Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 877 views

    A.C. No. 5838 Santuyo V Hidalgo

    Uploaded by

    Adrian Olaguer Aguas
    - Complainants accused respondent lawyer of misconduct and dishonesty for allegedly notarizing a forged deed of sale. - Respondent denied authenticating the deed and claimed secretaries at his former law office could have forged his signature. - The court found respondent negligent for wholly relying on secretaries to perform his notarial duties like entries in his registry. As a notary, he should have been more careful. He is suspended from his notary commission for 2 years.

    Copyright:

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

    A.C. No. 5838 Santuyo V Hidalgo

    Uploaded by

    Adrian Olaguer Aguas
    877 views2 pages
    - Complainants accused respondent lawyer of misconduct and dishonesty for allegedly notarizing a forged deed of sale. - Respondent denied authenticating the deed and claimed secretaries at his former law office could have forged his signature. - The court found respondent negligent for wholly relying on secretaries to perform his notarial duties like entries in his registry. As a notary, he should have been more careful. He is suspended from his notary commission for 2 years.

    Original Description:

    A.C.-No.-5838-Santuyo-v-Hidalgo

    Original Title

    A.C.-No.-5838-Santuyo-v-Hidalgo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Complainants accused respondent lawyer of misconduct and dishonesty for allegedly notarizing a forged deed of sale. - Respondent denied authenticating the deed and claimed secretaries at his former law office could have forged his signature. - The court found respondent negligent for wholly relying on secretaries to perform his notarial duties like entries in his registry. As a notary, he should have been more careful. He is suspended from his notary commission for 2 years.

    Copyright:

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

    A.C. No. 5838 Santuyo V Hidalgo

    Uploaded by

    Adrian Olaguer Aguas
    - Complainants accused respondent lawyer of misconduct and dishonesty for allegedly notarizing a forged deed of sale. - Respondent denied authenticating the deed and claimed secretaries at his former law office could have forged his signature. - The court found respondent negligent for wholly relying on secretaries to perform his notarial duties like entries in his registry. As a notary, he should have been more careful. He is suspended from his notary commission for 2 years.

    Copyright:

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

    A.C. No.

    5838 January 17, 2005 several documents in that office, these, however,
    did not include the subject deed of sale.
    SPOUSES BENJAMIN SANTUYO AND EDITHA
    SANTUYO, complainants, - He claimed that, in some occasions, the
    secretaries in the law firm, by themselves, would
    vs.
    affix the dry seal of the junior associates on
    ATTY. EDWIN A. HIDALGO, respondent. documents relating to cases handled by the law
    firm.
    FACTS:
    - He surmised that complainants must have gone
    - In a verified complaint-affidavit dated September to the law office and enticed one of the secretaries,
    18, 2001,1 spouses Benjamin Santuyo and Editha with the concurrence of the senior lawyers, to
    Santuyo accused respondent Atty. Edwin A. notarize the document. He claimed he was a victim
    Hidalgo of serious misconduct and dishonesty for of a criminal scheme motivated by greed.
    breach of his lawyer’s oath and the notarial law.

    - Complainants stated that sometime in December


    1991, they purchased a parcel of land covered by a ISSUE:
    deed of sale. The deed of sale was allegedly
    - WON respondent negligent in performing his
    notarized by respondent lawyer and was entered
    notarial functions
    in his notarial register as Doc. No. 94 on Page No.
    19 in Book No. III, Series of 1991.

    - Complainant spouses averred that about six years RULING:


    after the date of notarization, they had a dispute
    - YES. Considering that the responsibility attached
    with one Danilo German over the ownership of the
    to a notary public is sensitive respondent should
    land. The case was estafa through falsification of a
    have been more discreet and cautious in the
    public document.
    execution of his duties as such and should not have
    - During the trial of the case, German presented in wholly entrusted everything to the secretaries;
    court an affidavit executed by respondent denying otherwise he should not have been commissioned
    the authenticity of his signature on the deed of as notary public.
    sale. The spouses allegedly forged his notarial
    - For having wholly entrusted the preparation and
    signature on said deed.
    other mechanics of the document for notarization
    - Not being persons who were learned in the to the secretary there can be a possibility that even
    technicalities surrounding a notarial act, spouses the respondent’s signature which is the only one
    contended that they could not have forged the left for him to do can be done by the secretary or
    signature of herein respondent. They added that anybody for that matter as had been the case
    they had no access to his notarial seal and notarial herein.
    register, and could not have made any imprint of
    - As it is respondent had been negligent not only in
    respondent’s seal or signature on the subject deed
    the supposed notarization but foremost in having
    of sale or elsewhere.
    allowed the office secretaries to make the
    - According to respondent, he once worked as a necessary entries in his notarial registry which was
    junior lawyer at Carpio General and Jacob Law supposed to be done and kept by him alone; and
    Office where he was asked to apply for a notarial should not have relied on somebody else.
    commission. While he admitted that he notarized
    - WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Edwin A. Hidalgo
    is hereby found GUILTY of negligence in the
    performance of his duties as notary public and is
    hereby SUSPENDED from his commission as a
    notary public for a period of two years, if he is
    commissioned, or if he is not, he is disqualified
    from an appointment as a notary public for a
    period of two years from finality of this resolution,
    with a warning that a repetition of similar negligent
    acts would be dealt with more severely.

    You might also like