Heirs of Alilano v.

Examen (Vi) FACTS:

March 24, 2015| Villarama, Jr., J. |Notarial Duties 1. This is a complaint for disbarment filed before the Integrated Bar of
PETITIONER: Heirs of Pedro Alilano represented by David Alilano the Philippines (IBP) by the heirs of Pedro Alilano against Atty.
RESPONDENTS: Atty. Roberto E. Examen Roberto E. Examen for misconduct and malpractice for falsifying
SUMMARY: Pedro and Florentina Alilano sold land to Ramon and Edna documents and presenting these as evidence in court thus violating
Examen. The deeds of Absolute Sale were notarized by Ramon’s brother, the Lawyer's Oath, Canons 1, 10, and 19, and Rules 1.01, 1.02,
Atty. Roberto Examen. In 2003, The heirs of Alilano filed a complaint 10.01, and 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
saying that Atty. Examen violated the notarial law by notarizing the 2. Pedro Alilano and his wife, Florentina, owned a 98,460 sq.m. parcel
document even if the party to it is his brother (the Spanish Notarial Law of land in Paitan, Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat. Pedro died in 1985 and
prohibited it but the prohibition was removed by the Revised Admin Code, Florentina in 1989.
then returned by the Revised Rules on Notarial Practice), and that he 3. In 1984, the spouses sold the land to Ramon Examen and his wife,
notarized it knowing that the cedula (residence) certificate number was not Edna embodied in Absolute Deeds of Sale. Both documents were
Ramon’s but Florentina’s, then he introduced these documents into notarized by respondent Atty. Roberto Examen, brother of the
evidence. Issues: (1) Whether the prescriptive period of two years applies vendee. Sometime in September 1984, Spouses Examen obtained
for actions; (2) Whether Atty. Examen can be held administratively liable. possession of the property.
The Court ruled that the provision setting a prescriptive period of 2 years is 4. On January 12, 2002, the heirs of Alilano filed a suit for recovery of
void because “It is the duty of this Court to protect the integrity of the possession before the RTC of Sultan Kudarat against Edna Examen
practice of law as well as the administration of justice. No matter how much and Atty. Roberto Examen. It was during this proceeding that Atty.
time has elapsed from the time of the commission of the act complained of Examen introduced into evidence the March 31, 1984 and
and the time of the institution of the complaint, erring members of the bench September 12, 1984 Absolute Deeds of Sale.
and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court.” The prohibition 5. On November 15, 2003, the heirs of Alilano filed a complaint
on relatives notarizing doesn’t apply because the documents were notarized alleging that Atty. Examen violated the notarial law when he
in 1984 and the law controlling back then was the Revised Admin Code notarized the absolute deeds of sale since a notary public is
which removed the prohibition. However, Atty. Examen is administratively prohibited from notarizing a document when one of the parties
liable because among the grounds for revoking commission of a notary is a relative by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree or
public is when the notary fails to make a proper notation regarding the affinity within the second civil degree. It is also alleged that Atty.
cedula certificates (the cedula certs here were not Ramon’s but Florentina’s Examen notarized the documents knowing that the cedula or
so he is liable). He should have checked the correctness. This could have residence certificate number used by Ramon Examen was not
been avoided if he diligently performed his functions. By violating the actually his but the residence certificate number of Florentina.
notarial law, Atty. Examen violated the lawyer’s oath, Rules of Court, and Atty. Examen also falsely acknowledged that the two witnesses
CPR (deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, willful disobedience, and personally appeared before him when they did not. Lastly, it is
upholding legal processes). The Court revoked his notarial commission for alleged that despite knowing the infirmities of these documents,
2 years and suspended him from the practice of law for the same time. Atty. Examen introduced these documents into evidence
DOCTRINE: Notarization is invested with substantive public interest. violating his oath as a lawyer and the CPR.
Notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the 6. In his defense, Atty. Examen said that there was no longer a
performance of their duties in the performance of their duties. Good faith prohibition under the Revised Administrative Code for a notary
cannot be a mitigating circumstance since the duty to function as a public to notarize a document where one of the parties is related to
notary public is personal. him by consanguinity and affinity. With regard to the use of
Florentina's residence certificate as Ramon's, Atty. Examen said that
 he was in good faith and that it was office practice that the well as the administration of justice. No matter how much time has
secretary type details without him personally examining the elapsed from the time of the commission of the act complained of
output. He said that the use of another's residence certificate is not and the time of the institution of the complaint, erring members of
a ground for disbarment and is barred by prescription based on the bench and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court.”
IBP Resolution No. XVI-2004-13 where it was proposed that the It was ruled in Frias that this provision was void and had no
Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline Integrated legal effect for being ultra vires, thus null and void.
Bar of the Philippines, Section 1, Rule VIII, be revised to include a 2nd Issue:
prescription period for professional misconduct: within two 3. Before, the governing law was the Spanish Notarial Law of 1889
years from the date of the act. but in 1917, the Revised Administrative Code took effect and in
7. IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Examen 2004, the Revised Rules on Notarial Practice was passed by the SC.
liable for breach of the Notarial Law and introducing false Absolute 4. The prohibition on relatives within the 4th degree from notarizing
Deeds of Sale. There was evidence to support the contention that the documents was removed in the Revised Administrative Code.
Sps. Alilano did not voluntarily and knowingly convey their Therefore, Atty. Examen was allowed to notarize the document
property (Pedro’s signature was different). Ramon Examen's even if one of the parties to the deed was his brother.
residence certificate number, date and place of issue were also Note: The 2004 Revised Rules on Notarial Practice returned the
falsified since it actually belonged to Florentina Pueblo. IBP-CBD prohibition but it doesn’t matter here because Atty. Examen
recommended disbarment. IBP Board of Governors (BOG) adopted notarized it in 1984 so the 2004 rules didn’t apply yet.
the report of the CBD but modified the penalty to 2 years suspension 5. Nunga v. Atty. Viray: Notarization is invested with substantive
of Atty. Examen’s Notarial Commission and from the practice of public interest. It converts a private document into a public
law (2 years also). document. Notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic
8. Atty. Examen moved for reconsideration but the BOG denied it and requirements in the performance of their duties in the performance
also modified the penalty imposed to suspension from the practice of their duties.
of law for a period of one year and disqualification from re- 6. Chapter 11, Section 251 of the Revised Administrative Code:
appointment as Notary Public for a period of two years. requires that “every contract, deed, or other document
ISSUE: acknowledged before a notary public shall have certified thereon
1. Whether there is a prescriptive period to file an admin case on the that the parties thereto have presented their proper cedula
actions of Atty. Examen - NO [residence] certificates or are exempt from the cedula [residence] tax
2. Whether Atty. Examen is administratively liable – YES (and modify and there shall be entered by the notary public as a part of such
penalty) certification the number, place of issue, and date of each cedula
RATIO: [residence] certificate as aforesaid.”
1. In disbarment cases the only issue that is to be decided by the Court Chapter 11, Section 249: among the grounds for disqualification
is whether the member of the bar is fit to be allowed the privileges is “the failure of the notary to make the proper notation
as such or not (so, not the proper venue to rule on whether the regarding cedula certificates.” (Atty. Examen violated this ground
property was properly sold or if the signatures were really forged). for revocation of commission)
1st Issue: 7. Notarial Law requires them to certify that a party to the instrument
2. In Frias v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada, the Court said that there can be acknowledged before him has presented the proper residence
no prescription in bar discipline cases. It pointed out this has been certificate but it is clear that the residence certificate number used
the policy since 1967 with the Court's ruling in Calo, Jr. v. Degamo by Ramon Examen and as notarized in both Absolute Deeds of Sale
and reiterated in Heck v. Santos where the Court said that, “It is the was not Ramon’s but Florentina's. Atty. Examen said he was in good
duty of this Court to protect the integrity of the practice of law as faith and that his secretary typed it and he did not check it but the
 court said good faith cannot be a mitigating circumstance since
the duty to function as a notary public is personal. The error could
have been prevented if he personally checked the correctness of the
documents. To say that it was his secretary's fault reflects disregard
and unfitness to discharge the functions of a notary public.
8. In violating the provisions of the Notarial Law, Atty. Examen also
violated his oath as a lawyer, provisions of the CPR and Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court (deceit, malpractice, gross
misconduct, willful disobedience) and Canon 1 of CPR (uphold
legal processes).
9. Penalty: Atty. Examen not only failed to uphold his duty as a
notary public but also failed to uphold his lawyer's oath and ran
afoul the provisions of the CPR. Atty, Examen was SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for 2 years and his present notarial
commission REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED from
reappointment as a notary public for 2 years. He is WARNED that
any similar act or infraction in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.