Agagon   vs.   Bustamante,   A.C.   No.   5510,   December   20,   2007

 

Facts: Complainant Sajid D. Agagon filed the instant administrative case against respon

dent Atty. Artemio Bustamante charging the latter with malpractice and violation of the 

lawyer’s oath. Complainant alleged that respondent acted as Notary Public to the "Deed 

of Sale" allegedly executed by and between Dominador Panglao and Alessandro Pangl

ao. However, upon verification with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court 

of Baguio City, it was discovered that the alleged Deed of Sale was not included in the no

tarial report. Instead, Doc. No. 375 appearing on Page 76 of Book XXXIII, Series of 2000 of r

espondent Atty. Bustamante referred to an Affidavit executed by a certain Teofilo M. Malapit. 

Moreover, the Community Tax Certificates used by the parties in the Deed of Sale were fictitio

us, as certified to by the City Treasurer’s Office.

In his Comment, respondent admitted that he was the one who prepared the Deed of Sale. H

owever, he claimed that the parties merely dictated to him their Community Tax Certific

ate Numbers;and that it was pure inadvertence that the document that was reported an

d included in the report to the Office of the Clerk of Court and which bore the documen

t number assigned to the Deed of Sale was an Affidavit executed by Teofilo Malapit. 

Issue: Whether the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. 

Held: YES. There is no doubt that respondent violated the Code of Professional Respon

sibility and the Notarial Law when he failed to include a copy of the Deed of Sale in his 

Notarial Report and for failing to require the parties to the deed to exhibit their respecti

ve community tax certificates. Doubts were cast as to the existence and due execution 

of the subject deed, thus undermining the integrity and sanctity of the notarization pro

cess and diminishing public confidence in notarial. In the performance of notarial acts, th

e notary public must be mindful of the significance of the notarial seal as affixed on a d

ocument. 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 exec

ution. Thus, notarization should not be treated as an empty, meaningless, or routinary 

act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualifie

d or authorized may act as notaries public. Indeed, a notarial document is by law entitle

d to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe 

utmost care in complying with the elementary formalities in the performance of their du

ties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would 

be undermined. Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires every lawyer to 

uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal p

rocesses. Moreover, the Notarial Law and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice require a d

uly commissioned notary public to make the proper entries in his Notarial Register and 

to refrain from committing any dereliction or act which constitutes good cause for the r

evocation of commission or imposition of administrative sanction. Unfortunately, resp

ondent failed in both respects. IN RE: ATTY. RUFILLO D. BUCANA, respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N 

ANTONIO, J.:Acting upon the letter of Mrs. Angela Drilon Baltazar, Barangay Captain of Victories, Dumangas, Iloilo, dated February 26, 1976, respondent Notary Public Rufillo D. Bucana was required by this Court in its Resolution of March 23, 1976, to show cause within ten (10) days from notice, why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for having notarized on November 10, 1975 at Dumangas, Iloilo an Agreement executed by the spouses Gonzalo Baltazar and Luisa Sorongon wherein the afore-mentioned spouses agreed therein that "in case anyone of them will remarry both parties offer no objection and waive all civil and criminal actions against them" and that the afore-mentioned Agreement was "entered into for the purpose of agreement to allow each and everyone of them to remarry without objection or reservation ...", which affidavit is contrary to law because it sanctions an illicit and immoral purpose.On April 21, 1976, respondent . submitted his explanation, admitting that he notarized the afore-mentioned document and that the Agreement is "immoral and against public policy", but in mitigation he asserted that the document in question was Prepared by his clerk, Lucia D. Doctolero without his previous knowledge; that when said document was presented to him for signature after it was signed by the parties, he vehemently refused to sign it and informed the parties that the document was immoral; that he placed the said document on his table among his files and more than a week later, he asked his clerk where the document was for the purpose of destroying it, but to his surprise he found that the same was notarized by him as per his file copies in the office; that he dispatched his clerk to get the copy from the parties, but the afore-mentioned parties could not be found in their respective residences; that he must have inadvertently notarized the same in view of the numerous documents on his table and at that time he was emotionally disturbed as his father (now deceased) was then seriously ill. The foregoing contentions of respondent were corroborated substantially by the separate sworn statements of his clerk, Lucia D. Doctolero and Angela Drilon Baltazar, both dated April 20, 1976. 1There is no question that the afore-mentioned Agreement is contrary to law, morals and good customs. Marriage is an inviolable social institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested for it is the foundation of the family and of society without which there could be neither civilization nor progress. 2The contract, in substance, purports to formulate an agreement between the husband and the wife to take unto himself a concubine and the wife to live in adulterous relations with another man, without opposition from either one, and what is more, it induces each party to commit bigamy. 3 This is not only immoral but in effect abets the commission of a crime. A notary public, by virtue of the nature of his office, is required to exercise his duties with due care and with due regard to the provisions of existing law.As stressed by Justice Malcolm in Panganiban v. Borromeo, 4 "it is for the notary to inform himself of the facts to which he intends to certify and to take part in no illegal enterprise. The notary public is usually a person who has been admitted to the practice of law, an

d as such, in the commingling of his duties notary and lawyer, must be held responsible for both. We are led to hold that a member of the bar who performs an act as a notary public of a disgraceful or immoral character may be held to account by the court even to the extent of disbarment."In the case at bar, respondent in effect pleads for clemency, claiming that the notarization of the questioned document was due to his negligence. We find, however, that the aforementioned document could not have been notarized if the respondent had only exercised the requisite care required by law in the exercise of his duties as notary public.WHEREFORE, We hold that respondent Rufillo D. Bucana is guilty of malpractice and is hereby suspended from the office of not try public for a period of six (6) months, with the admonition that a repetition of the same or a similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Aquino and Martin, JJ., concur.Concepcion, Jr., J., is on leave.Martin, J., was designated to sit in the Second Division

In the case of JUDGE LILY LYDIA LAQUINDANUM vs. ATTY. NESTOR Q. QUINTANA, En Banc, A.C. No. 7036, June 29, 2009, the Philippine Supreme Court revoked the notarial commission of respondent Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana, disqualified him from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years, and suspended him from the practice of law for six (6) months effective immediately, with a warning that a repetition of a similar violation would be dealt with even more severely. 

The administrative case against Atty. Quintana stemmed from a letter addressed to the Court filed by Executive Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum of the Regional Trial Court 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 Regional Trial Court 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. 

In its Report and Recommendation, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) of the Supreme Court recommended that Atty. Quintana be disqualified from being appointed as a notary public for two (2) years; and that if his notarial commission still exists, the same should be revoked for two (2) years. The OBC found the defenses and arguments raised by Atty. Quintana to be without merit. 

The OBC cited Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides, thus:

“Jurisdiction and Term – A person commissioned as 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 court is made, unless earlier revoked [or] the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.

The OBC stated that under the rule, respondent may perform his notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning Executive Judge Concha, which was in Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao only. But definitely he could not extend his commission as notary public in Midsayap or Kabacan and in any place of the province of Cotabato as he was not commissioned thereat to do such act. Midsayap and Kabacan were not part of either Cotabato City or Province of Maguindanao but part of the province of North Cotabato. Thus, the claim of respondent that he could exercise his notarial commission in Midsayap, Cotabato because Cotabato City was part of the province of Cotabato was absolutely devoid of merit.

Further, per the OBC, evidence on record also showed that there were several documents which the respondent’s wife had herself notarized. Respondent justified that he could not be blamed for the act of his wife as he did not authorize the latter to notarize documents in his absence. According to him, he even scolded and told his wife not to do it anymore as it would affect his profession.

The OBC cited the case of Lingan v. Calubaquib et al., Adm. Case No. 5377, June 15, 2006 where the Court held, thus:

“A notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register; He cannot relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the buck to (his) secretaries”

The OBC stated that a person who is commissioned as a notary public takes full responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register. Respondent cannot take refuge claiming that it was his wife’s act and that he did not authorize his wife to notarize documents. He is personally accountable for the activities in his office as well as the acts of his personnel including his wife, who acts as his secretary.

The OBC stressed further that Sec. 2, (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides, thus[:]

“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 through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.”

The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the OBC. However, it found the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months and revocation and suspension of Atty. Quintana's notarial commission for two (2) years more appropriate considering the gravity and number of his offenses. 

The Court held that after a careful review of the records and evidence, there was no doubt that Atty. Quintana violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he committed the following acts: (1) he notarized documents outside the area of his commission as a notary public; (2) he performed notarial acts with an expired

commission; (3) he let his wife notarize documents in his absence; and (4) he notarized a document where one of the signatories therein was already dead at that time.

The act of notarizing documents outside one’s area of commission is not to be taken lightly, the Court stated. 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. Since the public is deceived into believing that he has been duly commissioned, it also amounts to indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath proscribes. 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, 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, the Court added. Finally, the Court stressed that Atty. Quintana was personally accountable for the documents that he admitted were signed by his wife. He cannot relieve himself of liability by passing the blame to his wife, said the Court. He is, thus, guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law, it concluded.

The Court furthermore held that a notarial commission should not be treated as a money-making venture. 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, the Court stated.

ARTEMIO T. REALINO, Complainant, v. ATTY. FRANCISCO M. VILLAMOR, Respondent 87 SCRA 318FACTS: Respondent, a notary public, was requested by complainant (the vendor) and Romeo Closa (the vendee) to prepare a deed of sale conveying a residential lot belonging to complainant in favor of Closa. Although the complainant did not sign the document, because the balance of the agreed purchase price had not yet been paid, respondent notarized the document, upon being prevailed by the Closa, who was respondent’s a close friend, who promised to pay the balance. Later, respondent learned that the transaction did not go through because the subject of the unsigned document was sold by complainant to another. Subsequently, respondent was charged with malpractice as a notary public by the complainant. (NOTE: An explanation why the complaint was filed against him, respondent states that he is the private prosecutor in a case where complaint’s son is accused of murder and that complainant must have thought that respondent was an obstacle to complaint’s proposal to settle the murder charge amicably with the aggrieved parties. Respondent’s allegation is corroborated by sworn statement of the victim’s in the murder case. Complainant merely denied the respondent’s allegations. )

Issue: Does the act of affixing signature and notarial seal on the unsigned document constituted malpractice as a notary public?Ruling: YES. It is the duty of the notarial officer to demand that a document be signed in his presence, for a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason notaries public must observe the utmost care to comply with the elementary formalities in the performance of their duties. And where a notary public, in good faith, omitted to require the parties to sign the document in his presence, he may be reprimanded and warned to be more careful in exercising his duties as a notary public.The respondent is hereby reprimanded and admonished to more careful hereafter. A repetition of similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

VILLARIN et al., complainants vs. ATTY. SABATE, JR., respondent 442 SCRA 407

FACTS: Complainants pray for the administrative sanction be imposed on the respondent for not having observed honesty and utmost care in the performance of his duties as notary public.

Previously the complainants brought an SEC case against a certain Paterno Diaz, Levi Pagunsan and Bofetiado with the Respondent as the latter’s lawyer. Respondent prepared and notarized the “Motion to dismiss” in behalf of his clients.

V E R I F I C AT I O N

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY) S.S.

WE, REV. PASTORS PATERNO M. DIAZ, MANUEL DONATO, ULYSSES CAMAGAY, LEVI PAGUNSAN, ALEJANDRO BOFETIADO, All of legal ages after having been sworn in accordance with law depose and say:

1. That we were the one who caused the above writings to be written;

2. That we have read and understood all statements therein and believed that all are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF hereunto affixed our signatures on the 6th day of February, 1989 at the City of Cagayan de Oro, Philippines.

By: (Sgd.) Lilian C. Diaz           (Sgd.) Camagay           (Sgd.) M Donato

By: (Sgd.) Atty. Restituto B. Sabate

(Sgd.) Dr. Levi Pagunsan           (Sgd.) Pastor A. Bofetiado

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

Complainants alleged with regards to the signatures of Levi Pagunsan and Alejandro Bofetiado, it was Atty. Sabate, Jr. who signed for them; and that herein respondent Sabate, Jr. made it appear that said persons participated in the said act when in fact they did not do so.

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 that those persons signed in his presence; aside from the fact that his clients authorized him to sign for and in their behalf.

The IBP resolved to suspend respondent’s commission for 6 months for failure to exercise due diligence in upholding his duty as a notary public.

Issue: Is it sufficient that the acknowledgement be signed by the notary public with the written authority of the affiants?

Ruling: NO.

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 representative's 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 document.

ATTY. MINIANO B. DELA CRUZ, complainant, vs. ATTY. ALEJANDRO P. ZABALA, respondent 442 SCRA407

Facts:In his Letter-Complaint for Disbarment, complainant charged respondent for violating his oath as a notary public. Respondent allegedly notarized with unknown witnesses an irregular deed of sale where one of the parties to the transaction was already dead.

The IBP noted that on its face, the Deed of Sale was not executed by the purported vendee and that only Pedro Sumulong appeared and executed the deed even though the property was co-owned by Pedro Sumulong and Cirila Tapales. In addition, a copy of the title was not attached to the said Deed of Sale when it was presented for notarization. Noteworthy, respondent did not deny that he notarized the cited Deed of Sale under the circumstances alleged by complainant.Issue: Is the respondent guilty of gross negligence in his conduct as a notary public?Ruling: YES. A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. These acts of the affiants cannot be delegated because what are stated therein are facts they have personal knowledge of and are personally sworn to. Otherwise, their representatives names should appear in the said documents as the ones who executed the same.The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements.By affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, he converted the Deed of Absolute Sale, from a private document into a public document. In doing so, respondent, in effect, proclaimed to the world that (1) all the parties therein personally appeared before him; (2) they are all personally known to him; (3) they were the same persons who executed the instruments; (4)he inquired into the voluntariness of execution of the instrument; and (5) they acknowledged personally before him that they voluntarily and freely executed the same.

MAXIMINO GAMIDO Y BUENAVENTURA, petitioner, vs. NEW BILIBID PRISONS (NBP) OFFICIALS, respondents. G.R. No. 114829, March 1, 1995.

The Supreme court required Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for making it appear in the subject jurat of the petition in the case before us, that petitioner subscribed the verification when in truth and in fact the petitioner did not. In his explanation, Atty. dela Rea admitted having executed the jurat without the presence of petitioner, who was imprisoned in the New Bilibid Prisons at the time of notarization. It was in the honest belief that since it is jurat and not an acknowledgement, it would be alright to notarize even without the petitioner’s presence since he is a friend of the the latter.

ISSUE: Is executing a jurat without the presence of the affiant required to sign and take an oath before it proper?

RULING: No. A jurat is that part of an affidavit in which the officer certifies that the instrument was subscribed and sworn to before him. Accordingly, in a jurat, the affiant must sign the document in the presence of and take his oath before a notary public or any other person authorized to administer oaths.

An acknowledgment, on the other hand, shall be made before a notary public in which the notary public 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.It is obvious that the party acknowledging must likewise appear before the notary public or any other person authorized to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents.The claim or belief of Atty. dela Rea that the presence of petitioner was not necessary for the jurat because it is not an acknowledgment is patently baseless.His prior acquaintance and friendship with petitioner provides no excuse for non-compliance with his duty. If Atty. dela Rea were faithful to his duty as a notary public and if he wanted to accommodate a friend who was inside a prison, he could have gone to the latter's cell.Thus, Atty. dela Rea committed grave misconduct when he agreed to prepare the jurat in the absence of petitioner, making it appear that the latter personally signed the certification of the petition and took his oath before him when in truth and in fact the petitioner did not.

VICTORINO SIMON vs. JUDGE ALIPIO M. ARAGON A.M. No. MTJ-05-1576 February 3, 2005FACTS: Complainant alleged that the respondent judge was engaged in unauthorized notarial practice having undertaken the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents, contracts and other acts of conveyances which bore no direct relation to the performance of his functions as a member of the judiciary.Complainant further averred that, contrary to the requirements of Circular No. 1-90, the documents notarized by the respondent judge did not contain any certification attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in Isabela. In support thereof, he attached several affidavits, deeds of absolute sale and other documents notarized by the respondent judge from 1986 to 2000.Respondent judge admitted that he notarized the documents annexed to the complaint, but explained that he was constrained to do so as there was no lawyer or notary public in Isabela from 1983 to 1992. He clarified that, upon learning of Circular No. 1-90 sometime in 1993, he immediately and voluntarily desisted from further notarizing private documents. Respondent judge maintained that he could not be considered as having violated Circular No. 1-90 during the period 1983 to February 25, 1990, since the said circular has not yet been promulgated. He argued that he could not be held liable for violating a circular that is not yet in existence.ISSUE: Did the respondent judge engaged in unauthorized notarial practice?RULING: Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) judges are empowered to perform the function of Notaries Public ex officio under Section 76 of Republic Act No. 296, as amended [otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948] and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code. But the Court hereby lays down the following qualifications on the scope of this power:MTC and MCTC judges may act as Notaries Public ex officio in the notarization of documents connected only with the exercise of their official functions and duties [Borne v. Mayo, Adm. Matter No. 1765-CFI, October 17, 1980. 100 SCRA 314; Penera v. Dalocanog, Adm. Matter No. 2113-MJ, April 22, 1981, 104 SCRA 193]. They may not, as Notaries Public ex officio, undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents, contracts and other acts of conveyances which bear no direct relation to

the performance of their functions as judges. However, the Court taking judicial notice of the fact that there are still municipalities which have neither lawyers nor notaries public, rules that MTC and MCTC judges assigned to municipalities or circuits with no lawyers or notaries public may, in the capacity as notaries public ex officio, perform any act within the competency of a regular notary public: Provided, That: [1] All notarial fees charged be for the account of the Government and turned over to the municipal treasurer (Lapena, Jr. v. Marcos, Adm. Matter No. 1969-MJ, June 29, 1982, 114 SCRA 572); and [2] Certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality or circuit.Undoubtedly, respondent judge acted beyond the scope of his authority as notary public ex officio when he notarized the aforestated documents not in connection with the exercise of his functions and without complying with the requirement of certification as to lack of a notary public within his municipality or circuit.

NUNGA v VIRAY

Victor D. Nunga, president of the Masantol Rural Bank filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Venancio M. Viray on the ground of gross and serious misconduct for notarizing documents when he was not commissioned to do so at the time the said documents were executed, including the Absolute Deed of Sale of a foreclosed lot to his 18-year old son. Respondent alleged that he was always commissioned as notary public and the fact that Pampanga is under several feet of floodwaters. Certification issued by the Clerk of Court of Pampanga negated respondent’s allegation that he [had been] commissioned as notary public since 1965. The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP Board of Governors recommended that if respondent is presently commissioned as notary public, the same should be revoked, and [he should] not be granted any commission as notary public up to December 31, 2002.ISSUE:Whether or not the disciplinary action recommended by IBP to Atty. Viray was just and fair.HELD:NO. The penalty was aggravated and likewise suspended from practice of law for three (3) years.RATIO:By such misconduct as a notary public, the lawyer [likewise] violated 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.What aggravated respondent’s unlawful notarization in 1987 was the fact that the transaction involved was in favor of his son, who was then only eighteen years old and, therefore, a minor.  Under Article 402 of the Civil Code, which was the governing law as of 22 May 1987 when the said transaction was made, the age of majority was twenty-one years. Republic Act No. 6809, which reduced the age of majority to eighteen years was approved only on 13 December 1989 and became effective two weeks after publication in two newspapers of general circulation.