FIRST DIVISION same or a refund of his payment.

The rebuff, according to complainant,

impelled him to file a case for estafa with the Office of the City Prosecutor of
TAN TIONG BIO a.k.a. HENRY TAN, Pasig City.
Complainant,
- versus - In connection with the estafa charge, so complainant claims, Ms. Bondoc,
ATTY. RENATO L. GONZALES, signatory (for FEGDI as vendor) to Deed 1108, executed a counter-affidavit
Respondent. therein stating that she had not personally met nor transacted with the
A.C. No. 6634 complainant either with respect to the negotiations for the sale of the land
Promulgated: covered by TCT No. T-427206 nor during the execution of Deed 1108.
August 23, 2007 Complainant would add, however, that Ms. Bondoc admitted that she and the
DECISION complainant did sign the said deed of sale, but at different times and in
GARCIA, J.: different places, and not in each others presence,[4] like other signed
Under consideration is this complaint[1] for disbarment filed by Tan Tiong hundreds of deeds (of sale) over other documents for our behalf of the
Bio, a.k.a. Henry Tan, against Atty. Renato L. Gonzales for allegedly President [of Fil-Estate] with buyers [she] had never (even) met.[5]
notarizing a conveying deed outside the territory covered by his notarial
commission and without requiring the personal presence before him of the It is on the basis of Ms. Bondocs foregoing statements that complainant
signatories to the deed before notarizing the same, in violation of the Notarial initiated the present disbarment case before the Integrated Bar of the
Law and the lawyers oath. Philippines (IBP), it being his posture that respondent Gonzales notarized
Deed 1108 without requiring him, or Ms. Bondoc, to appear and
As records reveal, complainant purchased several parcels of land at the acknowledge before him the due and voluntary execution thereof, a practice
Manila Southwoods Residential Estates (Southwoods, for short), a mix not only violative of the Notarial Law, but detrimental to his interests and
residential-commercial complex situated in Carmona, Cavite owned/operated those similarly situated as well.
by Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc. (FEGDI) and Fil-Estate Properties,
Inc. (FEPI). FEPI has its office at Renaissance Towers, Meralco Avenue, Respondent, in his Verified Answer,[6] was less than categorical on the
Pasig City. In one of the transactions adverted to, complainant, as vendee, matter of whether or not complainant and Ms. Bondoc, vis--vis Deed 1108,
was made to sign and execute Deed of Sale No. 1108[2] (Deed 1108, indeed appeared before him and attested to the contents and the truth of
hereinafter) covering a lot described in and covered by the vendors Transfer what are stated in the deed. Instead, he alleged as follows:
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-427206. Following payment of the contract
price in full, including miscellaneous expenses, TCT No. 968702 in 10. Because of the hundreds of documents I have notarized, I do not recall
complainants name was delivered to him with the corresponding completed with absolute certainty the details of the notarization ceremony of the Deed of
deed of sale. Respondent Renato L. Gonzales, employed as corporate Absolute Sale in question. Nevertheless, what I do know is that I have
counsel for FEPI and appointed/reappointed from 1996 to 2001 as notary personally met both complainant and Atty. Bondoc and notarized documents
public for Quezon City[3], was the notarizing officer of Deed 1108 on which which they had acknowledged. Based on the admissions of both the
the name and signature of Alice Odchigue-Bondoc (Bondoc) appear as the complainant and Atty. Bondoc that they have not personally met, it appears
vendors authorized representative. that in notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale in question, both complainant
and Atty. Bondoc appeared before me and signed, but at different times.
As complainant would allege in his Complaint Affidavit dated November 17,
2003, and its annexes, sometime in 1995, he made another Southwoods 11. As a matter of practice, I require the personal appearance of all parties
purchase covering Lot 10, Block 27, Phase 3 (or Lot 10). Several years who seek to have deeds of sale notarized. However, the parties need not
following his payment of the amount of P2,068,523, representing the full necessarily sign and acknowledge their acts in one anothers presence. xxx
purchase price for Lot 10 and after he had signed a deed with the space for
the title number and technical description left in blank, complainant 13. Thus, complainant cannot dispute that both signatories to the Deed of
repeatedly asked for but was not able to secure a certificate of title for the Absolute Sale personally appeared before me ., albeit at different times. That
is all that is required by law. The fact that the signatories to the Deed signed We agree.
and acknowledged the same on different occasions is of no moment, and
certainly does not constitute misconduct on my part. As aptly found by the Investigating Commissioner, delving on the second part
xxxxxxxxx of the recommendation, complainant failed to substantiate with competent
proof his allegations that respondent performed the notarial procedure on
15. The only basis for the charge of professional misconduct against me is Deed 1108 without his (complainant) being present to acknowledge the due
that I allowed the signatories to acknowledge their signatures on the Deed of execution thereof. Being a notarized document, Deed 1108 and the
Absolute Sale at different times. However, complainant fails to cite any law or solemnities attending its execution are disputably presumed to be regular.[8]
rule which obliges a notary public to require the parties to the instrument to Absent convincing evidence to the contrary, the certification in Deed 1108
simultaneously appear before him, as in fact, there is none. Thus, even if I that the vendor and the vendee personally appeared before the respondent
did not require complainant and Atty. Bondoc to personally appear before me to acknowledge the same must be upheld. As we said in Vda. De Rosales v.
at the same time, I cannot be faulted for such, as I am not required to do Ramos,[9] when a notary certifies to the due execution and delivery of the
so.[7] document under his hand and seal, the document thus notarized is converted
into a public document. To us and to the Investigating Commissioner,[10] the
The respondent parlays in his answer the idea of laches, arguing that the declaration of Ms. Bondoc in her counter-affidavit before the prosecutors
transaction in question took place in 2001, while complainant initiated the office is not the clear and convincing evidence required to overturn the
disbarment charge only in November 2003. presumption of regularity. Ms. Bondocs declaration that she had not met or
dealt directly with Southwoods buyers does not necessarily prove that such
At the preliminary conference before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline buyers and FEPIs representatives in the purchase did not in fact appear
(Commission), complainant and respondent entered into the following before the notary public to acknowledge the fact of contract execution before
stipulation of facts, to wit: him. If at all, Ms. Bondocs declaration simply means that she has not
personally met the buyers, or, with like effect, that she, as representative of
[T]he Deed of Absolute Sale No. 1108 was duly executed by Mr. Henry Tan the seller, has not appeared together with the buyers before the notarizing
and Atty. Alice Odchigue-Bondoc as authorized signatory of the seller; that officer. As it were, the Notarial Law is silent as to whether or not the parties
the subject document was notarized by respondent as document no. 367, to a conveying instrument must be present before the notary public at the
page no. 74, book no. 8, series of 2001 of his notarial register; that same time when they acknowledge its due execution.
respondent admits that his notarial appointment covers Quezon City and that
the subject document was notarized in Pasig City, specifically, at the There can be quibbling, however, that the respondent breached the
Renaissance Tower; and that the parties admit that Atty. Alice Odchigue- injunction against notarizing a document in a place outside ones commission.
Bondoc and Henry Tan Tan were not present at the same time when the As reported by the Investigating Commissioner, respondent acknowledged
subject document was notarized xxx (Underscoring added.) that from February 1, 1996 to September 30, 2001, within which period Deed
1108 was notarized, his notarial commission then issued was for Quezon
After due hearings, Investigating Commissioner Doroteo B. Aguila submitted City.[11] Deed 1108 was, however, notarized in Pasig City. To compound
his REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION dated August 27, 2004, which, as matters, he admitted having notarized hundreds of documents in Pasig City,
approved by the IBP Director for Bar Discipline, was forwarded to the Court. where he used to hold office, [12] during the period that his notarial
commission was only for and within Quezon City.
In the report, the Commission recommended that respondent be adjudged
liable and penalized for violating the rule proscribing one from acting as a While seemingly appearing to be a harmless incident, respondents act of
notary outside the area covered by his commission, but recommended the notarizing documents in a place outside of or beyond the authority granted by
dismissal of the complaint insofar as it charges the respondent for notarizing his notarial commission, partakes of malpractice of law and falsification.
a document without the personal appearance before him of the party- While perhaps not on all fours because of the slight dissimilarity in the
signatories thereto. violation involved, what the Court said in Nunga v. Viray [13] is very much
apropos:
Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine imposed only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing
Bar at a time when he has no authorization or commission to do so, the and character of a respondent as an officer of the court and as a member of
offender may be subjected to disciplinary action. For one, performing a the bar. Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser penalty, such
notarial [act] without such commission is a violation of the lawyers oath to as temporary suspension, could accomplish the end desired.[18]
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 The IBP Report recommended the revocation of respondents commission as
intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyers a notary public (in any jurisdiction), if still existing, and that he henceforth be
oath similarly proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the prohibition disqualified from being commissioned as such for a period of one (1) year. A
of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which one-month suspension from the practice of law for violation of Canon 1[19]
provides: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or and Rule 1.01[20] of the Code of Professional Responsibility is also
deceitful conduct. recommended for the respondent.

It cannot be over-emphasized that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, In Zoreta v. Simpliciano,[21] the Court meted the penalty of two (2) years
routinary act. Far from it. Notarization is invested with substantive public suspension from law practice on Atty. Simpliciano as well as his permanent
interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for notarizing
notaries public.[14] Hence, the requirements for the issuance of a several documents after his commission as notary public had already
commission as notary public are treated with a formality definitely more than expired.
casual.[15]
Considering the circumstances and the extent of respondents willful
For all legal intents and purposes, respondent, by performing through the malfeasance, and guided by Zoreta, a penalty higher than that recommended
years notarial acts in Pasig City where he is not so authorized, has indulged by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline ought to be imposed.
in deliberate falsehood. By such malpractice as a notary public, respondent
likewise violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Renato L. Gonzales is PERMANENTLY
directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal BARRED from being commissioned as Notary Public. He is furthermore
profession. SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, effective
upon receipt of a copy of this Decision.
To be sure, respondent cannot plausibly seek refuge in the complainants
alleged delay in filing the instant complaint for disbarment. He cannot, as a Let copies of this Decision be furnished all the courts of the land, through the
means to defeat the present charge, invoke the complainants ill-motive in Office of the Court Administrator, as well as the Integrated Bar of the
filing said complaint. We have, time and again, held that the Courts Philippines, and let the Office of the Bar Confidant be notified of this Decision
disciplinary authority cannot be defeated or frustrated by a mere delay in which is hereby ordered duly recorded in the personal files of the respondent.
filing the complaint, or by the complainants motivation to do so. The practice
of law is so delicately affected by public interest that it is both a right and a SO ORDERED.
duty of the State to control and regulate it in order to protect and promote
public welfare.[16] Indeed, we have held that an administrative complaint
against a member of the bar does not prescribe.[17]

Needless to stress, respondent cannot escape from disciplinary action in his

capacity as member of the bar and as a notary public. His proven
transgression does not, however, merit disbarment, as urged by the
complainant. This most severe form of disciplinary sanction ought to be
A.C. No. 7781 September 12, 2008 and assurance of Zenaida Navarro that the signatures and the community
DOLORES L. DELA CRUZ, ET AL. vs. ATTY. JOSE R. DIMAANO, JR. tax certificates appearing in the document were true and correct." Navarro
Republic of the Philippines would not, according to respondent, lie to him having known, and being
SUPREME COURT neighbors of, each other for 30 years. Finally, respondent disclaimed liability
Manila for any damage or injury considering that the falsified document had been
revoked and canceled.
SECOND DIVISION
In his Report and Recommendation, the Investigating Commissioner of the
A.C. No. 7781 September 12, 2008 Office of the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), found the following as established: (1) the questioned document bore
DOLORES L. DELA CRUZ, MILAGROS L. PRINCIPE, NARCISA L. the signatures and community tax certificates of, and purports to have been
FAUSTINO, JORGE V. LEGASPI, and JUANITO V. LEGASPI, complainants, executed by, complainants and Navarro; (2) respondent indeed notarized the
vs. questioned document on July 16, 2004; (3) complainants did not appear and
ATTY. JOSE R. DIMAANO, JR., respondent. acknowledge the document before respondent on July 16, 2004; (4)
respondent notarized the questioned document only on Navarro’s
DECISION representation that the signatures appearing and community tax certificates
were true and correct; and (5) respondent did not ascertain if the purported
VELASCO, JR., J.: signatures of each of the complainants appearing in the document belonged
to them.
In their complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Jose R. Dimaano,
Jr., Dolores L. Dela Cruz, Milagros L. Principe, Narcisa L. Faustino, Jorge V. The Commission concluded that with respondent’s admission of having
Legaspi, and Juanito V. Legaspi alleged that on July 16, 2004, respondent notarized the document in question against the factual backdrop as thus
notarized a document denominated as Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate established, a clear case of falsification and violation of the Notarial Law had
with Waiver of Rights purportedly executed by them and their sister, Zenaida been committed when he stated in the Acknowledgment that:
V.L. Navarro. Complainants further alleged that: (1) their signatures in this
document were forged; (2) they did not appear and acknowledge the Before me, on this 16th day of July 16, 2004 at Manila, personally came and
document on July 16, 2004 before respondent, as notarizing officer; and (3) appeared the above-named persons with their respective Community Tax
their purported community tax certificates indicated in the document were not Certificates as follows:
theirs.
xxxx
According to complainants, respondent had made untruthful statements in
the acknowledgment portion of the notarized document when he made it who are known to me to be the same persons who executed the foregoing
appear, among other things, that complainants "personally came and instrument and they acknowledge to me that the same is their own free act
appeared before him" and that they affixed their signatures on the document and deed. x x x
in his presence. In the process, complainants added, respondent effectively
enabled their sister, Navarro, to assume full ownership of their deceased For the stated infraction, the Commission recommended, conformably with
parents’ property in Tibagan, San Miguel, Bulacan, covered by Transfer the Court’s ruling in Gonzales v. Ramos,1 that respondent be suspended
Certificate of Title No. T-303936 and sell the same to the Department of from the practice of law for one (1) year; that his notarial commission, if still
Public Works and Highways. existing, be revoked; and that he be disqualified for reappointment as notary
public for two (2) years. On September 28, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors
In his answer, respondent admitted having a hand in the preparation of the passed Resolution No. XVIII-2007-147, adopting and approving the report
document in question, but admitted having indeed notarized it. He explained and recommendation of the Commission.
that "he notarized [the] document in good faith relying on the representation
We agree with the recommendation of the Commission and the premises Development certification [as amended by A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC dated
holding it together. It bears reiterating that notaries public should refrain from February 19, 2008]; or
affixing their signature and notarial seal on a document unless the persons
who signed it are the same individuals who executed and personally (b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument,
appeared before the notaries public to attest to the truth of what are stated document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and
therein, for under Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 or the Notarial Law, an who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of
instrument or document shall be considered authentic if the acknowledgment whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each
is made in accordance with the following requirements: personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary
identification.
(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an officer
duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgments of One last note. Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to
instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The notary discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, such duties being dictated by
public or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person public policy and impressed with public interest. It must be remembered that
acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act, for notarization converts a
same person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free private document to a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence
act and deed. The certificate shall be made under his official seal, if he is by without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due
law required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.2 execution.6 A notarized document is by law entitled to full credit upon its face
and it is for this reason that notaries public must observe the basic
Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the document requirements in notarizing documents. Otherwise, the confidence of the
in question, notaries public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the public on notorized documents will be eroded.
signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is
the party’s free act or deed.3 Furthermore, notaries public are required by the WHEREFORE, for breach of the Notarial Law, the notarial commission of
Notarial Law to certify that the party to the instrument has acknowledged and respondent Atty. Jose R. Dimaano, Jr., if still existing, is REVOKED. He is
presented before the notaries public the proper residence certificate (or DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two
exemption from the residence certificate) and to enter its number, place, and (2) years and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
date of issue as part of certification.4 Rule II, Sec. 12 of the 2004 Rules on year, effective upon receipt of a copy of this Decision, with WARNING that a
Notarial Practice5 now requires a party to the instrument to present repetition of the same negligent act shall be dealt with more severely.
competent evidence of identity. Sec. 12 provides:
Let all the courts, through the Office of the Court Administrator, as well as the
Sec. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity.-The phrase "competent evidence of IBP and the Office of the Bar Confidant, be notified of this Decision and be it
identity" refers to the identification of an individual based on: entered into respondent’s personal record.

(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency SO ORDERED.
bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, such as but not
limited to, passport, driver’s license, Professional Regulations Commission
ID, National Bureau of Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal ID,
voter’s ID, Barangay certification, Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS) card, Philhealth card, senior
citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID, OFW ID,
seaman’s book, alien certificate of registration/immigrant certificate of
registration, government office ID, certificate from the National Council for the
Welfare of Disabled Persons (NCWDP), Department of Social Welfare and
Republic of the Philippines Aggrieved, complainant filed the instant complaint. She claimed that
SUPREME COURT respondent's reprehensible act in connivance with Toledo was not only
Manila violative of her and her children's rights but also in violation of the law.
Respondent's lack of honesty and candor is unbecoming of a member of the
THIRD DIVISION Philippine Bar.

A.C. No. 7241 October 17, 2011 In his Answer,6 respondent admitted having notarized and acknowledged a
[Formerly CBD Case No. 05-1506] deed of donation executed by the donor, Atty. Linco, in favor of his son,
Alexander David T. Linco, as represented by Lina P. Toledo.
ATTY. FLORITA S. LINCO, Complainant,
vs. Respondent narrated that on July 8, 2003, he was invited by Atty. Linco,
ATTY. JIMMY D. LACEBAL, Respondent. through an emissary in the person of Claire Juele-Algodon (Algodon), to see
him at his residence located at Guenventille II D-31-B, Libertad Street,
DECISION Mandaluyong City. Respondent was then informed that Atty. Linco was sick
and wanted to discuss something with him.
PERALTA, J.:
Respondent pointed out that Atty. Linco appeared to be physically weak and
The instant case stemmed from an Administrative Complaint1 dated June 6, sickly, but was articulate and in full control of his faculties. Atty. Linco showed
2005 filed by Atty. Florita S. Linco (complainant) before the Integrated Bar of him a deed of donation and the TCT of the property subject of the donation.
the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal for disciplinary action for Respondent claimed that Atty. Linco asked him a favor of notarizing the deed
his failure to perform his duty as a notary public, which resulted in the of donation in his presence along with the witnesses.
violation of their rights over their property.
However, respondent explained that since he had no idea that he would be
The antecedent facts are as follows: notarizing a document, he did not bring his notarial book and seal with him.
Thus, he instead told Algodon and Toledo to bring to his office the signed
Complainant claimed that she is the widow of the late Atty. Alberto Linco deed of donation anytime at their convenience so that he could formally
(Atty. Linco), the registered owner of a parcel of land with improvements, notarize and acknowledge the same.
consisting of 126 square meters, located at No. 8, Macopa St., Phase I-A, B,
C & D, Valley View Executive Village, Cainta, Rizal and covered by Transfer On July 30, 2003, respondent claimed that Toledo and Algodon went to his
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 259001. law office and informed him that Atty. Linco had passed away on July 29,
2003. Respondent was then asked to notarize the deed of donation.
Complainant alleged that Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal (respondent), a notary Respondent admitted to have consented as he found it to be his commitment
public for Mandaluyong City, notarized a deed of donation2 allegedly to a fellow lawyer. Thus, he notarized the subject deed of donation, which
executed by her husband in favor of Alexander David T. Linco, a minor. The was actually signed in his presence on July 8, 2003.
notarial acknowledgment thereof also stated that Atty. Linco and Lina P.
Toledo (Toledo), mother of the donee, allegedly personally appeared before During the mandatory conference/hearing on September 7, 2005, it was
respondent on July 30, 2003, despite the fact that complainant’s husband established that indeed the deed of donation was presented to respondent
died on July 29, 2003.3 on July 8, 2003.7 Respondent, likewise, admitted that while he was not the
one who prepared the deed of donation, he, however, performed the
Consequently, by virtue of the purported deed of donation, the Register of notarization of the deed of donation only on July 30, 2003, a day after Atty.
Deeds of Antipolo City cancelled TCT No. 259001 on March 28, 20054 and Linco died.81avvphi1
issued a new TCT No. 292515 in the name of Alexander David T. Linco.
On November 23, 2005, in its Report and Recommendation,9 the IBP- RULING
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found respondent guilty of violating
the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The findings and recommendations of the IBP are well taken.

The IBP-CBD observed that respondent wanted it to appear that because the There is no question as to respondent's guilt. The records sufficiently
donor appeared before him and signed the deed of donation on July 8, 2003, established that Atty. Linco was already dead when respondent notarized the
it was just ministerial duty on his part to notarize the deed of donation on July deed of donation on July 30, 2003. Respondent likewise admitted that he
30, 2003, a day after Atty. Linco died. The IBP-CBD pointed out that knew that Atty. Linco died a day before he notarized the deed of donation.
respondent should know that the parties who signed the deed of donation on We take note that respondent notarized the document after the lapse of more
July 8, 2003, binds only the signatories to the deed and it was not yet a than 20 days from July 8, 2003, when he was allegedly asked to notarize the
public instrument. Moreover, since the deed of donation was notarized only deed of donation. The sufficient lapse of time from the time he last saw Atty.
on July 30, 2003, a day after Atty. Linco died, the acknowledgement portion Linco should have put him on guard and deterred him from proceeding with
of the said deed of donation where respondent acknowledged that Atty. Linco the notarization of the deed of donation.
"personally came and appeared before me" is false. This act of respondent is
also violative of the Attorney's Oath "to obey the laws" and "do no falsehood." However, respondent chose to ignore the basics of notarial procedure in
order to accommodate the alleged need of a colleague. The fact that
The IBP-CBD, thus, recommended that respondent be suspended from the respondent previously appeared before him in person does not justify his act
practice of law for a period of one (1) year, and that his notarial commission of notarizing the deed of donation, considering the affiant's absence on the
be revoked and he be disqualified from re-appointment as notary public for a very day the document was notarized. In the notarial acknowledgment of the
period of two (2) years. deed of donation, respondent attested that Atty. Linco personally came and
appeared before him on July 30, 2003. Yet obviously, Atty. Linco could not
On April 27, 2006, in Resolution No. XVII-2006-215,10 the IBP-Board of have appeared before him on July 30, 2003, because the latter died on July
Governors resolved to adopt and approve the report and recommendation of 29, 2003. Clearly, respondent made a false statement and violated Rule
the IBP-CBD. 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer.

Respondent moved for reconsideration, but was denied.11 We will reiterate that faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal
solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct.14
On July 29, 2009, considering respondent's petition for review dated May 19, Respondent should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed
2009 of IBP Resolution No. XVII-2006-215 dated April 27, 2006 and IBP the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared
Resolution No. XVIII-2008-678 dated December 11, 2008, denying before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.15
complainant's motion for reconsideration and affirming the assailed
resolution, the Court resolved to require complainant to file her comment.12 Time and again, we have repeatedly reminded notaries public of the
importance attached to the act of notarization. Notarization is not an empty,
In her Compliance,13 complainant maintained that respondent has not stated meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest,
anything new in his motion for reconsideration that would warrant the such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries
reversal of the recommendation of the IBP. She maintained that respondent public. Notarization converts a private document into a public document;
violated the Notarial Law and is unfit to continue being commissioned as thus, making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its
notary public; thus, should be sanctioned for his infractions. 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
On August 16, 2011, in view of the denial of respondent's motion for to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended
reconsideration, the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court, to a private instrument.16
recommended that the instant complaint is now ripe for judicial adjudication.
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.17
Hence, again, 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.

This responsibility is more pronounced when the notary public is a lawyer. A

graver responsibility is placed upon him by reason of his solemn oath to obey
the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. He is
mandated to the sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties, being
dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.18 Respondent's
failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only in damaging
complainant's rights over the property subject of the donation but also in
undermining the integrity of a notary public. He should, therefore, be held
liable for his acts, not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.

In Lanuzo v. Atty. Bongon,19 respondent having failed to discharge his

duties as a notary public, the revocation of his notarial commission,
disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of
two years and suspension from the practice of law for one year were
imposed. We deem it proper to impose the same penalty.

WHEREFORE, for breach of the Notarial Law and Code of Professional

Responsibility, the notarial commission of respondent ATTY. JIMMY D.
LACEBAL, is REVOKED. He is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as
Notary Public for a period of two years. He is also SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of one year, effective immediately. He is further
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with
more severely. He is DIRECTED to report the date of receipt of this Decision
in order to determine when his suspension shall take effect.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all courts all over the country. Let a
copy of this Decision likewise be attached to the personal records of the
respondent.

SO ORDERED.
Republic of the Philippines office space. The amount thus deposited, so Nevada claims, was never
SUPREME COURT turned over to her or to C.T. Nevada & Sons, Inc.
Manila
Nevada adds that, in the course of their acquaintanceship, Casuga was able
EN BANC to acquire from her several pieces of jewelry: a ¾ K diamond solitaire ring,
earrings with three (3) diamonds each and a ring with three (3) diamonds,
A.C. No. 7591 March 20, 2012 with an aggregate value of three hundred thousand pesos (PhP 300,000),
and a solid gold Rolex watch with diamond dials valued at twelve thousand
CORAZON T. NEVADA, Complainant, US dollars (USD 12,000). Casuga took possession of the valuables
vs. purportedly with the obligation of selling them and to remit any proceeds to
ATTY. RODOLFO D. CASUGA, Respondent. Nevada. However, despite repeated demands by Nevada for Casuga to
return the valuables or otherwise remit the proceeds of the sale, no jewelry or
DECISION money was ever returned.

VELASCO, JR., J.: In compliance with a directive from the Court, Casuga submitted an Affidavit4
dated December 5, 2007, as comment on the administrative complaint. In it,
Corazon T. Nevada (Nevada) seeks the disbarment of Atty. Rodolfo D. Casuga claims that Nevada informally instituted him as the administrator of
Casuga (Casuga) for alleged violation of his lawyer’s oath and the 2004 the Hotel in a limited capacity but denied receiving the PhP 90,000 from
Rules on Notarial Practice (Notarial Rules). Chul. With regard to the pieces of jewelry and the Rolex watch, Casuga
stated that Nevada actually pawned them in a pawnshop and that she later
The Facts asked his wife to redeem them using their own money. Thereafter, Nevada
asked Casuga’s wife to sell the valuables and reimburse herself from the
Nevada is the principal stockholder of C.T. Nevada & Sons, Inc., a family proceeds of the sale.
corporation which operates the Mt. Crest Hotel located at Legarda Road,
Baguio City (the Hotel). By Resolution of July 2, 2008, the Court, thru the Office of the Bar Confidant,
referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
In her affidavit-complaint1 dated June 28, 2007, with annexes, Nevada investigation, report and recommendation/decision. The case was docketed
alleges that she and Casuga are members of the One in Jesus Christ as CBD Case No. 7591 entitled Corazon T. Nevada v. Atty. Rodolfo D.
Church, a religious group which counts the latter as one of its "elders." Casuga.
According to Nevada, she has allowed the use of one of the Hotel’s functions
rooms for church services. And in time, Casuga was able to gain her trust On September 22, 2008, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), thru
and confidence. Commisioner Norberto B. Ruiz, issued and sent out a Notice of Mandatory
Conference directing the parties to appear before it on October 23, 2008. On
Nevada further alleges that unbeknownst to her, Casuga, sometime in 2006, that date, only Nevada showed up, prompting the designated commissioner
started to represent himself as the administrator of the Hotel. In fact, on to reset the conference to November 25, 2008, with a warning that he,
March 1, 2006, he entered into a contract of lease2 with a certain Jung Jong Casuga, will be declared in default and the case submitted for resolution
Chul (Chul) covering an office space in the Hotel. Notably, Casuga signed should he again fail to appear. November 25, 2008 came, but only Nevada
the lease contract over the printed name of one Edwin T. Nevada and was present at the conference. Thus, CBD Case No. 7591 was submitted for
notarized the document himself. resolution on the basis of Nevada’s Position Paper dated December 3, 2008
and the evidence she submitted consisting of, among others, twenty-one (21)
Annex "B"3 of the affidavit-complaint is a notarized letter dated May 15, official rental receipts Casuga issued to at least two (2) lessors of the Hotel.
2007, wherein Chul attested that he gave Casuga, upon contract signing, the
amount of ninety thousand pesos (PhP 90,000) as rental deposit for the Results of the Investigation
 The principal but simple issues in this case pivot on the guilt of Casuga for
In its Report and Recommendation5 dated January 14, 2009, the IBP CBD the charges detailed or implied in the basic complaint; and the propriety of
found Casuga guilty of the charges against him, disposing as follows: the return to Nevada of the items, or their money value, and the amount
subject of the case.
WHEREFORE, premises considered it is hereby recommended that Casuga
be suspended for one (1) year for gross misconduct, violation of the notarial The Court’s Ruling
law and infidelity in the custody of monies, jewelries and a Rolex watch which
pertain to the complainant and the family corporation. We agree with the CBD’s inculpatory findings, as endorsed by the IBP Board
of Governors, and the recommended upgrading of penalties, as shown in
The IBP Board of Governors later adopted and approved the CBD’s Report Resolution No. XIX-2010-461, but subject to the modification as shall be
and Recommendation, with modification, as indicated in Resolution No. XIX- discussed.
2010-461 dated August 28, 2010, to wit:
Casuga is guilty of gross misconduct for misrepresenting himself
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously
ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and In re Horrilleno6 defined "gross misconduct" in the following wise:
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above entitled
case x x x; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence The grounds for removal of a judge of first instance under Philippine law are
on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering Casuga’s two: (1) Serious misconduct and (2) inefficiency. The latter ground is not
violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, for involved in these proceedings. As to the first, the law provides that "sufficient
misappropriation of his client[’s] funds and jewelries, for violation of the cause" must exist in the judgment of the Supreme Court involving "serious
Notarial Law when he signed as a party to a lease contract and notarized the misconduct." The adjective is "serious;" that is, important, weighty,
same and also taking into consideration the gravity of the offense committed, momentous, and not trifling. The noun is "misconduct;" that is, a
Atty. Rodolfo D. Casuga is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more
four (4) years. In addition, Atty. Casuga is Suspended or Disqualified from particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. The
reappointment as Notary Public for two (2) years and Ordered to Return the word "misconduct" implies a wrongful intention and not a mere error or
amount of P90,000.00, jewelries amounting to P300,000.00 and the Rolex judgment. For serious misconduct to exist, there must be reliable evidence
watch valued at $12,000.00 or its equivalent to Mr. Jung Jong Chul, showing that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an
otherwise his Suspension shall continue. intention to violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of well-known
legal rules. (Lawlor vs. People [1874], 74 Ill., 228; Citizens' Insurance Co. vs.
The CBD Report and Recommendation and a copy of Resolution No. XIX- Marsh [1861], 41 Pa., 386; Miller vs. Roby [1880], 9 Neb., 471; Smith vs.
2010-461 were subsequently forwarded to the Court along with the records Cutler [1833], 10 Wend. [N.Y.], 590; U.S. vs. Warner [1848], 28 Fed. Cas.
of the case. No. 16643; In re Tighe [1904], 89 N.Y. Supra., 719.) (Emphasis supplied.)

In the meantime, Nevada, upon receipt of a copy of Resolution No. XIX- The above definition was to be reiterated in Ajeno v. Judge Inserto,7 where
2010-461, wrote and asked the IBP Board of Governors to rectify said the Court wrote:
resolution. Instead of the return of the amount of PhP 90,000, the jewelry and
the Rolex watch or their monetary value to Chul, as directed in the resolution, In the case of In re [Horrilleno], 43 Phil. 212, this Court previously ruled that
Nevada requested the return to be made in her favor. The letter-request of "For serious misconduct to exist, there must be reliable evidence showing
Nevada had remained not acted upon owing obviously to the fact that the that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to
records of the case have been transmitted to the Court in the interim. violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules."

The Issues Of similar tenor is the definition provided in Jamsani-Rodriguez v. Ong:8

x x x The respondent Justices were not liable for gross misconduct – defined misrepresentation that she was authorized to sell the property and if
as the transgression of some established or definite rule of action, more respondent had not led him to believe that he could register the "open" deed
particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence, or the corrupt or of sale if she fails to pay the loan. By her misdeed, respondent has eroded
persistent violation of the law or disregard of well-known legal rules x x x. not only complainant’s perception of the legal profession but the public’s
perception as well. Her actions constitute gross misconduct for which she
Respondent Casuga represented himself as a duly-authorized representative may be disciplined, following Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
of Nevada when in fact he was not. Casuga admitted signing the subject Court, as amended x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
contract of lease, but claimed that he was duly authorized to do so by
Nevada. However, Casuga failed to adduce an iota of evidence to prove that In the instant case, by maintaining an office within the Hotel, taking
he was indeed so authorized. One who alleges the existence of an agency advantage of his apparent close relationship to Nevada, and through the use
relationship must prove such fact. The Court ruled in Yun Kwan Byung v. of false representations, Casuga led Chul to believe that he was the
Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation,9 "The law makes no administrator of the Hotel, when in fact he was not. By doing so, he made it
presumption of agency and proving its existence, nature and extent is appear that he was duly authorized to enter into contracts for the Hotel and
incumbent upon the person alleging it." to receive rentals from its occupants. His fraudulent scheme enabled Casuga
to collect rentals from the occupants of the Hotel, Chul in particular, which he
Plainly enough, Casuga is guilty of misrepresentation, when he made it did not transmit to Nevada. Worse still, Casuga obtained money belonging to
appear that he was authorized to enter into a contract of lease in behalf of the Hotel. Following the principle laid down in Tan, Casuga’s
Nevada when, in fact, he was not. Furthermore, the records reveal that misrepresentation properly constitutes gross misconduct for which he must
Casuga received the rentals by virtue of the contract of lease, benefitting be disciplined.
from his misrepresentation. Chul’s notarized letter of May 15, 2007
sufficiently shows that Casuga indeed received PhP 90,000 as rental deposit Notably, in Tan, the respondent lawyer was held guilty of misconduct and
from Chul. In his affidavit-comment dated December 5, 2007, Casuga denied suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.
having received such amount, alleging that a certain Pastor Oh, who
purportedly introduced him to Chul, received the money. However, Casuga Casuga also violated Canon 16
again failed to adduce a single piece of evidence to support his contention. A of the Code of Professional Responsibility
bare denial must fail in light of the positive assertion of Chul, who appears to
have no ulterior motive to incriminate Casuga. With regard to the jewelry and watch entrusted to him, Casuga alleged that
Nevada pawned them and thereafter instructed Casuga’s wife to redeem
In Tan v. Gumba,10 the respondent lawyer similarly misrepresented herself them with the latter’s money. He added that Nevada then instructed his wife
to have been authorized to sell a parcel of land by virtue of a Special Power to sell the valuables and use the proceeds to reimburse herself for the
of Attorney (SPA). By virtue of the SPA, the lawyer was able to obtain a loan redemption price. Again, however, Casuga’s allegations are unsupported by
from the complainant, secured by the said parcel of land through an "open" a single shred of evidence. Pawnshop receipts would have provided the best
deed of sale. When the respondent lawyer defaulted in the payment of the evidence under the circumstances. But they were not presented, too.
loan, it turned out that the SPA only authorized the lawyer to mortgage the
property to a bank. Thus, the complainant could not register the deed of sale Moreover, Casuga’s admission that the valuables are indeed in his
with the register of deeds and could not recover the amount that he loaned to possession, without any adequate reason, supports Nevada’s version of the
the lawyer. In that case, the Court ruled: story. Casuga’s failure to return such property or remit the proceeds of the
sale is a blatant violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Here, respondent’s actions clearly show that she deceived complainant into Responsibility (the Code). The Code’s Canon 16 and Rule 16.3 state:
lending money to her through the use of documents and false
representations and taking advantage of her education and complainant’s CANON 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his
ignorance in legal matters. As manifested by complainant, he would have client that may come into his profession.
never granted the loan to respondent were it not for respondent’s
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when for which he may be suspended, following Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules
due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may of Court x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also Having failed to return, upon demand, the items entrusted to him by Nevada
have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has or remit the proceeds of the sale, Casuga violated Canon 16 and Rule 16.03
secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court. of the Code.

Having been tasked to sell such valuables, Casuga was duty-bound to return In Almendarez, Jr. v. Langit,12 the Court suspended a lawyer from the
them upon Nevada’s demand. His failure to do so renders him subject to practice of law for two (2) years for failing to account for the money and
disciplinary action. To be sure, he cannot use, as a defense, the lack of a properties of his client. Similarly, in Small v. Banares,13 a lawyer was also
lawyer-client relationship as an exonerating factor. In Barcenas v. Alvero,11 suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years, as he failed to return
the Court suspended a lawyer from the practice of law for two (2) years after the money of his client that he was holding in trust and for failing to file an
he failed to account for or return PhP 300,000 that was entrusted to him for answer to the complaint and his refusal to appear at the mandatory
deposit with the courts. The Court ruled: conference before the IBP. Thus, the same penalty should be imposed upon
Casuga.
From the records of the case, there is likewise a clear breach of lawyer-client
relations. When a lawyer receives money from a client for a particular Casuga violated the Notarial Rules
purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing
that the money was spent for a particular purpose. And if he does not use the The Notarial Rules, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, provides in its Rule IV, Section
money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the 1(c) and Sec. 3(a) when a notary public may sign a document in behalf of
money to his client. x x x another person, thus:

Jurisprudence dictates that a lawyer who obtains possession of the funds SEC. 1. Powers. – x x x
and properties of his client in the course of his professional employment shall
deliver the same to his client (a) when they become due, or (b) upon xxxx
demand. x x x
(c) A notary public is authorized to sign on behalf of a person who is
[Respondent] Atty. Alvero cannot take refuge in his claim that there existed physically unable to sign or make a mark on an instrument or document if:
no attorney-client relationship between him and Barcenas. Even if it were
true that no attorney-client relationship existed between them, case law has it (1) the notary public is directed by the person unable to sign or make a mark
that an attorney may be removed, or otherwise disciplined, not only for to sign on his behalf;
malpractice and dishonesty in the profession, but also for gross misconduct
not connected with his professional duties, making him unfit for the office and (2) the signature of the notary public is affixed in the presence of two
unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him. disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document;

Atty. Alvero’s failure to immediately account for and return the money when (3) both witnesses sign their own names;
due and upon demand violated the trust reposed in him, demonstrated his
lack of integrity and moral soundness, and warranted the imposition of (4) the notary public writes below his signature: "Signature affixed by notary
disciplinary action. It gave rise to the presumption that he converted the in presence of (names and addresses of person and two (2) witnesses)";
money for his own use, and this act constituted a gross violation of
professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal (5) the notary public notarizes his signature by acknowledgment or jurat.
profession. They constitute gross misconduct and gross unethical behavior
On the other hand, the succeeding Sec. 3(a) disqualifies a notary public from x x x [N]otarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act. It is invested
performing a notarial act if he or she "is a party to the instrument or with substantive public interest. It must be underscored that x x x notarization
document that is to be notarized." x x x converts a private document into a public document making that
document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity thereof.
None of the requirements contained in Rule IV, Sec. 1(c), as would justify a A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.
notary signing in behalf of a contracting party, was complied with in this case. For this reason, a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic
Moreover, Casuga’s act of affixing his signature above the printed name requirements in the performance of x x x duties; otherwise, the confidence of
"Edwin T. Nevada," without any qualification, veritably made him a party to the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined.
the contract of lease in question. Thus, his act of notarizing a deed to which
he is a party is a plain violation of the aforequoted Rule IV, Sec. 3(a) of the xxxx
Notarial Rules, for which he can be disciplinarily sanctioned provided under
Rule XI, Sec. 1(b)(10) of the Notarial Rules, which provides: A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who
signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally
SECTION 1. Revocation and Administrative Sanctions. – x x x. 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
(b) In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of, or stated therein are facts they have personal knowledge of and are personally
impose appropriate administrative sanctions upon, any notary public who: sworn to. Otherwise, their representative’s names should appear in the said
documents as the ones who executed the same.
(10) knowingly performs or fails to perform any other act prohibited or
mandated by these Rules; The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal
or immoral arrangements.1âwphi1 By affixing his notarial seal on the
Aside from being a violation of the Notarial Rules, Casuga’s aforementioned instrument, he converted the Deed of Absolute Sale, from a private
act partakes of malpractice of law and misconduct punishable under the document into a public document. x x x As a lawyer commissioned to be a
ensuing Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court: notary public, respondent is mandated to discharge his sacred duties with
faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds an acknowledgment or jurat. Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent
therefor. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his upon him, he must now accept the commensurate consequences of his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other professional indiscretion.16 x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
gross misconduct in such office, x x x or for any violation of the oath which he
is required to take before admission to practice x x x. (Emphasis supplied.) The recommended penalty must be modified

So it was that in Lanuzo v. Bongon14 the Court suspended a notary public Considering the various infractions Casuga committed, as discussed above,
from the practice of law for one (1) year for violation of the Notarial Rules. the aggregate penalty recommended by the IBP Board of Governors of
This was on top of the penalty of disqualification from being commissioned suspension from the practice of law for four (4) years was correct. It hews
as a notary public for two (2) years. with prevailing jurisprudence as cited above. However, Casuga’s
disqualification from reappointment as notary public for two (2) years should
In Dela Cruz v. Zabala,15 the Court adjudged the respondent notary public match his suspension from the practice of law. The disqualification should
guilty of gross negligence for failing to require the parties to be physically accordingly be increased to four (4) years, since only a lawyer in good
present before him. In revoking the erring notary’s commission, the Court, in standing can be granted the commission of a notary public.
Dela Cruz, stressed the significance of notarization and proceeded to define
the heavy burden that goes when a lawyer is commissioned as a notary The desired disbarment of Casuga, however, is too severe a sanction to
public. The Court wrote: impose under the premises; it cannot be granted. The penalty of disbarment
shall be meted out only when the lawyer’s misconduct borders on the
criminal and/or is committed under scandalous circumstance.17

The money, jewelry and Rolex watch should be returned to Nevada

Nevada’s plea that the rental deposit of PhP 90,000, the pieces of jewelry
worth PhP 300,000, and the Rolex watch valued at USD 12,000 or its
equivalent in Philippine Peso should be ordered returned to her instead of to
Jung Jong Chul is well-taken. We need not belabor the fact that Chul has no
right whatsoever over the amount or property mentioned above.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Rodolfo D. Casuga GUILTY of gross

misconduct for violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Notarial Rules. He is hereby SUSPENDED for a
period of four (4) years from the practice of law. The notarial commission of
Atty. Casuga, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED
from being commissioned as Notary Public also for four (4) years.
Additionally, he is ordered to return the amount of PhP 90,000, the pieces of
jewelry subject of this case or their equivalent of PhP 300,000, and the Rolex
watch valued at USD 12,000 or its equivalent in Philippine Peso to Corazon
T. Nevada within thirty (30) days from finality of this Decision; otherwise, he
shall be cited for contempt. Lastly, Atty. Casuga is warned that a repetition of
the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be
appended to the personal record of Atty. Rodolfo D. Casuga as a member of
the Bar; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and the Office of the Court
Administrator for dissemination to all trial courts for their information and
guidance.

SO ORDERED.
Republic of the Philippines requiring them to present valid identification cards is a ground for disbarment.
SUPREME COURT Atty. Revilla, Jr. submits that his act is not a ground for disbarment. He also
Manila says that he acts as counsel of the three affiants; thus, he should be
considered more as counsel than as a notary public when he notarized their
FIRST DIVISION complaint-affidavit. He did not require the affiants to present valid
identification cards since he knows them personally. Heneraline Brosas and
A.C. No. 9514 April 10, 2013 Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa are sisters-in-law while Elmer Alvarado is the live-
in houseboy of the Brosas family.
BERNARD N. JANDOQUILE, Complainant,
vs. Since the facts are not contested, the Court deems it more prudent to resolve
ATTY. QUIRINO P. REVILLA, JR., Respondent. the case instead of referring it to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
investigation.
RESOLUTION
Indeed, Atty. Revilla, Jr. violated the disqualification rule under Section 3(c),
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. We agree with him, however,
that his violation is not a sufficient ground for disbarment.
Before us is a complaint1 for disbarment filed by complainant Bernard N.
Jandoquile against respondent Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr. Atty. Revilla, Jr.’s violation of the aforesaid disqualification rule is beyond
dispute. Atty. Revilla, Jr. readily admitted that he notarized the complaint-
The Facts of the case are not disputed. 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
Atty. Revilla, Jr. notarized a complaint-affidavit2 signed by Heneraline L. disqualifies him from notarizing the complaint-affidavit, from performing the
Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa and Elmer L. Alvarado. Heneraline Brosas notarial act, since two of the affiants or principals are his relatives within the
is a sister of Heizel Wynda Brosas Revilla, Atty. Revilla, Jr.'s wife. Jandoquile fourth civil degree of affinity. Given the clear provision of the disqualification
complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. is disqualified to perform the notarial act3 per rule, it behooved upon Atty. Revilla, Jr. to act with prudence and refuse
Section 3( c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice which reads as notarizing the document. We cannot agree with his proposition that we
follows: consider him to have acted more as counsel of the affiants, not as notary
public, when he notarized the complaint-affidavit. The notarial certificate6 at
SEC. 3. Disqualifications. – A notary public is disqualified from performing a the bottom of the complaint-affidavit shows his signature as a notary public,
notarial act if he: with a notarial commission valid until December 31, 2012.

xxxx He cannot therefore claim that he signed it as counsel of the three affiants.

(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by On the second charge, we agree with Atty. Revilla, Jr. that he cannot be held
affinity or consanguinity of the principal4 within the fourth civil degree. liable. If the notary public knows the affiants personally, he need not require
them to show their valid identification cards. This rule is supported by the
Jandoquile also complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not require the three definition of a "jurat" under Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
affiants in the complaint-affidavit to show their valid identification cards. Practice. 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
In his comment5 to the disbarment complaint, Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not deny document; (b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the
but admitted Jandoquile’s material allegations. The issue, according to Atty. notary public through competent evidence of identity; (c) signs the instrument
Revilla, Jr., is whether the single act of notarizing the complaint-affidavit of or document in the presence of the notary; and (d) takes an oath or
relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity and, at the same time, not 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 SO ORDERED.
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.7 Let it be
impressed that 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.

As we said, Atty. Revilla, Jr.’s violation of the disqualification rule under

Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice is not a sufficient
ground to disbar him. To our mind, Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not commit any
deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct or gross immoral conduct, or any other
serious ground for disbarment under Section 27,8 Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court. We recall the case of Maria v. Cortez9 where we reprimanded Cortez
and disqualified him from being commissioned as notary public for six
months. We were convinced that said punishment, which is less severe than
disbarment, would already suffice as sanction for Cortez’s violation. In
Cortez, we noted the prohibition in Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice that 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 a competent evidence of identity. Cortez had notarized a special
power of attorney without having the alleged signatories appear before him.
In imposing the less severe punishment, we were mindful that removal from
the Bar should not really be decreed when any punishment less severe such
as reprimand, temporary suspension or fine would accomplish the end
desired.1âwphi1

Considering the attendant circumstances and the single violation committed

by Atty. Revilla, Jr., we are in agreement that a punishment less severe than
disbarment would suffice.

WHEREFORE, respondent 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 (3) months. Atty. Revilla, Jr. is further DIRECTED
to INFORM the Court, through an affidavit, once the period of his
disqualification has lapsed.
Republic of the Philippines makapanumpa ng naaayon sa batas ay nagpapatunay ng nagkasundo ng
SUPREME COURT mga sumusunod:
Manila
1. Na nais na naming maghiwalay at magkanya-kanya ng aming mga buhay
SECOND DIVISION ng walang pakialaman, kung kaya’t bawat isa sa amin ay maaari ng
humanap ng makakasama sa buhay;
A.C. No. 9081 October 12, 2011
2. Na ang aming mga anak na sina Ariel John Espinosa, 14 na taong gulang;
RODOLFO A. ESPINOSA and MAXIMO A. GLINDO, Complainants, Aiza Espinosa, 11 taong gulang at Aldrin Espinosa, 10 taong gulang ay
vs. namili na kung kanino sasama sa aming dalawa. Si Ariel John at Aiza
ATTY. JULIETA A. OMAÑA, Respondent. Espinosa ay sasama sa kanilang ama, Rodolfo Espinosa, at ang bunso,
Aldrin Espinosa at sasama naman sa ina na si Elena;
DECISION
3. Na dahil sina Ariel John at Aiza ay nagsisipag-aral sa kasalukuyan sila ay
CARPIO, J.: pansamantalang mananatili sa kanilang ina, habang tinatapos ang kanilang
pag-aaral. Sa pasukan sila ay maaari ng isama ng ama, sa lugar kung saan
The Case siya ay naninirahan;

Before the Court is a complaint for disbarment filed by Rodolfo A. Espinosa 4. Na ang mga bata ay maaaring dalawin ng sino man sa aming dalawa
(Espinosa) and Maximo A. Glindo (Glindo) against Atty. Julieta A. Omaña tuwing may pagkakataon;
(Omaña).
5. Na magbibigay ng buwanang gastusin o suporta ang ama kay Aldrin at
The Antecedent Facts ang kakulangan sa mga pangangailangan nito ay pupunan ng ina;

Complainants Espinosa and Glindo charged Omaña with violation of her oath 6. Na lahat ng mga kasangkapan sa bahay tulad ng T.V., gas stove, mga
as a lawyer, malpractice, and gross misconduct in office. kagamitan sa kusina ay aking (Rodolfo) ipinagkakaloob kay Elena at hindi na
ako interesado dito;
Complainants alleged that on 17 November 1997, Espinosa and his wife
Elena Marantal (Marantal) sought Omaña’s legal advice on whether they 7. Na lahat ng maaaring maipundar ng sino man sa amin dalawa sa mga
could legally live separately and dissolve their marriage solemnized on 23 panahong darating ay aming mga sari-sariling pag-aari na at hindi na
July 1983. Omaña then prepared a document entitled "Kasunduan Ng pinagsamahan o conjugal.
Paghihiwalay" (contract) which reads:
BILANG PATUNAY ng lahat ng ito, nilagdaan namin ito ngayong ika-17 ng
REPUBLIKA NG PILIPINAS Nobyembre, 1997, dito sa Gumaca, Quezon.
BAYAN NG GUMACA
LALAWIGAN NG QUEZON (Sgd)
ELENA MARANTAL
KASUNDUAN NG PAGHIHIWALAY Nagkasundo (Sgd)
RODOLFO ESPINOSA
KAMI, ELENA MARANTAL AT RODOLFO ESPINOSA, mga Filipino, may Nagkasundo
sapat na gulang, dating legal na mag-asawa, kasalukuyang naninirahan at PINATUNAYAN AT PINANUMPAAN dito sa harap ko ngayong ika-17 ng
may pahatirang sulat sa Brgy. Buensoceso, Gumaca, Quezon, at Nobyembre, 1997, dito sa Gumaca, Quezon
COMELEC, Intramuros, Manila ayon sa pagkakasunod-sunod, matapos
ATTY. JULIETA A. OMAÑA IBP-CBD found that Omaña violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Notary Public Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in
PTR No. 3728169; 1-10-97 unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The IBP-CBD stated that
Gumaca, Quezon Omaña had failed to exercise due diligence in the performance of her
function as a notary public and to comply with the requirements of the law.
Doc. No. 482; The IBP-CBD noted the inconsistencies in the defense of Omaña who first
Page No. 97; claimed that it was her part-time staff who notarized the contract but then
Book No. XI; later claimed that it was her former maid who notarized it. The IBP-CBD
Series of 1997. found:

Complainants alleged that Marantal and Espinosa, fully convinced of the Respondent truly signed the questioned document, yet she still disclaimed its
validity of the contract dissolving their marriage, started implementing its authorship, thereby revealing much more her propensity to lie and make
terms and conditions. However, Marantal eventually took custody of all their deceit, which she is deserving [of] disciplinary sanction or disbarment.
children and took possession of most of the property they acquired during
their union. The IBP-CBD recommended that Omaña be suspended for one year from
the practice of law and for two years as a notary public.
Espinosa sought the advice of his fellow employee, complainant Glindo, a
law graduate, who informed him that the contract executed by Omaña was In a Resolution dated 19 September 2007, the IBP Board of Governors
not valid. Espinosa and Glindo then hired the services of a lawyer to file a adopted and approved the recommendation of the IBP-CBD.
complaint against Omaña before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD). Omaña filed a motion for reconsideration.

Omaña alleged that she knows Glindo but she does not personally know In a Resolution dated 26 June 2011, the IBP Board of Governors denied
Espinosa. She denied that she prepared the contract. She admitted that Omaña’s motion for reconsideration.
Espinosa went to see her and requested for the notarization of the contract
but she told him that it was illegal. Omaña alleged that Espinosa returned the The Issue
next day while she was out of the office and managed to persuade her part-
time office staff to notarize the document. Her office staff forged her The sole issue in this case is whether Omaña violated the Canon of
signature and notarized the contract. Omaña presented Marantal’s Professional Responsibility in the notarization of Marantal and Espinosa’s
"Sinumpaang Salaysay" (affidavit) to support her allegations and to show that "Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay."
the complaint was instigated by Glindo. Omaña further presented a letter of
apology from her staff, Arlene Dela Peña, acknowledging that she notarized The Ruling of this Court
the document without Omaña’s knowledge, consent, and authority.
We adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP-CBD.
Espinosa later submitted a "Karagdagang Salaysay" stating that Omaña
arrived at his residence together with a girl whom he later recognized as the This case is not novel. This Court has ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution
person who notarized the contract. He further stated that Omaña was not in of the conjugal partnership without judicial approval is void.2 The Court has
her office when the contract was notarized. also ruled that a notary public should not facilitate the disintegration of a
marriage and the family by encouraging the separation of the spouses and
The Decision of the Commission on Bar Discipline extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal partnership,3 which is exactly what
Omaña did in this case.1avvphi1
In its Report and Recommendation1 dated 6 February 2007, the IBP-CBD
stated that Espinosa’s desistance did not put an end to the proceedings. The
In Selanova v. Judge Mendoza,4 the Court cited a number of cases where
the lawyer was sanctioned for notarizing similar documents as the contract in
this case, such as: notarizing a document between the spouses which
permitted the husband to take a concubine and allowed the wife to live with
another man, without opposition from each other;5 ratifying a document
entitled "Legal Separation" where the couple agreed to be separated from
each other mutually and voluntarily, renouncing their rights and obligations,
authorizing each other to remarry, and renouncing any action that they might
have against each other;6 preparing a document authorizing a married
couple who had been separated for nine years to marry again, renouncing
the right of action which each may have against the other;7 and preparing a
document declaring the conjugal partnership dissolved.8

We cannot accept Omaña’s allegation that it was her part-time office staff
who notarized the contract. We agree with the IBP-CBD that Omaña herself
notarized the contract. Even if it were true that it was her part-time staff who
notarized the contract, it only showed Omaña’s negligence in doing her
notarial duties. We reiterate that a notary public is personally responsible for
the entries in his notarial register and he could not relieve himself of this
responsibility by passing the blame on his secretaries9 or any member of his
staff.

We likewise agree with the IBP-CBD that in preparing and notarizing a void
document, Omaña violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Omaña knew fully well that the
"Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay" has no legal effect and is against public
policy. Therefore, Omaña may be suspended from office as an attorney for
breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility.10

WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Julieta A. Omaña from the practice of

law for ONE YEAR. We REVOKE Atty. Omaña’s notarial commission, if still
existing, and SUSPEND her as a notary public for TWO YEARS.

Let a copy of this Decision be attached to Atty. Omaña’s personal record in

the Office of the Bar Confidant. Let a copy of this Decision be also furnished
to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to all courts in the
land.

SO ORDERED.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
THIRD DIVISION office aide but to no avail. Having acted on the mistaken belief that he still
had his notarial commission, respondent pleaded that he be excused and
JESSICA C. UY, given clemency for this fiasco and be allowed to correct and make
Complainant, amends.[8]

- versus - In a Resolution[9] dated December 8, 2004, we referred the case to the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
ATTY. EMMANUEL P. SAO, recommendation.
Respondent.
On September 1, 2005, Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala submitted
A.C. No. 6505 her report and recommendation,[10] the pertinent portion of which reads:

Promulgated: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

September 11, 2008
From the facts and evidence presented, we find sufficient proof to warrant
DECISION disciplinary action against the respondent. Notarizing documents after the
NACHURA, J.: lawyers commission as notary public had expired is malpractice and gross
misconduct (Flores vs. Lozada, 21 SCRA 1267). Respondents explanation
This is a disbarment case filed[1] by complainant Jessica C. Uy against that he was made to believe by his agent that his commission has been filed
respondent Atty. Emmanuel P. Sao for allegedly notarizing several and approved cannot be accepted for to rule otherwise will be to enable
documents despite the expiration of his commission. irresponsible lawyers to avoid disciplinary action by simply attributing the
problem to his aide/secretary or employee (Gutierrez vs. Zulueta, 187 SCRA
Respondent was the counsel for a certain Pablo Burgos, an intervenor in a 607).
civil case docketed as EJF-01-03-10 for Foreclosure of Real Estate
Mortgage.[2] In the course of the proceedings, respondent introduced before WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby recommend that
the trial court, certain documents, including a Deed of Absolute Sale[3] which respondent ATTY. EMMANUEL SAO be SUSPENDED for a period of SIX
he notarized on December 7, 2001 under Doc. No. 376, Page No. 73, Book MONTHS from receipt hereof from the practice [of] his profession as a lawyer
No. V, Series of 2001. and as a member of the Bar.

It appeared, however, in a letter[4] dated February 9, 2004 of Atty. Blanche RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.[11]
Astilla-Salino, Clerk of Court VI, that no notarial commission was issued to
respondent for the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. Hence, the instant Per Resolution No. XVII-2006-115 dated March 20, 2006, the IBP Board of
administrative case. Governors modified the report and recommendation of Commissioner
Villanueva-Maala by increasing the recommended period of suspension from
Respondent, for his part, admitted that he was not issued a notarial six (6) months to one (1) year. In addition, the Board resolved to revoke
commission during the aforesaid period; yet, he performed notarial works. respondents notarial commission and disqualified him from reappointment as
He, however, explained that he applied, through a representative, for a notary public for a period of two (2) years.
notarial commission in the year 1998 and was commissioned as such from
1998 to 1999.[5] In 2000, he applied for the renewal of his commission, again We agree with the IBPs conclusion, finding respondent guilty of malpractice,
through an office aide, who later informed him that his application was warranting disciplinary action. We, however, find the penalty recommended
approved.[6] By virtue of said representation, respondent resumed his by the Board of Governors to be too harsh; instead, we sustain the
notarial work; only to find out later that he was not given a new Investigating Commissioners recommendation.
commission.[7] He exerted earnest efforts in locating the whereabouts of the
At the threshold, it is worth stressing that the practice of law is not a right but reprehensible conduct, the Court has sanctioned erring lawyers by
a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and suspension from the practice of law, revocation of the notarial commission
continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of and disqualification from acting as such, and even disbarment.[16]
such privilege. Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with
conditions.[12] Time and again, we have held that where the notarization of a document is
done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no
The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to
honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by disciplinary action. One who is performing a notarial act without such
faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his commission is a violation of the lawyers oath to obey the laws, more
clients. To this end, a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly
any act which might lessen, in any degree, the confidence and trust reposed commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes,
by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession.[13] indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyers oath similarly proscribes.
These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of
Apropos to the case at bar, it has been emphatically stressed that the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that a lawyer shall
notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. By acting as
substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified and a notary public without the proper commission to do so, the lawyer likewise
authorized may act as notaries public. It must be underscored that the act of violates Canon 7 of the same Code, which directs every lawyer to uphold at
notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.[17]
document making it admissible in evidence without further proof of
authenticity. A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit As to the appropriate penalty, considering the circumstances obtaining in the
upon its face. For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care instant case, and based on jurisprudence on this matter, suspension for six
the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.[14] (6) months is adequate.

Respondent admitted that he applied for a notarial commission in 1998. Such Complainant in the instant case presented only one document showing
application, according to him, was facilitated by a representative. In renewing respondents unauthorized notarization. However, by respondents own
his commission for 2000 until 2002, he again relied on the assistance offered admission, he had been placed in a mistaken belief that his commission was
by an office aide. It appears from respondents Comment that he, in fact, did renewed from 2000 to 2002. During this two-year period, it seems entirely
not personally know the said office aide; yet, he completely relied on his possible that he had similarly notarized, without legal authority, other still
representation that this office aide would facilitate respondents renewal of his unidentified documents.[18]
notarial commission. At the very least, respondent should have demanded
from the office aide documentary proofs of the approval of his commission. In Buensuceso v. Barrera,[19] Atty. Joelito Barrera was administratively
Besides, respondent could have easily verified the aides representation at sanctioned for committing acts of unauthorized notarization. As in the instant
the office of the Executive Judge. His actuation clearly shows disregard of case, Atty. Barrera claimed that he was unaware of said lack of authority,
the requirements for the issuance of notarial commission. His effort in shifting and he shifted the blame to his secretary to whom he had entrusted the task
the responsibility to the office aide does not strike the Court as the kind of of making sure that his notarial commission would be renewed. Though only
diligence properly required of a member of the bar in performing his duties as five documents were presented to prove his culpability, considering that more
notary public.[15] than twelve (12) years had lapsed, and it was possible that similar
documents had been unlawfully notarized, the Court suspended him from the
To be sure, the requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary practice of law for a period of one year.
public must not be treated as a mere casual formality. The Court has In the instant case, since only two years had lapsed prior to the discovery of
characterized a lawyers act of notarizing documents without the requisite the unauthorized act, six-month suspension suffices.
commission therefor as reprehensible, constituting as it does, not only
malpractice, but also the crime of falsification of public documents. For such
An attorneys right to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to
suspend him, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to
exercise the duties and responsibilities of an attorney. It must be understood
that the purpose of suspending or disbarring him as an attorney is to remove
from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be
entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to an office of
attorney, and thus, to protect the public and those charged with the
administration of justice, rather than to punish an attorney.[20]

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Emmanuel P. Sao is

hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.
In addition, his present notarial commission, if any, is HEREBY REVOKED,
and he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary public for a period
of two (2) years. He is further WARNED that any similar act or infraction in
the future shall be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished all the courts of the land through the
Court Administrator, as well as the IBP, and the Office of the Bar Confidant,
and recorded in the personal records of the respondent.

SO ORDERED.
Republic of the Philippines complainant for the purpose of paying the real estate taxes on the property.
SUPREME COURT Further, he averred that it was his former office assistants, a certain Boy
Baguio City Roque ("Roque") and one Danilo Diaz ("Diaz"), who offered the subject
property to Ho as collateral for a loan. Nevertheless, respondent admitted to
EN BANC having confirmed the spurious SPA in his favor already annotated at the back
of TCT No. 21176 upon the prodding of Roque and Diaz, and because he
A.C. No. 7481 April 24, 2012 was also in need of money at that time. Hence, he signed the real estate
mortgage and received his proportionate share of ₱130,000.00 from the
LORENZO D. BRENNISEN, Complainant, proceeds of the loan, which he asserted to have fully settled.
vs.
ATTY. RAMON U. CONTAWI, Respondent. Finally, respondent denied signing the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Ho
and insisted that it was a forgery. Nonetheless, he sought complainant's
DECISION forgiveness and promised to repay the value of the subject property.

PER CURIAM: In the Resolution7 dated July 16, 2008, the Court resolved to refer the case
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
Before the Court is an administrative complaint1 for disbarment filed by recommendation.
complainant Lorenzo D. Brennisen against respondent Atty. Ramon U.
Contawi for deceit and gross misconduct in violation of his lawyer's oath. The Action and Recommendation of the IBP

The Facts During the mandatory conference held on October 21, 2008, the parties
stipulated on the following matters:
Complainant is the registered owner of a parcel of land located in San
Dionisio, Parañaque City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 1. That complainant is the owner of a property covered by TCT No. 21176
211762 of the Register of Deeds for the Province of Rizal. Being a resident of (45228) of the Register of Deeds of Parañaque;
the United States of America (USA), he entrusted the administration of the
subject property to respondent, together with the corresponding owner's 2. Respondent was in possession of the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of the
duplicate title. property of the complainant;

Unbeknownst to complainant, however, respondent, through a spurious 3. The property of the complainant was mortgaged to a certain Roberto Ho;
Special Power of Attorney (SPA)3 dated February 22, 1989, mortgaged and
subsequently sold the subject property to one Roberto Ho ("Ho"), as 4. The title to the property of complainant was cancelled in year 2000 and a
evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale4 dated November 15, 2001. As a new one, TCT No. 150814 was issued in favor of Mr. Roberto Ho;
result, TCT No. 21176 was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. 1508145
issued in favor of Ho. 5. The Special Power of Attorney dated 24 February 1989 in favor of Atty.
Ramon U. Contawi is spurious and was not signed by complainant Lorenzo
Thus, on April 16, 2007, complainant filed the instant administrative D. Brennisen;
complaint against respondent for having violated his oath as a lawyer,
causing him damage and prejudice. 6. That respondent received Php100,000.00 of the mortgage loan secured by
the mortgagee on the aforementioned property of complainant;
In his counter-affidavit,6 respondent denied any formal lawyer-client
relationship between him and the complainant, claiming to have merely 7. That respondent did not inform the complainant about the unauthorized
extended his services for free. He also denied receiving money from the mortgage and sale of his property;
 falsified document, he effected the unauthorized mortgage and sale of his
8. That respondent has a loan obligation to Mr. Roberto Ho; client's property for his personal benefit.

9. That respondent has not yet filed any case against the person whom he Indisputably, respondent disposed of complainant's property without his
claims to have falsified his signature; knowledge or consent, and partook of the proceeds of the sale for his own
benefit. His contention that he merely accommodated the request of his then
10. That respondent did not notify the complainant that the owner's copy of financially-incapacitated office assistants to confirm the spurious SPA is
TCT No. 21176 was stolen and was taken out from his office.8 flimsy and implausible, as he was fully aware that complainant's signature
reflected thereon was forged. As aptly opined by Commissioner De Mesa,
In its Report9 dated July 10, 2009, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline the fraudulent transactions involving the subject property were effected using
(IBP-CBD), through Commissioner Eduardo V. De Mesa, found that the owner's duplicate title, which was in respondent's safekeeping and
respondent had undeniably mortgaged and sold the property of his client custody during complainant's absence.
without the latter's knowledge or consent, facilitated by the use of a falsified
SPA. Hence, in addition to his possible criminal liability for falsification, the Consequently, Commissioner De Mesa and the IBP Board of Governors
IBP-CBD deduced that respondent violated various provisions of the Canons correctly recommended his disbarment for violations of the pertinent
of Professional Responsibility and accordingly recommended that he be provisions of the Canons of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
disbarred and his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
Canon 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land
On May 14, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the and promote respect for law and legal processes.
report of Commissioner De Mesa through Resolution No. XIX-2011-24810 as
follows: Canon 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
"RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously
ADOPTED and APPROVED the Report and Recommendation of the Canon 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client
Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of which may come into his possession.
this Resolution as Annex 'A' and finding the recommendation fully supported
by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and finding Canon 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
Respondent guilty of falsification; making or using falsified documents; and received for or from client.
for benefiting from the proceed[s] of his dishonest acts, Atty. Ramon U.
Contawi is hereby DISBARRED." Canon 16.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client
when due or upon demand.
The Issue
Canon 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be
The sole issue before the Court is whether respondent violated his lawyer's mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
oath when he mortgaged and sold complainant's property, which was
entrusted to him, without the latter's consent. In Sabayle v. Tandayag,11 the Court disbarred one of the respondent
lawyers and ordered his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys on the
The Court's Ruling grounds of serious dishonesty and professional misconduct. The respondent
lawyer knowingly participated in a false and simulated transaction not only by
After a punctilious examination of the records, the Court concurs with the notarizing a spurious Deed of Sale, but also – and even worse – sharing in
findings and recommendation of Commissioner De Mesa and the IBP Board the profits of the specious transaction by acquiring half of the property
of Governors that respondent acted with deceit when, through the use of a subject of the Deed of Sale.
In Flores v. Chua,12 the Court disbarred the respondent lawyer for having Let copies of this Decision be served on the Office of the Bar Confidant, the
deliberately made false representations that the vendor appeared personally Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for their
before him when he notarized a forged deed of sale. He was found guilty of information and guidance. Let a copy of this Decision be attached to
grave misconduct. respondent's personal record as attorney.

In this case, respondent's established acts exhibited his unfitness and plain SO ORDERED.
inability to discharge the bounden duties of a member of the legal profession.
He failed to prove himself worthy of the privilege to practice law and to live up
to the exacting standards demanded of the members of the bar. It bears to
stress that "[t]he practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the
high standards of legal proficiency and morality. Any violation of these
standards exposes the lawyer to administrative liability."13

Moreover, respondent's argument that there was no formal lawyer-client

relationship between him and complainant will not serve to mitigate his
liability. There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed
in a lawyer's private or professional capacity, for a lawyer may not divide his
personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.14
1âwphi1

With the foregoing disquisitions, the Court thus finds the penalty of
disbarment proper in this case, as recommended by Commissioner De Mesa
and the IBP Board of Governors. Section 27, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court
provides:

"SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court;

grounds therefor. - A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice,
or other gross misconduct in such office, xxx or for any violation of the oath
which he is required to take before admission to practice xxx" (emphasis
supplied)

The Court notes that in administrative proceedings, only substantial

evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is required.15 Having carefully
scrutinized the records of this case, the Court therefore finds that the
standard of substantial evidence has been more than satisfied.

WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. RAMON U. CONTAWI, having clearly

violated his lawyer's oath and the Canons of Professional Responsibility
through his unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct, is DISBARRED and
his name ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
Republic of the Philippines It is also apparent that Lucia Briones did not sign with Attorney Icao in
SUPREME COURT attendance since her Community Tax Certificate was not recorded, nor was
Manila any notation made as to how she was identified. In addition, her printed
signature (L. Briones) on page #2 is quite different from her written signature
SECOND DIVISION (Felicidad Briones) on page #1 and #3 suggesting further that the signing
was not attended by Attorney Icao. In addition, it is commonly known
A.C. No. 6882 December 24, 2008 amongst the participants that Lucia Briones lived in Cotabato for 20+ years
before she died in 2004. It was equally known that she was deathly sick in
MARISA BACATAN WILLIAMS and ORLANDO VERAR RIAN, JR., 2002 which explains why Francisco B. Ventolero had to take the document to
petitioners, Cotabato for her signature.
vs.
ATTY. RODRIGO ICAO, respondent. The style of the signatures of Francisco and Desiderio Ventolero also appear
not to be under the guidance of a legal expert since the family name of
DECISION "Ventolero" is used on page #2 while the family name of "Briones" is used on
page #1 and #3. An attorney would never knowing[ly] allow such an
CARPIO MORALES, J.: inconsistency in a legal document. Bouncing back and forth from one family
name to another and from a written signature on page #2 to thumbmarks on
Maria Bacatan Williams and Orlando Verar Rian, Jr. (petitioners) page #1 and #3 also seem to be highly irregular for a document supposedly
administratively charge Atty. Rodrigo Icao (respondent) for violation of the signed in front of a lawyer.4 (Underscoring supplied)
Notarial Law and for unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct
unbecoming of an attorney.1 Petitioners additionally charge respondent to have conspired with Atty. Rudy
T. Enriquez (Atty. Enriquez), one of the signatories to, in the falsification, of
In their Joint-Complaint-Affidavit for Disbarment,2 petitioners allege that on the document.5
May 23, 2002, respondent notarized a Declaration of Heirship and Partition3
(the document) making it appear that three of its signatories – Lucia Briones, In his Comment,6 respondent, admitting that the document was not executed
Ramon Verar, and Martin Umbac – signed it in his presence when in truth in his presence, claims that before he notarized it, the parties thereto
they did not. In support of their allegation, they gave the following details, appeared before him and he ascertained their identities as well as of those of
quoted verbatim: their witnesses; that he explained to them the contents of the document
which they acknowledged to be true and correct; that all the parties
Proof that Attorney Icao was not present when the DECLARATION was acknowledged before him that the signatures appearing thereon were theirs
actually signed came to light on June 3, 2003 during the trial in Criminal and that they executed the same freely and voluntarily; that he did not find in
Case No. 3051 held at MCTC Bacong, Negros Oriental when, in his sworn the document anything contrary to law, morals and public policy since at the
testimony, Francisco B. Ventolero, one of the six signers, said that he was time of the notarization, the signatories were accompanied by their counsel,
the one to carry the document from one signer to the next to get their Atty. Enriquez; that he did not require the presentation of other documents to
signatures. x x x support the document as he was not privy to its preparation; and that
petitioners’ complaint had already prescribed under Section 1, Rule VIII of
Additional support that the document was not signed in attendance with the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the
Attorney Icao is found where the participants declared they signed the IBP under which a complaint for disbarment, suspension or discipline of
document on 14 January 2002 in Bacong as opposed to the attorneys prescribes in two years from the date of the professional
acknowledgment where Attorney Icao declares that they signed the misconduct.
document on 23 May 2002 in Dumaguete City.
Respondent attached to his Comment a Joint Affidavit7 of Ramon Ventolero
Verar, Martin Umbac, and Desiderio Briones Ventolero, who are among the
signatories to the document, in which they attested to having appeared Heck v. Santos,17 we declared that an administrative complaint against a
before respondent to acknowledge as theirs the signatures they had member of the bar does not prescribe.
previously affixed thereon.
xxxx
The Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation.8 While a mandatory The CBD-IBP derives its authority to take cognizance of administrative
conference/hearing was set on April 24, 2007,9 petitioners requested that the proceedings against lawyers from this Court which has the inherent power to
case be resolved on the basis of the parties’ position papers.10 regulate, supervise and control the practice of law in the Philippines. Hence,
in the exercise of its delegated power to entertain administrative complaints
In his Report and Recommendation,11 IBP Commissioner Edmund T. Espina against lawyers, the CBD-IBP should be guided by the doctrines and
(Espina), brushing aside respondent’s defense of prescription, citing Calo v. principles laid down by this Court.
Degamo12 which held that disbarment proceedings do not prescribe, found
respondent guilty of violation of the Notarial Law. Regrettably, Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the CBD-IBP
which provides for a prescriptive period for the filing of administrative
Espina thereupon recommended that respondent be reprimanded, with complaints against lawyers runs afoul of the settled ruling of this Corut. It
warning that similar acts in the future would merit severe penalty. should therefore be struck down as void and of no legal effect for being ultra
vires.18
The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution of December 14, 2007, resolved
to dismiss the case, viz: On the merits. The document does not bear the residence certificate number
of Lucia Briones, one of the signatories. In notarizing it without recording
RESOLVED to AMEND, as it is hereby AMENDED, the Recommendation of Lucia’s residence certificate, respondent violated the Notarial Law then
the Investigating Commissioner, and APPROVE the DISMISSAL of the effective19 which required the notary public to certify that a party to the
above-entitled case for lack of merit.13 (Italics and emphasis in the original) instrument which was acknowledged before him had presented the proper
residence certificate (or exemption from the residence certificate) and to
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,14 averring that: enter its number, place and date of issue as part of the certification.20 This
formality is mandatory and cannot be neglected, failure to comply with which
The Commission on Bar Discipline [sic] must have made an error by results in the revocation of a notary’s commission.21
dismissing this case for "lack of merit" considering that Commissioner Espina
stated on page #7 of his report and recommendation that, "The manner on By respondent’s admission, the signatories to the document did not
which all the parties signed the document is highly irregular and personally sign it in his presence. He, however, claims that they appeared
questionable." Furthermore, on page #8 the Commissioner added, "Sad to before him and confirmed their identities and acknowledged that the
say, respondent miserably failed to refute the allegations against him15 signatures appearing thereon were theirs. If indeed the heirs-signatories and
(Italics and underscoring in the original), their witnesses had personally appeared before respondent, it is beyond
comprehension why he did not ask them to affix their signatures in his
which motion the IBP forwarded to the Court. presence. By such omission, he failed to heed his duty as a notary public to
demand that the document for notarization be signed in his presence.22
The Court finds for petitioners.
More. The document contained false statements. Thus, it listed the
On the technical issue of prescription, Frias v. Bautista-Lozada,16 holds that signatories’ counsel, Atty. Enriquez, as one of the six heirs of Aurea Briones,
that prescription does not lie in administrative proceedings against lawyers. albeit he is merely the legal counsel of the heirs.23 The Joint Affidavit
respondent attached to his Comment stating that there were five, not six,
x x x As early as 1967, we have held that the defense of prescription does heirs should have readily alerted him of such falsity.
not lie in administrative proceedings against lawyers. And in the 2004 case of
Still more. The document states that Aurea Briones Ventolero died ab
intestato during the Second World War. The death certificate of the deceased
on file at the Civil Registry states, however, that she died on July 12, 1998.24
And the document states that the six signatories are heirs of Aurea Briones,
whereas in the Joint Affidavit attached to respondent’s Comment, the three
signatories-affiants claim that they are, as well as of the deceased Aurea
Briones’ husband Ciriaco Ventolero, heirs of Aurea Briones.

Records show that Atty. Enriquez had in fact been previously suspended
from the practice of law for two years for his complicity in executing the same
document.25

In notarizing a document containing false statements, respondent failed to

discharge his duty to inform himself of the facts to which he intended to
certify and to take part in no illegal enterprise.26

It bears recalling that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary

act.27 It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who
are qualified or authorized may act as notary public.28 As a notarial
document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, notaries
public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties, lest the confidence of the public in the integrity of
the document will be undermined.29

No concrete evidence being appreciated from the records in support of the

charge of complicity in the falsification of the document, the same must fail.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Atty. Rodrigo Icao is SUSPENDED

from the practice of law and from his commission as a notary public for a
period of one year, effective immediately, with warning that a commission of
the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

SO ORDERED.
Republic of the Philippines handle the preparation of documents for the loan and follow-up the same,
SUPREME COURT and complainant gave respondent the authority for this purpose. From time to
Manila time, complainant inquired about the application for the loan, but respondent
always assured her that she was still preparing the documents required by
EN BANC the bank. Because of her assurances, complainant did not bother to check
on her property, relying on respondent's words that she would handle
A.C. No. 4191 June 10, 2013 speedily the preparation of her application.

ANITA C. PENA, Complainant, Further, complainant narrated that when she visited her property, she
vs. discovered that her apartment was already demolished, and in its place, four
ATTY. CHRISTINA C. PATERNO, Respondent. residential houses were constructed on her property, which she later learned
was already owned by one Ernesto D. Lampa, who bought her property from
DECISION Estrella D. Kraus. Complainant immediately confronted respondent about
what she discovered, but respondent just brushed her aside and ignored her.
PER CURIAM: After verification, complainant learned that her property was sold on
November 11, 1986 to Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd., and respondent was
This is an administrative case filed against respondent Atty. Christina C. the Notary Public before whom the sale was acknowledged.3 Krisbuilt
Paterno for acts violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Traders Company, Ltd., through its Managing Partner, Estrella D. Kraus, sold
Notarial Law. the same to one Ernesto D. Lampa on April 13, 1989.4

On February 14, 1994, complainant Anita C. Peña, former head of the Complainant stated in her Complaint that she did not sell her property to
Records Department of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd., and that she neither signed any deed of
filed an Affidavit-Complaint1 against respondent Atty. Christina C. Paterno. sale in its favor nor appeared before respondent to acknowledge the sale.
Complainant alleged that she was the owner of a parcel of land known as Lot She alleged that respondent manipulated the sale of her property to Krisbuilt
7-C, Psd-74200, located in Bayanbayanan, Parang, Marikina, Metro Manila, Traders Company, Ltd. using her trusted employee, Estrella D. Kraus, as the
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-61244,2 Register of instrument in the sale, and that her signature was forged, as she did not sign
Deeds of Marikina, with an eight-door apartment constructed thereon. She any deed selling her property to anyone.
personally knew respondent Atty. Christina C. Paterno, as respondent was
her lawyer in a legal separation case, which she filed against her husband in In her Answer,5 respondent alleged that Estrella D. Kraus never worked in
1974, and the aforementioned property was her share in their property any capacity in her law office, and that Estrella and her husband, Karl Kraus
settlement. Complainant stated that she also knew personally one Estrella D. (Spouses Kraus), were her clients. Respondent denied that she suggested
Kraus, as she was respondent's trusted employee who did secretarial work that complainant should apply for a loan from a bank to construct
for respondent. Estrella Kraus was always there whenever she visited townhouses. She said that it was the complainant, on the contrary, who
respondent in connection with her cases. requested her (respondent) to look for somebody who could help her raise
the money she needed to complete the amortization of her property, which
Moreover, complainant stated that, sometime in 1986, respondent suggested was mortgaged with the GSIS and was about to be foreclosed. Respondent
that she (complainant) apply for a loan from a bank to construct townhouses stated that she was the one who introduced complainant to the Spouses
on her property for sale to interested buyers, and that her property be offered Kraus when they were both in her office. In the course of their conversation,
as collateral. Respondent assured complainant that she would work out the complainant offered the property, subject matter of this case, to the Spouses
speedy processing and release of the loan. Complainant agreed, but since Kraus. The Spouses Kraus were interested, and got the telephone number of
she had a balance on her loan with the GSIS, respondent lent her the sum of complainant. Thereafter, complainant told respondent that she accompanied
₱27,000.00, without any interest, to pay the said loan. When her title was the Spouses Kraus to the site of her property and the Office of the Register
released by the GSIS, complainant entrusted it to respondent who would of Deeds. After about three weeks, the Spouses Kraus called up respondent
to tell her that they had reached an agreement with complainant, and they cancellation of TCT No. 61244 in the name of complainant and the issuance
requested respondent to prepare the deed of sale in favor of their company, of a new title to Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd. However, the Register of
Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd. Thereafter, complainant and the Spouses Deeds failed to appear on March 1, 2002. During the hearing held on July 29,
Kraus went to respondent's office where complainant signed the Deed of 2003, respondent's counsel presented a certification10 from Records Officer
Sale after she received Sixty-Seven Thousand Pesos (₱67,000.00) from the Ma. Corazon Gaspar of the Register of Deeds of Marikina City, which
Spouses Kraus. Respondent alleged that complainant took hold of the Deed certification stated that a copy of the Deed of Sale executed by Anita C. Peña
of Sale, as the understanding was that the complainant would, in the in favor of Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd., covering a parcel of land in
meantime, work for the release of the mortgage, and, thereafter, she would Marikina, could not be located from the general file of the registry and that
deliver her certificate of title, together with the Deed of Sale, to the Spouses the same may be considered lost. Hearings continued until 2005. On
Kraus who would then pay complainant the balance of the agreed price. February 17, 2005, respondent was directed by the Investigating
Complainant allegedly told respondent that she would inform respondent Commissioner to formally offer her evidence and to submit her
when the transaction was completed so that the Deed of Sale could be memorandum.
recorded in the Notarial Book. Thereafter, respondent claimed that she had
no knowledge of what transpired between complainant and the Spouses Before the resolution of the case by the IBP, respondent filed a Motion to
Kraus. Respondent stated that she was never entrusted with complainant's Dismiss before the IBP on the ground that the criminal case of estafa filed
certificate of title to her property in Marikina (TCT No. N-61244). Moreover, it against her before the RTC of Manila, Branch 36, which estafa case was
was only complainant who negotiated the sale of her property in favor of anchored on the same facts as the administrative case, had been dismissed
Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd. According to respondent, complainant's in a Decision11 dated August 20, 2007 in Criminal Case No. 94-138567. The
inaction for eight years to verify what happened to her property only meant RTC held that the case for estafa could not prosper against the accused Atty.
that she had actually sold the same, and that she concocted her story when Christina C. Paterno, respondent herein, for insufficiency of evidence to
she saw the prospect of her property had she held on to it. Respondent secure conviction beyond reasonable doubt, considering the absence of the
prayed for the dismissal of the case. Deed of Sale and/or any competent proof that would show that Anita Peña's
signature therein was forged and the transfer of the land was made through
On February 28, 1995, complainant filed a Reply,6 belying respondent's fraudulent documents.
allegations and affirming the veracity of her complaint.
The issue resolved by the Investigating Commissioner was whether or not
On March 20, 1995, this case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the there was clear and preponderant evidence showing that respondent violated
Philippines (IBP) for investigation and recommendation.7 On April 18, 1996, the Canons of Professional Responsibility by (a) deceiving complainant Anita
complainant moved that hearings be scheduled by the Commission on Bar C. Peña; (b) conspiring with Estrella Kraus and Engr. Ernesto Lampa to
Discipline. On November 8, 1999, the case was set for its initial hearing, and enable the latter to register the subject property in his name; and (c)
hearings were conducted from March 21, 2000 to July 19, 2000. knowingly notarizing a falsified contract of sale.

On August 3, 2000, complainant filed her Formal Offer of Evidence. On January 6, 2009, Atty. Albert R. Sordan, the Investigating Commissioner
Thereafter, hearings for the reception of respondent's evidence were set, but of the IBP, submitted his Report and Recommendation finding that
supervening events caused their postponement. respondent betrayed the trust reposed upon her by complainant by executing
a bogus deed of sale while she was entrusted with complainant's certificate
On July 4, 2001, respondent filed a Demurrer to Evidence,8 which was of title, and that respondent also notarized the spurious deed of sale.
opposed by complainant. The Investigating Commissioner denied Commissioner Sordan stated that there was no evidence showing that
respondent's prayer for the outright dismissal of the complaint, and directed respondent actively conspired with any party or actively participated in the
respondent to present her evidence on October 24, 2001.9 forgery of the signature of complainant. Nevertheless, Commissioner Sordan
stated that complainant's evidence supports the conclusion that her signature
The Register of Deeds of Marikina City was subpoenaed to testify and bring on the said Deed of Sale dated November 11, 1986 was forged.
the Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 11, 1986, which caused the
Although no copy of the said Deed of Sale could be produced recording, but he later affirmed that he saw the parties sign the Deed of
notwithstanding diligent search in the National Archives and the Notarial Absolute Sale.23
Section of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Commissioner Sordan
stated that the interlocking testimonies of the complainant and her witness, Commissioner Sordan stated that the unbroken chain of circumstances, like
Maura Orosco, proved that the original copy of the owner's duplicate respondent's testimony that she saw complainant sign the Deed of Sale
certificate of title was delivered to respondent.12 Commissioner Sordan did before her is proof of respondent's deception. Respondent's notarization of
not give credence to respondent's denial that complainant handed to her the the disputed deed of sale showed her active role to perpetuate a fraud to
owner's duplicate of TCT No. N-61244 in November 1986 at the GSIS, as prejudice a party. Commissioner Sordan declared that respondent failed to
Maura Orosco, respondent's former client who worked as Records Processor exercise the required diligence and fealty to her office by attesting that the
at the GSIS, testified that she saw complainant give the said title to alleged party, Anita Peña, appeared before her and signed the deed when in
respondent. truth and in fact the said person did not participate in the execution thereof.
Moreover, respondent should be faulted for having failed to make the
Commissioner Sordan gave credence to the testimony of complainant that necessary entries pertaining to the deed of sale in her notarial register.
she gave respondent her owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 61244 to enable
respondent to use the same as collateral in constructing a townhouse, and According to Commissioner Sordan, these gross violations of the law made
that the title was in the safekeeping of respondent for seven years.13 Despite respondent liable for violation of her oath as a lawyer and constituted
repeated demands by complainant, respondent refused to return it.14 Yet, transgressions of Section 20 (a),24 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and
respondent assured complainant that she was still the owner.15 Later, Canon 125 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
complainant discovered that a new building was erected on her property in
January 1994, eight years after she gave the title to respondent. Respondent Commissioner Sordan recommended that respondent be disbarred from the
argued that it was unfathomable that after eight years, complainant never practice of law and her name stricken-off the Roll of Attorneys, effective
took any step to verify the status of her loan application nor visited her immediately, and recommended that the notarial commission of respondent,
property, if it is untrue that she sold the said property. Complainant explained if still existing, be revoked, and that respondent be perpetually disqualified
that respondent kept on assuring her that the bank required the submission from reappointment as a notary public.
of her title in order to process her loan application.16
On August 28, 2010, the Board of Governors of the IBP passed Resolution
Commissioner Sordan stated that respondent enabled Estrella B. Kraus to No. XIX-20-464, adopting and approving the Report and Recommendation of
sell complainant's land to Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd.17 This was the Investigating Commissioner, thus:
evidenced by Entry No. 150322 in TCT No. 61244 with respect to the sale of
the property described therein to Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd. for RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously
₱200,000.00.18 Respondent alleged that complainant signed the Deed of ADOPTED and APPROVED the Report and Recommendation of the
Sale in her presence inside her office.19 However, respondent would neither Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of
directly confirm nor deny if, indeed, she notarized the instrument in her direct this Resolution as Annex "A", and, finding the recommendation fully
examination,20 but on cross-examination, she stated that she was not supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and
denying that she was the one who notarized the Deed of Sale.21 Estrella finding Respondent guilty of her oath as a lawyer, Section 20 (a), Rule 138 of
Kraus' affidavit22 supported respondent's defense. the Rules of Court and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, Atty. Christina C. Paterno is hereby DISBARRED from the
Respondent presented her former employee Basilio T. Depaudhon to prove practice of law and her name stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.
the alleged signing by complainant of the purported Deed of Absolute Sale, Furthermore, respondent's notarial commission if still existing is Revoked
and the notarization by respondent of the said Deed. However, with Perpetual Disqualification from reappointment as a Notary Public.
Commissioner Sordan doubted the credibility of Depaudhon, as he affirmed
that his participation in the alleged Deed of Absolute Sale was mere
The Court adopts the findings of the Board of Governors of the IBP insofar as complainant's title, TCT No. N-61244. As the Deed of Sale could not be
respondent has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the presented in evidence, through no fault of the complainant, nonetheless, the
Notarial Law, and agrees with the sanction imposed. consequence thereof is failure of complainant to prove her allegation that her
signature therein was forged and that respondent defrauded complainant by
The criminal case of estafa from which respondent was acquitted, as her guilt facilitating the sale of the property to Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd. without
was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, is different from this administrative complainant's approval. However, complainant proved that respondent did
case, and each must be disposed of according to the facts and the law not submit to the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Manila, National Capital
applicable to each case.26 Section 5,27 in relation to Sections 128 and 2,29 Region her Notarial Report for the month of November 1986, when the Deed
Rule 133, Rules of Court states that in administrative cases, only substantial of Sale was executed.
evidence is required, not proof beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal
cases, or preponderance of evidence as in civil cases. Substantial evidence The pertinent provisions of the applicable Notarial Law found in Chapter 12,
is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as Book V, Volume I of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, as amended,
adequate to justify a conclusion.30 states that every notary public shall keep a notarial register,38 and he shall
enter in such register, in chronological order, the nature of each instrument
Freeman v. Reyes31 held that the dismissal of a criminal case does not executed, among others, and, when the instrument is a contract, he shall
preclude the continuance of a separate and independent action for keep a correct copy thereof as part of his records, and he shall likewise enter
administrative liability, as the weight of evidence necessary to establish the in said records a brief description of the substance thereof.39
culpability is merely substantial evidence. An administrative case can
proceed independently, even if there was a full-blown trial wherein, based on A ground for revocation of a notary public's commission is failure of the
both prosecution and defense evidence, the trial court eventually rendered a notary to send the copy of the entries to the proper clerk of the Court of First
judgment of acquittal, on the ground either that the prosecution failed to Instance (RTC) within the first ten days of the month next following or the
prove the respondent's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, or that no crime was failure of the notary to forward his notarial register, when filled, to the proper
committed.32 clerk of court.40

The purpose of disbarment is to protect the courts and the public from the In this case, the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Manila issued a Certification,41
misconduct of the officers of the court and to ensure the administration of dated February 22, 1994, stating that respondent was duly appointed as a
justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be Notary Public for the City of Manila for the year 1986, and that respondent
competent, honorable and trustworthy men in whom courts and clients may has not yet forwarded to the Clerk of Court's Office her Notarial Report for
repose confidence.33 The burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the month of November 1986, when the Deed of Sale was executed and
the Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if she establishes her case notarized by her. Hence, a copy of the Notarial Report/Record and the said
by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence.34 Deed of Sale could not also be found in the National Archives per the
certification42 of the Archives Division Chief Teresita R. Ignacio for Director
In this case, Investigating Commissioner Sordan gave credence to Edgardo J. Celis. The failure of respondent to fulfill her duty as notary public
complainant's testimony that she gave respondent her owner's copy of the to submit her notarial register for the month of November 1986 and a copy of
certificate of title to her property as respondent would apply for a bank loan in the said Deed of Sale that was notarized by her on the same month is cause
complainant's behalf, using the subject property as collateral. for revocation of her commission under Section 249 of the Notarial Law.43
Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge with
Complainant's testimony was corroborated by Maura Orosco, a former fidelity the duties of their offices, such duties being dictated by public policy
records processor in complainant's office at the GSIS and also a client of and impressed with public interest.44
respondent, who stated that she saw complainant give her title to
respondent.35 Respondent admitted in her Answer36 that she executed the Pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be
Deed of Sale per the request of the Spouses Kraus. The said Deed of Sale removed or suspended for any deceit or dishonest act, thus:
was notarized by respondent as evidenced by Entry No. 15032237 in
Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
grounds. – A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other
gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath deceitful conduct.
which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilfull
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Given the facts of this case, wherein respondent was in possession of
complainant's copy of the certificate of title (TCT No. N-61244) to the Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
property in Marikina, and it was respondent who admittedly prepared the his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life,
Deed of Sale, which complainant denied having executed or signed, the behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
important evidence of the alleged forgery of complainant's signature on the profession.1âwphi1
Deed of Sale and the validity of the sale is the Deed of Sale itself. However,
a copy of the Deed of Sale could not be produced by the Register of Deeds WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Christina C. Paterno is DISBARRED from
of Marikina City, as it could not be located in the general files of the registry, the practice of law, pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,
and a certification was issued stating that the Deed of Sale may be as well as for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and the
considered lost.45 Moreover, respondent did not submit to the Clerk of Court notarial commission of Atty. Christina C. Paterno, if still existing, is
of the RTC of Manila her Notarial Report for the month of November 1986,46 perpetually REVOKED.
including the said Deed of Sale, which was executed on November 11, 1986.
Hence, Investigating Commissioner Sordan opined that it appears that efforts Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be
were exerted to get rid of the copies of the said Deed of Sale to prevent appended to respondent's personal record. Likewise, copies shall be
complainant from getting hold of the document for the purpose of handwriting furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country
verification from an expert to prove that her alleged signature on the Deed of for their information and guidance.
Sale was forged. The failure of respondent to submit to the proper RTC Clerk
of Court her Notarial Register/Report for the month of November 1986 and a The Bar Confidant is hereby DIRECTED to strike out the name of Christina
copy of the Deed of Sale, which was notarized by her within that month, has C. Paterno from the Roll of Attorneys.
far-reaching implications and grave consequences, as it in effect suppressed
evidence on the veracity of the said Deed of Sale and showed the deceitful SO ORDERED.
conduct of respondent to withhold the truth about its authenticity. During her
testimony, it was observed by the Investigating Commissioner and reflected
in the transcript of records that respondent would neither directly confirm nor
deny that she notarized the said Deed of Sale.

For the aforementioned deceitful conduct, respondent is disbarred from the

practice of law. As a member of the bar, respondent failed to live up to the
standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly
the following Canons:
SECOND DIVISION personal knowledge of the fact of death of Mrs. Gokioco;2 and, the death of
Mrs. Gokioco was brought to the attention of the court only during the pre-
A.C. No. 4179 November 11, 2004 trial conference on May 18,1993 which ordered Eustaquio to amend the
complaint.
ALICE GOKIOCO, complainant,
vs. On June 27, 1994, the Court issued a resolution referring the instant case to
ATTY. RAFAEL P. MATEO, respondent. the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for its investigation, report and
recommendation.3

RESOLUTION After several hearings, Commissioner Elpidio G. Soriano III of the IBP
submitted his report dated November 10, 2003, portions of which read as
follows:
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
In this case, the respondent failed to make the proper entry or entries in his
Before this Court is a complaint filed by Alice Gokioco against Atty. Rafael P. notarial register touching his notarial acts in the manner required by law. The
Mateo for falsification of a public document. respondent should have entered the fact of See Chua-Gokioco's verification
on the date when the latter actually verified her complaint in the respondent's
On January 24, 1992, Alice Gokioco filed an Affidavit-Complaint with this presence, as opposed to the date when he filed the complaint.
Court alleging that: during the pre-trial conference of civil case "Sps.
Eustaquio Gokioco and See Chua-Gokioco vs. Jennifer Gokioco, Sps. In addition to failing to obey the pertinent portions of the notarial law quoted
Mariano Gokioco and Alice Gokioco," they discovered that the complaint in above, the respondent also violated his lawyer's oath to, inter alia, do no
said case was subscribed and sworn to by See Chua-Gokioco before herein falsehood or consent to the doing of the same.
respondent on November 10, 1992; See Chua-Gokioco however, died on
October 7, 1992 as evidenced by the death certificate issued by the local civil The respondent admits that although See Chua-Gokioco signed and
registrar; respondent, a long time counsel for the family, notarized and filed subscribed the civil complaint at an earlier date, the said respondent only
the said complaint, fully aware of the death of See Chua-Gokioco; this entered the fact of the signing and subscribing of the said complaint much
constitutes a violation of the Revised Penal Code, the Notarial Law, the later, that is, on the date of the filing of the said civil complaint.
lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and
warrants respondent's disbarment and/or suspension from the practice of The respondent reasons that he delayed the filing of the civil complaint
law.1 against the herein complainant and her family because he wanted to make
sure that the parties had the opportunity to amicably settle the issues raised
In his comment, Atty. Rafael Mateo denies that he is a long time counsel of in the civil complaint.
the Gokioco family and explains, as follows: He only transacted with them in
1976 and again in 1992; his law office prepared the complaint for the It would have been a simple matter for the respondent to exercise a little
Gokioco spouses on September 22, 1992; thereafter, he called See Chua- circumspection by ascertaining from Eustaquio and See Chua-Gokioco if any
Gokioco and her son Francisco to come to his office in Tanay for the reading settlement was agreed on between Eustaquio and See Chua-Gokioco on
and verification of the complaint; respondent forgot, however, the exact date one hand, and the herein complainant and her family upon the other, prior to
when this was done which could be anywhere between September 22, 1992 the institution of the civil complaint in question. In doing so, the respondent
and October 7, 1992, the date of her death; from the time Mrs. Gokioco left would have found out that See Chua-Gokioco had died.
his office in Tanay up to the time he filed the complaint in court, he was not
aware that Mrs. Gokioco had already died; his office has no telephone and is The respondent's arguments to the effect that his office was 70 kilometers
about 70 kilometers from the residence of the Gokioco family in Caloocan; he away from his clients' residence and that his office did not have a telephone
notarized and filed the complaint on November 10, 1992 without any are of no moment. The respondent had the duty to determine whether or not
to file the civil complaint in question and he should have exhausted all Furthermore, the damage that may have been caused by the respondent's
possible means to communicate with his clients. misconduct is mitigated by the fact that the respondent had no dishonest or
selfish motive in notarizing the civil complaint despite the fact that the affiant
Furthermore, the respondent's act of making it appear that See Chua- was absent on the date of its alleged notarization.4
Gokioco verified the civil complaint on the date of its filing, when in fact she
did not, means that the respondent effectively notarized a document when He then recommended that:
the affiant was absent. In other words, the affiant did not sign or subscribe to
the said civil complaint in the presence of the notary public on the date stated …respondent be reprimanded and warned that any future misconduct on his
in the civil complaint, because on the date stated the affiant was dead or part will warrant the imposition of a greater penalty.5
otherwise absent.
On February 27, 2004, the Board of Governors of the IBP passed a
… resolution as follows:

There is no question therefore that the respondent is liable for his misconduct RESOLUTION NO. XVI-2004-50
as follows:
Adm. Case No. 4179
(1) the respondent neglected or otherwise failed to enter in his notarial
register the true date when See Chua-Gokioco signed the verification portion Alice Gokioco vs.
of the civil complaint against Alice Gokioco, her husband Mariano Gokioco, Atty. Rafael P. Mateo
and their daughter Jennifer Gokioco;
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and
(2) the respondent neglected or otherwise failed to contact his clients prior to APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
the filing of the said civil complaint in order to ascertain if his clients wanted Commissioner of the above-entitled case… and, finding the recommendation
to proceed with the filing of the same; and, fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules,
and considering that respondent had no dishonest or selfish motive in
(3) the respondent violated his lawyer's oath to obey the laws and do no notarizing the civil complaint despite the fact that the affiant was absent on
falsehood when he made it appear that See Chua-Gokioco personally signed the date of its alleged notarization, Atty. Rafael P. Mateo is hereby
and executed the civil complaint in question on the date stated in the said REPRIMANDED and WARNED that any future misconduct on his part will
civil complaint in his presence, when in fact she was already dead on the warrant the imposition of a greater penalty.6
said date or was otherwise not physically present.
While we agree with the findings of the IBP, we find that the penalty of
The undersigned commissioner, however, is of the opinion that the reprimand is not commensurate to the misconduct committed by respondent.
respondent's misconduct while serious, is not so gross as to merit
disbarment or suspension. From the record, it appears that the Presiding Respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and the CPR when he made it
Judge of RTC Rizal, Branch 79, rather than citing the respondent's appear that the complaint of the Gokioco was verified by See Chua on
misconduct ordered the civil complaint amended. November 10, 1992.

The damage that was caused to the legal system, to the respondent's clients; The verification of the civil case submitted to the trial court states,
to Alice Gokioco, her husband Mariano Gokioco, and their daughter Jennifer "SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS November 10, 1992, in Tanay,
Gokioco because of the respondent's misconduct was minimal or was Rizal."7 The death certificate submitted by complainant states however that
otherwise contained by the amendment of the civil complaint in question. See Chua Gokioco died on October 7, 1992.

Rule 10.01 of the CPR holds that:

 This responsibility is more pronounced when the notary public is a lawyer. A
A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; graver responsibility is placed upon him by reason of his solemn oath to obey
nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any.13 He is
mandated to the sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties, being
The Notarial Law, as provided for in Title IV, Chapter II, Revised dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. Failing in his
Administrative Code, also states that: duties, he must bear the commensurate consequences.14

Sec. 245. Notarial Register – Every notary public shall keep a register to be Sec. 249 of the Notarial Law provides for grounds for the revocation of the
known as the notarial register, wherein record shall be made of all his official notarial commission, thus:
acts as notary…
Sec. 249. Grounds for revocation of commission. --- The following
Sec. 246. Matters to be entered therein. The notary public shall enter in such derelictions of duty on the part of a notary public shall, in the discretion of the
register, in chronological order, the nature of each instrument executed, proper judge of first instance, be sufficient ground for the revocation of his
sworn to, or acknowledging the instrument, the witnesses, if any, to the commission:
signature, the date of execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the instrument,
the fees collected by him for his services as notary in connection therewith, (a) The failure of the notary to keep a notarial register.
and, when the instrument is a contract, he shall keep a correct copy thereof
as part of his records, and shall likewise enter in said records a brief (b) The failure of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial
description of the substance thereof and shall give to each entry a register touching his notarial acts in the manner required by law.
consecutive number, beginning with number one in each calendar year. The
notary shall give to each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged (c) The failure of the notary to send the copy of the entries to the proper clerk
before him a number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also of Court of First Instance within the first ten days of the month next following.
state on the instrument the page or pages of his register on which the same
is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries. (Emphasis supplied) (d) The failure of the notary to affix to acknowledgments the date of
expiration of his commission, as required by law.
It cannot be stressed enough that notaries public should be truthful in
carrying out their functions. They must observe with the highest degree of (e) The failure of the notary to forward his notarial register, when filled, to the
care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties in order to proper clerk of court.
preserve the confidence of the public in the integrity of the notarial system.
Courts, agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the (f) The failure of the notary to make the proper notation regarding cedula
acknowledgment executed by notaries public appended to instruments.8 certificates.
Their functions should not be trivialized and they must discharge their powers
and duties which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy and (g) The failure of a notary to make report, within a reasonable time, to the
fidelity.9 With the eroding faith of the public in the integrity of public proper judge of first instance concerning the performance of his duties, as
documents, this Court will exhort all the more the notaries public to be more may be required by such judge.
circumspect in the discharge of their duties.10
(h) Any other dereliction or act which shall appear to the judge to constitute
Indeed, faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the good cause for removal. (Emphasis supplied)
oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct.11 The act of notarization
is invested with substantive public interest such that only those who are While we agree with the observation of the IBP that there was no proof that
qualified or authorized may perform the duties of notaries public.12 respondent had any dishonest or selfish motive in notarizing the civil
complaint despite the fact that the affiant was absent on the date of its
alleged notarization, we do not agree however that Atty. Mateo's conduct
deserves a mere reprimand. WHEREFORE, Atty. Rafael P. Mateo is SUSPENDED from practice of law
for six (6) months; his incumbent notarial commission, if any, is REVOKED;
To exculpate himself, respondent claims that he entered the fact of signing and he is prohibited anew from being commissioned as a notary public for
and subscribing of See Chua-Gokioco of the complaint on a later date, that is two (2) years, effective immediately, with a stern warning that repetition of
the date of its actual filing, because he was hoping that the parties, which the same or similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more severely.
come from the same family, would amicably settle the issues raised in the
complaint. Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the personal records of Atty.
Rafael P. Mateo in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies thereof be
We are not persuaded. The jurat must truthfully reflect all the information furnished the courts and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
stated therein since the courts and the public rely on such representations.
There is also no rule stating that the verification be subscribed and sworn to SO ORDERED.
at exactly the same day as the filing of the complaint. Worth noting also is the
fact that respondent did not raise such explanation in his comment before
this Court dated February 25, 1994,15 the earliest opportunity he had to put
up such defense, but merely stated the same during the IBP hearing on
August 10, 1999.16

In Coronado vs. Felongco,17 respondent lawyer was found guilty of

misconduct and suspended from his commission as notary public for a period
of two months for notarizing a deed, not knowing that the affiant who went to
his office personally and signed the document days before, had already died
at the time he notarized said document. The lack of ill intent on his part and
the fact that it was his first offense merely mitigated his liability.18

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that respondent is guilty of misconduct for

which he must be suspended.

We note that this is not the first administrative case filed against respondent
lawyer concerning his commission as a notary public. In Follosco vs.
Mateo,19 promulgated by this Court on February 3, 2004, respondent was
suspended from the practice of law for three months and his notarial
commission revoked for one year for notarizing documents without the
personal appearance of the affiants. The penalty was only reduced to
prohibition against his commission as a notary public to six months and his
period of suspension from the practice of law deemed already served, thru
this Court's Resolution on June 9, 2004, based on humanitarian reasons and
equity which respondent raised in his motion for reconsideration.

Considering that this is not the first offense committed by respondent in the
exercise of his duties as a notary public, we hold that respondent, in the
present case, should be suspended from the practice of law for six months
and prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.