RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE

AGBULOS vs. VIRAY

FACTS:

The complainant accuses the respondent of notarizing a document in violation of the Notarial Law. The
respondent claims to have acted in good faith while preparing and notarizing the document at the request of his client. The
document played a role in the illegal transfer of property from the complainant to the client.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent may invoke good faith in notarizing the Affidavit of Non-Tenancy.

RULING:

NO. Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides, “A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person
involved as signatory to the instrument or document: (1) is not in the notary’s presence personally at the time of the
notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity. In this case, respondent admits not only did he prepare and notarize the subject affidavit but likewise
notarized the same without the affiant’s presence. With this indiscretion, respondent took the possible risk when he notarized
the said affidavit for failure to ascertain the genuineness of the affiant’s signature which turned out to be a forgery. Otherwise
stated, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons
executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.

NUNGA vs. VIRAY

FACTS:

Atty. Venancio M. Viray was accused of notarizing a document without being commissioned as a notary public at that
time. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines conducted an investigation, and the report showed that Viray indeed notarized a
deed of absolute sale without being duly commissioned. Respondent Viray claimed that he was always commissioned as a
notary public from 1965 to date and that he had PTR for that purpose. However, only the complainant submitted their respective
memorandum despite both parties being required to do so.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent violated the Rules on Notarial Practice.

RULING:

YES. Notarization is invested with public interest because it converts a private document into a public one, making
such documents admissible in evidence without further proof of the authenticity thereof. Notarizing without commission
is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws (the Notarial Law) and by making it appear that he is so authorized is a
deliberate falsehood which violates the lawyer’s oath and of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides: “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”
 MALIGSA vs. CABANTING

FACTS:

Atty. Arsenio Cabanting was charged by Roman Maligsa for certifying a Deed of Quitclaim dated May 5, 1992, which
was executed by Irene Maligsa in favor of Juanito Abaoag over a land in Pangasinan. The document was used as evidence
against the complainant in a pending civil case, but Irene Maligsa had already died before its execution and could not have
signed it. As a notary public, the respondent should have verified the genuineness of the signature of the affiant.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent must be penalized for his acts in the notarized quitclaim.

RULING:

YES. Atty Cabanting committed an act of malpractice in violation of his oath as a lawyer and the Canons of
Professional Ethics. Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 provides:

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 the official seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his
certificate shall so state.

The Court said with regard to the practice of Notary Public:

“Notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a substantial degree and protection of the
interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon the public
and the courts and the administrative offices generally. Notarization of a private document converts the document into a public
one making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity.”

A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The 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.

ARRIETA vs. LLOSA

FACTS:

Atty. Llosa was accused of notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale with vendors who were already deceased.
Respondent admitted to notarizing the document but ensured the authenticity of the signatures, identities of signatories, and
voluntariness of the execution. Later, the case was dismissed as a product of misunderstanding and
misinterpretation of facts. The IBP recommended the dismissal and the Board of Governors resolved to dismiss the case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Joel A. Llosa be disbarred or suspended from practice of law.

RULING:

YES. Respondent ordered SUSPENDED for six months from practice of law with a warning that another
infraction will be dealt with more severely. Citing Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 also known as the Notarial Law, the
Supreme Court explained the importance of adherence to said law as part of the responsibility of a duly deputized
authority to conduct such notarial process. Due diligence is to be observed, this being part of a lawyer’s professional
responsibility and procedural lapse is not an excuse to cater to the convenience of clients. Any violation is tantamount to
misconduct. Such misconduct is a ground for disbarment as stated by the Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court stressed the primary responsibility of lawyers as stated in Canon I of the Code
of Professional Responsibility that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law
and legal processes. Any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity may be disbarred or suspended.
 ATTY. MUNTUERTO, ET. AL. vs. ATTY. ALBERTO

FACTS:

The complainants accused the respondent of antedating notarizations, falsifying a secretary's certificate, and not
complying with IBP's directives during the investigation. However, the Notarial Division of the RTC in Cavite City certified that
it had "no record of any Commission/Order appointing a certain Atty. Gerardo Wilfredo L. Alberto as Notary Public for the City
of Cavite nor of any documents notarized by him, more specifically a document denominated as Supplemental & Amended
Joint Venture Agreement; The IBP found the charges established and recommended the respondent's suspension from the
practice of law for five years. The recommendation was adopted by the IBP Board of Governors, and the respondent did not
appeal or move for reconsideration.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

RULING:

YES. Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which expressly defines a notary public as "any person commissioned to
perform official acts." The commission, which is the grant of authority to perform notarial acts, is issued upon due application
by the Executive Judge of the province or city where the applicant is to have a regular place of work or business after a
summary hearing conducted by the Executive Judge following the publication of the notice of summary hearing in a newspaper
of general circulation in said province or city, and after posting of the notice of summary hearing in a conspicuous place in the
offices of the Executive Judge and of the Clerk of Court.

Clearly, the exercise of the authority to notarize cannot simply be done by anyone.

The significance of the office of the notary public cannot be taken for granted. The notarial act is invested with public
interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act and serve as notaries public.

SPS. FRIAS VS. ATTY. NELLY ABAO

FACTS:

Pepito Frias owns a parcel of land in Capiz, they allegedly leased the property to Rodrigo Arbiz and his wife in
exchange for a loan. The Spouses Frias left Capiz in 1995 and discovered in 2005 that the property was in the
possession of Spouses Escutin. The Spouses Frias filed a complaint for ejectment.

The Spouses Escutin claimed that the property was sold to their parents by the Spouses Frias, but the latter insisted
that they did not execute any document of conveyance of the said parcel of land to anybody. Atty. Abao was accused of
violating the Code of Professional Responsibility for notarizing a document without commission and for executing an untruthful
judicial affidavit.

ISSUE:

Whether the respondent violated the Rules on Notarial Practice.

RULING:

YES. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routine act. It is invested with substantive public interest that
only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. It must be emphasized that the act of notarization
by a notary public converts a private document into a public document making that document admissible in evidence without
further proof of authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face , and for this reason,
notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.

Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, 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 or
the written evidence of authority. Without a commission, a lawyer is unauthorized to perform any of the notarial acts.

By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission from the court, Atty. Abao violated not only her oath to
obey the laws, particularly the Rules on Notarial Practice, but also Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which proscribes all lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and directs them to
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, at all times.
 JUDGE LILY LYDIA A. LAQUINDANUM vs. ATTY. NESTOR QUINTANA

FACTS:

Judge Laquindanum of RTC of Midsayap, Cotabato wrote a letter to Atty. Quintana to stop notarizing documents
within the territorial jurisdiction of RTC of Midsayap, Cotabato. Despite the directive, Atty. Quintana continued to perform
notarial functions in Midsayap, which prompted the complainant to request proper disciplinary action. Atty. Quintana claimed
he did not violate any provision of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and asked for forgiveness, stating that notarization was
the only source of income for his family. Atty Quintana let his wife notarize also and notarized a document were the affiant is
dead.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Quintana is guilty for violating the provisions of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice for
exercising his notarial acts outside his territorial jurisdiction.

RULING:

YES. Under Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the respondent may perform his notarial acts in
Cotabato City and Maguindanao but definitely he cannot extend it in Midsayap. While it is true that lawyers in good
standing are allowed to engage in the practice of law in the Philippines, however, not every lawyer can perform notarial
functions without having been commissioned. The act of the respondent also partakes of malpractice of law and
falsification.

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

ATTY. TORIO, ET AL vs. ATTY. SIAPNO

FACTS:

The letter-complaint, was filed against Atty. Siapno for notarizing documents without a commission.
Complainants alleged that Atty. Siapno was maintaining a notarial office along Alvear Street East, Lingayen, Pangasinan, and was
performing notarial acts and practices in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City without the requisite notarial commission.
They asserted that he was never commissioned as Notary Public for and within the jurisdiction of Lingayen, Natividad and
Dagupan City. Complainants also averred that Atty. Siapno had delegated his notarial authority to his secretaries who wrote
legal instruments and signed the documents on his behalf.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Siapno violated the Rules on Notarial Practice.

RULING:

YES. Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, only persons who are commissioned as a notary public may perform
notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the court which granted the commission. Clearly, Atty. Siapno could not perform
notarial functions in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City of the Province of Pangasinan since he was not commissioned in
the said places to perform such act.

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routine act. It is invested with public interest that only those who are
qualified and authorized may act as notaries public. The act of notarization converts a private document into a public document
making the document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity, and because it is entitled to full faith and
credit upon its face, notaries public must observe the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.

By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission from the court, Atty. Siapno violated not only his oath
to obey the laws, particularly the Rules on Notarial Practice, but also Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which proscribes all lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and directs
them to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, at all times.
 POSUGAC vs. LAUTA

FACTS:

The administrative case was filed by Posugsac against Atty. Lauta for violation of the Rules on Notarial practice. The
complainant averred that Atty. Lauta prepared and notarized the last will and testament of her sister beyond her notarial
jurisdiction. Atty. Lauta admitted and claimed that her actions were on account of the request of a physically weak but mentally
alert client, mentor, and friend, whom she knew long before her illness. Moreover, Atty. Lauta alleged that the exception under
Sec. 2, Rule IV of the Notarial Rules should apply regardless whether the hospital or medical institution, is within or outside of
the notary public’s jurisdiction.

ISSUE:

Whether or not atty. Lauta violated the Rules on Notarial Practice.

RULING:

YES. Atty. Lauta committed acts in violation of the Notarial Rules when she notarized a last will and testament
outside her notarial jurisdiction. Under paragraph (a), Section 2, Rule IV of the Notarial Rules provides that the
exception does not extend outside the notarial jurisdiction of the notary public.

Clearly, although the rules allow Atty Lauta to notarize the documents in hospitals or other medical institutions, the
same, however, must still be within her notarial jurisdiction. In the present case, the hospital which is located in Naga City is
undoubtedly beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Municipalities of Bato, Baao, Buhi, Balatan, Nabua and the City of Iriga
wherein Atty. Lauta is commissioned as a notary public.

ATTY. ROGELIO VELARDE vs. ATTY. RUBEN M. ILAGAN

FACTS:

The case stemmed from a parcel of land registered in the name of Narciso Salas but was owned in common by all the
lot owners and lot buyers of the village, all of whom held undivided interest thereon. Among the lot owners is Atty. Velarde
(complainant). On May 6, 2010, Narciso died. Several Deeds of Absolute Sale were notarized by respondent three to
four years after the death of the purported vendor Narciso, and the subject land was successfully subdivided into eight smaller
lots. The IBP-CBD found that respondent committed misconduct by certifying under oath several deeds of sale, knowing fully
well that one of the vendors was already dead.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Ilagan violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

RULING:

YES. Respondent failed to live up with the duties of a notary public as dictated by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
By notarizing a document without the appearance of the affiant, respondent failed to ascertain not only the genuineness of his
signature but also the due execution of the document.

Respondent's failure to faithfully discharge his duties as a notary public likewise makes him guilty of violating the
CPR, which prohibits him from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and requires him to uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes.
 FABAY vs. ATTY. REX RESUENA

FACTS:

Fabay filed a complaint for disbarment for violation of the notarial law and for Atty. Resuena’s miscounduct as a
lawyer. Fabay alleged that Atty. Resuena violated the provisions of the Notarial law by notarizing an SPA
notwithstanding that Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were already dead long before the execution of the SPA. He further
alleged that Atty. Resuena notarized a complaint for ejectment, where Apolo Perez was made to appear as attorney-in-fact of
Amador Perez and Valentino Perez when again the latter could not have possibly authorized him as they were already
dead.

ISSUE:

Whether 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.

RULING:

YES. 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.

LIBRADA LADRERA vs. ATTY RAMIRO S. OSORIO

FACTS:

Respondent Atty. Ramiro S. Osorio is charged with violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
Lawyer's Oath, and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice for notarizing documents even in the absence of the parties and
despite lack of competent proofs of their identity and failure to make proper entries in his notarial register. Complainant Ladrera
alleged that respondent Atty. Osorio notarized the documents with her name and that of her daughter Jeralyn Ladrera Kumar
were indicated as buyers of a property. In truth, however, neither she nor her daughter executed these documents, let alone,
personally subscribed them before Atty. Osorio. During the dates in question, her daughter was living abroad.

ISSUE:

Whether in discharging the duties and functions of a duly commissioned notary public, Atty. Osorio violated the
Rules on Notarial Practice, the Lawyer's Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

YES. It is a basic requirement in notarizing a document that the principal must be present before the notary public to
personally attest to its voluntariness and due execution. Atty. Osorio's failure to perform his duty as a notary public undermined
the integrity of the act of notarization. He cast doubt on the authenticity of subject documents. He also cast doubt on the
credibility of the notarial register and the notarial process. His acts constituted a violation not only of the Notarial Rules but also
of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires lawyers to promote respect for law and legal processes . He should,
thus, be held liable for such negligence not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.
 ADVANCE PAPER CORPORATION vs. ARMA TRADERS CORPORATION

FACTS:

Petitioner Advance Paper is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of producing, printing,
manufacturing, distributing and selling of various paper products. Respondent Arma Traders obtained three loans from
Advance Paper to settle its obligations to other suppliers because its own collectibles did not arrive on time. As payment, Arma
Traders issued postdated checks to Advance Paper, but these were dishonored either for "insufficiency of funds" or "account
closed." Despite repeated demands, however, Arma Traders failed to settle its account with Advance Paper.

The RTC ruled that the purchases on credit and loans were sufficiently proven by the petitioners. Hence, the RTC
ordered Arma Traders to pay Advance Paper. Arma Traders appealed the RTC decision to the CA. The CA held that Advance
Paper failed to prove by preponderance of evidence the existence of the purchases on credit and loans. Hence, the CA set
aside the RTC’s order for Arma Traders to pay Advance Paper. Petitioners filed for Petition for Review of the CA’s ruling.

Petitioners used Community Tax Certificate No. 05730869 in their Petition for Review. The respondents of Arma
Traders argue that the Petition for Review should be dismissed summarily because of for failure of the petitioners to comply
with A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC and that also, the CA decision is already final and executory since the petitioners filed their Motion
for Reconsideration out of time.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petition for review should be dismissed for failure to comply with A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC.

RULING:

NO. The respondents correctly cited A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC dated February 19, 2008 which refer to the amendment of
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. It deleted the Community Tax Certificate among the accepted proof of identity of the
affiant because of its inherent unreliability. The petitioners violated this when they used Community Tax Certificate No.
05730869 in their Petition for Review. Nevertheless, the defective jurat in the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum
Shopping is not a fatal defect because it is only a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement that the Court may
waive. Furthermore, we cannot simply ignore the millions of pesos at stake in this case. To do so might cause grave injustice
to a party, a situation that this Court intends to avoid.

DANDOY vs. ATTY. EDAYAN

FACTS:

Complainant, Dandoy alleged that on October 17, 2006, Atty. Edayan notarized: (a) a SPA executed by his
father, Jacinto S. Dandoy, in favor of a certain Garzo granting the latter authority to offer as collateral two (2) parcels of land;
and (b) a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Real Estate (Deed) of Dandoy's late grandmother, wherein his father was also
one of the parties.

According to Dandoy, Jacinto could not have been present before respondent because he passed away on July 13,
1999. The IBP-IC found that respondent failed to confirm the identity of the person claiming to be Jacinto through the
competent evidence of identity required by the 2004 Notarial Rules the controlling rules on notarial practice at the time of the
notarization of the SPA and the Deed, not the Notarial Law invoked by respondent.

ISSUE:

Whether or not, Atty. Edayan is liable for violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules.

RULING:

YES. The Court has ruled that notaries must inform themselves of the facts they certify to; most importantly, they
should not take part or allow themselves to be part of illegal transactions. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that 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.
 BERNARD N. JANDOQUILE vs. ATTY. QUIRINO P. REVILLA, JR.

FACTS:

Atty. Revilla, Jr. notarized a complaint-affidavit signed by Heneraline Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas-Pedrosa and Elmer
Alvarado. Heneraline and Herezaline are sisters of Atty. Revilla, Jr.'s wife (his sister-in-laws), while Elmer is a houseboy
of the Brosas’s Family. Jandoquile complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. is disqualified to perform the notarial act per Sec 3c, Rule
IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, viz: “Notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he is a
spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil
degree”. Jandoquile also complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not require the three affiants in the complaint- affidavit to show
their valid identification cards.

ISSUE:

Whether or not notarizing a document of relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity and, at the same time, not
requiring them to present valid identification cards is a ground for disbarment.

RULING:

NO.Atty. Revilla, Jr. violated the disqualification rule under Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice. Given the clear provision of the disqualification rule, it behooved (required) upon Atty. Revilla, Jr. to act with prudence
and should have refused notarizing the document.

The court didn’t agree with Atty. Revilla’s proposition that he should be considered more as a counsel of the affiants
than as notary public, when he notarized the complaint-affidavit. The notarial certificate at the bottom of the complaint-affidavit
shows his signature as a notary public, with a notarial commission valid until December 31, 2012. He cannot therefore claim
that he signed it as counsel of the three affiants.

On the second charge, Atty. Revilla, Jr. cannot be held liable. If the notary public knows the affiants personally, he
need not require them to show their valid identification cards. But Atty. Revilla, Jr. is not without fault for failing to indicate such
fact in the "jurat" of the complaint-affidavit. No statement was included therein that he knows the three affiants personally.

Atty. Revilla, Jr.’s violation of the disqualification rule under Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice is not a sufficient ground to disbar him. Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not commit any deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct or
gross immoral conduct, or any other serious ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
 BENITO B. NATE vs. JUDGE LELU P. CONTRERAS

FACTS:

Atty. Benito B. Nate filed a complaint against respondent Contreras, accusing her of grave misconduct during her
tenure as clerk of court and ex officio provincial sheriff of RTC-Iriga City. Atty. Nate alleged that Judge Contreras notarized an
administrative complaint prepared by her father, which was filed with the Court in June 2003. He argued that Contreras acted
beyond her authority when she notarized the document in Iriga City despite being signed in a different location. Nate also claimed
that Contreras certified a document as a true copy of the original, which her sister-in-law used in a labor case pending before
the NLRC in Naga City. Respondent Contreras appeared as her father's counsel in the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP
without prior written authority.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) agrees with complainant as regards the first and second acts, but
considers the third act as authorized by the court. Contreras argues that her actions were allowed under the Manual for
Clerks of Court.

ISSUES:

Whether or not Contreras is administratively liable for the following acts:

 Affixing her signature to the jurat portion of the administrative complaint prepared by her father.
 Authenticating documents as genuine copies of the original labor complaint.
 Appearing as counsel before the IBP on behalf of her father.

RULING:

YES, to the first and second acts.

1. Proceeding now to the first act complained about, we agree with the OCA findings that respondent’s act of affixing
her signature to the jurat portion of the administrative complaint prepared by her father had no direct relation to her work as the
then clerk of court of RTC–Iriga City. Under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, the proceedings involving the disbarment and
discipline of attorneys shall be conducted before the IBP. This means that clerks of court are not among the touchpoints in the
regular procedure pertaining to complaints against an attorney. Neither may a pleading in a case involving lawyers be filed
with the RTC.

2. We apply the same legal reasoning to the second act of respondent being complained about; that is, her
certification of a copy of her sister-in-law’s labor complaint. Respondent herself admits that the document was filed
before the National Labor Relations Commission in Naga City, not the RTC–Iriga City. Thus, in the regular course of her
duties, she would not have come across, encountered, or been in custody of the document. While we agree with her that
clerks of court are allowed to perform the notarial act of copy certification, this act must still be connected to the exercise of
their official functions and duties – meaning to say, it must be done in connection with public documents and records that are,
by virtue of their position, in their custody.

3. With regard to the third act complained, we reiterate that the primary employment of court personnel must be their
full- time position in the judiciary, which is the chief concern requiring their dutiful attention. Nevertheless, we recognize that
the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees does allow for limited exceptions . Section 7(b)
thereof in relation to Rule X, Section 1(c) of its implementing rules, provides that public officials and employees are
prohibited from engaging in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution, law, or regulation;
and under the condition that their practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions.

Respondent has satisfactorily proved that she was granted authority by this Court to “represent her father in
Administrative Case No. 6089 provided that she files the corresponding leaves of absence on the scheduled dates of hearing
of the case and that she will not use official time in preparing for the case.” We thus agree with the OCA
recommendation that she did not commit any irregularity when she represented her father before the IBP.

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Lelu P. Contreras is found LIABLE for the unauthorized notarization of
documents unrelated to her office duties while she was serving as Clerk of Court VI of the Regional Trial
Court in Iriga City. She is hereby REPRIMANDED, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or a
similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
 SPS. NILES vs. ATTY CASIANO S. RETARDO, JR.

FACTS:

Spouses Teodora and Jose Quirante wanted to obtain a loan from complainants. They sought the help of a lawyer to
prepare the loan agreement. The lawyer prepared an Acknowledgment Receipt and an undated Deed of Absolute Sale
about a real property owned by Sps. Quirante. The complainants consulted the lawyer regarding their concern about the
possible default of Sps. Quirante, and the lawyer prepared and notarized a Courtesy Letter that reiterated the pactum
commissorium stipulation contained in the acknowledgment receipt.

Complainants again consulted respondent regarding Sps. Quirante's failure to comply with the loan agreement.
Respondent then prepared and notarized a Final Demand Letter, which again invoked the pactum commissorium
stipulation.

However, Sps. Quirante asked for a 10-day extension to pay their loan obligation, which was granted by the
complainants. Despite the lapse of the agreed extension, Sps. Quirante did not pay their obligation, and the
complainants proceeded with the processing of the Deed of Absolute Sale. The complainants attempted to engage the
respondent's services as counsel, but he declined due to a "potential conflict of interest" which he did not fully explain.

Respondent filed a manifestation expressing his reservation when subpoenaed in a civil case citing his
connection to the petitioner, his involvement in a wedding, and the attorney-client relationship.

The Investigating Commissioner found that the respondent violated the CPR by failing to inform the parties about the
legal consequences of a pactum commissorium provision and representing conflicting interests.

ISSUE:

Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for failing to apprise the parties to the loan document of the legal
consequences of a pactum commissorium provision and for representing conflicting interests.

RULING:

YES. The Court states that a lawyer owes his or her client undivided allegiance. In fact, unlike other common
relations, the lawyer's duty of loyalty to the client does not end even after the attorney-client relations are terminated. Only thus
can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their attorneys which is of paramount importance in the administration
of justice.

To maintain this degree of professionalism of the highest order, Sections 13 and 17, Canon Ill of the CPRA prohibits
lawyers from representing conflicting interests subject to certain exceptions, viz.:

Section 13. Conflict of interest. - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written informed consent
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

Section 17. Prohibition against conflict-of-interest representation; prospective clients. - In relation to

(a) A lawyer shall, at the earliest opportunity, ascertain the existence of any conflict of interest between a
prospective client and current clients, and immediately disclose the same if found to exist.
In case of an objection by either the prospective or current client, the lawyer shall not accept the new engagement.

(b)A lawyer shall maintain the private confidences of a prospective client even if no engagement materializes, and
shall not use any such information to further his or her own interest, or the interest of any current client.
 EVER ELECTRICAL MFG., INC. vs. ATTY. REINIER JOHN G. BROFAR

FACTS:

Complainant Ever Electrical Mfg., Inc. filed a complaint against respondent Atty. Reinier John G. Brofar for violation
of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Complainant alleged that respondent notarized a document denominated
as Grant of Right of Way. The same was required for the application of Catsen Development Corporation with the MERALCO
for the installation of electric facilities for the electricity and power consumption of Catsen' s buildings. According to complainant, it
owns the lot adjacent to the property applied for by Catsen.

On 15 February 2014, acting on the strength of the notarized Grant of Right of Way, MERALCO proceeded to install
electric posts and encroached upon a portion of the property owned by complainant.

Consequently, complainant initiated the instant Verified Complaint for disbarment against respondent alleging that: (1)
the act of notarization by respondent resulted in the encroachment of complainant's private property, which then prompted a
litigation; (2) that said notarization amounted to conduct unbecoming a public officer, grave/simple misconduct, conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service contrary to the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) for lawyers; (3) the
notarized Grant of Right of Way has unfilled details in its body and acknowledgment portion, which is violative of the Notarial
Rules; ( 4) the unfilled spaces would indicate that respondent did not require the applicant to show competent proof of
his identity; and (5) respondent's negligence as a notary public and lawyer damaged complainant's rights over the
property, and undermined the integrity of a notary public.

ISSUE:

Whether respondent is liable for violation of the Notarial Rules.

RULING:

YES. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act, but is imbued with substantive public interest. Among
others, notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its
authenticity. Thus, a notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this reason that a notary public
must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of notarial duties; otherwise, the public's confidence
in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined.

In this case, it is undisputed that respondent failed to live up to the duties of a notary public as dictated by the
Notarial Rules.

Section 5 (b), Rule IV, Notarial Rules, prohibits a notary public from notarizing a document that contains an
incomplete notarial certificate. A notarial certificate, as defined in Sec. 8, Rule II, Notarial Rules, requires a statement of the
facts attested to by the notary public in a particular notarization.

It is important to point out that having a completely executed document, without unfilled spaces, protects the
document from malicious insertions after notarization. Evidently, respondent is guilty of violating Sec. 6(a), Rule IV, Notarial
Rules when he notarized the instrument despite its apparent incompleteness.
 JUDGE LAQUINDANUM vs. ATTY. QUINTANA

FACTS:

This administrative case against Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana stemmed from a letter 1 addressed to the Court filed by
Executive Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum of the RTC of Midsayap, Cotabato requesting that proper disciplinary action be
imposed on him for performing notarial functions in Midsayap, Cotabato, which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the
commissioning court that issued his notarial commission, and for allowing his wife to do notarial acts in his absence.

In her letter, Judge Laquindanum alleged that pursuant to A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, executive judges are required to
closely monitor the activities of notaries public within the territorial bounds of their jurisdiction and to see to it that
notaries public shall not extend notarial functions beyond the limits of their authority. Hence, she wrote a letter to Atty.
Quintana directing him to stop notarizing documents within the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC of Midsayap, Cotabato which is
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial commission for Cotabato City and the
Province of Maguindanao since certain documents notarized by him had been reaching her office.

However, despite such directive, respondent continuously performed notarial functions in Midsayap, Cotabato.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

RULING:

YES. Under Sec. 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Atty. Quintana could not extend his notarial acts
beyond Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao because Midsayap, Cotabato is not part of Cotabato City or the
Province of Maguindanao. Midsayap is part of the Province of Cotabato. The City within the province of Cotabato is
Kidapawan City, and not Cotabato City.

The act of notarizing documents outside one’s area of commission is not to be taken lightly. Aside from being a
violation of Sec. 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, it also partakes of malpractice of law and falsification.
Notarizing documents with an expired commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

Notarizing documents without the presence of the signatory to the document is a violation of Sec. 2(b)(1), Rule IV of
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, 32 Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the lawyer’s oath which
unconditionally requires lawyers not to do or declare any falsehood.

It is a privilege granted only to those who are qualified to perform duties imbued with public interest, 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 notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document, making that
document admissible in evidence without further proof of the authenticity thereof.
 RODOLFO I. ORENIA III vs. ATTY. ROMEO S. GONZALES

FACTS:

Atty. Gonzales was the counsel of a certain Domingo C. Reyes. Through Atty. Gonzales, Mr. Reyes and his siblings
filed a criminal complaint for Falsification of Public Document and Use of Falsified Documents against one Rodrigo C.
Reyes and a certain Emerencia R. Gungab, the employers of Rodolfo L. Orenia III.

In return, complainant filed a Complaint Affidavit for Estafa through Falsification of Public Document against Mr.
Reyes, his siblings, and Atty. Gonzales. Complainant filed the instant administrative case for Disbarment against Atty.
Gonzales.

Complainant alleged that Atty. Gonzales notarized a Deed of Sale executed by one Antonio A. Guanzon. The
document was recorded in Atty. Gonzales' notarial registry and certified by the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Quezon City.

On December 29, 1998, Atty. Gonzales notarized another document called Director's Certificate, 9 and was assigned
the same notarial details as the Deed of Sale he notarized the day prior. Atty. Gonzales failed to record the Director's
Certificate in his notarial register.

Complainant averred that in addition to Atty. Gonzales' failure to record the Director’s Certificate in his notarial
register, he also participated in its falsification because the Director's Certificate was never authorized by the Anaped's Board
of Directors. He further averred that the parties to the purported Director's Certificate could not have personally signed and
executed the certificate in the presence of Atty. Gonzales. Atty. Gonzales also misrepresented himself as the Corporate
Secretary of Anaped when he signed the minutes of the meeting dated March 24, 2006. 10

Complainant accused Atty. Gonzales of being liable for conduct unbecoming a lawyer because Atty. Gonzales
attempted to hit him and told him ulol ka" during the preliminary investigation of the counter-complaint he filed.

Atty. Gonzales filed his Answer 12 admitting that he indeed failed to record the Director's Certificate in his
notarial register due to the inadvertence of his former secretary. Atty. Gonzales denied the other allegations against him, and
claimed that the disbarment case was a harassment suit to force him to drop the cases he was handling against the
complainant's employers.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended for the dismissal of the complaint against Atty. Gonzales for lack of
merit.21

The IBP Board of Governors reversed the recommendation of Investigating Commissioner and recommended that
Atty. Gonzales be placed under a six month suspension from the practice of law. Additionally, it disqualified Atty. Gonzales
from being commissioned as a rotary public with revocation of his current notarial commission.

Atty. Gonzales moved for the reconsideration of the IBP Board of Governors' Resolution. The IBP Board of Governors
passed a Resolution which granted Atty. Gonzales' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the August 26, 2016 Resolution. It
deleted Atty. Gonzales' six-month suspension from the practice of law, but imposed against him the immediate
revocation of his notarial commission, and the disqualification of his commission as a notary public for two years.

ISSUE:

Whether respondent violated the Rules on Notarial Practice.

RULING:

Yes. The Court has stressed that the duties of a notary public are dictated by public policy. As such, a notary public is
mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of his office. Having taken a solemn oath under the Code of Professional
Responsibility, a lawyer commissioned as a notary public has a responsibility to faithfully observe the rules governing notarial
practice.

In keeping with the faithful observance of his duties, a notary public shall keep, maintain, protect and provide for lawful
inspection, a chronological official notarial register of notarial acts consisting of a permanently bound book with numbered
pages.28 Section 2, Rule VI of the Notarial Rules requires that every notarial act must be registered in the notarial register,

It is well-settled that failure to make entry in the notary public's notarial register concerning his notarial acts violates
his duty under the Code of Professional Responsibility to uphold and obey the laws of the land and to promote respect for law
and legal processes. Moreover, Atty. Gonzales' delegation to his former secretary of his notarial function of recording entries in
his notarial register is a clear contravention of the explicit provision of the notarial rules that such duty must be fulfilled by the
notary public himself and not by anyone else. This is a direct violation of Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility

A notary public must observe the highest degree of compliance with the basic requirements of notarial practice in
order to preserve public confidence in the integrity of the notarial system. The notarization of public documents is vested with
substantive public interest.

BERNALDO E. VALDEZ vs. ATTY. WINSTON B. HIPE

FACTS:

Complainant alleged that he received a copy of an affidavit executed by respondent in support of a counter- affidavit
filed by a certain Atty. Calberito M. Caballero, in response to his complaint-affidavit. He claimed that in said affidavit,
respondent stated that he notarized the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping executed by Arnold Pe, Pearl
Marjorie Pe, and Evaristo Pe, containing notarial details which he might have failed to report in his Notarial Report due to
inadvertence. Complainant, however, pointed out, that as per the Certification issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, the document adverted to by respondent refers to an Affidavit of Circumstances of Death,
not the Verification/Certification.

ISSUE:

Whether or not grounds exist to hold respondent administratively liable in this case.

RULING:

Yes. The Court has reminded lawyers that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routinary act, but one
invested with substantive public interest. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it
admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, a notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and
credit upon its face. It is for this reason that notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements
in the performance of their notarial duties; otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be
undermined. In keeping with the faithful observance of their duties, notaries public are required to keep, maintain, protect, and
provide for lawful inspection, a chronological official notarial register of notarial acts. Section 2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice enumerates the details that notaries public must record in the notarial register at the time of the notarization

For every notarial act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of notarization.

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.

Given the evidentiary value accorded to notarized documents, respondent's failure to record the document in his
notarial register amounts to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when, in fact, it was not. The non-
appearance of the document or instrument in the notarial records without any copy therein creates doubt whether such
document or instrument was indeed notarized. It also effectively removed the credit and full faith which notarization generates
on notarized documents.
 JOSEFINA P. SORIANO vs. ATTY HUMBERTO B. BASCO

FACTS:

Atty. Humberto B. Basco is charged by Josefina P. Soriano in a complaint for disbarment dated May 5, 2003, filed
with the Committee on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (“IBP”), with violation of Sections 245 and 246 of the
Revised Administrative Code, Title IV, Chapter II, known as the Notarial Law.

That on June 30, 2000, respondent Atty. Humberto B. Basco, Notary Public of Manila testified before the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 35, stating among others, that he allegedly notarized a Deed of Sale allegedly executed
by complainant Josefina P. Soriano. He further testified that Josefina Soriano personally appeared before him when he
notarized the Deed of Sale. Since complainant had never appeared before Notary Public Humberto B. Basco, had not seen
much less received copy of the alleged contract, complainant requested for a copy of the alleged contract from the Office of
the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, Regional Trial Court of Manila concerning the aforementioned Deed of Sale. Clerk of
Court VII Jennifer H. Dela Cruz-Buendia, issued a Certification dated February 11, 2003 certifying that the alleged Deed of
Sale involving Josefina P. Soriano as vendor alleged to have been acknowledged before Notary Public Humberto B. Basco
was not among the document submitted to said office (Annex “A” of Complaint). Complainant also received a certified true
copy of the notarial register of Notary Public Basco which disclosed his failure to indicate the names of the witnesses, fees
charged, the respective residence certificates of the parties to the documents which he notarized (Annex “B” of Complaint).
Although Atty. Basco was duty bound to furnish to complainant a certified true copy of the alleged deed, he failed to do so
despite demand therefor.

Respondent filed his Answer on June 10, 2003. In his defense, respondent declared that on January 17, 1997, herein
complainant together with her son, Marcial P. Soriano went to his office located at 234 City Hall Bldg. both carrying with them a
duly pre-drafted deed of sale, contents whereof signified that complainant did convey to the son valuable property.
Respondent further stated that he instructed his staff secretary, Ms. Elizabeth Roque-Sanchez, to effect the clerical entry of
notarial particulars of the original and copies of the said mutually executed deed of sale. Respondent claim that his staff
secretary of course, retained a copy for our file and advised complainant and her son to immediately return or call the office to
furnish their respective Community Tax Certificate.

ISSUE:

Is the notary public free from liability?

RULING:

Here, Atty. Basco violated the Notarial Law by failing to provide all the necessary information regarding the
questioned Deed of Sale entered in his notarial register. He even notarized said instrument even without the notation of the
residence certificate of the party to the document. As a notary public, respondent is required by the Notarial Law to certify that
the party to the instrument acknowledged before him has presented the proper residence certificate and to enter its number,
place of issue and date as part of the certification. Worse, he likewise failed to send copy of the notarized document to
the clerk of court of the proper RTC and to retain a copy thereof for his own records. These formalities are mandatory and
cannot simply be neglected. Failure to perform this duty results in the revocation of a notary's commission.

The notarial registry is a record of the notary public’s official acts. Acknowledged documents and instruments
recorded in it are considered public documents. If the document or instrument does not appear in the notarial records and
there is no copy of it therein, doubt is engendered that the document or instrument was not really notarized, so that it is not a
public document and cannot bolster any claim made based on this document. Considering the evidentiary value given to
notarized documents, the failure of the notary public to record the document in his notarial registry is tantamount to
falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when in fact it was not. xxx. This is a clear violation of the
Notarial Law for which he must be disciplined.
 MARCELO vs. JAVIER

FACTS:

Complainant Domingo R. Marcelo charges respondent Atty. Adriano S. Javier, Sr. with conduct unbecoming of a
lawyer in connection with a transaction over complainant’s residential lot as security for a loan. It appears that
complainant mortgaged his unregistered land to mortgagee Sy Hun Tek as security for a loan in the alleged amount of
P80,000.00 with legal interest, with the deed of mortgage having been prepared and notarized by respondent as the family
lawyer of the mortgagee.

Complainant was not given a copy of the mortgage deed, much less the chance to read the same, and he
learned of the contents of said deed only when he secured a certified true xerox copy thereof from the Records
Management. Upon complainant’s default on two months’ installments on the loan, respondent went to the house of
complainant at a time when the latter was sick and asked him to sign some papers which respondent told complainant were
merely to confirm the latter’s obligation to Sy Hun Tek. Because of his confidence in respondent, complainant signed the
papers without being given copies thereof.

A few weeks thereafter, complainant learned that the mortgaged property had been foreclosed and sold to one
Enrico Perez.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent violated the Rules on Notarial Practice and the CPR.

RULING:

Yes. The failure of the complainant to recover his mortgaged property is because of respondent’s deliberate failure to
furnish timely the complainant copies of the deed of real estate mortgage and the dacion en pago which he prepared and
notarized and in concealing from the complainant the true context and purpose of the said documents. In one word, the
respondent is guilty of deceit.

A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The trust and confidence
necessarily reposed by clients require in the attorney a high standard and appreciation of his duty to his clients, his
profession, the courts and the public. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and
fair dealing. To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any
degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession.

Respondent’s failure to live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance with the strictures of the lawyer’s oath, the
Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics, thereby occasioning unwarranted
inconvenience and hardship on complainant. A lawyer’s responsibility to protect and advance the interests of his client does
not warrant a course of action propelled by ill motives and malicious intentions against the other party.