Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Santiago Vs Rafanan

    Uploaded by

    Nicole Marie Abella Cortes
    370 views1 page
    Jonar Santiago filed a complaint against Atty. Edison Rafanan alleging that Rafanan failed to properly notarize several documents by not including details like the affiants' community tax certificates or entering the notarized documents in the notarial register. Rafanan admitted to notarizing the documents but believed notation of residence certificates was not required for affidavits related to court cases. The court held that Rafanan violated the Notarial Law by failing to include required notations and information. As a lawyer and notary, Rafanan had a responsibility to follow the law, and his excuse showed ignorance of notarial requirements. Rafanan was found guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the Code

    Original Description:

    Basic Legal Ethics

    Original Title

    Santiago vs Rafanan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Jonar Santiago filed a complaint against Atty. Edison Rafanan alleging that Rafanan failed to properly notarize several documents by not including details like the affiants' community tax certificates or entering the notarized documents in the notarial register. Rafanan admitted to notarizing the documents but believed notation of residence certificates was not required for affidavits related to court cases. The court held that Rafanan violated the Notarial Law by failing to include required notations and information. As a lawyer and notary, Rafanan had a responsibility to follow the law, and his excuse showed ignorance of notarial requirements. Rafanan was found guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the Code

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    370 views1 page

    Santiago Vs Rafanan

    Uploaded by

    Nicole Marie Abella Cortes
    Jonar Santiago filed a complaint against Atty. Edison Rafanan alleging that Rafanan failed to properly notarize several documents by not including details like the affiants' community tax certificates or entering the notarized documents in the notarial register. Rafanan admitted to notarizing the documents but believed notation of residence certificates was not required for affidavits related to court cases. The court held that Rafanan violated the Notarial Law by failing to include required notations and information. As a lawyer and notary, Rafanan had a responsibility to follow the law, and his excuse showed ignorance of notarial requirements. Rafanan was found guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the Code

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    JONAR SANTIAGO VS. ATTY. EDISON V.

    RAFANAN
    A.C. NO. 6252, October 5, 2004, THIRD DIVISION, (Panganiban, J.)

    FACTS:

    Santiago filed a complaint against Atty. Rafanan alleging that in notarizing several
    documents on different dates he failed or/and refused to: (a) make proper notation regarding the
    cedula or community tax certificate of the affiants; (b) enter the details of the notarized
    documents in the notarial register, and (c) make and execute the certification and enter his PTR
    and IBP numbers in the documents he had notarized.

    Rafanan admitted to having administered the oath to affiants whose Affidavits were
    attached to the verified Complaint. However, he believed that the non-notation of their
    Residence Certificates in the Affidavits and the Counter-Affidavits was allowed. He opined that
    the notation of the residence certificates applied only to documents acknowledged by a notary
    public and was not mandatory for affidavits related to cases pending before the courts and other
    government agencies.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Atty. Edison V. Rafanan is liable for malpractice or other gross
    misconduct in office?

    HELD:

    Yes. It is clear from the pleadings before us – and respondent has readily admitted – that
    he violated the Notarial Law by failing to enter the documents notations of the residence
    certificate, as well as the entry number and the pages of the notarial registry.

    Where notaries public are lawyers, a graver responsibility is placed upon them by reason
    of their solemn oath to obey the laws. No custom or age-old practice provides sufficient excuse
    or justification for their failure to adhere to the provisions of the law. In this case, the excuse
    given by respondent exhibited clear ignorance of the Notarial Law, the Rules of Criminal
    Procedure, and the importance of his office as a notary public.

    WHEREFORE, Atty. Edison V. Rafanan is found guilty of violating the Notarial Law
    and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby fined P3,000 with a
    warning that similar infractions in the future will be dealt with more severely.

    You might also like