31\epublic of tbe t1bihppineg

$Upreme QCourt
:§manila
SECOND DIVISION

ATTY. BRYAN S. LIM and A.C. No. 10793

NESTOR R. WONG,
Complainants,
Present:

- versus -
PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J,
Chairperson,
HERNANDO,
ATTY. JOSE C. TABILIRAN, INTING,
JR., DELOS SANTOS, and
Respondent. BALTAZAR-PADILLA,* JJ

Promulgated:
16 S
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Before the Court is an administrative complaint 1 for disbarment filed

on May 7, 2015 by complainants Atty. Bryan S. Lim (Atty. Lim) and Nestor
R. Wong (Nestor; collectively, complainants), before the Office of the Bar
Confidant, against respondent Atty. Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr. (respondent),
charging the latter with violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice (Notarial
Rules) and pertinent provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(Code) and immorality.

• On Leave.
1 Dated May 4, 20 15; rollo, pp. 1-5
Decision 2 A.C. No . 10793

The Facts

On separate occasions, 2 Nestor was appointed by his sisters, Elsa

Wong (Elsa) and Virginia Wong (Virginia), as their agent to sell their
respective properties in Laoy, San Antonio, Katipunan, Zamboanga Del
Norte . 3 On December 13, 2011, Nestor, in tu1n, appointed 4 a sub-agent,
Raquel Go Esturco (Esturco ), 5 who found a buyer (Naomi Jumanguin 6) for
Virginia's land. Accordingly, on January 3, 2012, Nestor signed the
corresponding Deed of Sale of Virginia's land, which was prepared and
notarized by respondent, a notary public. 7 After signing the Deed of Sale,
Nestor signed other documents given by Esturco, which the latter claimed to
be mere copies of the previous Deed of Sale. Thereafter, Nestor received the
amount of ?50,000.00 as the purchase price of the subject lot. 8

Several months later, Nestor was approached by Raul Jumanguin, the

buyer' s father, to borrow money and to disclose that Esturco showed him
several deeds of sale,9 namely: (a) Absolute Deed of Sale dated May 24,
2011, in favor ofEsturco; (b) Absolute Deed of Sale dated May 24, 2012, in
favor of Esturco; (c) Absolute Deed of Sale dated December 14, 2011, in
favor of Esturco and respondent ' s son, Venus Baybayan Tabiliran (Venus);
and (d) Absolute Deed of Sale dated February 20, 2012, in favor of Esturco
an d Venus. 10

Meanwhile, Esturco went to the Registry of Deeds to register the

Absolute Deed of Sale dated May 24, 2011. She was required by Atty. Lim,
the Acting Registrar of Deeds of the Province of Zamboanga del Norte, 11 to
indicate the name of her spouse but she refused and instead, withdrew all her
documents. Thereafter, on May 29, 2013, she filed a petition for mandamus,
and on September 27, 2013, a disbarment case, against Atty. Lim.

On March 23, 2014, Atty. Lim filed a counter-complaint 12 for

disbarment against respondent, 13 claiming that the latter notarized
documents with an expired commission, having been commissioned only for
February 12, 2007 until December 31, 2008; July 23, 2009 until December
31, 2010· March 31, 2011 until December 31, 2012; and August 28, 2013
until December 31, 2014, but nonetheless, notarized an Authorization on

Nestor was appointed by Elsa on November 19, 20 IO and by Virginia on December 9, 20 I I. Specia l
Power of Attorney dated November 19, 20 I 0, id. at 59: and Special Power of Attorney dated
Decemb r 9.201 1. id. at 69.
Id . at 5 -6 .
4 See Special Power of Attorney dated December 13, 20 I I: id. at 70.
Id . at 54 .
" As allegedly indicated in the Deed of Sale; id . al 556.
7
Id . at 556.
8
Id .
Id. at 556-557.
10 Id . at 557 .
11 ld.at361 .
12 Dated March 20, 2014: id . at 379-399 .
13 Id . at 557.
Deci s ion 3 A .C. No . 10793

March 18, 2011 and a Confirmation of Deed of Sale of Land in June 2013.
Atty. Lim also averred that respondent failed to timely file certified true
copies of the documents entered in his notarial register; falsified Nestor' s
Absolute Deed of Sale dated May 24, 2011; as well as falsified and
notarized two (2) deeds of sale in favor of Esturco and his own son, Venus. 14
Furthermore, it was alleged that respondent notarized instruments not in the
presence of Nestor, 15 and even filed false certified true copies of the
documents entered in his notarial register. 16

For his part, 17 respondent averred that: (a) the Confirmation of Deed
of Sale of Land 18 was signed by the parties sometime in June 2013 but was
actually notarized and recorded after the approval of his commission on
August 28, 2013; (b) the parties to the notarized documents were duly
apprised that he was waiting for the renewal of his commission; (c) he did
not falsify any documents since Nestor freely and voluntarily signed the
sam e at his office· and (d) the contract was not immoral, and he has not
committed any malpractice or gross misconduct in the exercise of his
19
pro,Cess1on.
·

In a Resolution 20 dated March 14, 2016, the Court referred the

administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, rep01i, and recommendation.

The IBP's Report and Recommendation

In a Report and Recommendation 21 dated October 3, 2018, the

Investigating Commissioner found respondent administratively liable for
violation of the Notarial Rules, the Code, and the Lawyer' s Oath, and
accordingly, recommended the penalty of two (2) years suspension from the
practice of law, with a warning that a commission of repeated or similar acts
will result in the imposition of a more severe penalty against him. 22

The Investigating Commissioner found that respondent: (a) notarized

documents with an expired notarial commission; (b) failed to submit to the
Clerk of Court the certified true copies of the documents entered in his
notarial register together with their duplicate original ; (c) assigned the same
notarial details to different documents; and (d) notarized documents in favor
of his son, Venus, who was privy thereto. In this regard, the Investigating

1" Id . at 557.
15 Id. at 379-380 .
16 See id . at 56 1.
17 ee respo ndent's co mme nt dated Se ptem ber 17 2014 , id . at 425-432 ; and Position Paper dated June 6,
20 17, id . at 503-509.
18 See id . at 387.
19 Id. at 558.
20 Id . at 122- 123 .
21 Id. at 555-564. ign<:'d by Commi ssio ner Suzette A. Mamon .
12 rd. at 564 .
Decis ion 4 A.C. No. I 0793

Commissioner further pointed out that respondent was already disqualified

from reappointment as notary public for a period of two (2) years in a June
17, 2016 Resolution of the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
Dipolog C ity, for violation of the same acts complained of in the instant
administrative case. As to the charge of immorality, however, the
Investigating Commissioner found insufficient evidence to prove the same.23

In a Resolution 24 dated November 7, 2018, the IBP Board of

Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner' s Report, with
modification, however, as regards the penalty, imposing instead, the penalty
of disbarment. 25

The Issue Before the Court

The essential issue for the Court ' s resolution is whether or not
respondent should be administratively sanctioned for the acts complained of.

The Court's Ruling

The Cou1t concurs and affirms the findings of the IBP Board of
Governors with modification as to the penalty.

It is well to stress that 'notarization is not an empty, meaningless,

routinary act, but one invested with substantive pub] ic interest. Notarization
converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in
evidence without fu1ther 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 a notary publi c must observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of his notarial duties ; otherwise, the
public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be
undermined. " 26

For being invested with public interest, the Notarial Rules provide that
only those who are dul y commissioned may act and serve as notaries
pub! ic. 27 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. 28

1: Id . at 559-563 .
24
ee Not ice of Reso lution in CB D Case No . 16-500 I issued by Ass istant Nationa l Secretary Dorotea
L.B. Aguil a; id. at 553-554.
25 Id . at 553.
26 Tr io/ v. Agcaoili, Jr.. G .R. No . 12011 , June 26. 2018 , 868 SCRA 175. 180 c iting Ilda. de Milter v.
Miranda. 772 Phil. 449. 455 (20 15).
27 ee Munw erto v. rJ lberto. A.C . No. 12289, April 2. 20 I 9.
28
ee Spouses Frias v. Abau, A . . No . 12467. April 10, 2019 .
Decision s A.C. o. 10793

In this case, the Court agrees with the findings of the Investigating
Commissioner, as affirmed by the IBP Board of Governors, that respondent
was indeed remiss in his duties as a notary public and as a lawyer. Records
reveal that respondent was issued a notarial c01nmission for the following
periods: February 12, 2007 until December 31, 2008; July 23, 2009 until
December 31, 2010; March 31,201 l until December 31, 2012; and August
28, 2013 until December 31, 2014. However, he notarized an Authorization
on March 18, 2011 and a Confirmation of Deed of Sale of Land in June
2013 , both of which were clearly done when he was not qualified or
authorized to do so. Notably anent respondent's claim that he had notarized
the latter document after his commission was issued on August 28, 2013 29
the Investigating Commissioner aptly observed:

While respondent admitted to having prepared the document he

deni d notarizing it on said month and year as he was allegedly processing
his notarial commission at that time and explained that he had notarized
the document after his com mi sion was issued on August 28, 2013. Again
reco rds proved that the Co11firmation of Deed of Sale of Land was received
by the Office of the Registry of Deeds of Zarnboanga del Norte on June
19, 2013 and annotated as Entry No. 9512 on June 19, 2013 at the back of
the Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-76725 (Exhibit " M '). As co1Tectly
observed by complainant [Nestor] Wong and Lim, the said document was
the basis for the cancellation of the said title and issuance of a new one to
the buyer and submitted to the Registry of Deeds on June 19, 2013 , hence
it was notarized on or before June 19, 2013 or dw-ing the time respondent
had no valid notarial commission. 30 (Emphases supplied)

It is settled that by performing notarial acts without the necessary

commission from the court a lawyer violates 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 3 1
as in this case.

To expound, in Nunga v. Atty. Viray, 32 the Court held that where the
notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a
time when he has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may
be subjected to disciplinary action. For one, performing a notarial [act]
without such commission is a violation of the lawyer's oath to obey the
laws, more specifically the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear
that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and
purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath
similarly proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which

29 See respon dent ' s pos ition paper; rollo, pp . 503-509.

,u Id . at 559-560.
, I
·' Supra.
·1 ~ 366Phil.15 5( 1999).
Decision 6 A.C. No. 10793

provides: "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful conduct. " 33

Also, as found by the Investigating Commissioner, respondent failed

to observe the obligations imposed upon him under Ru le VI of the Notarial
Rules, to wit:

Section 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. x x x

xxx x

(e) 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. o blank line shall be
left between entries.

x x xx

(h) A ce1·tified copy of each month's entries and a duplicate

original copy of any instrument acknowledged before the
notary public shall, within the first ten (10) days of the
month following, be forwarded to the Clerk of Court and
shall be under the responsibi lity of such officer. If there is no
entry to certify for the month, the notary shall forward a
statement to this effect in lieu of certified copies herein
· required. (Emphases supplied)

Here, the Clerk of Court certified that as of March l l, 2014,

respondent has not submitted copjes of any documents which he notarized
from August 28, 2013 until December 31 , 2014, 34 contrary to Section 2 (3),
Rule VI above. Moreover, when respondent eventually submitted his
notarial documents to the Clerk of Court sometime in March 2015, it was
discovered that the same notarial details were assigned by respondent to
different documents in violation of Section 2 (h), Rule VI. As enumerated
by the Investigating Commissioner, these documents are:

Common Notarial Documents obtained Clerk of Court's

Registry No. by Complainants Records
Doc . No. 85; Special Power of Doc. No . 85;
Page No . 22 ; Attorney dated Deed of Sale Lot 6-A
Book No. VI December 13 , 2011
Doc. No. 85-A:
Absolute Deed of Sale Absolute Deed of Sale
dated January 3, 2012 dated January 3, 2012
Doc. No. 11; Special Power of Deed of Installation
Page No. 8; Attorney dated April Sale of Lot 1503-A

3' Id . at 16 1.
34 See Ce rt ific a tion dated March I I, 2014; rollo, p. 443 .
Decision 7 A.C. o. 10793

Book No. VI; 29, 2011 by Nestor dated December 12,

Series of 2011 Wong 2011 by Nestor Wong
Doc. No. 151; Authorization dated Confirmation dated
...,
Page No . 36; August 8, 2012 by August .) ' 2012 by
Book No. VI; Nestor Wong Nicolas Torot, Dionisio
Series of 2012 Torot, and Romulo
Torot
Doc. No . 18; Absolute Deed of Sale Absolute Deed of Sale
Page No. 9; dated May 24, 2011 by dated May 24, 2012 by
Book No . VI; Nestor Wong Nestor Wong
Series of 2011
Doc. No. 82; Absolute Deed of Sale Affidavit of Late
Page No . 22; dated December 14, Registration dated
Book No. VI; 2011 in favor of Raquel December 15, 2011 by
Series of 2011 Go Esturco and Venus Liezyl Capinig
Baybayan Tabiliran Delegencia
Doc. No. 96; Absolute Deed of Sale Deed of Sale of
Page No. 25; dated February 20, Inheritance Share dated
Book No . VI; 2012 in favor of Raquel February 18, 2012 by
Series of 2012 Go Esturco and Venus Welfredo Elopre and
Baybayan Tabiliran Ronald Elopre

Evidently, the above-mentioned acts of respondent are in violation of

Section 2 ( e) and Section 2 (h), Rule VI of the Notarial Rules. In this regard,
jurisprudence provides that failure to strictly comply with the rules on
notarial practice seriously undermines the dependability and efficacy of
notarized documents, and thus, is inexcusable and constitutes gross
negligence in carefully discharging his duties as a notary public.35

In addition, it is undisputed that respondent notarized two (2) deeds of

sale in favor of his son, Venus, who was privy thereto . Clearly, this is a
violation of Section 3 (c), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules, which states that a
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". Thus, given
the express disqualification of the Notarial Rules, it was incumbent upon
respondent to have acted with prudence and as such, should have refused
notarizing the said documents in compliance with the Notarial Rules.

Meanwhile, as to the charge of immorality, it must be stressed that the

burden of proof rests on the complainants, and they must establish the case
against respondent by clear, convirn~ing and satisfactory proof, disclosing a
case that is free from doubt as to compel the exercise by the Court of its
disciplinary power. 36 As such, the Cou1i agrees with the findings of the
Investigating Commissioner, as affirmed by the IBP Board of Governors,

35 See Roa-Buenafe v. Lirazan, A.C. No . 936 l , March 20, 20 I 9.

36 Id .. citing Sappayani v. Gasmen 768 Phil. I (20 15).
Decision 8 A.C . No. 10793

that the evidence presented by the complainants are insufficient to prove

their allegation; thus, respondent cannot be held liable on this charge.

Anent the proper penalty to be imposed upon respondent, the Court

finds the need to modify the penalty recommended by the IBP. The Court
has ruled that a notary public who fails to discharge his duties as such is
meted out the following penalties : (1) revocation of notarial commission; (2)
disqualification from being commissioned as notary public; and (3)
suspension from the practice of law - the tenns of which vary based on the
circumstances of each case. 37 Accordingly, in line with existing
jurisprudence, 38 and considering the circumstances and the extent of
respondent's willful malfeasance, the Court finds that the penalties of
permanent disqualification from being commissioned as notary public and
suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years are proper. 39

As a final note, it must be emphasized that membership in the legal

profession is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer is required to
observe the law and be mindful of his or her actions whether acting in a
public or private capacity. Any transgression of this duty on his part would
not only diminish his reputation as a lawyer but would also erode the
public's faith in the legal profession as a whole. 40 As such, the Court will
not hesitate to impose the necessary penalty to a lawyer whose conduct falls
short of the exacting standards expected of him as a member of the bar. 41

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty . Jose C. Tabiliran Jr. is hereby

SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years; his
notarial commission, if still existing, is REVOKED; and he is
PERMANENTLY BARRED from being commissioned as notary public.
He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act will
be dealt with more severely.

The suspension in the practice of law shall take effect immediately

upon receipt of this Decision by respondent. He is DIRECTED to
immediately file a Manifestation to the Court that his suspension has started,
copy furnished all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered his
appearance as counsel.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to: (1) the Office of the Bar
Confidant to be appended to respondent's personal record as an attorney; (2)
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its information and guidance; and
(3) the Office of the Comi Administrator for circulation to all courts in the
country.

37 Id ., cit ing Sappayam v. Gasmen, id . at 9.

38 See Spouses Cacuya v. Solbita. 782 Phi l. 253 (2016). see also Tan v. Gonzales , 557 Phil. 496 (2007),
see also Zorela v. Simpliciano, 485 Phil. 395 (2004).
39 Id.
40 See Nulada v. Paulma, 784 Phil. 309, 317 (201 6).
41 Seeid.at3l7-318 .
 Decision 9 A.C. No. I 0793

SO ORDERED.

ESTELA~l~t<s'-BERNABE
Senior Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

HENR B. INTCNG EDGAJ~SSANTOS

Associate Justice Associate Justice

On Leave
PRISCILLA J. BALTAZAR-PADILLA
Associate Justice