A.C. No.

6258 August 24, 2010 The core issue is whether or not Respondent committed a falsehood in
violation of his oath as a lawyer and his duties as Notary Public when he
LUZVIMINDA R. LUSTESTICA, Complainant, notarized the Deed of Donation purportedly executed by Benvenuto H.
vs. Lustestica and Cornelia P. Rivero as the donors and Cecilio R. Lustestica
ATTY. SERGIO E. BERNABE, Respondent. and Juliana Lustestica as the donees on 5 August 1994.

DECISION Section 1 of Public Act No. 2013, otherwise known as the Notarial Law,
explicitly provides:
PER CURIAM:
x x x The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify
For consideration is the disbarment complaint filed by Luzviminda R. that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him
Lustestica (complainant) against Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe (respondent) for and that he is the same person who executed it acknowledged that the same
notarizing a falsified or forged Deed of Donation of real property despite the is his free act and deed. x x x.
non-appearance of the donors, Benvenuto H. Lustestica (complainant’s
father) and his first wife, Cornelia P. Rivero, both of whom were already dead As correctly observed by Complainant, Respondent’s Acknowledgment is the
at the time of execution of the said document. best evidence that NO RESIDENCE CERTIFICATES were presented by the
alleged donors and the donees. Had the parties presented their residence
In his Answer,1 the respondent admitted the fact of death of Benvenuto H. certificates to Respondent, it was his duty and responsibility under the
Lustestica and Cornelia P. Rivero, considering their death certificates Notarial Law to enter, as part of his certification, the number, place of issue
attached to the complaint. The respondent claimed, however, that he had no and date of each residence certificate presented by the parties to the Deed of
knowledge that the real Benvenuto H. Lustestica and Cornelia P. Rivero were Donation. Respondent, however, failed to make the required entries.
already dead at the time he notarized the Deed of Donation.2 He also Respondent’s claim that the persons who allegedly appeared before him and
claimed that he exerted efforts to ascertain the identities of the persons who represented themselves to be the parties to the Deed of Donation showed
appeared before him and represented themselves as the donors under the their residence certificates and that he instructed his secretary to indicate the
Deed of Donation.3 details of the residence certificates of the parties is self-serving and not
supported by the evidence on record.
After the submission of the respondent’s Answer to the complaint, the Court
referred the matter to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar xxxx
of the Philippines (IBP Commission on Bar Discipline) for investigation,
evaluation and recommendation. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline The fact that Respondent notarized a forged/falsified document is also
made the following findings: undisputed not only by [the] strength of Complainant’s documentary evidence
but more importantly, by Respondent’s own judicial admission. x x x. In view
of Respondent’s judicial admission that the alleged donors, BENVENUTO H. From these undisputed facts, supervening events occurred that must be
LUSTESTICA and his first wife, CORNELIA P. RIVERO, died on 7 taken into consideration of the present case.
September 1987 and 24 September 1984, respectively, it is beyond
reasonable doubt that said donors could not have personally appeared before First, CBD Case No. 04-1371, entitled Victorina Bautista, complainant, v.
him on 5 August 1994 to [acknowledge] to him that they freely and voluntary Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe, respondent, which was the case referred to in
executed the Deed of Donation. Moreover, x x x quasi-judicial notice of the Resolution No. XVII-2005-116, was docketed as A.C. No. 69637 before the
Decision of the Municipal Trial Court finding accused CECILIO LUSTESTICA Court. In a decision dated February 9, 2006, the Court revoked the
and JULIANA LUSTESTICA GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT as respondent’s notarial commission and disqualified him from reappointment as
principals of the crime of falsification of public document.4 Notary Public for a period of two (2) years, for his failure to properly perform
his duties as notary public when he notarized a document in the absence of
In his Report dated August 15, 2005, IBP Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, one of the affiants. In addition, the Court suspended him from the practice of
Jr. found the respondent grossly negligent in the performance of his duties as law for a period of one (1) year, with a warning that a repetition of the same
notary public and recommended that the respondent’s notarial commission or of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
be suspended for a period of one (1) year. The IBP Commissioner also
recommended that a penalty ranging from reprimand to suspension be Second, on January 6, 2006, the respondent filed a motion for
imposed against the respondent, with a warning that a similar conduct in the reconsideration of Resolution No. XVII-2005-116 before the IBP Commission
future will warrant an imposition of a more severe penalty.5 on Bar Discipline. The respondent moved to reconsider the IBP Resolution,
claiming that the penalty imposed for the infraction committed was too harsh.
By Resolution No. XVII-2005-116 dated October 22, 2005, the Board of The motion was denied in Resolution No. XVII-2006-81, dated January 28,
Governors of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline adopted and approved 2006,8 for lack of jurisdiction of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, since
the Report of the IBP Commissioner. The pertinent portion of this Resolution the administrative matter had then been endorsed to the Court.
reads:
Third, on January 4, 2006, a motion for reconsideration (the same as the one
[C]onsidering Respondent’s gross negligence in the performance of his duties filed with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline) was filed by the respondent
as Notary Public, Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe is hereby SUSPENDED from the before the Court. In a Minute Resolution dated March 22, 2006, the Court
practice of law for one (1) year and Respondent’s notarial commission is noted the findings and recommendations in Resolution No. XVII-2005-116
Revoked and Disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for two (2) and required the complainant to file her Comment to the respondent’s motion
years with a notification that this suspension of one year must be served in for reconsideration. On April 28, 2006, the complainant filed her Comment
succession to the initial recommendation of the IBP Board of Suspension of praying for the denial of the motion.
one year in CBD Case No. 04-1371.6
On July 5, 2006, the Court issued a Minute Resolution noting the denial of the
respondent’s motion for reconsideration, by the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline, and the complainant’s Comment to the respondent’s motion before 3. The respondent be REQUIRED to submit certification from competent
the Court. courts and IBP that he has fully served the entire period of suspension and
disqualification in Adm. Case No. 6963;
Subsequently, on January 26, 2009, the Court declared the case closed and
terminated after considering that no motion for reconsideration or petition for 4. The Court may now FINALLY RESOLVE the findings and recommendation
review, assailing both IBP resolutions, had been filed by the respondent.9 of the IBP in its Resolution No. XVII-2005-16, dated October 2005, in Adm.
Case No. 6258, for final disposition of the case and for proper determination
On October 8, 2009, the respondent, through a letter addressed to the Office whether the order of suspension and disqualification in Adm. Case No. 6963
of the Bar Confidant, requested that he be given clearance to resume the should be lifted after the respondent has satisfactorily shown that he has fully
practice of law and to allow him to be commissioned as a notary public. In his served the suspension and disqualification.10
letter, the respondent alleged that he has already served the penalties
imposed against him in A.C. No. 6963 and the present case. He claimed that The Court’s Ruling
after the receipt of the IBP Resolutions in both cases, he did not practice his
profession and had not been appointed or commissioned as a notary public. The findings of the Board of Governors of the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline are well-taken. We cannot overemphasize the important role a
The Office of the Bar Confidant notary public performs. In Gonzales v. Ramos,11 we stressed that
notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but one invested with
Acting on the respondent’s letter, the Office of the Bar Confidant submitted a substantive public interest. The notarization by a notary public converts a
Report and Recommendation, which states: private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence
without further proof of its authenticity.12 A notarized document is, by law,
1. The EFFECTIVITY of the respondent’s suspension and disqualification entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.13 It is for this reason that a notary
should have been COMMENCED on the date of receipt of the Decision of the public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
Court and not from the date of receipt of the Resolution of the IBP performance of his duties; otherwise, the public’s confidence in the integrity of
recommending the respondent’s suspension from the practice of law and a notarized document would be undermined.14
disqualification from being commissioned as notary public, it being
recommendatory in nature; The records undeniably show the gross negligence exhibited by the
respondent in discharging his duties as a notary public. He failed to ascertain
2. The prayer of the respondent to resume his practice of law in Adm. Case the identities of the affiants before him and failed to comply with the most
No. 6963 be denied; basic function that a notary public must do, i.e., to require the parties’
presentation of their residence certificates or any other document to prove
their identities. Given the respondent’s admission in his pleading that the
donors were already dead when he notarized the Deed of Donation, we have
no doubt that he failed in his duty to ascertain the identities of the persons
who appeared before him as donors in the Deed of Donation. CORNELIA RIVERO : C.T.C. # ________:________:________

Under the circumstances, we find that the respondent should be made liable CECILIO LUSTESTICA : C.T.C. # ________:________:________
not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer. He not only violated the
Notarial Law (Public Act No. 2103), but also Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the JULIANA LUSTESTICA : C.T.C. # ________:________:________
Code of Professional Responsibility.
known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the
Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 (Old Notarial Law)15 states: foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that the same are their free
act and voluntary deed.16
(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an officer
duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgments of instruments The respondent engaged in dishonest conduct because he falsely
or documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the represented in his Acknowledgment that the persons who appeared before
officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging him were "known to him" to be the same persons who executed the Deed of
the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person Donation, despite the fact that he did not know them and did not ascertain
who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. their identities as he attested.17
The certificate shall be made under his official seal, if he is by law required to
keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state. Moreover, the respondent engaged in unlawful conduct when he did not
observe the requirements under Section 1 of the Old Notarial Law that
In turn, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "[a] requires notaries public to certify that the party to the instrument has
lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote acknowledged and presented, before the notaries public, the proper
respect for law and legal processes." At the same time, Rule 1.01 of the Code residence certificate (or exemption from the residence certificate) and to enter
of Professional Responsibility prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, the residence certificate’s number, place, and date of issue as part of the
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. certification.18 The unfilled spaces in the Acknowledgment where the
residence certificate numbers should have been clearly established that the
In this regard, a reading of the respondent’s Acknowledgment in the Deed of respondent did not perform this legal duty.
Donation shows how these provisions were violated by the respondent:
With these considerations, we find that the imposition of administrative
BEFORE ME, Notary Public for and in Bulacan this AUG 05 1994 day of sanctions for the above infractions committed is in order.
August, 1994, personally appeared:
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the penalty of
BENVENUTO H. LUSTESTICA: C.T.C. # _______:________:________ suspension, for a period of one (1) year, from the practice of law and
disqualification from reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two (2)
years. Considering that this is already Atty. Bernabe’s second infraction, we Considering these established rulings, read in light of the circumstances in
find the IBP’s recommendation to be very light; it is not commensurate with the present case, we find that Atty. Bernabe should be disbarred from the
his demonstrated predisposition to undertake the duties of a notary public practice of law and perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a
and a lawyer lightly. notary public. We emphasize that this is respondent’s second offense and
while he does not appear to have any participation in the falsification of the
In Maligsa v. Cabanting,19 we disbarred a lawyer for failing to subscribe to Deed of Donation, his contribution was his gross negligence for failing to
the sacred duties imposed upon a notary public. In imposing the penalty of ascertain the identity of the persons who appeared before him as the donors.
disbarment, the Court considered the lawyer’s prior misconduct where he This is highlighted by his admission27 in his Answer that he did not
was suspended for a period of six (6) months and warned that a repetition of personally know the parties and was not acquainted with them. The blank
the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.20 spaces in the Acknowledgment indicate that he did not even require these
parties to produce documents that would prove that they are the same
In Flores v. Chua,21 we disbarred the lawyer after finding that he deliberately persons they claim to be. As we emphasized in Maligsa:
made false representations that the vendor appeared before him when he
notarized a forged deed of sale. We took into account that he was previously A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
found administratively liable for violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of profession. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as
Professional Responsibility (for bribing a judge) and sternly warned that a well as honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession
repetition of similar act or acts or violation committed by him in the future by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to
would be dealt with more severely.22 his clients. To this end a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from
doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust
In Traya v. Villamor,23 we found the respondent notary public guilty of gross reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal
misconduct in his notarial practice for failing to observe the proper procedure profession.28
in determining that the person appearing before him is the same person who
executed the document presented for notarization. Taking into account that it In light of the above findings and penalties, the respondent’s request to be
was his second offense, he was perpetually disqualified from being given clearance to resume the practice of law and to apply for a notarial
commissioned as a notary public.24 commission, after serving the administrative sanctions in A.C. No. 6963, is
now moot and academic. We, accordingly, deny the request for clearance to
In Social Security Commission v. Coral,25 we suspended indefinitely the practice law and to apply for notarial commission.
notarial commission of the respondent lawyer who was found to have
prepared, notarized and filed two complaints that were allegedly executed WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to:
and verified by people who have long been dead. We also directed him to
show cause why he should not be disbarred.26
(1) NOTE the letter dated October 8, 2009 of respondent Atty. Sergio E.
Bernabe to the Office of the Bar Confidant.

(2) ADOPT the findings and recommendations of the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline with MODIFICATION on the administrative penalty imposed.

(3) DECLARE respondent Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe liable for gross

negligence, in the performance of his duties as notary public, and for his
deceitful and dishonest attestation, in the course of administering the oath
taken before him. Respondent Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe is hereby
DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN
from the Roll of Attorneys. He is also PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from
being commissioned as a notary public.

(4) DENY the request for clearance to practice law and to apply for notarial
commission of respondent Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe.

Let a copy of this Decision be attached to Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe’s record,

as a member of the bar, and copies furnished to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all
courts.

In view of the notarization of a falsified deed whose purported parties were

already dead at the time of notarization, let a copy of this Decision be
furnished the Office of the Prosecutor General, Department of Justice for
whatever action, within its jurisdiction, it may deem appropriate to bring
against Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe.

SO ORDERED.