Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 183 views

    Bartolome v. Basilio

    Uploaded by

    Shari Realce Ande
    Respondent notarized a joint affidavit purportedly signed by Loreto M. Tañedo and Ramon T. Lim, but Tañedo had already passed away. [1] The IBP found respondent manifested gross negligence and disregarded notarial rules by failing to indicate identification details of the signatories in the affidavit. [2] Notarizing a document without properly identifying the person who signed it constitutes a violation of notarial rules. [3] In this case, respondent affixed his signature to the joint affidavit without properly identifying the signatories, including the deceased Tañedo, violating notarial rules and legal ethics.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bartolome v. Basilio

    Uploaded by

    Shari Realce Ande
    183 views2 pages
    Respondent notarized a joint affidavit purportedly signed by Loreto M. Tañedo and Ramon T. Lim, but Tañedo had already passed away. [1] The IBP found respondent manifested gross negligence and disregarded notarial rules by failing to indicate identification details of the signatories in the affidavit. [2] Notarizing a document without properly identifying the person who signed it constitutes a violation of notarial rules. [3] In this case, respondent affixed his signature to the joint affidavit without properly identifying the signatories, including the deceased Tañedo, violating notarial rules and legal ethics.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondent notarized a joint affidavit purportedly signed by Loreto M. Tañedo and Ramon T. Lim, but Tañedo had already passed away. [1] The IBP found respondent manifested gross negligence and disregarded notarial rules by failing to indicate identification details of the signatories in the affidavit. [2] Notarizing a document without properly identifying the person who signed it constitutes a violation of notarial rules. [3] In this case, respondent affixed his signature to the joint affidavit without properly identifying the signatories, including the deceased Tañedo, violating notarial rules and legal ethics.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    183 views2 pages

    Bartolome v. Basilio

    Uploaded by

    Shari Realce Ande
    Respondent notarized a joint affidavit purportedly signed by Loreto M. Tañedo and Ramon T. Lim, but Tañedo had already passed away. [1] The IBP found respondent manifested gross negligence and disregarded notarial rules by failing to indicate identification details of the signatories in the affidavit. [2] Notarizing a document without properly identifying the person who signed it constitutes a violation of notarial rules. [3] In this case, respondent affixed his signature to the joint affidavit without properly identifying the signatories, including the deceased Tañedo, violating notarial rules and legal ethics.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    NOTARIZING A DOCUMENT WITHOUT PROPERLY IDENTIFYING THE PERSON WHO

    SIGNED THE SAME CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF THE NOTARIAL RULES


    Atty. Benigno T. Bartolome vs. Atty. Christopher A. Basilio Commented [SR1]: Please take quidelines seriously
    A.C. No. 10783, October 14, 2015
    Perlas-Bernabe, J.

    FACTS:
    Complainant Atty. Benigno T. Bartolome filed an administrative case against respondent and Commented [SR2]: It’s ok to delete mid initials
    notary public Atty. Christopher A. Basilio for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

    Complainant alleged that respondent notarized a Joint Affidavit purportedly subscribed and
    sworn to before him by Loreto M. Tañedo and Ramon T. Lim despite the fact that Tañedo had
    already passed away.

    Respondent admitted that he notarized the document but claimed that prior to the notarization,
    he verified the identities of Tañedo and Lim through their SSS ID cards and driver’s licenses.

    The IBP found that respondent manifested gross negligence and completely disregarded the
    Notarial Rules since thewhen respondent he failed to indicate in the Joint Affidavitaffidavit the
    details of the SSS ID card and driver’s licenseidentification cards allegedly shown as competent
    evidence of identity of the persons who appeared before him. Thus, his claim that he verified the
    identities of the persons who appeared before him was could not be given credence. It
    recommended that respondent’s notarial commission be revoked.

    ISSUE:
    Does notarizing a document without properly identifying the person who signed the same
    constitute a violation of the Notarial Rules?

    HELD:
    Yes, notarizing a document without properly identifying the person who signed the same
    constitutes ait amounted to a violation of the Notarial Rules.

    A jurat is, among others, an attestation that the person who presented the instrument or
    document to be notarized is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary
    public through competent evidence of identity as defined by the Notarial Rules.A notary public
    should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very person who
    executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are
    stated therein. By failing in this regard, the notary public permits a falsehood which does not
    only transgress the Notarial Rules but also 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."

    Basilio affixed his official signature and seal on the notarial certificate of the affidavit without
    properly identifying the person/s who signed the same. His claim that he verified the identities of
    the affiants through their identification cards cannot be given any credence considering the lack
    of details on the face of the certificate. Also, it has been established that one of the signatories
    to the affidavit was already dead when he notarized the document.

    Hence, the respondent was found guilty of violating the Notarial Rules.In the case at bar,
    respondent affixed his official signature and seal on the notarial certificate of the Joint Affidavit
    without properly identifying the person who signed the same. Moreover, it has been established
    that one of the named signatories to the Joint Affidavit was already dead when he notarized the
    aforesaid document. Hence, it is sufficiently clear that respondent had indeed affixed his official
    signature and seal on an incomplete, if not false, notarial certificate.

    The respondent is guilty of violating the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice and Rule 1.01, Canon 1
    of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

    You might also like