Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 46 views

    2 Case Digest - de Jesus v. Sanchez-Malit

    Uploaded by

    Joyce Allen
    This case involved a disbarment complaint filed against a lawyer for notarizing documents without proper signatures. The complainant submitted additional documents obtained in violation of the notarial rules. The respondent claimed these documents were inadmissible. However, the court ruled the documents were admissible because the notarial rules do not declare documents obtained in violation to be inadmissible. Prior cases established that while procurement rules may impose sanctions, they do not make documents irrelevant to the issues or require their exclusion from evidence. Therefore, the additional documents were properly considered.

    Copyright:

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

    2 Case Digest - de Jesus v. Sanchez-Malit

    Uploaded by

    Joyce Allen
    46 views2 pages
    This case involved a disbarment complaint filed against a lawyer for notarizing documents without proper signatures. The complainant submitted additional documents obtained in violation of the notarial rules. The respondent claimed these documents were inadmissible. However, the court ruled the documents were admissible because the notarial rules do not declare documents obtained in violation to be inadmissible. Prior cases established that while procurement rules may impose sanctions, they do not make documents irrelevant to the issues or require their exclusion from evidence. Therefore, the additional documents were properly considered.

    Original Title

    2 Case Digest - De Jesus v. Sanchez-Malit

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a disbarment complaint filed against a lawyer for notarizing documents without proper signatures. The complainant submitted additional documents obtained in violation of the notarial rules. The respondent claimed these documents were inadmissible. However, the court ruled the documents were admissible because the notarial rules do not declare documents obtained in violation to be inadmissible. Prior cases established that while procurement rules may impose sanctions, they do not make documents irrelevant to the issues or require their exclusion from evidence. Therefore, the additional documents were properly considered.

    Copyright:

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

    2 Case Digest - de Jesus v. Sanchez-Malit

    Uploaded by

    Joyce Allen
    This case involved a disbarment complaint filed against a lawyer for notarizing documents without proper signatures. The complainant submitted additional documents obtained in violation of the notarial rules. The respondent claimed these documents were inadmissible. However, the court ruled the documents were admissible because the notarial rules do not declare documents obtained in violation to be inadmissible. Prior cases established that while procurement rules may impose sanctions, they do not make documents irrelevant to the issues or require their exclusion from evidence. Therefore, the additional documents were properly considered.

    Copyright:

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

    DE JESUS v.

    SANCHEZ-MALIT
    A.C. No. 6470 July 8, 2014
    (Admissibility of documents obtained in violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice)

    FACTS:

    Case Filed:
     Complainant Mercedita De Jesus filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty.
    Juvy Mell Sanchez-Malit before the Office of the Bar Confidant on the following grounds:
    grave misconduct, dishonesty, malpractices, and unworthiness to become an officer of
    the Court.

    Allegations:
     Respondent had drafted and notarized a Real Estate Mortgage of a public market stall
    that falsely named the former as its absolute and registered owner.
     Respondent had also notarized two contracts (lease agreement and sale agreement)
    that caused complainant legal and financial problems.
     In addition to the documents attached to her complaint, complainant subsequently
    submitted three SPAs notarized by respondent which were not signed by the principals
    named therein.
     Complainant filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Submission of Additional
    Evidence. Attached thereto were copies of documents notarized by respondent,
    including the following: (1) an Extra Judicial Deed of Partition; (2) five SPAs that lacked
    the signatures of either the principal or the attorney-in-fact; (3) two deeds of sale with
    incomplete signatures of the parties thereto; (4) an unsigned Sworn Statement; (5) a
    lease contract that lacked the signature of the lessor; (6) five unsigned Affidavits; (7) an
    unsigned insurance claim form; (8) an unsigned Invitation Letter; (9) an unsigned Bank
    Certification; and (10)an unsigned Consent to Adoption.

    IBP Recommendation:
     IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended the immediate revocation of the Notarial
    Commission of respondent and her disqualification as notary public for two years for her
    violation of her oath as such by notarizing documents without the signatures of the
    parties who had purportedly appeared before her.
     The IBP Board of Governors, unanimously adopted and approved the Report and
    Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, with the modification that
    respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year.

    Defense:
     Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
     She maintained that the additional documents submitted by complainant were
    inadmissible, as they were obtained without observing the procedural requisites under
    Section 4, Rule VI of Adm. No. 02-08-13 SC (2004 Rules on Notarial Practice).

    ISSUE:

    Whether the additional documents submitted by complainant were admissible in evidence.

    RULING:

    YES. In this case, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Law contain no provision declaring the
    inadmissibility of documents obtained in violation thereof. Thus, the IBP correctly considered
    in evidence the other notarized documents submitted by complainant as additional evidence.

    In Tolentino v. Mendoza, the respondent therein opposed the admission of the birth
    certificates of his illegitimate children as evidence of his grossly immoral conduct, because
    those documents were obtained in violation Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, Series of
    1993.

    Section 3, Rule 128 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that "evidence is admissible
    when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules." There could be
    no dispute that the subject birth certificates are relevant to the issue. Rule 24, Administrative
    Order No. 1, series of 1993 only provides for sanctions against persons violating the rule on
    confidentiality of birth records, but nowhere does it state that procurement of birth records in
    violation of said rule would render said records inadmissible in evidence.

    Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 and the Revised Rules on
    Evidence do not provide for the exclusion from evidence of the birth certificates in question,
    said public documents are, therefore, admissible and should be properly taken into
    consideration in the resolution of this administrative case against respondent.

    You might also like