid down in the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
The failure to observe the requirements and/or comply
with the duties prescribed therein shall constitute grounds
for the revocation of the notarial commission of, as well as
the imposition of the appropriate administrative sanction/s
against, the erring notary public.
Same; Notarial Commission; Without a commission, a
lawyer is unauthorized to perform any of the notarial acts.
—Under the Notarial Rules, “a person commissioned as a
notary public may perform notarial acts in any place
within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning
court for a period of two (2) years commencing the first day
of January of the year in which the commissioning is
made. Commission either means the grant of authority to
perform notarial [acts] or the written evidence of
authority.” “Without a commission, a lawyer is
unauthorized to perform any of the notarial acts. A
lawyer who acts as a notary public without the necessary
notarial commission is remiss in his professional duties
and responsibilities.” Moreover, it should be emphasized
that “[u]nder the rule, only persons who are commissioned
as notary public may perform notarial acts within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court which granted
the commission.”
Same; Notary Public; Under the Notarial Rules, a
notary public should not notarize a document unless the
signatory to the document is in the notary’s presence
personally at the time of the notarization, and personally
known to the notary public or otherwise identified through
competent evidence of identity.—Under the Notarial Rules,
“a notary public should not notarize a document unless the
signatory to the document is in the notary’s presence
personally at the time of the notarization, and personally
known to the notary public or otherwise identified through
competent evidence of identity. At the time of notarization,
the signatory shall sign or affix with a thumb or

 
 
491

VOL. 878, SEPTEMBER 3, 2018 491

Miranda, Jr. vs. Alvarez, Sr.

mark the notary public’s notarial register. The

purpose of these requirements is to enable the notary
public to verify the genuineness of the signature and to
ascertain that the document is the signatory’s free act and
deed. If the signatory is not acting of his or her own free
will, a notary public is mandated to refuse to perform a
notarial act.”
Same; Same; Under the Notarial Rules, a notary
public must forward to the Clerk of Court, within the first
ten (10) days of the month following, a certified copy of each
month’s entries and a duplicate original copy of any
instrument acknowledged before the notary public.—Under
the Notarial Rules, a notary public must forward to the
Clerk of Court, within the first ten (10) days of the month
following, a certified copy of each month’s entries and a
duplicate original copy of any instrument acknowledged
before the notary public. According to case law, failure to
comply with this requirement is “[a] ground for revocation
of a notary public’s commission.”
Notary Public; As a member of the Bar, respondent is
expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission
which might erode the trust and confidence reposed by the
public in the integrity of the legal profession.—The Court
cannot affirm the IBP’s deletion of the penalty of
suspension from the practice of law, which penalty was
originally recommended by the IBP IC. It should be
emphasized that respondent’s transgressions of the
Notarial Rules also have a bearing on his standing as a
lawyer. As a member of the Bar, respondent is expected at
all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and refrain from any act or omission which
might erode the trust and confidence reposed by the public
in the integrity of the legal profession. By flouting the
Notarial Rules on numerous occasions, respondent
engaged in unlawful conduct which renders him liable for
violation of the following provisions of the CPR: CANON 1
– A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. CANON 7 – A
lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession and support the activities of the
integrated bar. Thus, aside from the above stated
penalties, the Court further suspends respondent from the
practice of law for a period of two (2) years, consistent with
prevailing jurisprudence on the subject matter.

 
 
492
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Miranda, Jr. vs. Alvarez, Sr.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court.

Disbarment.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

 
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
 
This is an administrative case against respondent
Atty. Jose B. Alvarez, Sr. (respondent) for
disbarment and perpetual disqualification as a
notary public on the grounds of gross negligence and
grave misconduct, as well as violation of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice1 (Notarial Rules).
 
The Facts
 
On January 16, 2012, complainant Pablito L.
Miranda, Jr. (complainant) filed a Complaint-
Affidavit2  before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline,
averring that respondent notarized certain
documents during the year 2010 notwithstanding
that his notarial commission for and within the
jurisdiction of San Pedro, Laguna had already
expired way back in December 31, 2005 and has yet
to be renewed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of San Pedro, Laguna (RTC-San Pedro) where he
resides and conducts his notarial businesses.3
In support thereof, complainant listed the
following addresses, all located in San Pedro,
Laguna, where respondent allegedly maintained his
notarial offices: (a) Alvarez & Alvarez Law Office at
Room 202, 2nd  Floor, Fil-Em Building, A. Luna St.,
Poblacion; (b) Golden Peso Enterprises and Loan
Center at Macaria Ave., Pacita Complex; and (c)
Pacita Arcade/Commercial Complex in Pacita
Complex.4 He also pre-

_______________

1  A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC (August 1, 2004).

2  Dated January 13, 2012. Rollo, pp. 2-7.
3  Id., at pp. 2, 114.
4  Id., at pp. 70, 114.

 
 

493

VOL. 878, SEPTEMBER 3, 2018 493

Miranda, Jr. vs. Alvarez, Sr.

sented pictures of respondent’s offices in San Pedro,

Laguna,5  and documents to prove that respondent
notarized: (1) a 2010 Application for Business
Permit6  of one Ronald Castasus Amante (Amante),
which, coincidentally, also did not have a valid proof
of identification and bore a fictitious address; and (2)
a Special Power of Attorney7  (SPA), executed by
Amante on December 7, 2010.8  Likewise,
complainant submitted a copy of: (1) Certification
No. 11-00679 dated October 5, 2011 (October 5, 2011
Certification) issued by Catherin B. Beran-
Baraoidan,10  Clerk of Court VI (COC Beran-
Baraoidan) of the RTC-San Pedro, stating that
respondent was commissioned as a notary public for
San Pedro, Laguna from 1998 to 2005; and (2)
Certification No. 11-005311  dated September 21,
2011 (September 21, 2011 Certification) issued by
COC Beran-Baraoidan, stating that “no document
entitled [SPA]  x  x  x  executed by
[Amante] x x x notarized by [respondent] for the year
2010, is submitted before this Office.”12
 Furthermore, complainant claimed that
respondent failed to comply with his duties under
the Notarial Rules, particularly: (a) to register one
(1) notarial office only; (b) to keep only one (1) active
notarial register at any given time; (c) to file monthly
notarial books, reports, and copies of the documents
notarized in any given month; and (d) to surrender
his notarial register and seal upon expiration of his
commission.13

_______________

5   Id., at p. 9.
6   See Doc. No. 706, Page No. 144, Book No. 11, Series of 2010;
id., at p. 11 (including dorsal portion).
7   See Doc. No. 6576, Page No. 671, Book No. X, Series of 2010;
id., at p. 13.
8   Id., at p. 115.
9   Id., at p. 8.
10  Spelled as “Beran-Baraoldan” in some parts of the Rollo.
11  Rollo, p. 10.
12  Id.
13  Id., at p. 115.

 
 

494

494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Miranda, Jr. vs. Alvarez, Sr.

Also, complainant alleged that respondent

authorized unlicensed persons to do notarial acts for
him using his signatures, stamps, offices, and
notarial register, and that he further violated
Section 12, Rule II of the Notarial Rules regarding
competent evidence of identity by making untruthful
statements in a narration of facts, and causing it to
appear that persons have participated in an act or
proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.14
Because of these acts, complainant asserted that
respondent committed grave violations of the
Notarial Rules.15
In his Answer16 dated March 7, 2012, respondent
asserted that he was a duly commissioned notary
public in 2010 in Biñan, Laguna, as shown by the
attached Certification of Notarial Commission No.
2009-2117  issued by Presiding Judge Marino E.
Rubia of the RTC of Biñan, Laguna, Branch 24
(RTC-Biñan).18
In compliance with the IBP’s
Order,19  complainant submitted his Position
Paper,20  additionally pointing out that in 1993,
respondent notarized a Joint Affidavit21  despite the
absence of a notarial commission therefor,22  as well
as an Affidavit for Death Benefit Claim23 in April 10,
2012 after his notarial commission for and within
Biñan, Laguna had already expired.24

_______________

14  Id.
15  Complainant stated “Notarial Law” in his complaint, albeit
clearly referring to the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
16  Rollo, pp. 21-23.
17  Issued on December 29, 2009. Id., at p. 24.
18  Id., at p. 21.
19  Dated August 17, 2012. Id., at p. 68.
20  Dated August 31, 2012. Id., at pp. 69-87.
21  Dated October 31, 1993. Id., at p. 97.
22  Id., at p. 71.
23  Id., at p. 98.
24  Id., at pp. 71-72.

 
 
 495

VOL. 878, SEPTEMBER 3, 2018 495

Miranda, Jr. vs. Alvarez, Sr.

For his part, respondent simply reiterated his

defense that he was a duly commissioned notary
public in 2010 in Biñan, Laguna.25
 
The IBP’s Report and Recommendation
 
In a Report and Recommendation26  dated April
19, 2013, the IBP Investigating Commissioner (IBP
IC) found respondent administratively liable for
violating the Notarial Rules,27  the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR), and the Lawyer’s
Oath, and accordingly, recommended that
respondent’s notarial commission, if existing, be
revoked, that he be barred perpetually as a notary
public, and that he be suspended from the practice of
law for a period of two (2) years from notice, with a
warning that any infraction of the canons or
provisions of law in the future shall be dealt with
more severely.28
In particular, the IBP IC found that: (a)
respondent’s three (3) notarial offices, including his
residence, are all within the jurisdiction of San
Pedro, Laguna, whereas his notarial commission
existing in 2010 was not issued by the RTC-San
Pedro but by the RTC-Biñan; (b) respondent
notarized an Affidavit of Death Benefit Claim and
Amante’s Application for Business Permit in his
notarial offices in San Pedro, Laguna which is
outside his notarial jurisdiction; and (c) respondent
notarized the Application for Business Permit even
though it bore a fictitious address and lacked details
regarding the signatory’s competent evidence of
identity, thus causing it to appear that persons have
participated in an act or proceeding when they did
not in fact so participate. To the IBP IC, these

_______________

25  See Position Paper dated December 12, 2012; id., at pp. 108-
109.
26   Id., at pp. 114-117. Penned by Commissioner Honesto A.
Villamor.
27   The IBP IC stated “Notarial Law” in its Report and
Recommendation, albeit clearly referring to the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice.
28  Rollo, p. 117.

 
 

496

496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Miranda, Jr. vs. Alvarez, Sr.

facts, taken together, clearly show that respondent

violated his oath of office and his duty as a lawyer,
and committed unethical behavior as a notary public,
for which he should be held administratively liable.29
In a Resolution30  dated May 11, 2013
(1st Resolution), the IBP Board of Governors adopted
and approved the above report and recommendation
of the IBP IC with modification, reducing the
recommended penalty of suspension to one (1) year,
instead of two (2) years.
Dissatisfied, respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration,31  arguing that he maintains only
one (1) notarial office which is located at 888 Lucky
Gem. Bldg., Brgy. San Antonio, Biñan, Laguna,
where he, together with one Atty. Edgardo
Salandanan (Atty. Salandanan) as Senior Partner,
has been holding office and conducting all his
notarial works for several years. He added that the
office in San Pedro, Laguna is managed and owned
by his son, Atty. Jose L. Alvarez, Jr.32  In his
Comment,33  complainant reiterated his allegations
against respondent and insisted that the latter be
disbarred.

_______________

29  Id., at pp. 116-117.

30   See Notice of Resolution in Resolution No. XX-2013-622
signed by National Secretary Nasser A. Marohomsalic; id., at p.
113 (including dorsal portion).
31  Dated September 16, 2013. Id., at pp. 118-121. Respondent
signed his address at “Alvarez & Alvarez Law Office, 888 Lucky
Gem Bldg., Brgy. San Antonio, Biñan, Laguna.” See also
respondent’s Motion For Extension of Time to File Motion for
Reconsideration [of] the Resolution of the Honorable Commission
dated August 28, 2013 (id., at pp. 130-131); and Reply [to] the
Comment, dated December 4, 2013 (id., at pp. 152-153), wherein
he signed his address at “Alvarez & Alvarez Law Office, Rm. 202
Fil-Em Bldg., Luna St., San Pedro, Laguna.”
32  Id., at p. 118.
33  Dated November 24, 2013. Id., at pp. 133-139.

 
 

497

VOL. 878, SEPTEMBER 3, 2018 497

Miranda, Jr. vs. Alvarez, Sr.

In a Resolution34 dated May 4, 2014 (2nd

Resolution), the IBP Board of Governors partially
granted respondent’s motion, and accordingly,
modified the 1st Resolution by deleting the penalty of
suspension “considering that [r]espondent’s violation
relates to the Notarial Law.”35
This time it was complainant who moved for
reconsideration,36  seeking, respondent’s disbarment.
Notably, in his motion, complainant further pointed
out that, as per the Certification37 dated May 7, 2015
issued by the Office of the Bar

_______________

34   See Notice of Resolution in Resolution No. XX1-2014-323;

id., at pp. 160-161. See also Extended Resolution dated June 2,
2014, signed by Director for Bar Discipline Dominic C.M. Solis;
id., at pp. 162-164.
35  Id., at pp. 160, 164.
36   See Motion for Reconsideration in the Light of the New
Evidence dated January 11, 2016; id., at pp. 165-166.
37   Id., at p. 168. Signed by Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar
Confidant Ma. Cristina B. Layusa. The Certification pertinently
reads:
 “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that, according to the records of
this Office, ATTY. JOSE B. ALVAREZ of San Pedro,
Laguna has been SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for five (5) months, and to pay a fine of P3,000.00, effective
upon receipt of the Resolution of the Court dated December
4, 2000 in G.R. No. 126025 x  x  x and re-docketed as an
Administrative Case No. 9723 (Re: Resolution of the Court
dated December 4, 2000 in G.R. No. 126025 v. Atty. Jose B.
Alvarez). Said Resolution was received by the respondent
on January 09, 2001.
To date, the said order of suspension has not yet been
lifted by the Court.
x x x x”
See also the Certification dated March 30, 2015 (id., at p. 169)
issued by the OBC, stating that “according to the records of this
Office, MR. JOSE B. ALVAREZ, SR. using Roll of Attorney’s No.
51160 is not a member of the Philippine Bar”; copy of receipts
issued between 2013 and 2015 under the name “Alvarez Law
Office” for acceptance fees (id., at pp. 172-174); and letter dated
June 25, 2014

 
 

498

498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Miranda, Jr. vs. Alvarez, Sr.

Confidant (OBC), respondent “has been suspended

from the practice of law for five (5)
months x x x  effective upon receipt of the Resolution
of the Court dated December 04, 2000 in G.R. No.
126025  x  x  x  and re-docketed as an Administrative
Case No. 9723 x x x. Said Resolution was received by
the respondent on January 09, 2001”  and  “[t]o date,
the said order of suspension has not yet been lifted by
the Court.”
Complying with the IBP Board of Governors’
Order38 to comment, respondent merely insisted that
he is a full-fledged lawyer with Roll No. 20776, and
that complainant filed this administrative case
simply to extort money from him.39
The IBP Board of Governors denied complainant’s
motion in a Resolution40 dated August 31, 2017.
 
The Issue Before the Court
 
The issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or
not the IBP correctly found respondent
administratively liable.
 
The Court’s Ruling
 
I.
 
 Time and again, the Court has held “[t]hat
notarization of a document is not an empty act or
routine.  It is invested with substantive public
interest, such that only those who

_______________

signed by respondent as counsel for Spouses Caridad Capistrano

and Renato Bagtas (id., at p. 175).
38   Dated February 9, 2016, signed by Director for Bar
Discipline Ramon S. Esguerra; id., at p. 178.
39   See undated Comment on the Motion for Reconsideration;
id., at pp. 179-180. Respondent no longer indicated any address
and simply signed his name and Roll Number.
40  See Notice of Resolution in Resolution No. XXIII-2017-029
signed by Assistant National Secretary Doroteo B. Aguila; id., at
pp. 184-185.

 
 

499

VOL. 878, SEPTEMBER 3, 2018 499

Miranda, Jr. vs. Alvarez, Sr.

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 the 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.”41
The basic requirements a notary public must
observe in the performance of his duties are
presently laid down in the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice. The failure to observe the requirements
and/or comply with the duties prescribed therein
shall constitute grounds for the revocation of the
notarial commission of, as well as the imposition of
the appropriate administrative sanction/s against,
the erring notary public.42
In this case, the Court finds that respondent
committed the following violations of the Notarial
Rules:
First, respondent performed notarial acts without
the proper notarial commission therefor.
Under the Notarial Rules, “a person
commissioned as a notary public may perform
notarial acts in any place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of
two (2) years commencing the first day of January of
the year in which the commissioning is made.
Commission either means the grant of authority to
perform notarial [acts] or the written evidence of
authority.”43 “Without a commission, a

_______________

41  Gacuya v. Solbita, A.C. No. 8840, March 8, 2016, 785 SCRA

590, 595; citations omitted.
42  See Section 1, Rule XI of the Notarial Rules.
43   Japitana v. Parado, 779 Phil. 182, 188; 782 SCRA 34, 40
(2016). See also Section 3, Rule II of the Notarial Rules.

 
 

500
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Miranda, Jr. vs. Alvarez, Sr.

lawyer is unauthorized to perform any of the

notarial  acts.  A lawyer who acts as a notary public
without the necessary notarial commission is remiss in his
professional duties and responsibilities.”44  Moreover, it
should be emphasized that “[u]nder the rule, only persons
who are commissioned as notary public may perform
notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the
court which granted the commission.”45
  In this case, it was established that respondent
notarized a Joint Affidavit46  in  1993  and an
Application for Business Permit,47  as well as the
SPA48  of Amante, in  2010, all in  San Pedro,
Laguna. However, as per the October 5, 2011
Certification49  issued by COC Beran-Baraoidan of
the RTC-San Pedro, respondent was commissioned
as a notary public for and within San Pedro, Laguna
only from  1998 to 2005, and that the said
commission has not been renewed in 2010 and
therefore, already expired.
  Furthermore, it was shown that although respondent has
been issued a notarial commission by the RTC-Biñan
(which was valid from January 1, 2010 until December
31, 2011), he:  (a)  conducted business as a notary public
during such time not only in his Biñan, Laguna law office
(which he shared with a certain Atty. Salandanan) but also
in his other law offices in San Pedro, Laguna, and thus,
performed notarial acts beyond the territorial jurisdiction
of the said commissioning court; and  (b)  notarized an
Affidavit for Death Benefit Claim50  in  Biñan,
Laguna  on  April 10, 2012, during which time the said
commission had already expired.

_______________

44  Japitana v. Parado, id., at p. 189; p. 40.

 45  Re: Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice, 751 Phil. 10, 15;
746 SCRA 331, 336 (2015).
46  Rollo, p. 97.
47  Id., at p. 11 (including dorsal portion).
48  Id., at p. 13.
49  Id., at p. 8.
50  Id., at p. 98.

 
 

501

VOL. 878, SEPTEMBER 3, 2018 501

Miranda, Jr. vs. Alvarez, Sr.

Second, respondent notarized a document that is

bereft of any details regarding the identity of the
signatory.
Under the Notarial Rules, “a notary public should
not notarize a document unless the signatory to the
document is in the notary’s presence personally at
the time of the notarization, and personally known to
the notary public or otherwise identified through
competent evidence of identity. At the time of
notarization, the signatory shall sign or affix with a
thumb or mark the notary public’s notarial register.
The purpose of these requirements is to enable the
notary public to verify the genuineness of the
signature and to ascertain that the document is the
signatory’s free act and deed. If the signatory is not
acting of his or her own free will, a notary public is
mandated to refuse to perform a notarial act.”51
In  Gaddi v. Velasco,52  the Court ruled that a
notary public who notarizes a document despite the
missing details anent the signatory’s competent
evidence of identity not only fails in his duty to
ascertain the signatory’s identity but also improperly
notarizes an incomplete notarial certificate, viz.:
 In the present case, contrary to [Atty.] Velasco’s
claim that Gaddi appeared before him and presented
two identification cards as proof of her identity, the
notarial certificate, in rubber stamp, itself indicates:
“SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME
THIS  APR. 22, 2010  x  x  x AT MAKATI CITY.
AFFIANT EXHIBITING TO ME HIS/HER C.T.C.
NO. ______ ISSUED AT/ON ______.”  The unfilled
spaces clearly establish that Velasco had been
remiss in his duty of ascertaining the identity
of the signatory to the document. Velasco did not
comply with the most basic function that a notary
public must do, that is, to require the presence of
Gaddi; otherwise, he could have ascertained that the
handwritten admission was executed involuntarily
and

_______________

51  Gaddi v. Velasco, 742 Phil. 810, 815-816; 735 SCRA 74, 79-
80 (2014).
52  Id.

 
 

502

502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Miranda, Jr. vs. Alvarez, Sr.

refused to notarize the document. Furthermore,

Velasco affixed his signature in an incomplete
notarial certificate. x x x53 (Emphases supplied)

 
Similar to this case, the  jurat  of the 2010
Application for Business Permit which respondent
notarized did not bear the details of the competent
evidence of identity of its principal-signatory. While
this application appears to be a ready-made form
issued by the Municipality of San Pedro, Laguna,
this fact alone cannot justify respondent’s
noncompliance with his duties under the Notarial
Rules.
And third, respondent failed to forward to the
Clerk of Court (COC) of the commissioning court a
certified copy of each month’s entries and a duplicate
original copy of any instrument acknowledged before
him.
Under the Notarial Rules, a notary public must
forward to the Clerk of Court, within the first ten
(10) days of the month following, a certified copy of
each month’s entries and a duplicate original copy of
any instrument acknowledged before the notary
public.54  According to case law, failure to comply
with this requirement is “[a] ground for revocation of
a notary public’s commission.”55
As per the September 21, 2011
56
Certification   issued by COC Beran-Baraoidan, a
copy of the SPA executed by Amante was not
submitted before the Office of the COC of the RTC-
San Pedro. This omission comes as no surprise
considering that, as previously discussed, his
notarial commission therefor had already expired.
Accordingly, in view of respondent’s numerous
violations of the Notarial Rules, the Court upholds
the IBP’s recommenda-

_______________

53  Id., at p. 816; p. 80.

54  See Section 2(h), Rule VI of the Notarial Rules.
55  Peña v. Paterno, 710 Phil. 582, 595-596; 698 SCRA 1, 15-16
(2013).
56  Rollo, p. 10.

 
 
 503

VOL. 878, SEPTEMBER 3, 2018 503

Miranda, Jr. vs. Alvarez, Sr.

tion to revoke his incumbent notarial commission, if

any, as well as to perpetually disqualify him from
being commissioned as a notary public.
However, the Court cannot affirm the IBP’s
deletion of the penalty of suspension from the
practice of law, which penalty was originally
recommended by the IBP IC. It should be
emphasized that respondent’s transgressions of the
Notarial Rules also have a bearing on his standing
as a lawyer. As a member of the Bar, respondent is
expected at all times to uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any
act or omission which might erode the trust and
confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of
the legal profession.57 By flouting the Notarial Rules
on numerous occasions, respondent engaged in
unlawful conduct which renders him liable for
violation of the following provisions of the CPR:

CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the

constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
support the activities of the integrated bar.

 
Thus, aside from the above stated penalties, the
Court further suspends respondent from the practice
of law for a period of two (2) years, consistent with
prevailing jurisprudence on the subject matter.58
_______________

57  See Canon 7 of the CPR. See also Re: Violation of Rules on

Notarial Practice, supra note 45 at p. 16; p. 336; Zoreta v.
Simpliciano, 485 Phil. 395; 443 SCRA 1 (2004); and Gacuya v.
Solbita, supra note 41 at p. 596.
58  See the following cases where the Court imposed a similar
penalty for violation of the Notarial Rules: Re: Violation of Rules
on

 
 
504

504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Miranda, Jr. vs. Alvarez, Sr.

II.
 
Separately, in his Motion for Reconsideration in
the Light of the New Evidence,59  complainant
pointed out that, as per the May 7, 2015
Certification60  issued by the OBC, respondent had
previously been suspended by the Court for five (5)
months in “Resolution x x x dated December 04, 2000
in G.R. No. 126025  x  x  x  and re-docketed as an
Administrative Case No. 9723.” Records of the OBC
show that respondent received the Order of
Suspension (Resolution in G.R. No. 12602561 and re-
docketed as Administrative Case No. 9723) on
January 9, 2001.62 However, it does not appear that
the said suspension has already been lifted following
the prescribed procedure therefor.63
In  Ladim v. Ramirez,64  the Court explained that
the lifting of a lawyer’s suspension is not automatic
upon the expiration of the suspension period. The
lawyer must still file before the Court the necessary
motion to lift suspension and other pertinent
documents, which include certifications from the
Office of the Executive Judge of the court where he
practices his legal profession and from the IBP’s
Local Chapter where he is affiliated affirming that
he ceased and desisted from the practice of law and
has not appeared in court as counsel during the
period of his suspension.65  Thereafter, the Court,
after evaluation, and upon a favorable
recommendation from the

_______________

Notarial Practice, id.; Gacuya v. Solbita, id.; Japitana v. Parado,

supra note 43; and Zoreta v. Simpliciano, id. See also Nunga v.
Viray, 366 Phil. 155; 306 SCRA 487 (1999) where the Court
suspended the lawyer for three (3) years for notarizing an
instrument without a commission.
59  Rollo, pp. 165-166.
60  Id., at p. 168.
61  People v. Almendral, 477 Phil. 521; 433 SCRA 440 (2004).
62  Rollo, p. 168.
63  Id.
64  See Minute Resolution in A.C. No. 10372, August 1, 2016.
65  Id.

 
 

505

VOL. 878, SEPTEMBER 3, 2018 505

Miranda, Jr. vs. Alvarez, Sr.

OBC, will issue a resolution lifting the order of

suspension and thus allow him to resume the
practice of law.66  Prior thereto, the “suspension
stands until he has satisfactorily shown to the Court
his compliance therewith.”67
 Records do not show that respondent complied
with the foregoing process. And yet, as complainant
averred, respondent has been practicing law, as
demonstrated by photos taken of court calendar of
cases wherein respondent appeared as counsel for
the accused in two (2) criminal cases,68  receipts
issued bearing the Alvarez Law Office logo for the
payment of acceptance fee,69 and a letter dated June
25, 2014 addressed to the COC &  Ex Officio  Sheriff
of the RTC-San Pedro signed by respondent as
counsel for a certain Spouses Caridad Capistrano
and Renato Bagtas.70
Thus, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby
requires respondent to show cause within ten (10)
days from notice why he should not be held in
contempt of court and/or further disciplined for
allegedly practicing law although his suspension
therefor has yet to be lifted.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds
respondent Atty. Jose B. Alvarez, Sr.
(respondent) GUILTY of violation of the 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice and of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, effective immediately,
the Court: SUSPENDS him from the practice of law
for two (2) years;  REVOKES  his incumbent
commission as a notary public, if any; and,
perpetually  DISQUALIFIES  him from being
commissioned as a notary public. He
is WARNED that a repetition of the same offense or
similar acts in the future

_______________

66  See Maniago v. De Dios, 631 Phil. 139, 144-145; 617 SCRA

142, 147 (2010).
67   See Minute Resolution in Balagtas v. Fernandez, A.C. No.
10313, April 20, 2016.
68  Rollo, p. 171.
69  Id., at pp. 172-174.
 70  Id., at p. 175.

 
 
506

506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Miranda, Jr. vs. Alvarez, Sr.

shall be dealt with more severely. He is DIRECTED to

report to this Court the date of his receipt of this Decision
to enable it to determine when his suspension from the
practice of law, the revocation of his notarial commission,
and his disqualification from being commissioned as a
notary public shall take effect.
Further, respondent is DIRECTED to SHOW
CAUSE within ten (10) days from notice why he
should not be held in contempt of court and/or
further disciplined for allegedly practicing law
despite the suspension therefor as discussed in this
Decision.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to: (1) the
Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to
respondent’s personal record as an attorney; (2) the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its information
and guidance; and (3) the Office of the Court
Administrator for circulation to all courts in the
country.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson, Senior Associate Justice),

Caguioa, A. Reyes, Jr. and J. Reyes, Jr.,** JJ., concur.

Respondent Atty. Jose B. Alvarez, Sr. suspended

from practice of law for two (2) years; his notarial
commission revoked and is perpetually disqualified
from being commissioned as notary public for
violation of 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and of
 the Code of Professional Responsibility, with warning
against repetition of similar acts.

Notes.—Highlighting the importance of the

requirement of competent evidence of identity of the
parties, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
explicitly prohibited the notary public,

_______________

**  Designated additional member per Special Order No. 2587

dated August 28, 2018.

 
 

507

VOL. 878, SEPTEMBER 3, 2018 507

Miranda, Jr. vs. Alvarez, Sr.

who did not personally know the parties, from

notarizing an instrument or document without the
same. (Iringan vs. Gumangan, 837 SCRA 198 [2017])
Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) no longer
qualifies as competent evidence of the parties’
identity as defined under Rule II, Section 12 of the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. (Id.)

 
——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.