LUZVIMINDA R. LUSTESTICA v. ATTY. SERGIO E.

BERNABE,
AC. No. 6258, 2010-08-24
Facts:
For consideration is the disbarment complaint filed by Luzviminda R. Lustestica
(complainant) against Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe (respondent) for notarizing a
falsified or forged Deed of Donation of real property despite the non-appearance of
the... donors, Benvenuto H. Lustestica (complainant's father) and his first wife,
Cornelia P. Rivero, both of whom were already dead at the time of execution of the
said document.
In his Answer,[1] the respondent admitted the fact of death of Benvenuto H.
Lustestica and Cornelia P. Rivero, considering their death certificates attached to
the complaint.  The respondent claimed, however, that he had no knowledge that
the real
Benvenuto H. Lustestica and Cornelia P. Rivero were already dead at the time he
notarized the Deed of Donation.[2] He also claimed that he exerted efforts to
ascertain the identities of the persons who appeared before him and represented
themselves as the... donors under the Deed of Donation.[3]... fter the submission of
the respondent's Answer to the complaint, the Court referred the matter to the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline) for investigation, evaluation and recommendation. 
The IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline made the following findings:
The core issue is whether or not Respondent committed a falsehood in violation of
his oath as a lawyer and his duties as Notary Public when he notarized the Deed of
Donation purportedly executed by Benvenuto H. Lustestica and Cornelia P. Rivero
as the donors and
Cecilio R. Lustestica and Juliana Lustestica as the donees on 5 August 1994.
As correctly observed by Complainant, Respondent's Acknowledgment is the best
evidence that NO RESIDENCE CERTIFICATES were presented by the alleged
donors and the donees
IBP Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. found the respondent grossly negligent
in the performance of his duties as notary public and recommended that the
respondent's notarial commission be suspended for a period of one (1) year. The
IBP
Commissioner also recommended that a penalty ranging from reprimand to
suspension be imposed against the respondent, with a warning that a similar
conduct in the future will warrant an imposition of a more severe penalty.[5]
By Resolution No. XVII-2005-116 dated October 22, 2005, the Board of
Governors of the IBP Commissi
In his Report dated August 15, 2005, IBP Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr.
found the respondent grossly negligent in the performance of his duties as notary
public and recommended that the respondent's notarial commission be suspended
for a period of one (1) year. The IBP
Commissioner also recommended that a penalty ranging from reprimand to
suspension be imposed against the respondent, with a warning that a similar
conduct in the future will warrant an imposition of a more severe penalty.[5]
By Resolution No. XVII-2005-116 dated October 22, 2005, the Board of
Governors of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline adopted and approved the
Report of the IBP Commissioner.  The pertinent portion of this Resolution reads:
Second, on January 6, 2006, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of
Resolution No. XVII-2005-116 before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
The motion was denied in Resolution No. XVII-2006-81, dated January 28, 2006,
[8] for lack of jurisdiction of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, since the
administrative matter had then been endorsed to the Court.
a motion for reconsideration (the same as the one filed with the IBP Commission
on Bar Discipline) was filed by the respondent before the Court.
In a Minute Resolution dated March 22, 2006, the Court noted the findings and
recommendations... in Resolution No. XVII-2005-116 and required the
complainant to file her Comment to the respondent's motion for reconsideration.
On April 28, 2006, the complainant filed her Comment praying for the denial of
the motion.
Issues:
whether or not Respondent committed a falsehood in violation of his oath as a
lawyer and his duties as Notary Public when he notarized the Deed of Donation
purportedly executed by Benvenuto H. Lustestica and Cornelia P. Rivero as the
donors and
Cecilio R. Lustestica and Juliana Lustestica as the donees on 5 August 1994.

Ruling:
The findings of the Board of Governors of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
are well-taken. We cannot overemphasize the important role a notary public
performs... we stressed that notarization is not an empty,... meaningless routinary
act butone invested with substantive public interest.
The records undeniably show the gross negligence exhibited by the respondent in
discharging his duties as a notary public.
Under the circumstances, we find that the respondent should be made liable not
only as a notary public but also as a lawyer. He not only violated the Notarial Law
(Public Act No. 2103), but also Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
we find the IBP's recommendation to be very light; it is not commensurate with his
demonstrated predisposition to undertake the duties of a notary public and a lawyer
lightly.
he circumstances in the present case, we find that Atty. Bernabe should be
disbarred from the practice of law and perpetually disqualified from being
commissioned as a notary public.  We emphasize that... this is respondent's second
offense and while he does not appear to have any participation in the falsification
of the Deed of Donation, his contribution was his gross negligence for failing to
ascertain the identity of the persons who appeared before him as the donors.

FABAY v. RESUENA
A.C. No. 8723
 
FACTS:
A Complaint for Disbarment filed by Gregory Fabay (Fabay) against
respondent Atty. Rex A. Resuena for Gross Misconduct due to the
unauthorized notarization of documents.
Virginia Perez, Marcella Perez, Amador Perez, Gloria Perez, Gracia Perez and
Valentino Perez (plaintiffs) filed a complaint for ejectment/forcible entry against
Gregory Fabay with respondent Atty. Resuena as their counsel.
Atty. Resuena notarized a special power of attorney (SPA) with plaintiffs as
grantors, in favor of Apolo D. Perez. However, it appeared that it was only
Remedios Perez who actually signed the SPA in behalf of Amador Perez,
Valentino Perez, Gloria Perez and Gracia Perez.
The ejectment case was later on decided in favor of the client of Atty. Resuena. On
appeal, the RTC ordered the case to be remanded to the court a quo to try the case
on the merits. The trial court noted that both Amador Perez and Valentino Perez
have already died.
Complainant alleged that Atty. Resuena violated the provisions of the Notarial
Law by notarizing a special power of attorney notwithstanding the fact that
two of the principals therein were already dead long before the execution of
the SPA.
Complainant added that Atty. Resuena likewise notarized a complaint for
ejectment in 2003 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.
Further, complainant averred that Atty. Resuena, as counsel of the plainfiffs,
participated in the barangay conciliations which is prohibited under the law.
Atty. Resuena explained that although it was just Remedios Perez who signed the
SPA on behalf of Amador Perez, Valentino Perez, Gloria Perez and Gracia Perez,
there was no misrepresentation since Remedios Perez is the spouse of Amador
Perez and she was likewise previously authorized by the other co-owners, Gloria
Perez and Gracia Perez, to represent them.
Atty. Resuena denied that he participated in the barangay conciliations and
presented the certificate issued by the barangay captain showing that there was no
record of his attendance during the confrontations of the parties before the
barangay.
IBP-CBD found Atty. Resuena to have violated the provisions of the notarial law.
The IBP-CBD recommended that his notarial commission be revoked and that he
be disqualified to be commissioned as notary public for one (1) year.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Resuena was guilty of Gross Misconduct due to the unauthorized
notarization of documents.
HELD:
YES.
RATIO:
Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice stresses the
necessity of the affiant’s personal appearance before the notary public:
xxxx
(b) 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 as defined by these
Rules.
In the instant case, it is undisputed that Atty. Resuena violated not only the
notarial law but also his oath as a lawyer when he notarized the subject SPA
without all the affiant’s personal appearance.
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.
A graver responsibility is placed upon Atty. Resuena by reason of his solemn
oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any.
The Code of Professional Responsibility (Rule 1.01 of Canon 1) also
commands lawyers not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct and to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession.
Moreover, the Notarial Law and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice require a
duly-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 revocation of commission or imposition of
administrative sanction. Unfortunately, Atty. Resuena failed in both respects.
DISPOSITION: Atty. Rex A. Resuena is found GUILTY of malpractice as a
notary public, and of violating the lawyer’s oath as well as Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is DISBARRED from
the practice of law and likewise PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from being
commissioned as a notary public.

BERNARD N. JANDOQUILE vs. ATTY. QUIRINO P. REVILLA, JR.

A.C. No. 9514 April 10, 2013
Facts:
Atty. Revilla, Jr. notarized a complaint-affidavit signed by Heneraline L. Brosas,
Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa and Elmer L. Alvarado. Heneraline Brosas is a sister of
Heizel Wynda Brosas Revilla, Atty. Revilla, Jr.'s wife. Jandoquile complains that
Atty. Revilla, Jr. is disqualified to perform the notarization in violation of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice providing for the disqualification from performing
notarial services if he is a relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal
within the fourth civil degree Jandoquile further complained with regard to Atty.
Revilla’s act of notarizing the complaint-affidavit without requiring the affiants’
presentation of valid IDs. Atty. Revilla posited that the notarization of the
complaint-affidavit was made in his capacity as the counsel of the complainants
executing the affidavit and the fact that he did not require the presentation of IDs
was due to him knowing the affiants personally.

Issue:
Whether or not the acts complained of may be grounds for the disbarment of Atty.
Revilla.

Ruling:
No. Atty. Revilla, Jr.’s violation of the aforesaid disqualification rule is beyond
dispute. Atty. Revilla, Jr. readily admitted that he notarized the complaint-affidavit
signed by his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. Section 3(c), Rule
IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly disqualifies him from notarizing
the complaint-affidavit, from performing the notarial act, since two of the affiants
or principals are his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. This,
however is not a ground for disbarment. A "jurat" refers to an act in which an
individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary public and
presents an instrument or document; (b) is personally known to the notary public or
identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity; (c) signs
the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and (d) takes an oath or
affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document. In this
case, Heneraline Brosas is a sister of Atty. Revilla, Jr.’s wife; Herizalyn Brosas
Pedrosa is his wife’s sister-in-law; and Elmer Alvarado is the live-in houseboy of
the Brosas family. Atty. Revilla, Jr. knows the three affiants personally. Thus, he
was justified in no longer requiring them to show 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. was clearly disqualified to notarize the
complaint-affidavit of his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. While
he has a valid defense as to the second charge, it does not exempt him from
liability for violating the disqualification rule. Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr., is
reprimanded and disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public, or from
performing any notarial act if he is presently commissioned as a notary public, for
a period of three months and is to inform the Court, through an affidavit once the
period of his disqualification has lapsed.

Alfredo Bon vs. Atty. Victor S. Ziga and Atty. Antonio A. Arcangel,
A.C. No. 5436,
May 27, 2004
Facts:

According to the complainant, the Bons signed the Waiver and Quitclaim because

of Atty. Ziga’s representation that the document was merely a withdrawal of a
previously executed Special Power of Attorney.  As it turned out, however, the
document was a waiver in favor of Ziga of all the properties which the Bons
inherited from their parents and predecessors-in-interest.   

Atty. Arcangel’s part, he explained that assuming that he notarized the Waiver and
Quitclaim in the absence of the signatories, his act is merely a violation of the
Notarial Law but not a ground for disbarment.  He further avers that he was able to
talk to Maria Bon and Rafael Bon-Canafe, both co-signatories to the document,
over the phone.  Maria Bon and Rafael Bon-Canafe allegedly declared that they
signed the Waiver and Quitclaim.  The two, in fact, personally delivered the
document for notarization in his office.  Thus, he posits that there was substantial
compliance with the Notarial Law since a notary public’s primordial undertaking is
merely to ensure that the signatures on a document are genuine.  As long as they
are so, the notary public can allegedly take the risk of notarizing the document
although the signatories are not present.

Issue:
Whether or not Respondents fraudulently executed the Waiver and Quitclaim

Held:

Atty. Ziga, on his part, is not culpable. The fact that Amalia and Angelina Bon are
both high school graduates, while Teresa Bon is a college graduate makes it
difficult to believe that they were deceived into thinking that the contents of
the Waiver and Quitclaim, which is plainly worded, were other than what they
themselves could have easily ascertained from a reading of the document. The
complaintagainst him is thus, dismissed for lack of merit.

               Atty. Arcangel, however, in notarizing the Waiver and Quitclaim without

requiring all the persons who executed the document to personally appear before
him and acknowledge that the same is their free act and deed, manifestly breached
his duty as a notary public.

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.  Notarization converts a private document into a public
document thus making that document admissible in evidence without further proof
of its authenticity.  A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit
upon its face.  Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able
to rely upon the acknowledgement executed by a notary public and appended to a
private instrument. For this reason, 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.

FELIPE B. ALMAZAN, SR., vs. ATTY. MARCELO B. SUERTE-FELIPE

A.C. No. 7184

Facts:
Atty. Almazan charged Atty. Felipe of malpractice and gross negligence in the
performance of his duty as a notary public and/or lawyer, alleging that despite not
being qualified to notarize documents within the City of Marikina, Atty. Felipe
notarized the acknowledgment of the document entitled “Extra Judicial Settlement
of the Estate of the Deceased Juliana P. Vda. De Nieva” dated “25 th day of 1999,”
stating that he is a “notary public for and in the City of Marikina.” This document
was one of the attachments to a civil case against Almazan’s client. To support
Atty. Almazan’s complaint is a certification from the Marikina RTC that Atty.
Felipe is not a commissioned notary public of their jurisdiction.
Furthermore, Atty. Felipe notarized an incompletely dated document.
Atty. Felipe interposed the defense that he is indeed a commissioned notary public
for and in Pasig City, Municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan and
Mandaluyong for 1998 to 1999 by virtue of Appointment No. 98. He also filed an
administrative complaint against Almazan for malpractice and harassment of a
fellow lawyer.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Felipe is administratively liable

Ruling:
Yes. The IBP found Felipe guilty of violating the Notarial Law and his Lawyer’s
Oath as he could not notarize the acknowledgment of the said document since
Marikina City is outside the territorial limits of his jurisdiction. The territorial
limitation of a notary public’s jurisdiction is crystal clear from Section 11, Rule III
of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, particularly Sec. 11 on the notary public’s
jurisdiction and term.
Atty. Felipe committed a form of falsehood in violation of his Lawyer’s Oath when
he misrepresented in the acknowledgment that he was authorized to notarize the
said document. This is also in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. 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.
Atty. Felipe’s liability, considering further the attendant for instance, that he is a
first time offender and that he had already acknowledged his wrongdoings, a
suspension for a period of six months from the practice of law would suffice as a
penalty. In addition, he is disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public
for a period of one year and, his notarial commission, if currently existing, is
hereby revoked.