Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Digest - LW
Case Digest - LW
Vs
Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr., Respondent.
A.C. No. 10185, March 12, 2014
Mendoza, J.:
Facts:
Licerio Dizon was one of the would-be-buyers of a parcel of land owned
by the heirs of the late Florentino Callangan, who were the parties in Civil Case No.
1-689. The parties executed a compromise agreement in the said case and
notarized by Atty. Cabucana. At the hearing conducted regarding the due execution
of the compromise agreement, the signatories therein testified that they signed the
instrument but not in the presence of the respondent. Because of the irregularity in
the due execution of the agreement, there was an undue delay in the resolution of
the Civil Case No. 1-689 which caused injury to complainant. The complainant prays
for the disbarment of the respondent for violating the Notarial Law.
In his answer, respondent averred that the complainant was intended to
harass him because he was the private prosecutor in a criminal case filed against
the complainant. In addition, he contends that the complainant had no cause of
action because he was just a would be buyer and his right was not violated.
Issue:
Is the respondent guilty in violation of the Notarial Law for notarizing
the documents without the presence of all the parties therein?
Held:
Yes. The court agreed that Atty. Cabucana violated the Notarial Law.
The affiants personal appearance was established in Section 1, Public Act No.
2103 and Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, that as a
Notary Public, the respondent should notarize a document unless the person who
signs it is the same person executing it and personally before him to attest the truth
and its contents.
Thus, the court finds the respondent guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
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.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. dela Rea is guilty for grave misconduct for executing the
jurat in the absence of the petitioner herein?
Held: Yes. The court finds Atty. dela Reas explanation unsatisfactory but his
voluntary admission was considered as mitigation to his liability.
The Court ruled that as a notary public for a long time,
Atty.
dela Rea
should know the similarities and differences between a jurat and
an
acknowledgment. The court provides that both jurat and acknowledgment be made
before the notary public.
The acquaintance and friendship of Atty. dela Rea with Gamido is not an
excuse for non-compliance of his duty as notary public.
Thus, the Court finds Atty. dela Rea guilty for grave misconduct when he
agreed to prepare the jurat in absence of Gamido.
July 2, 2002
Facts: The NBI filed a disbarment case against the respondent Atty. Ramos in behalf
of the complainant for violation of the Notarial Law for notarizing a Deed of Absolute
Sale allegedly executed by the complainant. Rosalinda denied such execution.
Manuel, brother of Rosalinda borrowed from her the OTC of Title No. 194464
but Manuel refused to return the title when she asked for it. This prompted
Rosalinda to execute an Affidavit of Loss of her title before the Register of Deeds;
however, the Register of Deeds informed her that it was already transferred to
Manuel through a Deed of Absolute Sale notarized by respondent Atty. Ramos.
Rosalinda however denied having signed any deed of sale in favor of Manuel.
The respondent admitted that he notarized the document but failed to enter
the document in his Notarial Registry Book and prayed for the dismissal of the
complaint contending that his signature was obtained through mistake, fraud,
undue influence or excusable negligence.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Ramos is guilty for violation of the Notarial Law after
failing to enter into his records the documents he notarized?
Held: Yes. The Court finds the respondent guilty for violation of the Notarial Law
after failing to enter into his registry the documents he notarized.
The Court emphasized that the Notarial Law requires the respondent to keep
a notarial register where he shall record all his official acts as notary. The court
came from the respondents admission and held that he failed to exercise due
diligence required of him in the performance of the duties of notary public.
However, the Court finds the act of the respondent should merit disbarment
but he is subject for a less severe sanction.
of Public Act No. 2013. The acts of the affiants could not be delegated to anyone;
otherwise their representatives name should appear in the documents as the ones who
executed the same.
Hence, the Court finds Atty. Sabate Jr guilty for lack of diligence in the
observance of the Notarial Law.
Issues: Whether or not Atty. Manese is guilty of violation of the Notarial Law for
preparing and notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale without the presence of one of the
signatories?
Held: Yes. The Court sustains that the respondent's reckless act of notarizing the Deed
of Absolute Sale without ascertaining that the vendors-signatories were the very same
persons who executed it and personally appeared before him to attest to the
contents and truth of what were stated therein, he has undermined the confidence of
the public on notarial documents and he thereby breached Canon I of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the
laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes, and Rule 1.01
thereof which proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Thus, the Court finds the respondent guilty of violation of the Notarial Law and
the Code of Professional Responsibility.