A. Notarial Law In his defense, Atty.

Examen pointed out that there was no longer any prohibition

under the Revised Administrative Code for a notary public to notarize a document
1) 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice where one of the parties is related to him by consanguinity and affinity. 14  With
A.C. No. 10132, March 24, 2015 regard to the use of Florentina’s residence certificate as Ramon’s, Atty. Examen said
HEIRS OF PEDRO ALILANO REPRESENTED BY DAVID that he was in good faith and that it was office practice that the secretary type
ALILANO, Complainants, v. ATTY. ROBERTO E. EXAMEN, Respondent. details without him personally examining the output. 15  In any event, he reasoned
DECISION that the use of another’s residence certificate is not a ground for disbarment and is
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: barred by prescription based on IBP Resolution No. XVI-2004-13 dated January 26,
2004 where it was proposed that the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar
Before us is a complaint1 for disbarment filed before the Integrated Bar of the Discipline Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Section 1, Rule VIII, be revised to
Philippines (IBP) by the heirs of Pedro Alilano against Atty. Roberto E. Examen for include a prescription period for professional misconduct: within two years from
misconduct and malpractice for falsifying documents and presenting these as the date of the act.16cralawred
evidence in court thus violating the Lawyer’s Oath,2 Canons 1,3 104and 19,5 and
Rules 1.01,6 1.02,7 10.01,8 and 19.019 of the Code of Professional In its Report and Recommendation,17 the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD)
Responsibility (CPR). found Atty. Examen liable for breach of the Notarial Law and introducing false
Absolute Deeds of Sale before court proceedings.  It stated that there was ample
Pedro Alilano and his wife, Florentina, were the holders of Original Certificate of evidence to support the complainants’ contention that the Spouses Alilano did not
Title (OCT) No. P-23261 covering a 98,460 sq. m. parcel of land identified as Lot No. voluntarily and knowingly convey their property, i.e. denials under oath by attesting
1085 Pls-544-D located in Paitan, Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat.  Pedro and Florentina witnesses and NBI Report by Handwriting Expert Jennifer Dominguez stating that
died on March 6, 1985 and October 11, 1989, respectively. Pedro Alilano’s signature in the September 1984 Absolute Deed of Sale was
significantly different from the specimen signatures.  It also noted that Ramon
It appears that on March 31, 1984 and September 12, 1984 Absolute Deeds of Examen’s residence certificate number, date and place of issue were also falsified
Sale10 were executed by the Spouses Alilano in favor of Ramon Examen and his wife, since the residence certificate actually belonged to Florentina Pueblo.  It thus
Edna.  Both documents were notarized by respondent Atty. Roberto Examen, recommended that the penalty of disbarment be imposed.
brother of the vendee.  Sometime in September 1984, Spouses Examen obtained
possession of the property. The IBP Board of Governors (BOG) in its June 26, 2007 Resolution 18 adopted the IBP
CBD’s report but modified the penalty to suspension from the practice of law for a
On January 12, 2002, the heirs of Alilano filed a suit for recovery of possession period of two years and a suspension of Atty. Examen’s Notarial Commission for a
before the Regional Trial Court of Sultan Kudarat against Edna Examen and Atty. period of two years.
Roberto Examen.11  It was during this proceeding that Atty. Examen introduced into
evidence the March 31, 1984 and September 12, 1984 Absolute Deeds of Sale. Atty. Examen moved for reconsideration.  In its Notice of Resolution, the IBP BOG
denied the motion for reconsideration.  It also modified the penalty imposed to
On November 15, 2003,12 the heirs of Alilano filed this complaint alleging that Atty. suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year and disqualification
Examen, based on Barretto v. Cabreza,13 violated the notarial law when he notarized from re-appointment as Notary Public for a period of two years. 19cralawred
the absolute deeds of sale since a notary public is prohibited from notarizing a
document when one of the parties is a relative by consanguinity within the fourth We agree with the IBP that Atty. Examen is administratively liable and hereby
civil degree or affinity within the second civil degree.  It is also alleged that Atty. impose a modified penalty.
Examen notarized the documents knowing that the cedula or residence certificate
number used by Ramon Examen was not actually his but the residence certificate In disbarment cases the only issue that is to be decided by the Court is whether the
number of Florentina.  Atty. Examen also falsely acknowledged that the two member of the bar is fit to be allowed the privileges as such or not. 20  It is not
witnesses personally appeared before him when they did not.  Lastly, it is alleged therefore the proper venue for the determination of whether there had been a
that despite knowing the infirmities of these documents, Atty. Examen introduced proper conveyance of real property nor is it the proper proceeding to take up
these documents into evidence violating his oath as a lawyer and the CPR. whether witnesses’ signatures were in fact forged.
NO PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS FOR 
ACTS OF ERRING MEMBERS OF THE BAR In Kapunan, et al. v. Casilan and Court of Appeals, 28 the Court had the opportunity
to state that enactment of the Revised Administrative Code repealed the Spanish
In Frias v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada,21 the Court En Banc opined that there can be no Notarial Law of 1889.  Thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
prescription in bar discipline cases.  It pointed out this has been the policy since It is petitioners’ contention that Notary Public Mateo Canonoy, who was related to
1967 with the Court’s ruling in Calo, Jr. v. Degamo22 and reiterated in Heck v. the parties in the donation within the fourth civil degree of affinity, was, under
Santos23 where we had the chance to state:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary Articles 22 and 28 of the Spanish Notarial Law, incompetent and disqualified to
If the rule were otherwise, members of the bar would be emboldened to disregard authenticate the deed of donation executed by the Kapunan spouses in favor of
the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no their daughter Concepcion Kapunan Salcedo.  Said deed of donation, according to
private complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of petitioners, became a mere private instrument under Article 1223 of the old Civil
being completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to Code, so that under the ruling laid down in the case of Barretto vs. Cabreza (33 Phil.,
answer for.  It is the duty of this Court to protect the integrity of the practice of law 413), the donation was inefficacious.  The appellate court, however, in the decision
as well as the administration of justice. No matter how much time has elapsed from complained of held that the Spanish Notarial Law has been repealed with the
the time of the commission of the act complained of and the time of the institution enactment of Act No. 496.  We find this ruling to be correct.  In the case of
of the complaint, erring members of the bench and bar cannot escape the Philippine Sugar Estate vs. Poizart (48 Phil., 536), cited in Vda. de Estuart vs. Garcia
disciplining arm of the Court.  This categorical pronouncement is aimed at (Adm. Case No. 212, prom. February 15, 1957), this Court held that “The old
unscrupulous members of the bench and bar, to deter them from committing acts Spanish notarial law and system of conveyance was repealed in the Philippines
which violate the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and another and different notarial law and system became the law of the land
or the Lawyer’s Oath.  x x x with the enactment of Act No. 496.”29 (Emphasis supplied)cralawlawlibrary
Thus, even the lapse of considerable time from the commission of the offending act In this case, the heirs of Alilano stated that Atty. Examen was prohibited to notarize
to the institution of the administrative complaint will not erase the administrative the absolute deeds of sale since he was related by consanguinity within the fourth
culpability of a lawyer…. (Italics supplied)24cralawlawlibrary civil degree with the vendee, Ramon. The prohibition might have still applied had
We therefore ruled in Frias, that Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the the applicable rule been the Spanish Notarial Law. However, following the Court’s
IBP CBD was void and had no legal effect for being ultra vires and thus null and ruling in Kapunan, the law in force at the time of signing was the Revised
void.25cralawred Administrative Code, thus, the prohibition was removed.  Atty. Examen was not
This ruling was reiterated in the more recent case of Bengco v. Bernardo,26 where incompetent to notarize the document even if one of the parties to the deed was a
the Court stated that putting a prescriptive period on administrative cases involving relative, his brother. As correctly observed by the IBP
members of the bar would only serve to embolden them to disregard the very oath CBD:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private
complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being At the time of notarization, the prevailing law governing notarization was Sections
completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer 231-259, Chapter 11 of the Revised Administrative Code and there was no
for. prohibition on a notary public from notarizing a document when one of the
Atty. Examen’s defense of prescription therefore is of no moment and deserves interested parties is related to the notary public within the fourth civil degree of
scant consideration. consanguinity or second degree of affinity.30cralawlawlibrary
Note must be taken that under 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule IV, Section
THE SPANISH NOTARIAL LAW OF 3(c), a notary public is disqualified among others to perform the notarial act if he is
1889 WAS REPEALED BY THE REVISED related by affinity or consanguinity to a principal within the fourth civil degree, to
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1917  wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Prior to 1917, governing law for notaries public in the Philippines was the Spanish SEC. 3. Disqualifications. – A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial
Notarial Law of 1889.  However, the law governing Notarial Practice is changed with act if he:
the passage of the January 3, 1916 Revised Administrative Code, which took effect (c)  is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or
in 1917.  In 2004, the Revised Rules on Notarial Practice 27 was passed by the consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree.
Supreme Court. That Atty. Examen was not incompetent to act as a notary public in the present case
does not mean that he can evade administrative liability under the CPR in acknowledged before him has presented the proper residence certificate (or
conjunction with the provisions of the Notarial Law. exemption from the residence certificate) and to enter its number, place of issue
and date as part of the certification. Failure to perform his duties results in the
NOTARIES PUBLIC MUST PERFORM revocation of a notary’s commission.  The Court said:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
THEIR DUTIES DILIGENTLY AND 
WITH UTMOST CARE As a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, respondent is mandated to discharge
with fidelity the sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties being
In Nunga v. Atty. Viray,31 this Court stated:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. Faithful observance
and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment are
…[N]otarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with sacrosanct. He cannot simply disregard the requirements and solemnities of the
substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized Notarial Law.34 (Emphasis supplied)cralawlawlibrary
may act as notaries public. The protection of that interest necessarily requires that
those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from imposing upon the
public, the courts, and the administrative offices in general. It must be underscored Here, based on the submission of the complainants, it is clear that the residence
that the notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public certificate number used by Ramon Examen and as notarized by Atty. Examen in
document making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of both Absolute Deeds of Sale was not in fact the residence certificate of Ramon but
the authenticity thereof. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and Florentina’s residence certificate number.35  Atty. Examen interposes that he was in
credit upon its face. For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care good faith in that it was office practice to have his secretary type up the details of
the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. 32 (Emphasis supplied; the documents and requirements without him checking the correctness of same.
citations omitted)cralawlawlibrary
Thus under the prevailing law at the time of notarization it was the duty of the A notary public must discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed with
notary public to comply with the requirements of the Notarial Law.  This includes public interest, with accuracy and fidelity. 36  Good faith cannot be a mitigating
the duty under Chapter 11, Section 251 of the Revised Administrative circumstance in situations since the duty to function as a notary public is personal.
Code:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary We note that the error could have been prevented had Atty. Examen diligently
performed his functions: personally checked the correctness of the documents.  To
SEC. 251. Requirement as to notation of payment of cedula [residence] tax.  – Every say that it was his secretary’s fault reflects disregard and unfitness to discharge the
contract, deed, or other document acknowledged before a notary public shall have functions of a notary public for it is he who personally acknowledges the
certified thereon that the parties thereto have presented their proper cedula document.  He was behooved under Section 251, Chapter 11 of the Revised
[residence] certificates or are exempt from the cedula [residence] tax, and there Administrative Code to check if the proper cedulas were presented and inspect if
shall be entered by the notary public as a part of such certification the number, the documents to be acknowledged by him reflected the correct details.  This Court
place of issue, and date of each cedula [residence] certificate as aforesaid. cannot stress enough that notarization is not a routinary act.  It is imbued with
cralawlawlibrary substantive public interest owing to the public character of his duties 37.
Under Chapter 11, Section 249 of the Revised Administrative Code provided a list of
the grounds for disqualification:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary Atty. Examen posits that the failure of a notary to make the proper notation
of cedulas can only be a ground for disqualification and not the proper subject for a
SEC. 249. Grounds for revocation of commission.  – The following derelictions of disbarment proceeding.  We disagree.
duty on the part of a notary public shall, in the discretion of the proper judge of first
instance, be sufficient ground for the revocation of his commission: In violating the provisions of the Notarial Law, Atty. Examen also transgressed the
his oath as a lawyer, provisions of the CPR and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
(f) The failure of the notary to make the proper notation regarding cedula Court which provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
certificates.chanrobleslaw
In Soriano v. Atty. Basco,33 the Court stated that notaries public are required to SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds
follow formalities as these are mandatory and cannot be simply neglected.  Thus, therefor.  – A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
the Notarial Law requires them to certify that a party to the instrument attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of public for a period of two (2) years from finality of this Decision.  He is
a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is further WARNED that any similar act or infraction in the future shall be dealt with
required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any more severely.
lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly and willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be
cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or appended to respondent’s personal record as an attorney, the Integrated Bar of the
brokers, constitutes malpractice. Philippines, the Department of Justice and all courts in the country for their
information and guidance.

By his negligent act of not checking the work of his secretary and merely SO ORDERED.
perfunctorily notarizing documents, it cannot be said that he upheld legal processes
thus violating Canon 1 of the CPR.  Neither can it be said that he promoted
confidence in the legal system.  If anything, his acts serve to undermine the
functions of a diligent lawyer. He thus ran afoul Rule 1.02 of the CPR. We cannot
stress enough that as a lawyer, respondent is expected at all times to uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission
which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the integrity
of the legal profession.38  A lawyer’s mandate includes thoroughly going over
documents presented to them typed or transcribed by their secretaries. 39cralawred

The Court notes that the case between the parties is not the first that reached this
Court.  In Edna Examen and Roberto Examen v. Heirs of Pedro Alilano and
Florentina Pueblo,40 Atty. Examen and his sister-in-law questioned via a petition for
certiorari41 the propriety of three Court of Appeals’ Resolutions relating to a case
involving Lot No. 1085 Pls-544-D this time with respect to its fruits.  There the Court
of Appeals (CA) after giving Atty. Examen 90 days to file his appellant’s brief, denied
a second motion for extension of time merely on the basis of a flimsy reason that he
had misplaced some of the transcript of the witnesses’ testimonies.  The CA did not
find the reason of misplaced transcript as good and sufficient cause to grant the
extension pursuant to Section 12,42 Rule 44 of the Revised Rules of Court.  It stated
that it was a “flimsy and lame excuse to unnecessarily delay the proceedings.” 43 
The CA was of the opinion that defendant-appellant’s, herein respondent, motion
was “a mockery of the procedural rules.”44  This Court denied the petition for
various procedural defects.45cralawred

With respect to the penalty imposed, given that 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, the Court deems it proper to suspend Atty. Examen
from the practice of law for a period of two years following this Court’s decision
in Caalim-Verzonilla v. Pascua.46cralawred

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto E. Examen is hereby SUSPENDED from the

practice of law forTWO (2) YEARS.  In addition, his present notarial commission, if
any, is hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary
2) GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS On June 14, 1957 Demetrio Baares sold his share of the lot to his son, Leopoldo. The
same was annotated at the back of OCT No. RO-8211 (20461). [8]
XERXES A. ABADIANO vs. SPOUSES JESUS and LOLITA G.R. No. 156310   
MARTIR, Subsequently, on February 21, 1962, Leopoldo Baares filed before the Court of First
July 31, 2008 Instance (CFI) of Negros Occidental an ex-parte petition praying for: first, the
  confirmation of the Agreement of Partition, the Conformity executed by David
Abadiano, and the Deed of Sale between him and his father; and second, the
DECISION
cancellation of OCT No. RO-8211 (20461) and, in lieu thereof, the issuance of a new
NACHURA, J.: certificate of title over the property. In an Order datedFebruary 22, 1962, the court
ordered the cancellation of OCT No. RO-8211 (20461) and the issuance of a new
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised certificate of title in the names of Dr. Leopoldo Baares, Amando Baares, and Ramon
Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the Decision [1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) and David Abadiano. Pursuant thereto, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-
dated March 14, 2002 and its Resolution[2] dated November 21, 2002 in CA-G.R. CV 31862 was issued by the Register of Deeds for Negros Occidental. [9]
No. 51679. The CA affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of  
Kabankalan, Negros Occidental[3] declaring respondents as the owners of the Petitioner insists that this is still the valid and subsisting title over Lot No. 1318 and
property in question. that no sale of the portion pertaining to Ramon and David Abadiano ever took
  place.[10]
The case stemmed from an action for quieting of title and/or recovery of  
possession[4] of a parcel of land filed by herein respondents against Roberto On the other hand, respondent spouses alleged that, prior to the issuance of TCT
Abadiano, Faustino Montao, and Quirico Mandaguit. Petitioner Xerxes A. Abadiano No. T-31862, Ramon Abadiano, for himself and on behalf of David Abadiano, had
intervened in that case. already sold their rights and interests over Lot No. 1318-C [11] to Victor Garde. The
  sale was allegedly evidenced by a document of sale (Compra Y Venta) dated June 3,
Lot No. 1318 of the Kabankalan Cadastre consists of 34,281 square meters covered 1922 and acknowledged before Notary Public Jose Peralta and bearing notarial
by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 20461 issued on November 19, 1923 in the inscription Doc. No. 64, Pag. No. 60, Book No. III, series of 1922. The sale was
name of the spouses Inocentes Baares and Feliciana Villanueva. Before the issuance allegedly affirmed by David Abadiano in a document dated September 30, 1939.[12]
of OCT No. 20461, however, Inocentes and the heirs of Feliciana Villanueva (who  
had predeceased her husband) executed an Agreement of Partition dated June 1, They further alleged that from the time of the sale, Victor Garde and his heirs were
1922 over Lot No. 1318. The lot was partitioned and distributed as follows: (1) in continuous, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession and occupation in the
14,976 sq m denominated as Lot No. 1318-A, in favor of Demetrio Baares; (2) concept of an owner of Lot No. 1318-C.[13] On December 29, 1961, the heirs of
10,125 sq m denominated as Lot No. 1318-B, in favor of Ramon and David Abadiano Victor Garde sold their rights and interests over Lot No. 1318-C [14] to Jose Garde,
(grandchildren of Inocentes and Feliciana); and (3) 10,180 sq m denominated as Lot who immediately took possession thereof. Jose Garde continuously planted
No. 1318-C, in favor of Amando Baares. The partition is embodied in a Deed of sugarcane on the land until he sold the property to Lolita Martir in 1979. [15]
Partition executed on June 1, 1922 and notarized the following day by Notary Public  
Jose Peralta with notarial inscriptions Reg. No. 64, Pag. 69, Libro III. [5] After acquiring the property, respondent spouses continued to plant sugarcane on
  the land. Sometime in March 1982, after respondent Jesus Martir harvested the
On September 30, 1939, David Abadiano, who was absent during the execution of sugarcane he had planted on Lot No. 1318-C, defendant below Roberto Abadiano
the Agreement of Partition, executed a Deed of Confirmation acknowledging and (son of Ramon) allegedly entered the property and cultivated the remaining stalks
ratifying the document of partition.[6] of sugarcane and refused to vacate despite demands to do so. The following year,
  defendants Roberto Abadiano, Faustino Montao, and Quirico Mandaguit again
OCT No. 20461 was administratively reconstituted on February 15, 1962 and in lieu harvested the sugarcane on Lot No. 1318-C.[16] Further, the defendants also entered
thereof OCT No. RO-8211 (20461) was issued over Lot No. 1318, still in the name of the property and harvested the sugarcane on Lot No. 1318-B, [17] which by then had
Inocentes Baares and Felicidad Villanueva. Annotated at the back of the been acquired by Lolita B. Martir from her adoptive father, Amando Baares. [18]
reconstituted title were the Agreement of Partition and the Deed of Confirmation. [7]  
 
Thus, in April 1982, herein respondent-spouses filed the Action to Quiet Title and/or The trial court rejected therein defendants contention that the Compra Y Venta was
Recovery of Possession with Damages before the then CFI of Negros Occidental. null and void because the co-owner, David Abadiano, did not sign the same. It held
  that the Supreme Court has ruled to the effect that the sale by a co-owner of the
In their Answer with Counterclaim,[19] defendants denied that the subject property entire property without the consent of the other co-owners was not null and void
was ever sold by Ramon and David Abadiano, and that, consequently, defendant but that only the rights of the co-owner-seller are transferred, making the buyer a
Roberto Abadiano had inherited the same from Ramon. They also alleged, by way co-owner. The trial court also held that although the Compra Y Venta was not
of Special and Affirmative Defenses, that the subject land still belonged to the annotated either on the OCT or on the reconstituted OCT, the validity of the sale
estate of Ramon and David Abadiano and was never alienated. They alleged further was not vitiated. The registration or annotation is required only to make the sale
that the act of spouses Martir in planting sugarcane on the land was without valid as to third persons. Thus, the trial court concluded that the Compra Y
Robertos consent; that Roberto had demanded that the spouses Martir pay him Venta was valid between the parties, Ramon Abadiano and Victor Garde.
reasonable rental for the land but that they had persistently refused to do so; and  
that sometime in March 1981, Roberto and the spouses Martir came to an The trial court also brushed aside the defendants contention that the Compra Y
agreement whereby the defendant continued to cultivate the remaining stalks of Venta contained the same notarial inscription as the Deed of Partition. It said that
sugarcane left by plaintiffs and that until the harvest of said sugarcane, plaintiffs assuming this to be true, this may be considered an error which did not nullify
never posed any objection thereto. the Compra Y Venta;  at most, the document would be non-registrable but still valid.
   
Xerxes Abadiano intervened in the proceedings before the trial court alleging On the contention that the alleged confirmation executed by David Abadiano was
likewise that his predecessor Ramon Abadiano never sold their share of the for the Deed of Partition and not for the Compra Y Venta, the trial court agreed. It,
property to Victor Garde.[20] however, interpreted the same to mean that David Abadiano must not have
  authorized his brother to sell his share in Lot No. 1318-C. The effect was that David
After trial, the court issued a Decision[21] dated June 23, 1995, ruling in favor of the Abadiano continued to be one of the registered owners of the property and his
spouses Martir, thus: heirs stepped into his shoes upon his death.
   
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the However, the trial court found that the plaintiffs (respondents) claim that they and
defendants declaring plaintiffs spouses Jesus and Lolita Martir as the true and their predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the property for more
legitimate owners of portions of Lot No. 1318 Kabankalan Cadastre denominated as than sixty (60) years was duly established. In contrast, the court found that
Lots 1318-B and 1318-C and ordering: defendants and intervenor, and their deceased parents, had not been in possession
  of their share in the property. It held that the defendants and intervenor were
(1)               That the defendants Roberto Abadiano and the intervenor Xerxes guilty of laches for failing to avail of the many opportunities for them to bring an
Abadiano shall surrender Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-31862 to the Registrar of action to establish their right over Lot No. 1318-C.
Deeds of Negros Occidental who is directed to partially cancel said title and issue  
new Certificate of Title corresponding to Lots 1318-B and 1318-C in the names of Defendants appealed to the CA. However, the same was summarily dismissed in a
the spouses Jesus and Lolita Martir; Resolution dated February 11, 1997 due to defendants failure to pay the required
  docket fee within the period set. Nonetheless, the records were retained for the
(2)               That the defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiffs the appeal of Xerxes Abadiano, intervenor in the trial court.
amount of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos representing the value of the  
sugarcanes of plaintiffs which defendants harvested and milled with SONEDCO and; On March 14, 2002, the CA rendered a Decision affirming the Decision of the RTC in
  toto.[23]
(3)               To pay the costs of this suit.  
  Xerxes Abadiano now comes before this Court raising the following arguments:
SO ORDERED.[22]  
  A THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED, BASED ON ITS
  MISAPPREHENSION AND/OR OMISSION OF THE FACTS, IN DISREGARDING THE
PRIMORDIAL ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE DEED OF SALE (COMPRA Y VENTA) IS Borne very clearly by the records is the defendants repudiation of the existence of
A SPURIOUS DOCUMENT the sale in their Answer with Counterclaim. They stated:
   
B THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING PETITIONER 2. That defendants admit plaintiffs allegation in paragraph 4 that there has been no
GUILTY OF LACHES OVER REGISTERED LAND[24] particular designation of lot number (sic) for each of the co-owner (sic) of Lot No.
  1318 but specifically deny under oath the other allegations thereof the truth being
  that the property referred to here as Lot No. 1318 remains undivided to this day
The Petition is impressed with merit. We believe the trial court and the CA erred in that the owners thereof as shown by the TCT No. 31862 co-own the same pro-
ruling for the respondents. Accordingly, we reverse the assailed Decision and indiviso;
Resolution.  
  3. That defendants have no knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
It is well settled that the findings of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed the allegations in paragraph 5[28] and therefore specifically deny the same under
by the CA, are accorded the highest degree of respect, and generally will not be oath the truth being that Ramon Abadiano and David Abadiano had not sold the
disturbed on appeal. Such findings are binding and conclusive on the Court. Further, land at bar to anyone and that consequently, defendant Roberto Abadiano had
it is not the Courts function under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil inherited the same from the former; x x x. [29] (emphasis supplied).
Procedure to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the Likewise, petitioner specifically denied the allegations in paragraph 5 of the
evidence presented. The jurisdiction of the Court in a petition for review under Rule Complaint. He alleged that the lot had never been sold or alienated and the same
45 is limited to reviewing only errors of law. Unless the case falls under the still remains intact as the property of the Intervenor and his co-owners by operation
recognized exceptions, the rule shall not be disturbed. [25] of law.[30]
   
However, this Court has consistently recognized the following exceptions: (1) when This was testified to by Roberto Abadiano during the trial, thus:
the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) Q: During the lifetime of your father, do you know if your father has ever sold to
when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when any party his share on Lot No. 1318?
there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a  
misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in A: He has not sold his share.[31]
making its findings, the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are  
contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the
findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are These statements were enough to impugn the due execution of the document.
conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when While it is true that this Court had previously ruled that mere denials would not
the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs have sufficed to impeach the document, in this case, there was an effective specific
are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are denial as contemplated by law in accordance with our ruling that - defendant must
premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence declare under oath that he did not sign the document or that it is otherwise false or
on record.[26] fabricated.  Neither does the statement of the answer to the effect that the
  instrument was procured by fraudulent representation raise any issue as to its
In the present case, we find that the trial court based its judgment on a genuineness or due execution.  On the contrary such a plea is an admission both of
misapprehension of facts, as well as on the supposed absence of evidence which is the genuineness and due execution thereof, since it seeks to avoid the instrument
contradicted by the records. upon a ground not affecting either.[32]
In appreciating the alleged Compra Y Venta presented by respondents, the trial It was error then for the RTC to have brushed aside this issue and then make so
court concluded that [t]he parties have no quarrel on the existence of a Deed of sweeping a conclusion in the face of such opposition. In light of this challenge to the
Sale of a portion of Lot No. 1318 executed by Ramon Abadiano for himself and as very existence of the Compra Y Venta, the trial court should have first resolved the
representative of David Abadiano, dated June 3, [1922] in favor of Victor Garde. [27] issue of the documents authenticity and due execution before deciding on its
  validity. Unfortunately, the CA did not even discuss this issue.
The trial court erred in its conclusion.  
 
We are cognizant, however, that it is now too late in the day to remand the case to The Rule states that when the original document is unavailable, has been lost or
the trial court for the determination of the purported Compra Y Ventas authenticity destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution
and due execution. Thus, we will resolve this very issue here and now in order to or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may
put an end to this protracted litigation. prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic
  document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. [33]
There is no denying that TCT No. 31862 is still the subsisting title over the parcel of  
land in dispute. It is also a fact that the purported Compra Y Venta was not In the case at bar, respondents failed to establish that the offer in evidence of the
annotated on TCT No. 31862 until April 1982, shortly before the complaint was document was made in accordance with any of the exceptions allowed under the
commenced, even though the deed was allegedly executed in 1922. abovequoted rule, and yet, the trial court accepted the document as genuine and
  proceeded to determine its validity based on such assumption.
Considering that the action is one for quieting of title and respondents anchored  
their claim to the property on the disputed Compra Y Venta, we find it necessary to The trial court likewise brushed aside the apparent defect that the document
repeat that it was incumbent upon the trial court to have resolved first the issue of presented contained the same notarial inscription as the Agreement on Partition.
the documents due execution and authenticity, before determining its validity. Indeed, the Deed of Partition and the Compra Y Venta, though executed on
  different days, were notarized on the same day, and both documents contained the
Rule 130, Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Court reads: signatures of the same witnesses and the same notarial inscription.
   
Original document must be produced; exceptions. When the subject of inquiry is the This notwithstanding, the court concluded, Assuming this to be true, same could be
contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original considered an error which did not nullify, (sic) the Deed of Sale or Compra Y Venta.
document itself, except in the following cases: At most, the document would be a non-registrable, but valid document. [34]
   
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court We stress that a notarial document is evidence of the facts in the clear unequivocal
without bad faith on the part of the offeror; manner therein expressed and has in its favor the presumption of regularity. [35]
  In this case, while it is true that the error in the notarial inscription would not have
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against invalidated the sale if indeed it took place the same error would have meant that
whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable the document cannot be treated as a notarial document and thus, not entitled to
notice; the presumption of regularity. The document would be taken out of the realm of
  public documents whose genuineness and due execution need not be proved. [36]
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which Accordingly, respondents not having proven the due execution and genuineness of
cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be the purported Compra Y Venta, the weight of evidence preponderates in favor of
established from them is only the general result of the whole; petitioner.
   
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is Next, we determine if petitioner is guilty of laches. On this issue, we rule in the
recorded in a public office. negative.
  Under the Property Registration Decree,[37] no title to registered land in derogation
Respondents attached only a photocopy of the Compra Y Venta to their complaint. of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse
According to respondent Lolita Martir, the original of said document was in the possession.[38] Indefeasibility and imprescriptibility are the cornerstones of land
office of the Register of Deeds. They allegedly tried to obtain a copy from that office registration proceedings.  Barring any mistake or use of fraud in the procurement of
but their request was refused. No other evidence but these bare assertions, the title, owners may rest secure on their ownership and possession once their title
however, was presented to prove that the original is indeed in the custody of the is registered under the protective mantle of the Torrens system.[39] 
Register of Deeds or that respondents due and diligent search for the same was  
unsuccessful. Nonetheless, even if a Torrens title is indefeasible and imprescriptible,[40] the
  registered landowner may lose his right to recover the possession of his registered
property by reason of laches.[41]
 Laches has been defined as neglect or omission to assert a right, taken in Q: And did you not complain to Amando Baares that your father is a pert owner of
conjunction with lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to an that lot?
adverse party, as will operate as a bar in equity.  It is a delay in the assertion of a  
right which works disadvantage to another because of the inequity founded on A: No, Sir. We did not complain because he was our grandfather and when he dies,
some change in the condition or relations of the property or parties.  It is based on the property will go back to us.[46]
public policy which, for the peace of society, ordains that relief will be denied to a  
stale demand which otherwise could be a valid claim. [42] And herein petitioner testified:
The four basic elements of laches are: (1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or Atty. Garaygay
of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of which complaint is Q: Before the war who was occupying this lot which you claimed belonging (sic) to
made and for which the complaint seeks a remedy; (2) delay in asserting the your father?
complainant's rights, the complainant having had knowledge or notice of the A: The uncle of my father, Amando Baares, Sir.
defendants conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute suit; (3) Q: As a matter of fact, before and after the war and during the lifetime of Amando
lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant Baares, he was the one in possession of Lot No. 1318?
would assert the right on which he bases his suit; and (4) injury or prejudice to the A: Yes, sir.
defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant or the suit is not held Q: What was the condition of the lot under the possession of the lot under the
to be barred.[43] possession of Amando Baares was it under lease?
  A: As far as I can remember, my father told me that his inheritance was with
The reason for the rule is not simply the lapse of time during which the neglect to Amando Baares, his uncle.[47]
enforce the right has existed, but the changes of condition which may have arisen  
during the period in which there has been neglect. In other words, where a court From the testimonies of petitioner and the defendants during trial, it would appear
finds that the position of the parties will change, that equitable relief cannot be that they were unaware of any of respondents actions in relation to the property
afforded without doing injustice, or that the intervening rights of third persons may until the death of their grandfather, Amando Baares. When they did find out that
be destroyed or seriously impaired, it will not exert its equitable powers in order to respondents were occupying the land, they immediately took action to occupy what
save one from the consequences of his own neglect. [44] they believed was still rightfully theirs.
   
Though laches applies even to imprescriptible actions, its elements must be proved On this point, petitioner testified, thus:
positively. Laches is evidentiary in nature and cannot be established by mere Q: When did you initiate the move to claim Lot No. 1318-B as your inheritance from
allegations in the pleadings.[45] your late father?
  A: It was shortly after the death of Amando Baares.
Based on the foregoing, we hold that petitioner is not guilty of laches. The evidence Q: Who were these, who initiated the move to claim Lot No. 1318-B?
on record does not support such finding. A: I advised my brothers here in Kabankalan to take action to possess the land
  which was then occupied before by our (sic) great uncle, Amando Baares.
Petitioner had reasonable ground to believe that the property, being still in the Q: When was that, in what year, because we do not know when did your uncle (sic)
name of his predecessor in interest, continued to be theirs, especially considering die?
that the annotation of the purported sale was done only in 1982. According to A: It was after the death of Amando Baares sometime in 1973 or 1974.
petitioner, his father had told him that his (the fathers) inheritance was in the  
possession of their uncle, Amando Baares who knew likewise that the property was Q: Why did it take you that long before you initiated the move to claim the
theirs. inheritance?
Thus, Roberto Abadiano testified:  
Q: Before Amando Baares died, did you know that your father is a part owner of Lot A: Considering that relatives were involved and the fact we understand that our late
No. 1318? parents revered our uncle so, we cautiously tried to take action shortly after his
A: Yes, Sir. death, so as not to antagonize our relatives.
   
Q: What did you do in order to claim your inheritance?
A: Now, after learning that it was being farmed by Lolita Martir, I advised my That petitioner and his co-heirs waited until the death of Amando Baares to try and
brothers here in Kabankalan to go to Bacolod City to seek the intercession of the occupy the land is understandable. They had to be careful about the actions they
Philippine Constabulary Commander in order to thresh out the matter in a way that took, lest they sow dissent within the family. Furthermore, they knew that their
there will be no hostility or adverse reaction. parents revered Amando.[50]
Q: What other reactions did you take, if any?  
A: Well, I told my brother that they have a confrontation in the Office of the PACLAP The Court has recognized that this reaction cannot be characterized as such delay as
known as the Presidential Action Commission on Land Problems. would amount to laches, thus:
Q: Besides that confrontation at the PACLAP, what other action did you personally  
take as an heir of Lot No. 1318-B? in determining whether a delay in seeking to enforce a right constitutes laches, the
A: After that confrontation, I advised my brothers to occupy the land in question to existence of a confidential relationship between the parties is an important
farm it because it belongs to us. circumstance for consideration, a delay under such circumstances not being so
Q: With respect to the Transfer Certificate of Title, what action, if any, did you strictly regarded as where the parties are strangers to each other. The doctrine of
undertake? laches is not strictly applied between near relatives, and the fact that parties are
A: Well, we drew out a Declaration of Heirship and Adjudication and after it was connected by ties of blood or marriage tends to excuse an otherwise unreasonable
approved by the Court, it was annotated at the back of the Transfer Certificate of delay.[51]
Title No. T-31862 and we were given a co-owners copy of the said title by the In addition, several other factors militate against the finding of laches on the part of
Register of Deeds. the petitioner.
xxxx  
  When the Original Certificate of Title was reconstituted on February 15, 1962, no
Q: Mr. Witness, when did you and your co-owners executed (sic) this Declaration of annotation therein was made of the Compra Y Venta or of the Deed of Sale
Heirship and Adjudication over Lot 1318-B? between Ramon Abadiano and Victor Garde. Only the Agreement of Partition, the
A: That was on July 17, 1976. Confirmation by David Abadiano, and the sale from Demetrio to Leopoldo Baares
Q: Was that before or after the plaintiffs have filed this present case? were annotated therein.[52] Neither does the Deed of Sale of Demetrios share in
A: That was almost 6 or 7 years before this present case was filed. [48] favor of Leopoldo, executed in 1957, mention that the property belonged to anyone
  other than the parties to the Deed of Partition.[53]
On the other hand, Roberto Abadiano testified:  
Atty. Garaygay Likewise, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-31862, which was issued in 1962
Q: Now, according to you, your father is the co-owner of Lot No. 1318. Prior to the pursuant to an Order of the Kabankalan CFI, was issued in the names of Leopoldo
death of your father, who was in possession of Lot No. 1318? Baares, Amando Baares, and Ramon and David Abadiano. Even at the time of the
  issuance of said TCT, there was no annotation of the alleged sale to Victor Garde,
Witness which according to respondents took place in 1922.
A: What I know is it was Amando Baares.  
Q: You mean to say that when your father was still alive, it was Amando Baares who If respondents contention were true, the TCT should not have been issued in April
was in possession of Lot No. 1318? 1962 in the name of Ramon and David Abadiano, but in the name of Victor Garde or
A: Yes, sir. Jose Garde who by then had supposedly acquired the property by virtue of the
Q: And until when did you know that Amando Baares has been in possession of Lot Declaration of Heirship and Deed of Sale executed on December 29, 1961. [54] As it is,
No. 1318? neither respondents nor any of their predecessors in interest participated in any of
A: Up to 1976 when he died. the proceedings for the issuance of the OCT, the reconstituted OCT, or the TCT. The
Q: After his death in 1976, who was in possession of the said lot? petitioners testimony on the matter is revealing:
A: I made a verification in the Office of the Register of Deeds, and when I went to  
the said lot, it was vacant. Q: Based on your investigation, did you find records of the proceedings of the
Q: When was that? reconstitution of title of Lot 1318 or any evidence as to the participation of the
A: In 1976-1977, and I have it planted in 1978.[49] plaintiffs in this Reconstitution Petition?
    
A: Based on the existing records, they did not participate. was P3,000.00 per hectare, while from 1985 until the time of his testimony in 1994,
Q: How about in the Reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title No. (sic) did the the rental rate was P5,000.00 per hectare. We thus rule that the actual damages
plaintiffs participate therein? that may be awarded shall be based only on these rates. [59]
   
A: They did not also. Considering, however, that petitioners co-heirs (defendants Roberto Abandiano, et
  al.) were able to enter the property and harvest the sugarcane therein in 1981 and,
Q: How about in the issuance of the new Transfer Certificate of Title, did the thereafter, the land remained unoccupied, the rent must be reckoned only from the
plaintiffs participate therein? time respondents actually occupied the land until March 1981.
   
A: No, sir.[55] The claims for moral damages must be anchored on a definite showing that the
   claiming party actually experienced emotional and mental sufferings. [60] In this case,
Again, the TCT bears out the fact that the purported Compra Y Venta to Victor we find that petitioners testimony that he suffered from sleepless nights from
Garde was annotated thereon only on April 23, 1982. On the other hand, several worrying about this case and considering the great distance he had to travel from
entries made in 1981 evince that petitioner and his co-heirs took steps after his home in Tacloban to see the case through are enough bases to award him moral
Amandos death to assert their rights over the property. [56] damages. With the award of moral damages, exemplary damages are likewise in
  order.[61]
In 1976, the heirs of David Abadiano executed a Special Power of Attorney in favor  
of Roberto Abadiano giving the latter authority to act, sue, and/or represent them Attorneys fees are recoverable when exemplary damages are awarded, or when the
in any suit or action for recovery of possession or of whatever kind or nature. [57] For court deems it just and equitable. The grant of attorneys fees depends on the
their part, the heirs of Ramon Abadiano executed a Declaration of Heirship and circumstances of each case and lies within the discretion of the court. [62] Given the
Adjudication over the part of Lot No. 1318 pertaining to their predecessor. [58] circumstances of this case, we grant the prayer for attorneys fees.
   
Ranged against these positive steps, respondents only have their bare assertions to WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. The
support their claim that they indeed had possession of the land through their Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51679
predecessors in interest, which are insufficient to overcome the testimony that it are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. A new one is entered:
was Amando Baares and not Victor Garde who had possession of the property  
during the formers lifetime, or that after Amandos death, the lot remained (1)              reversing the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Kabankalan, Negros
unoccupied. Occidental in Civil Case No. 1331;
   
In sum, we find that petitioner is not guilty of such neglect or inaction as would bar (2)              declaring the heirs of Ramon and David Abadiano as the lawful owners
his claim to the property in question. In contrast, it is most telling that respondents, of Lot No. 1318-B, a portion of Lot No. 1318 covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
who are claiming to have been in possession of the property by virtue of an alleged No. T-31862, Kabankalan Cadastre, Negros Occidental; and
duly constituted sale for almost 60 years, have themselves failed within that long  
period to have the same property transferred in their name or even only to have (3)              ordering respondents to pay petitioner and his co-heirs rentals at the
the sale annotated on the title of the property. rate of P3,000.00 per hectare per year, from the time of actual occupation of the
  land in 1976 until March 1981, moral damages in the amount of P100,00.00,
Finally, we come to the issue of damages. Petitioner prays that respondents be exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00, and attorneys fees in the amount
made to pay actual damages of not less that P30,000.00 plus rentals on the of P10,000.00.
property from the time of the latters occupation, moral damages amounting  
to P100,000.00, and exemplary damages, as well as attorneys fees.  
  SO ORDERED.
The record shows that petitioner testified on the prevailing rate of rentals on the
subject property from the time of Amando Baares death in 1976 until the time of
the trial. According to petitioner, the rental rate from 1976 until 1985
CAMCAM VS CA Absolute Sale-Exhibit C/2, he telling her that since two lots were involved, she had
to sign another instrument pertaining to the other lot.
DECISION  
CARPIO MORALES, J.: Upon verification with Rodolfo Acosta (Acosta), the notary public who notarized
  Exhibits B/1 and C/2, petitioners discovered that the deeds Leonor signed
Petitioner Leonor Camcam (Leonor) and her husband Laureano Salvador (Laureano) transferred ownership of the entire area covering the two lots. They also, upon
were the registered owners of two parcels of land, Lot Nos. 19554 and 18738 of the inquiry with the Register of Deeds at Lingayen, discovered that Original Certificate
Cadastral Survey of San Carlos, Pangasinan, located in the Barrio of Basista, San of Title Nos. 11634[5] and 12027[6] in the name of Leonor and her husband covering
Carlos, Pangasinan. the two lots were cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 143752[7] and
  143753[8] were in their stead issued in Frias name. Further, they discovered that
Laureano died intestate on December 9, 1941. He was survived by his wife- Frias registered the document-Exhibit A/3, which had the same date and notarial
petitioner Leonor; his brothers Agapito and petitioners Jose and Fortunato, all details as those of Exhibit B/1.
surnamed Salvador; and the heirs of his deceased brother Luis Salvador (Luis),  
namely, petitioners Virginia, Gloria, Florendo, Delfin, Rodrigo, Eleuterio, Narciso, Petitioners alleged that assuming that the documents are valid, it is void with
Onofre, Zenaida, and Aurelia, all surnamed Salvador. respect to the shares of Leonors co-heirs-co-petitioners as they were conveyed
  without their knowledge and participation.
On February 9, 1983, Leonor, together with her brothers-in-law Agapito, Jose,  
Fortunato, and Luis heirs, filed before the Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City, They thus prayed for judgment
Pangasinan a Complaint,[1] docketed as Civil Case No. SCC-833, against respondent (1)         Declaring null and void, the Deed of Adjudication with Sale dated
Arcadio Frias (Frias), for annulment of the following documents executed by Leonor November 4, 1982 [Exhibit B/1], and the Deed of Absolute Sale dated November
in Frias favor covering Lot Nos. 19554 and 18738: 23, 1982 [Exhibit C/2] on the ground that the said documents did not reflect the
1.           November 4, 1982 Deed of Adjudication with Sale of the entire Lot  No. true intention of the parties x x x, moreover, the shares of the plaintiffs, other than
19554 and of Lot  No. 18738, for a P11,000 consideration signed by Leonor (Exhibit plaintiff Camcam, were included without their knowledge, participation and
B/1);[2] consent x x x;
2.           November 4, 1982 Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition and Sale of ONE-HALF () (2)         Declaring null and void, the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition
portion EACH [of the two lots] together with [Leonors] conjugal share of ONE-HALF and Sale dated November 4, 1982 [Exhibit A/3] based on the fact that it
() EACH of the [two lots] with all the improvements thereon for a P45,000 is absolutely fictitious and simulated x x x;
consideration, signed by Leonor (Exhibit A/3);[3] and (3)         That as a consequence of the nullity of [Exhibit A/3], TCT Nos. 143752 and
  143753 be declared null and void and ordering the Register of Deeds of Lingayen,
3.           November 23, 1982 Deed of Absolute Sale of the other half of Lot  No. Pangasinan to cancel said transfer certificates of titles issued in the name of
18738, for a consideration of P3,000, signed by Leonor (Exhibit C/2).[4] defendant Frias and the annotations on OCT Nos. 11634 and 12027 relative to the
  cancellation be cancelled; or, in the alternative, the defendant Frias xxx be ordered
Before the trial court, petitioners advanced the following version of the case: to execute a deed of reconveyance over the parcels subject of this suit in favor of
  the plaintiffs, in the following proportion, to wit: one half (1/2) to plaintiff Camcam,
In November 1982, Frias offered to purchase the two lots from Leonor. Leonor, and the other half shall pertain to the other plaintiffs, namely, Agapito, Jose,
however, was only willing to enter into a sale with right of repurchase within five Fortunato and the heirs of the late Luis, all surnamed Salvador, in equal proportion;
years. Frias agreed to Leonors condition but he deceived her into signing the Deed (4)         Declaring plaintiffs Agapito, Jose, Fortunato, and the late Luis, all surnamed
of Adjudication-Exhibit B/1, after which he paid her P9,000 out of the P11,000 Salvador, the latter being represented in this suit by his heirs, as the only legitimate
consideration, he promising that he would settle the balance of P2,000 before the heirs to inherit the estate of their deceased brother, Laureano Salvador who died
end of the month. on December 9, 1941, thereby excluding the widow from participating xxx;
  (5)         Declaring the defendant liable for actual, compensatory and moral damages
In the latter part of November 1982, Frias, instead of delivering the balance to plaintiffs and litigation expenses, assessable in terms of money in such amount as
of P2,000, again deceived Leonor into signing another document, the Deed of will be proved in court, and to pay exemplary damages as may be assessed by the
court;
(6)         Declaring the defendant liable for the attorneys fees in the amount of Article 953. In case there are brothers or sisters or children of brothers or sisters,
P10,000.00 and to pay the costs.[9] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) the widow or widower shall have a right to receive, in concurrence with the former,
  the portion of the inheritance in usufruct granted him or her in Article 837.
They likewise prayed for other just and equitable reliefs. [10] Article 837. When the testator leaves no legitimate descendants or ascendants, the
  surviving spouse shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance also in
Upon the other hand, Frias advanced the following version: usufruct[18] (The old civil code) (Emphasis and underscoring supplied), disposed as
  follows:
Leonor inherited the two lots, to the exclusion of her co-petitioners, under the old  
Civil Code[11] and it was she who convinced him to buy them. WHEREFORE the other half [of the two lots] should be divided among the brothers
Leonor later changed her mind and was willing to sell only the whole of the and sisters and nephews and nieces by the right of intestate succession; to brothers
residential land, Lot No. 19554, and of the mango and coconut land, Lot No. 18739, and sisters, per capita; and the nephews and nieces per stirpes; of one-half of the
[12]
 as she was giving her brothers-in-law two weeks to buy the remaining portion property. The remaining one-half belong[s] to defendant [herein-respondent
thereof,[13] hence, he and Leonor forged Exhibit B/1. Leonor later informed him that Frias].
her brothers-in-law could not buy the remaining portion of Lot No. 18739, hence, Ordering the Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan to cancel TCT No. 143752
he and Leonor forged Exhibit C/2.[14] and 143753 and instead issue another title, one half of the property to the brothers
After the execution of the two documents dated November 4, 1982, Frias brought and sisters, per capita; and to the nieces and nephews per stirpes; the other half to
them to the Municipal Building to pay taxes. When asked by an employee of the the defendants.[19] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
then-Ministry of Agrarian Reform how much he paid for the lots, Frias confessed to On appeal,[20] the Court of Appeals, by Decision[21] of April 30, 1992, affirmed with
not having indicated the correct consideration on the documents because he modification the trial courts decision. Thus it disposed:
wanted to escape paying taxes such as capital gains taxes. On being informed of the  
consequences of not reflecting the true consideration of the two lots in the WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the lower court
documents, he had the third document, Exhibit A/3, prepared which, after dated December 12, 1990 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. One-half of the
explaining to Leonor the reason beyond the necessity therefor, she signed in notary properties in question belong to defendant-appellee Arcadio Frias, by virtue of the
public Acostas office.[15]During the pendency of the proceedings before the trial valid sale by Leonor Camcam. The other half should be divided among the brothers,
court, Leonors brother-in-law Agapito died and was substituted by his heirs, namely nephews and nieces of the late Laureano Salvador by right of intestate
petitioners Teofila, Felicidad, Mercedes, Lydia, Alfredo, Bienvenido, Efren, Lilia, succession: to brothers per capita and to the nephews and nieces per stirpes.
Erlinda, Melinda, Marylou, and Meriam, all surnamed Salvador.[16]  
  THE Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan is directed to cancel TCT Nos.
By Decision[17] of December 12, 1990, Branch 57 of the Pangasinan RTC, holding 143752 and 143753 and issue the corresponding titles in accordance with the above
that:  pronouncement. The expenses of the survey should be borne equally by plaintiffs-
We cannot agree that Leonor Camcam signed [these] document[s]  without appellants and defendant-appellee. Costs against plaintiffs-appellants.
[22]
reading them. She signed [them] and read [them] because she was one who had  (Underscoring supplied)
enough learning. x x x Besides that, Evangeline Pira, and Gertrudes Calpo signed it  
themselves as [witnesses according to] the testimony of Atty. Rodolfo Acosta.  
  Their Motion for Reconsideration[23] having been denied,[24] petitioners filed the
xxxx present Petition for Review on Certiorari,[25] faulting the appellate court
   
But this is true only with regards to of the properties as [they are] conjugal in 1.       . . . IN NOT DECLARING NULL AND VOID THE THREE (3) DEEDS X X X
nature. As regards x x x the other half of the property the rights of inheritance by x CONSIDERING THEIR PHYSICAL APPEARANCE AND CONDITIONS INDICATING
x x brothers and sisters under the old law is provided thus: STRONGLY THE IRREGULARITIES OF THEIR EXECUTION.
   
Article 948. If there are brothers and sisters and nephews, who are children of 2.       [IN NOT DECLARING THAT] THE SALES WERE ILLEGAL, CONSIDERING THE
brothers and sisters of the whole blood, the former shall inherit per capita, and the OTHER PETITIONERS [,] BEING OWNERS OF THE OTHER HALF, HAVE THE
latter per stirpes.
PREFERENTIAL RIGHT TO PURCHASE THAT HALF PORTION INSTEAD OF PRIVATE x x x [F]rom a civil law perspective, the absence of notarization of the Deed of
RESPONDENT.[26] Sale would not necessarily invalidate the transaction evidenced therein. Article
1358 of the Civil Code requires that the form of a contract that transmits or
Petitioners contend as follows: extinguishes real rights over immovable property should be in a public document,
From the appearance of these documents, particularly the Deed of Extrajudicial yet it is also an accepted rule that the failure to observe the proper form does not
Partition and Sale (Annex A or Exh. A/3) and the Deed of Adjudication render the transaction invalid. Thus, it has been uniformly held that the form
with Sale (Annex B or Exh. B/1), while both were notarized by the same notary required in Article 1358 is not essential to the validity or enforceability of the
public, yet they have identical notarial documentary identification, i.e., the same transaction, but required merely for convenience. We have even affirmed that a
documentary number to be 464, same page number 44, the same book number X sale of real property though not consigned in a public instrument or formal writing,
and the same series of 1982, and appeared to have been sworn before the notary is nevertheless valid and binding among the parties, for the time-honored rule is
public on the same date November 4, 1982. that even a verbal contract of sale or real estate produces effects between the
  parties.[31] (Underscoring supplied)
Aside from the anomalous situation created by the irregularly executed deeds and  
advantageously employed by the private respondent, in order to conceal the Petitioners alleged fraud on Frias part, hence, they had the burden of establishing
apparent irregularities, the private respondent claimed that the Deed of Partition the same by clear and convincing evidence.[32] This they failed to discharge.
and Sale (Annex A or Exh A/3) dated November 4, 1982, was a consolidation deed By Leonors account, she signed the three documents relying on Frias word that they
of the Deed of Adjudication with Sale dated November 4, 1982 (Annex B or Exh. were deeds of mortgage, and she did not read them because she [did] not know
B/1) and the Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 23, 1982 (Annex C or Exh how to read,[33] When asked, however, on cross-examination about her educational
C/2). However, summing up the consideration stated in Annex B of P11,000.00 and attainment, Leonor answered that she finished the third year of a nursing course at
the consideration stated in Annex C of P3,000.00, the total will naturally be San Juan de Dios Hospital.[34]
P14,000.00, but the alleged [consolidation] deed (Annex A or Exh A/3) shows the  
consideration is not P14,000.00 but P45,000.00.[27] Clarifying her statement that she did not know how to read, Leonor explained that
   she knew how to read but her eyesight was blurred.[35] Leonors granddaughter-
Assuming, without admitting, that petitioner Leonor Camcam regularly sold her witness Gertrudes Calpo (Gertrudes) who signed as witness in Exhibit B/1 declared,
one-half portion in the two parcels of land in favor of private respondent Arcadio however, that she read the contents of Exhibit B/1 to Leonor, [36] thus belying
Frias, however, considering the preferential right of the other petitioners, who are petitioners claim that Leonor signed the same without knowing its true contents.
admittedlythe owners of the other half portion in said parcels of land, and As for Exhibit A/3 which petitioners maintain is spurious, Leonors signature therein
considering further the attendant circumstances of this case, as discussed above, being allegedly forged,[37] Leonor herself admitted having signed the same,[38] and
the petitioners, with the exception of petitioner Leonor Camcam, should be allowed this was corroborated by Gertrudes.[39]
to jointly exercise their right of redemption, the consideration of which shall As for Leonors co-petitioners invocation of their right of redemption of the share of
proportionately be based on that Deed (Annex B or Exh. B/1) which was published Leonor in the lots sold to Frias, points of law, theories, issues of fact, and arguments
in the newspaper.[28] (Underscoring supplied) not brought to the attention of the trial court ordinarily are not considered by a
reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. [40] Besides,
The petition is bereft of merit.  given that petitioners already knew of the sale as early as 1983, they are guilty of
Without passing on the merits of Frias claim that Leonor originally sold to him of Lot laches, having raised their right of redemption for the first time in 2000 when they
No. 18739 as reflected in the first November 4, 1982 document but later conveyed filed the present petition.[41]
the remaining thereof, hence, the execution of the second document bearing the AT ALL EVENTS, even assuming that the invocation by Leonors co-petitioners of
same date, an irregular notarization merely reduces the evidentiary value of a their right of redemption was timely made, it cannot be considered a valid exercise
document to that of a private document, which requires proof of its due execution thereof as it was not accompanied by a reasonable and valid tender of the entire
and authenticity to be admissible as evidence.[29] The irregular notarization or, for repurchase price.[42]
that matter, the lack of notarization does not thus necessarily affect the validity of
the contract reflected in the document. Tigno v. Aquino[30] enlightens: WHEREFORE, the petition is, in light of the foregoing disquisition, DENIED.
   SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 174240               March 20, 2013 Wherefore, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered against Menelia R.
SPOUSES LEHNER and LUDY MARTIRES, vs. MENELIA CHUA Chua and in favor of the Sps. Lehner Martires and Ludy Martires; and Manila
DECISION Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. as follows:
PERALTA, J.: 1. The Complaint is denied and dismissed for lack of merit;
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of 2. The counterclaims are granted as follows:
Court seeking to reverse and set aside the Amended Decision, 1 as well as the a. Menelia R. Chua is ordered to pay the Sps. Martires the amount of ₱100,000.00
Resolutions2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated September 30, 2005, July 5, 2006 as moral damages; the amount of ₱50,000.00 as exemplary damages; and the
and August 28, 2006, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 76388. The assailed Decision of amount of ₱30,000.00 as reasonable attorney’s fees plus costs of suit.
the CA reversed and set aside its earlier Decision, dated April 30, 2004, in favor of b. Menelia R. Chua is ordered to pay Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. the
petitioners. The July 5, 2006 Resolution denied petitioners' Motion for amount of ₱30,000.00 as reasonable attorney's fees plus costs of suit.
Reconsideration, while the August 28, 2006 Resolution denied petitioners' Second SO ORDERED.9
Motion for Reconsideration. On appeal, the CA affirmed, with modification, the judgment of the RTC, disposing
The factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follows: as follows:
Subject of the instant controversy are twenty-four memorial lots located at the Holy WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED for lack of
Cross Memorial Park in Barangay Bagbag, Novaliches, Quezon City. The property, merit, and the decision of the trial court dated 03 August 2002 is hereby AFFIRMED
more particularly described as "Lot: 24 lots, Block 213, Section: Plaza of Heritage- with MODIFICATION as to the amount of moral and exemplary damages, and
Reg.," is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 342914. Respondent, attorney's fees. Plaintiff-appellant Menelia R. Chua is hereby ordered to pay the
together with her mother, Florencia R. Calagos, own the disputed property. Their defendant-appellees Spouses Martires the amount of ₱30,000.00 as moral
co-ownership is evidenced by a Deed of Sale and Certificate of Perpetual Care, damages; ₱20,000.00 as exemplary damages; and attorney's fees of ₱10,000.00
denominated as Contract No. 31760, which was executed on June 4, 1992. 3 plus costs of suit.
On December 18, 1995, respondent borrowed from petitioner spouses the amount Insofar as defendant-appellee Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. is concerned,
of ₱150,000.00. The loan was secured by a real estate mortgage over the the attorney's fees awarded is reduced to ₱10,000.00 plus costs of suit.
abovementioned property. Respondent committed to pay a monthly interest of 8% SO ORDERED.10
and an additional 10% monthly interest in case of default. 4 The CA ruled that respondent voluntarily entered into a contract of loan and that
Respondent failed to fully settle her obligation. the execution of the Deed of Transfer is sufficient evidence of petitioners'
Subsequently, without foreclosure of the mortgage, ownership of the subject lots acquisition of ownership of the subject property.
were transferred in the name of petitioners via a Deed of Transfer. 5 Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration. 11 Petitioners opposed it.12
On June 23, 1997, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon On September 30, 2005, the CA promulgated its assailed Amended Decision with
City a Complaint against petitioners, Manila Memorial Park Inc., the company which the following dispositive portion:
owns the Holy Cross Memorial Park, and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, WHEREFORE, the Court grants the movant's Motion for Reconsideration.
praying for the annulment of the contract of mortgage between her and petitioners Accordingly, the decision of this Court dated April 30, 2004 in CA-G.R. CV No. 76388,
on the ground that the interest rates imposed are unjust and exorbitant. which had affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch
Respondent also sought accounting to determine her liability under the law. She 221, in Civil Case No. Q-97-31408, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and it is hereby
likewise prayed that the Register of Deeds of Quezon City and Manila Memorial declared that:
Park, Inc. be directed to reconvey the disputed property to her. 6 (1) The assailed decision dated August 3, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
On November 20, 1998, respondent moved for the amendment of her complaint to City Branch 221 in Civil Case No. Q-97-31408 is hereby Reversed with the following
include the allegation that she later discovered that ownership of the subject lots MODIFICATIONS, to wit:
was transferred in the name of petitioners by virtue of a forged Deed of Transfer (1) The Deed of Transfer dated July 3, 1996, as well as the Affidavit of Warranty, are
and Affidavit of Warranty. Respondent prayed that the Deed of Transfer and hereby declared void ab initio;
Affidavit of Warranty be annulled.7 In their Manifestation dated January 25, 1999, (2) The loan of ₱150,000.00 is hereby subject to an interest of 12% per annum.
petitioners did not oppose respondent's motion. 8 Trial ensued. (3) The Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. and the Register of Deeds of Quezon
After trial, the RTC of Quezon City rendered a Decision in favor of petitioners, the City [are] hereby directed to cancel the registration or annotation of ownership of
dispositive portion of which reads, thus: the spouses Martires on Lot: 24 lots, Block 213, Section: Plaza Heritage – Regular,
Holy Cross Memorial Park, being a portion of Transfer Certificate of Title No.
342914 issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, and revert registration of 2. Respondent herself admitted that a separate mortgage was executed to secure
ownership over the same in the name of appellant Menelia R. Chua, and Florencia the loan.16
R. Calagos. The petition lacks merit.
(4) The movant, Menelia R. Chua, is hereby ordered to pay the spouses Martires the At the outset, the instant petition should be denied for being filed out of time.
amount of ₱150,000.00 plus interest of 12% per annum computed from December Petitioners admit in the instant petition that: (1) on July 18, 2006, they received a
18, 1995 up to the time of full payment thereof and, after deducting payments copy of the July 5, 2006 Resolution of the CA which denied their Motion for
made in the total amount of ₱80,000.00, the same shall be paid within ninety (90) Reconsideration of the assailed Amended Decision; (2) on July 26, 2006, they filed a
days from the finality of this decision. In case of failure to pay the aforesaid amount Motion to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration attaching thereto the said
and the accrued interests from the period hereinstated, the property shall be sold Second Motion for Reconsideration; (3) on September 5, 2006, they received a copy
at public auction to satisfy the mortgage debt and costs, and if there is an excess, of the August 28, 2006 Resolution of the CA which denied their Motion to Admit as
the same is to be given to the owner. well as their Second Motion for Reconsideration; and (4) they filed the instant
No costs. petition on October 20, 2006.
SO ORDERED.13 Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for review on
The CA reconsidered its findings and concluded that the Deed of Transfer which, on certiorari under the said Rule "shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of
its face, transfers ownership of the subject property to petitioners, is, in fact, an the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from or of the denial of the
equitable mortgage. The CA held that the true intention of respondent was merely petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of
to provide security for her loan and not to transfer ownership of the property to the judgment." Relative thereto, Section 2, Rule 52 of the same Rules provides that
petitioners. The CA so ruled on the basis of its findings that: (1) the consideration, "no second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the
amounting to ₱150,000.00, for the alleged Deed of Transfer is unusually same party shall be entertained." Based on the abovementioned dates, the start f
inadequate, considering that the subject property consists of 24 memorial lots; (2) the 15-day period for the filing of this petition should have been reckoned from July
the Deed of Transfer was executed by reason of the same loan extended by 18, 2006, the time of petitioners' receipt of the CA Resolution denying their Motion
petitioners to respondent; (3) the Deed of Transfer is incomplete and defective; and for Reconsideration, and not on September 5, 2006, the date when they received
(4) the lots subject of the Deed of Transfer are one and the same property used to the CA Resolution denying their Second Motion for Reconsideration. Thus,
secure respondent's ₱150,000.00 loan from petitioners. petitioners should have filed the instant petition not later than August 2, 2006. It is
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,14 but the CA denied it in its wrong for petitioners to reckon the 15-day period for the filing of the instant
Resolution dated July 5, 2006. petition from the date when they received the copy of the CA Resolution denying
On July 26, 2006, petitioners filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration, 15 but again, their Second Motion for Reconsideration. Since a second motion for reconsideration
the CA denied it via its Resolution dated August 28, 2006. is not allowed, then unavoidably, its filing did not toll the running of the period to
Hence, the present petition based on the following grounds: file an appeal by certiorari.17 Petitioners made a critical mistake in waiting for the CA
A. THE COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED IN NOT UPHOLDING THE DEED OF to resolve their second motion for reconsideration before pursuing an appeal.
TRANSFER EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENT IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONERS BY Perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is not only mandatory but
RULING THAT: also jurisdictional.18 For this reason, petitioners' failure to file this petition within
1. The Deed of Transfer executed by respondent in favor of petitioners over the the 15-day period rendered the assailed Amended CA Decision and Resolutions final
subject property was not entered in the Notarial Book of Atty. Francisco Talampas and executory, thus, depriving this Court of jurisdiction to entertain an appeal
and reported in the Notarial Section of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. therefrom.19On this ground alone, the instant petition should be dismissed.
2. The Deed of Transfer was not duly notarized by Atty. Francisco Talampas In any case, even granting, arguendo, that the present petition is timely filed, the
inasmuch as there was no convincing proof that respondent appeared before Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings and conclusions of the CA
Notary Public Atty. Talampas. in its disputed Amended Decision.
B. THE COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE DEED OF Anent the first assigned error, petitioners are correct in pointing out that notarized
TRANSFER EXECUTED BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONERS documents carry evidentiary weight conferred upon them with respect to their due
CONSTITUTED AN EQUITABLE MORTGAGE CONSIDERING THAT: execution and enjoy the presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by
1. Said issue was not raised in any pleading in the appellate and trial evidence so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all controversy as to
courts.1âwphi1 falsity.20 However, the presumptions that attach to notarized documents can be
affirmed only so long as it is beyond dispute that the notarization was regular. 21 A
defective notarization will strip the document of its public character and reduce it property be simply assigned to petitioners instead of foreclosure of the contract of
to a private instrument.22 Consequently, when there is a defect in the notarization mortgage which was earlier entered into by them; (2) the Deed of Transfer was
of a document, the clear and convincing evidentiary standard normally attached to executed by reason of the loan extended by petitioners to respondent, the amount
a duly-notarized document is dispensed with, and the measure to test the validity of the latter's outstanding obligation being the same as the amount of the
of such document is preponderance of evidence.23 consideration for the assignment of ownership over the subject property; (3) the
In the present case, the CA has clearly pointed out the dubious circumstances and inadequacy of the consideration; and (4) the claim of respondent that she had no
irregularities attendant in the alleged notarization of the subject Deed of Transfer, intention of transferring ownership of the subject property to petitioners.
to wit: (1) the Certification24 issued by the Clerk of Court of the Notarial Section of Based on the foregoing, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the
the RTC of Makati City which supposedly attested that a copy of the subject Deed of findings of the CA that the agreement between petitioners and respondent is, in
Transfer is on file with the said court, was contradicted by the Certification 25 issued fact, an equitable mortgage.
by the Administrative Officer of the Notarial Section of the same office as well as by An equitable mortgage has been defined as one which, although lacking in some
the testimony of the court employee who prepared the Certification issued by the formality, or form or words, or other requisites demanded by a statute,
Clerk of Court, to the effect that the subject Deed of Transfer cannot, in fact, be nevertheless reveals the intention of the parties to charge real property as security
found in their files; (2) respondent's categorical denial that she executed the subject for a debt, there being no impossibility nor anything contrary to law in this intent. 30
Deed of Transfer; and (3) the subject document did not state the date of execution One of the circumstances provided for under Article 1602 of the Civil Code, where a
and lacks the marital consent of respondent's husband. contract shall be presumed to be an equitable mortgage, is "where it may be fairly
Indeed, petitioners' heavy reliance on the Certification issued by the notary public inferred that the real intention of the parties is that the transaction shall secure the
who supposedly notarized the said deed, as well as the Certification issued by the payment of a debt or the performance of any other obligation." In the instant case,
Clerk of Court of the Notarial Section of the RTC of Makati City, is misplaced for the it has been established that the intent of both petitioners and respondent is that
following reasons: first, the persons who issued these Certifications were not the subject property shall serve as security for the latter's obligation to the former.
presented as witnesses and, as such, they could not be cross-examined with respect As correctly pointed out by the CA, the circumstances surrounding the execution of
to the truthfulness of the contents of their Certifications; second, as mentioned the disputed Deed of Transfer would show that the said document was executed to
above, these Certifications were contradicted by the Certification issued by the circumvent the terms of the original agreement and deprive respondent of her
Administrative Officer of the Notarial Section of the RTC of Makati City as well as by mortgaged property without the requisite foreclosure.
the admission, on cross-examination, of the clerk who prepared the Certification of With respect to the foregoing discussions, it bears to point out that in Misena v.
the Clerk of Court, that their office cannot, in fact, find a copy of the subject Deed of Rongavilla,31 a case which involves a factual background similar to the present case,
Transfer in their files;26 and third, the further admission of the said clerk that the this Court arrived at the same ruling. In the said case, the respondent mortgaged a
Certification, which was issued by the clerk of court and relied upon by petitioners, parcel of land to the petitioner as security for the loan which the former obtained
was not based on documents existing in their files, but was simply based on the from the latter. Subsequently, ownership of the property was conveyed to the
Certification issued by the notary public who allegedly notarized the said Deed of petitioner via a Deed of Absolute Sale. Applying Article 1602 of the Civil Code, this
Transfer.27 Court ruled in favor of the respondent holding that the supposed sale of the
Assuming further that the notarization of the disputed Deed of Transfer was property was, in fact, an equitable mortgage as the real intention of the respondent
regular, the Court, nonetheless, is not persuaded by petitioners' argument that such was to provide security for the loan and not to transfer ownership over the
Deed is a sufficient evidence of the validity of the agreement between petitioners property.
and respondent. Since the original transaction between the parties was a mortgage, the subsequent
While indeed a notarized document enjoys the presumption of regularity, the fact assignment of ownership of the subject lots to petitioners without the benefit of
that a deed is notarized is not a guarantee of the validity of its contents. 28 The foreclosure proceedings, partakes of the nature of a pactum commissorium, as
presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence provided for under Article 2088 of the Civil Code.
to the contrary.29 In the present case, the presumption cannot be made to apply, Pactum commissorium is a stipulation empowering the creditor to appropriate the
because aside from the regularity of its notarization, the validity of the contents and thing given as guaranty for the fulfillment of the obligation in the event the obligor
execution of the subject Deed of Transfer was challenged in the proceedings below fails to live up to his undertakings, without further formality, such as foreclosure
where its prima facie validity was subsequently overthrown by the questionable proceedings, and a public sale.32
circumstances attendant in its supposed execution. These circumstances include: (1) In the instant case, evidence points to the fact that the sale of the subject property,
the alleged agreement between the parties that the ownership of the subject as proven by the disputed Deed of Transfer, was simulated to cover up the
automatic transfer of ownership in petitioners' favor. While there was no errors, or closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and properly argued
stipulation in the mortgage contract which provides for petitioners' automatic in the brief, save as the court may pass upon plain errors and clerical errors.
appropriation of the subject mortgaged property in the event that respondent fails Thus, an appellate court is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if
to pay her obligation, the subsequent acts of the parties and the circumstances they are not assigned as errors in the appeal in these instances: (a) grounds not
surrounding such acts point to no other conclusion than that petitioners were assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) matters not
empowered to acquire ownership of the disputed property without need of any assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within
foreclosure. contemplation of law; (c) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but
Indeed, the Court agrees with the CA in not giving credence to petitioners' consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete
contention in their Answer filed with the RTC that respondent offered to transfer resolution of the case or to serve the interests of justice or to avoid dispensing
ownership of the subject property in their name as payment for her outstanding piecemeal justice; (d) matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but
obligation. As this Court has held, all persons in need of money are liable to enter raised in the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue
into contractual relationships whatever the condition if only to alleviate their submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored; (e)
financial burden albeit temporarily.33 matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned;
Hence, courts are duty-bound to exercise caution in the interpretation and and (f) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination
resolution of contracts lest the lenders devour the borrowers like vultures do with of a question properly assigned, is dependent.39
their prey.34 Aside from this aforementioned reason, the Court cannot fathom why In the present case, petitioners must be reminded that one of the main issues
respondent would agree to transfer ownership of the subject property, whose value raised by respondent in her appeal with the CA is the validity and due execution of
is much higher than her outstanding obligation to petitioners. Considering that the the Deed of Transfer which she supposedly executed in petitioners' favor. The Court
disputed property was mortgaged to secure the payment of her obligation, the agrees with respondent that, under the factual circumstances obtaining in the
most logical and practical thing that she could have done, if she is unable to pay her instant case, the determination of the validity of the subject Deed of Transfer would
debt, is to wait for it to be foreclosed. She stands to lose less of the value of the necessarily entail or involve an examination of the true nature of the said
subject property if the same is foreclosed, rather than if the title thereto is directly agreement. In other words, the matter of validity of the disputed Deed of Transfer
transferred to petitioners. This is so because in foreclosure, unlike in the present and the question of whether the agreement evidenced by such Deed was, in fact,
case where ownership of the property was assigned to petitioners, respondent can an equitable mortgage are issues which are closely related, which can, thus, be
still claim the balance from the proceeds of the foreclosure sale, if there be any. In resolved jointly by the CA.
such a case, she could still recover a portion of the value of the subject property WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Amended Decision and
rather than losing it completely by assigning its ownership to petitioners. Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, dated September 30, 2005, July 5, 2006 and
As to the second assigned error, the Court is not persuaded by petitioners' August 28, 2006, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 76388, are AFFIRMED.
contention that the issue of whether or not the subject Deed of Transfer is, in fact, SO ORDERED.
an equitable mortgage was not raised by the latter either in the RTC or the CA.
It is true that, as a rule, no issue may be raised on appeal unless it has been brought
before the lower tribunal for its consideration.35 Higher courts are precluded from
entertaining matters neither alleged in the pleadings nor raised during the
proceedings below, but ventilated for the first time only in a motion for
reconsideration or on appeal.36However, as with most procedural rules, this maxim
is subject to exceptions.37 In this regard, the Court's ruling in Mendoza v.
Bautista38 is instructive, to wit:
x x x Indeed, our rules recognize the broad discretionary power of an appellate
court to waive the lack of proper assignment of errors and to consider errors not
assigned. Section 8 of Rule 51 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 8 Questions that may be decided. - No error which does not affect the
jurisdiction over the subject matter or the validity of the judgment appealed from
or the proceedings therein will be considered, unless stated in the assignment of
 P15,000.00; 44,806 shares of stock of Mervir Realty worth P6,585,585.80; and 30
shares of stock of Cebu Emerson worth P22,708.25. 2
G.R. No. 156407, January 15, 2014
THELMA M. ARANAS,  v. TERESITA V. MERCADO, FELIMON V. MERCADO, Claiming that Emigdio had owned other properties that were excluded from the
CARMENCITA M. SUTHERLAND, RICHARD V. MERCADO, MA. TERESITA M. inventory, Thelma moved that the RTC direct Teresita to amend the inventory, and
ANDERSON, AND FRANKLIN L. MERCADO,  to be examined regarding it. The RTC granted Thelma’s motion through the order of
DECISION January 8, 1993.
BERSAMIN, J.:
The probate court is authorized to determine the issue of ownership of properties On January 21, 1993, Teresita filed a compliance with the order of January 8,
for purposes of their inclusion or exclusion from the inventory to be submitted by 1993,3 supporting her inventory with copies of three certificates of stocks covering
the administrator, but its determination shall only be provisional unless the the 44,806 Mervir Realty shares of stock; 4the deed of assignment executed by
interested parties are all heirs of the decedent, or the question is one of collation or Emigdio on January 10, 1991 involving real properties with the market value of
advancement, or the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the P4,440,651.10 in exchange for 44,407 Mervir Realty shares of stock with total par
probate court and the rights of third parties are not impaired. Its jurisdiction value of P4,440,700.00;5 and the certificate of stock issued on January 30, 1979 for
extends to matters incidental or collateral to the settlement and distribution of the 300 shares of stock of Cebu Emerson worth P30,000.00.6
estate, such as the determination of the status of each heir and whether property
included in the inventory is the conjugal or exclusive property of the deceased On January 26, 1993, Thelma again moved to require Teresita to be examined under
spouse. oath on the inventory, and that she (Thelma) be allowed 30 days within which to
file a formal opposition to or comment on the inventory and the supporting
Antecedents documents Teresita had submitted.

Emigdio S. Mercado (Emigdio) died intestate on January 12, 1991, survived by his On February 4, 1993, the RTC issued an order expressing the need for the parties to
second wife, Teresita V. Mercado (Teresita), and their five children, namely: Allan V. present evidence and for Teresita to be examined to enable the court to resolve the
Mercado, Felimon V. Mercado, Carmencita M. Sutherland, Richard V. Mercado, and motion for approval of the inventory. 7cralawred 
Maria Teresita M. Anderson; and his two children by his first marriage, namely:
respondent Franklin L. Mercado and petitioner Thelma M. Aranas (Thelma). On April 19, 1993, Thelma opposed the approval of the inventory, and asked leave
of court to examine Teresita on the inventory.
Emigdio inherited and acquired real properties during his lifetime. He owned
corporate shares in Mervir Realty Corporation (Mervir Realty) and Cebu Emerson With the parties agreeing to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the court on
Transportation Corporation (Cebu Emerson). He assigned his real properties in the issue of what properties should be included in or excluded from the inventory,
exchange for corporate stocks of Mervir Realty, and sold his real property in Badian, the RTC set dates for the hearing on that issue.8cralawlawlibrary 
Cebu (Lot 3353 covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3252) to Mervir Realty. Ruling of the RTC

On June 3, 1991, Thelma filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu City a After a series of hearings that ran for almost eight years, the RTC issued on March
petition for the appointment of Teresita as the administrator of Emigdio’s estate 14, 2001 an order finding and holding that the inventory submitted by Teresita had
(Special Proceedings No. 3094–CEB).1 The RTC granted the petition considering that excluded properties that should be included, and accordingly ruled:
there was no opposition. The letters of administration in favor of Teresita were WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing premises and considerations, the Court
issued on September 7, 1992. hereby denies the administratrix’s motion for approval of inventory. The Court
hereby orders the said administratrix to re–do the inventory of properties which are
As the administrator, Teresita submitted an inventory of the estate of Emigdio on supposed to constitute as the estate of the late Emigdio S. Mercado by including
December 14, 1992 for the consideration and approval by the RTC. She indicated in therein the properties mentioned in the last five immediately preceding paragraphs
the inventory that at the time of his death, Emigdio had “left no real properties but hereof and then submit the revised inventory within sixty (60) days from notice of
only personal properties” worth P6,675,435.25 in all, consisting of cash of this order.
P32,141.20; furniture and fixtures worth P20,000.00; pieces of jewelry valued at
The Court also directs the said administratrix to render an account of her
administration of the estate of the late Emigdio S. Mercado which had come to her On May 15, 2002, the CA partly granted the petition for certiorari, disposing as
possession. She must render such accounting within sixty (60) days from notice follows:13
hereof. WHEREFORE, FOREGOING PREMISES CONSIDERED, this petition is GRANTED
partially. The assailed Orders dated March 14, 2001 and May 18, 2001 are hereby
SO ORDERED.9ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary  reversed and set aside insofar as the inclusion of parcels of land known as Lot No.
3353 located at Badian, Cebu with an area of 53,301 square meters subject matter
On March 29, 2001, Teresita, joined by other heirs of Emigdio, timely sought the of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 9, 1989 and the various parcels of
reconsideration of the order of March 14, 2001 on the ground that one of the real land subject matter of the Deeds of Assignment dated February 17, 1989 and
properties affected, Lot No. 3353 located in Badian, Cebu, had already been sold to January 10, 1991 in the revised inventory to be submitted by the administratrix is
Mervir Realty, and that the parcels of land covered by the deed of assignment had concerned and affirmed in all other respects.
already come into the possession of and registered in the name of Mervir
Realty.10Thelma opposed the motion. SO ORDERED.

On May 18, 2001, the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration, 11 stating that The CA opined that Teresita, et al. had properly filed the petition
there was no cogent reason for the reconsideration, and that the movants’ for  certiorari  because the order of the RTC directing a new inventory of properties
agreement as heirs to submit to the RTC the issue of what properties should be was interlocutory; that pursuant to Article 1477 of the Civil Code, to the effect that
included or excluded from the inventory already estopped them from questioning the ownership of the thing sold “shall be transferred to the vendee” upon its
its jurisdiction to pass upon the issue. “actual and constructive delivery,” and to Article 1498 of the Civil Code, to the
effect that the sale made through a public instrument was equivalent to the
Decision of the CA delivery of the object of the sale, the sale by Emigdio and Teresita had transferred
Alleging that the RTC thereby acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to the ownership of Lot No. 3353 to Mervir Realty because the deed of absolute sale
approve the inventory, and in ordering her as administrator to include real executed on November 9, 1989 had been notarized; that Emigdio had thereby
properties that had been transferred to Mervir Realty, Teresita, joined by her four ceased to have any more interest in Lot 3353; that Emigdio had assigned the parcels
children and her stepson Franklin, assailed the adverse orders of the RTC of land to Mervir Realty as early as February 17, 1989 “for the purpose of saving, as
promulgated on March 14, 2001 and May 18, 2001 by petition for certiorari, stating: in avoiding taxes with the difference that in the Deed of Assignment dated January
I THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT JUDGE HAS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF 10, 1991, additional seven (7) parcels of land were included”; that as to the January
JURISDICTION (sic) AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN HOLDING 10, 1991 deed of assignment, Mervir Realty had been “even at the losing end
THAT THE REAL PROPERTY WHICH WAS SOLD BY THE LATE EMIGDIO S. MERCADO considering that such parcels of land, subject matter(s) of the Deed of Assignment
DURING HIS LIFETIME TO A PRIVATE CORPORATION (MERVIR REALTY dated February 12, 1989, were again given monetary consideration through shares
CORPORATION) BE INCLUDED IN THE INVENTORY OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE of stock”; that even if the assignment had been based on the deed of assignment
EMIGDIO S. MERCADO. dated January 10, 1991, the parcels of land could not be included in the inventory
II THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT JUDGE HAS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF “considering that there is nothing wrong or objectionable about the estate planning
JURISDICTION (sic) AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN HOLDING scheme”; that the RTC, as an intestate court, also had no power to take cognizance
THAT REAL PROPERTIES WHICH ARE IN THE POSSESSION OF AND ALREADY of and determine the issue of title to property registered in the name of third
REGISTERED IN THE NAME (OF) PRIVATE CORPORATION (MERVIR REALTY persons or corporation; that a property covered by the Torrens system should be
CORPORATION) BE INCLUDED IN THE INVENTORY OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE afforded the presumptive conclusiveness of title; that the RTC, by disregarding the
EMIGDIO S. MERCADO. presumption, had transgressed the clear provisions of law and infringed settled
III THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT JUDGE HAS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF jurisprudence on the matter; and that the RTC also gravely abused its discretion in
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN HOLDING THAT holding that Teresita,  et al. were estopped from questioning its jurisdiction because
PETITIONERS ARE NOW ESTOPPED FROM QUESTIONING ITS JURISDICTION IN of their agreement to submit to the RTC the issue of which properties should be
PASSING UPON THE ISSUE OF WHAT PROPERTIES SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE included in the inventory.
INVENTORY OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE EMIGDIO MERCADO. 12
The CA further opined as follows:
In the instant case, public respondent court erred when it ruled that petitioners are whether the assailed orders of the RTC were final or interlocutory in nature.
estopped from questioning its jurisdiction considering that they have already In Pahila–Garrido v. Tortogo,16 the Court distinguished
agreed to submit themselves to its jurisdiction of determining what properties are between final and interlocutory orders as follows:
to be included in or excluded from the inventory to be submitted by the The distinction between a final order and an interlocutory order is well known. The
administratrix, because actually, a reading of petitioners’ Motion for first disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular
Reconsideration dated March 26, 2001 filed before public respondent court clearly proceeding or action, leaving nothing more to be done except to enforce by
shows that petitioners are not questioning its jurisdiction but the manner in which it execution what the court has determined, but the latter does not completely
was exercised for which they are not estopped, since that is their right, considering dispose of the case but leaves something else to be decided upon.  An interlocutory
that there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of limited order deals with preliminary matters and the trial on the merits is yet to be held
jurisdiction when it issued the assailed Order dated March 14, 2001 denying the and the judgment rendered. The test to ascertain whether or not an order or a
administratrix’s motion for approval of the inventory of properties which were judgment is interlocutory or final is: does the order or judgment leave something to
already titled and in possession of a third person that is, Mervir Realty Corporation, be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, the order
a private corporation, which under the law possessed a personality distinct and or judgment is interlocutory; otherwise, it is final.
separate from its stockholders, and in the absence of any cogency to shred the veil The order dated November 12, 2002, which granted the application for the writ of
of corporate fiction, the presumption of conclusiveness of said titles in favor of preliminary injunction, was an interlocutory, not a final, order, and should not be
Mervir Realty Corporation should stand undisturbed. the subject of an appeal. The reason for disallowing an appeal from an interlocutory
order is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action, which necessarily
Besides, public respondent court acting as a probate court had no authority to suspends the hearing and decision on the merits of the action during the pendency
determine the applicability of the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction of the appeals. Permitting multiple appeals will necessarily delay the trial on the
and even if public respondent court was not merely acting in a limited capacity as a merits of the case for a considerable length of time, and will compel the adverse
probate court, private respondent nonetheless failed to adjudge competent party to incur unnecessary expenses, for one of the parties may interpose as many
evidence that would have justified the court to impale the veil of corporate fiction appeals as there are incidental questions raised by him and as there are
because to disregard the separate jurisdictional personality of a corporation, the interlocutory orders rendered or issued by the lower court. An interlocutory order
wrongdoing must be clearly and convincingly established since it cannot be may be the subject of an appeal, but only after a judgment has been rendered, with
presumed.14 the ground for appealing the order being included in the appeal of the judgment
itself.
On November 15, 2002, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration of Teresita, The remedy against an interlocutory order not subject of an appeal is an
et al.15 appropriate special civil action under Rule 65, provided that the interlocutory order
is rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
Issue Then is certiorari under Rule 65 allowed to be resorted to.
Did the CA properly determine that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion The assailed order of March 14, 2001 denying Teresita’s motion for the approval of
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in directing the inclusion of certain the inventory and the order dated May 18, 2001 denying her motion for
properties in the inventory notwithstanding that such properties had been either reconsideration were interlocutory. This is because the inclusion of the properties
transferred by sale or exchanged for corporate shares in Mervir Realty by the in the inventory was not yet a final determination of their ownership.  Hence, the
decedent during his lifetime? approval of the inventory and the concomitant determination of the ownership as
basis for inclusion or exclusion from the inventory were provisional and subject to
Ruling of the Court revision at anytime during the course of the administration proceedings.
The appeal is meritorious. In Valero Vda. De Rodriguez v. Court of Appeals,17 the Court, in affirming the
I Was certiorari the proper recourse to assail the questioned orders of the decision of the CA to the effect that the order of the intestate court excluding
RTC? certain real properties from the inventory was interlocutory and could be changed
The first issue to be resolved is procedural. Thelma contends that the resort to the or modified at anytime during the course of the administration proceedings, held
special civil action for certiorari to assail the orders of the RTC by Teresita and her that the order of exclusion was not a final but an interlocutory order “in the sense
co–respondents was not proper. Thelma’s contention cannot be sustained. that it did not settle once and for all the title to the San Lorenzo Village lots.” The
The propriety of the special civil action for certiorari as a remedy depended on Court observed there that:
The prevailing rule is that for the purpose of determining whether a certain (b) Determines who are the lawful heirs of a deceased person, or the distributive
property should or should not be included in the inventory, the probate court may share of the estate to which such person is entitled;
pass upon the title thereto but such determination is not conclusive and is subject (c) Allows or disallows, in whole or in part, any claim against the estate of a
to the final decision in a separate action regarding ownership which may be deceased person, or any claim presented on behalf of the estate in offset to a claim
instituted by the parties (3 Moran’s Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Edition, against it;
pages 448–9 and 473; Lachenal vs. Salas, L–42257, June 14, 1976, 71 SCRA 262, (d) Settles the account of an executor, administrator, trustee or guardian;
266).18 (Bold emphasis supplied) (e) Constitutes, in proceedings relating to the settlement of the estate of a
deceased person, or the administration of a trustee or guardian, a final
To the same effect was De Leon v. Court of Appeals,19 where the Court declared that determination in the lower court of the rights of the party appealing, except that no
a “probate court, whether in a testate or intestate proceeding, can only pass upon appeal shall be allowed from the appointment of a special administrator; and
questions of title provisionally,” and reminded, citing Jimenez v. Court of Appeals, (f) Is the final order or judgment rendered in the case, and affects the substantial
that the “patent reason is the probate court’s limited jurisdiction and the principle rights of the person appealing, unless it be an order granting or denying a motion
that questions of title or ownership, which result in inclusion or exclusion from the for a new trial or for reconsideration.
inventory of the property, can only be settled in a separate action.” Indeed, in the
cited case of Jimenez v. Court of Appeals,20 the Court pointed out: Clearly, the assailed orders of the RTC, being interlocutory, did not come under any
All that the said court could do as regards the said properties is determine whether of the instances in which multiple appeals are permitted.
they should or should not be included in the inventory or list of properties to be
administered by the administrator. If there is a dispute as to the ownership, then II Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in directing the inclusion of
the opposing parties and the administrator have to resort to an ordinary action the properties in the estate of the decedent?
for a final determination of the conflicting claims of title because the probate
court cannot do so. (Bold emphasis supplied) In its assailed decision, the CA concluded that the RTC committed grave abuse of
discretion for including properties in the inventory notwithstanding their having
On the other hand, an appeal would not be the correct recourse for Teresita, et al. been transferred to Mervir Realty by Emigdio during his lifetime, and for
to take against the assailed orders. The final judgment rule embodied in the first disregarding the registration of the properties in the name of Mervir Realty, a third
paragraph of Section 1, Rule 41, Rules of Court,21 which also governs appeals in party, by applying the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction.
special proceedings, stipulates that only the judgments, final orders (and
resolutions) of a court of law “that completely disposes of the case, or of a Was the CA correct in its conclusion?
particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable” may be The answer is in the negative. It is unavoidable to find that the CA, in reaching its
the subject of an appeal in due course. The same rule states that an interlocutory conclusion, ignored the law and the facts that had fully warranted the assailed
order or resolution (interlocutory because it deals with preliminary matters, or that orders of the RTC.
the trial on the merits is yet to be held and the judgment rendered) is expressly
made non–appealable. Under Section 6(a), Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, the letters of administration may
be granted at the discretion of the court to the surviving spouse, who is competent
Multiple appeals are permitted in special proceedings as a practical recognition of and willing to serve when the person dies intestate. Upon issuing the letters of
the possibility that material issues may be finally determined at various stages of administration to the surviving spouse, the RTC becomes duty–bound to direct the
the special proceedings. Section 1, Rule 109 of the Rules of Court enumerates the preparation and submission of the inventory of the properties of the estate, and the
specific instances in which multiple appeals may be resorted to in special surviving spouse, as the administrator, has the duty and responsibility to submit the
proceedings, viz: inventory within three months from the issuance of letters of administration
Section 1. Orders or judgments from which appeals may be taken. – An interested pursuant to Rule 83 of the Rules of Court, viz:
person may appeal in special proceedings from an order or judgment rendered by a Section 1. Inventory and appraisal to be returned within three months. – Within
Court of First Instance or a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, where such order three (3) months after his appointment every executor or administrator shall return
or judgment: to the court a true inventory and appraisal of all the real and personal estate of
the deceased which has come into his possession or knowledge. In the
(a) Allows or disallows a will; appraisement of such estate, the court may order one or more of the inheritance
tax appraisers to give his or their assistance. The usage of the word all in Section as regards said properties is to determine whether or not they should be included in
1, supra, demands the inclusion of all the real and personal properties of the the inventory of properties to be administered by the administrator. If there is no
decedent in the inventory.22 However, the word all is qualified by the phrase which dispute, there poses no problem, but if there is, then the parties, the administrator,
has come into his possession or knowledge, which signifies that the properties must and the opposing parties have to resort to an ordinary action before a court
be known to the administrator to belong to the decedent or are in her possession exercising general jurisdiction for a final determination of the conflicting claims of
as the administrator. Section 1 allows no exception, for the phrase  true title.
inventory implies that no properties appearing to belong to the decedent can be However, this general rule is subject to exceptions as justified by expediency and
excluded from the inventory, regardless of their being in the possession of another convenience.
person or entity.
First, the probate court may provisionally pass upon in an intestate or a testate
The objective of the Rules of Court in requiring the inventory and appraisal of the proceeding the question of inclusion in, or exclusion from, the inventory of a
estate of the decedent is “to aid the court in revising the accounts and determining piece of property without prejudice to final determination of ownership in a
the liabilities of the executor or the administrator, and in making a final and separate action. Second, if the interested parties are all heirs to the estate, or the
equitable distribution (partition) of the estate and otherwise to facilitate the question is one of collation or advancement, or the parties consent to the
administration of the estate.”23 Hence, the RTC that presides over the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights of third parties are
administration of an estate is vested with wide discretion on the question of what not impaired, then the probate court is competent to resolve issues on
properties should be included in the inventory. According to Peralta v. Peralta,24 the ownership. Verily, its jurisdiction extends to matters incidental or collateral to the
CA cannot impose its judgment in order to supplant that of the RTC on the issue of settlement and distribution of the estate, such as the determination of the status of
which properties are to be included or excluded from the inventory in the absence each heir and whether the property in the inventory is conjugal or exclusive
of “positive abuse of discretion,” for in the administration of the estates of property of the deceased spouse.27 (Italics in the original; bold emphasis supplied)
deceased persons, “the judges enjoy ample discretionary powers and the appellate It is clear to us that the RTC took pains to explain the factual bases for its directive
courts should not interfere with or attempt to replace the action taken by them, for the inclusion of the properties in question in its assailed order of March 14,
unless it be shown that there has been a positive abuse of discretion.” 25As long as 2001, viz:
the RTC commits no patently grave abuse of discretion, its orders must be
respected as part of the regular performance of its judicial duty. In the first place, the administratrix of the estate admitted that Emigdio Mercado
was one of the heirs of Severina Mercado who, upon her death, left several
There is no dispute that the jurisdiction of the trial court as an intestate court is properties as listed in the inventory of properties submitted in Court in Special
special and limited. The trial court cannot adjudicate title to properties claimed to Proceedings No. 306–R which are supposed to be divided among her heirs. The
be a part of the estate but are claimed to belong to third parties by title adverse to administratrix admitted, while being examined in Court by the counsel for the
that of the decedent and the estate, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from petitioner, that she did not include in the inventory submitted by her in this case
the decedent. All that the trial court can do regarding said properties is to the shares of Emigdio Mercado in the said estate of Severina Mercado. Certainly,
determine whether or not they should be included in the inventory of properties to said properties constituting Emigdio Mercado’s share in the estate of Severina
be administered by the administrator. Such determination is provisional and may be Mercado should be included in the inventory of properties required to be submitted
still revised. As the Court said in Agtarap v. Agtarap:26 to the Court in this particular case.
The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial court, either as a probate court In the second place, the administratrix of the estate of Emigdio Mercado also
or an intestate court, relates only to matters having to do with the probate of the admitted in Court that she did not include in the inventory shares of stock of Mervir
will and/or settlement of the estate of deceased persons, but does not extend to Realty Corporation which are in her name and which were paid by her from money
the determination of questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings. The derived from the taxicab business which she and her husband had since 1955 as a
patent rationale for this rule is that such court merely exercises special and limited conjugal undertaking. As these shares of stock partake of being conjugal in
jurisdiction. As held in several cases, a probate court or one in charge of estate character, one–half thereof or of the value thereof should be included in the
proceedings, whether testate or intestate, cannot adjudicate or determine title to inventory of the estate of her husband. In the third place, the administratrix of the
properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which are claimed to belong to estate of Emigdio Mercado admitted, too, in Court that she had a bank account in
outside parties, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the deceased but by her name at Union Bank which she opened when her husband was still alive. Again,
title adverse to that of the deceased and his estate. All that the said court could do the money in said bank account partakes of being conjugal in character, and so,
one–half thereof should be included in the inventory of the properties constituting unavoidable for Teresita to include his shares in the conjugal partnership of gains.
as estate of her husband. The party asserting that specific property acquired during that property regime did
not pertain to the conjugal partnership of gains carried the burden of proof, and
In the fourth place, it has been established during the hearing in this case that Lot that party must prove the exclusive ownership by one of them by clear, categorical,
No. 3353 of Pls–657–D located in Badian, Cebu containing an area of 53,301 square and convincing evidence.30 In the absence of or pending the presentation of such
meters as described in and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3252 of the proof, the conjugal partnership of Emigdio and Teresita must be provisionally
Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cebu is still registered in the name of Emigdio liquidated to establish who the real owners of the affected properties were, 31 and
S. Mercado until now. When it was the subject of Civil Case No. CEB–12690 which which of the properties should form part of the estate of Emigdio. The portions that
was decided on October 19, 1995, it was the estate of the late Emigdio Mercado pertained to the estate of Emigdio must be included in the inventory.
which claimed to be the owner thereof. Mervir Realty Corporation never intervened Moreover, although the title over Lot 3353 was already registered in the name of
in the said case in order to be the owner thereof. This fact was admitted by Richard Mervir Realty, the RTC made findings that put that title in dispute. Civil Case No.
Mercado himself when he testified in Court. x x x So the said property located in CEB–12692, a dispute that had involved the ownership of Lot 3353, was resolved in
Badian, Cebu should be included in the inventory in this case. favor of the estate of Emigdio, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3252 covering
Lot 3353 was still in Emigdio’s name. Indeed, the RTC noted in the order of March
Fifthly and lastly, it appears that the assignment of several parcels of land by the 14, 2001, or ten years after his death, that Lot 3353 had remained registered in the
late Emigdio S. Mercado to Mervir Realty Corporation on January 10, 1991 by virtue name of Emigdio.
of the Deed of Assignment signed by him on the said day (Exhibit N for the
petitioner and Exhibit 5 for the administratrix) was a transfer in contemplation of Interestingly, Mervir Realty did not intervene at all in Civil Case No. CEB–12692.
death. It was made two days before he died on January 12, 1991. A transfer made Such lack of interest in Civil Case No. CEB–12692 was susceptible of various
in contemplation of death is one prompted by the thought that the transferor has interpretations, including one to the effect that the heirs of Emigdio could have
not long to live and made in place of a testamentary disposition (1959 Prentice Hall, already threshed out their differences with the assistance of the trial court. This
p. 3909). Section 78 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977 provides that interpretation was probable considering that Mervir Realty, whose business was
the gross estate of the decedent shall be determined by including the value at the managed by respondent Richard, was headed by Teresita herself as its President. In
time of his death of all property to the extent of any interest therein of which the other words, Mervir Realty appeared to be a family corporation.
decedent has at any time made a transfer in contemplation of death. So, the
inventory to be approved in this case should still include the said properties of Also, the fact that the deed of absolute sale executed by Emigdio in favor of Mervir
Emigdio Mercado which were transferred by him in contemplation of death. Realty was a notarized instrument did not sufficiently justify the exclusion from the
Besides, the said properties actually appeared to be still registered in the name of inventory of the properties involved. A notarized deed of sale only enjoyed the
Emigdio S. Mercado at least ten (10) months after his death, as shown by the presumption of regularity in favor of its execution, but its notarization did not per
certification issued by the Cebu City Assessor’s Office on October 31, 1991 (Exhibit se guarantee the legal efficacy of the transaction under the deed, and what the
O).28 contents purported to be. The presumption of regularity could be rebutted by clear
and convincing evidence to the contrary.32 As the Court has observed in Suntay v.
Thereby, the RTC strictly followed the directives of the Rules of Court and the Court of Appeals:33
jurisprudence relevant to the procedure for preparing the inventory by the x x x. Though the notarization of the deed of sale in question vests in its favor the
administrator. The aforequoted explanations indicated that the directive to include presumption of regularity, it is not the intention nor the function of the notary
the properties in question in the inventory rested on good and valid reasons, and public to validate and make binding an instrument never, in the first place, intended
thus was far from whimsical, or arbitrary, or capricious. to have any binding legal effect upon the parties thereto. The intention of the
parties still and always is the primary consideration in determining the true
Firstly, the shares in the properties inherited by Emigdio from Severina Mercado nature of a contract.(Bold emphasis supplied)
should be included in the inventory because Teresita, et al. did not dispute the fact
about the shares being inherited by Emigdio. It should likewise be pointed out that the exchange of shares of stock of Mervir
Secondly, with Emigdio and Teresita having been married prior to the effectivity of Realty with the real properties owned by Emigdio would still have to be inquired
the Family Code in August 3, 1988, their property regime was the conjugal into. That Emigdio executed the deed of assignment two days prior to his death was
partnership of gains.29 For purposes of the settlement of Emigdio’s estate, it was a circumstance that should put any interested party on his guard regarding the
exchange, considering that there was a finding about Emigdio having been sick of inventory of the estate of the decedent by authorizing it to direct the inclusion of
cancer of the pancreas at the time.34 In this regard, whether the CA correctly properties donated or bestowed by gratuitous title to any compulsory heir by the
characterized the exchange as a form of an estate planning scheme remained to be decedent.38
validated by the facts to be established in court.
The determination of which properties should be excluded from or included in the
The fact that the properties were already covered by Torrens titles in the name of inventory of estate properties was well within the authority and discretion of the
Mervir Realty could not be a valid basis for immediately excluding them from the RTC as an intestate court. In making its determination, the RTC acted with
inventory in view of the circumstances admittedly surrounding the execution of the circumspection, and proceeded under the guiding policy that it was best to include
deed of assignment. This is because: all properties in the possession of the administrator or were known to the
The Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring titles to lands; it is merely a system administrator to belong to Emigdio rather than to exclude properties that could
of registration of titles to lands. However, justice and equity demand that the turn out in the end to be actually part of the estate. As long as the RTC commits no
titleholder should not be made to bear the unfavorable effect of the mistake or patent grave abuse of discretion, its orders must be respected as part of the regular
negligence of the State’s agents, in the absence of proof of his complicity in a fraud performance of its judicial duty. Grave abuse of discretion means either that the
or of manifest damage to third persons. The real purpose of the Torrens system is judicial or quasi–judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by
to quiet title to land and put a stop forever to any question as to the legality of the reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or
title, except claims that were noted in the certificate at the time of registration or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or
that may arise subsequent thereto. Otherwise, the integrity of the Torrens system to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board
shall forever be sullied by the ineptitude and inefficiency of land registration exercising judicial or quasi–judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical
officials, who are ordinarily presumed to have regularly performed their duties. 35 manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. 39

Assuming that only seven titled lots were the subject of the deed of assignment of In light of the foregoing, the CA’s conclusion of grave abuse of discretion on the part
January 10, 1991, such lots should still be included in the inventory to enable the of the RTC was unwarranted and erroneous.
parties, by themselves, and with the assistance of the RTC itself, to test and resolve
the issue on the validity of the assignment. The limited jurisdiction of the RTC as an WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for review
intestate court might have constricted the determination of the rights to the on certiorari; REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on May 15,
properties arising from that deed,36 but it does not prevent the RTC as intestate 2002; REINSTATES the orders issued on March 14, 2001 and May 18, 2001 by the
court from ordering the inclusion in the inventory of the properties subject of that Regional Trial Court in Cebu; DIRECTS the Regional Trial Court in Cebu to proceed
deed. This is because the RTC as intestate court, albeit vested only with special and with dispatch in Special Proceedings No. 3094–CEB entitled Intestate Estate of the
limited jurisdiction, was still “deemed to have all the necessary powers to exercise late Emigdio Mercado, Thelma Aranas, petitioner, and to resolve the case;
such jurisdiction to make it effective.”37 and ORDERS the respondents to pay the costs of suit.ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Lastly, the inventory of the estate of Emigdio must be prepared and submitted for SO ORDERED.
the important purpose of resolving the difficult issues of collation and advancement
to the heirs. Article 1061 of the Civil Coderequired every compulsory heir and the
surviving spouse, herein Teresita herself, to “bring into the mass of the estate any
property or right which he (or she) may have received from the decedent, during
the lifetime of the latter, by way of donation, or any other gratuitous title, in order
that it may be computed in the determination of the legitime of each heir, and in
the account of the partition.” Section 2, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court also provided
that any advancement by the decedent on the legitime of an heir “may be heard
and determined by the court having jurisdiction of the estate proceedings, and
the final order of the court thereon shall be binding on the person raising the
questions and on the heir.” Rule 90 thereby expanded the special and limited
jurisdiction of the RTC as an intestate court about the matters relating to the
 Atty. Zaide contended that he needed to simultaneously use several notarial
registers in his separate satellite offices in order to better cater to the needs of his
clients and accommodate their growing number.14 This explains the irregular and
A.C. No. 10303, April 22, 2015 non-sequential entries in his notarial registers. Further, Atty. Zaide argued that
JOY A. GIMENO, Complainant, v. ATTY. PAUL CENTILLAS ZAIDE Gimeno was never his client since she did not personally hire him as her counsel.
Gimeno engaged the services of ZMZ where he previously worked as an associate.
DECISION The real counsel of Gimeno and her relatives in their annulment of title case was
BRION, J.: Atty. Leo Montalban Zaragoza, one of ZMZ's partners. 15 On this basis, the
We review Resolution No. XX-2011-2641 of the Board of Governors of the respondent should not be held liable for representing conflicting clients' interests.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in CBD Case No. 07-2069, which imposed on
Atty. Paul Centillas Zaide (Atty. Zaide) the penalty of one-year suspension from the Finally, he denied that he used any intemperate, offensive, and abusive language in
practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, if existing, and two years his pleadings.16
suspension from being commissioned as a notary public, for violation of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice (Notarial Practice Rules).2 The IBP Proceedings
The Case On October 4, 2007, the IBP CBD issued an order setting the case for mandatory
conference.17 After this, both parties were required to submit their position papers.
On August 8, 2007, complainant Joy A. Gimeno (Gimeno) filed a complaint3 with the In his report and recommendation18 dated May 18, 2010, Commissioner Pedro A.
IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline, charging Atty. Zaide with: (1) usurpation of a Magpayo, Jr. (Commissioner Magpayo) found Atty. Zaide administratively liable for
notary public's office; (2) falsification; (3) use of intemperate, offensive and abusive violating the Notarial Practice Rules, representing conflicting interests, and using
language; and (4) violation of lawyer-client trust. In her complaint, Gimeno alleged abusive and insulting language in his pleadings. He noted that Atty. Zaide violated
that even before Atty. Zaide's admission4 to the Bar and receipt5 of his notarial Section 1 (a) and 1 (b), Rule VI of the Notarial Practice Rules when he maintained
commission, he had notarized a partial extrajudicial partition with deed of absolute several active notarial registers in different offices. These provisions respectively
sale on March 29, 2002.6 She also accused Atty. Zaide of making false and irregular require a notary public to "keep, maintain, protect and provide for lawful
entries in his notarial registers.7 Gimeno further submitted that she was Atty. inspection, a chronological official register of notarial acts consisting of a
Zaide's former client. She engaged the services of his law firm Zaragoza- permanently bound book with numbered papers" and to "keep only one active
Makabangkit-Zaide Law Offices (ZMZ) in an annulment of title case that involved notarial register at any given time."19
her husband and her parents-in-law. Despite their previous lawyer-client
relationship, Atty. Zaide still appeared against her in the complaint for estafa and However, Commissioner Magpayo opined that Atty. Zaide should not be held
violation of RA 30198 that one Priscilla Somontan (Somontan) filed against her with administratively liable for usurping a notary public's office. The investigating
the Ombudsman. Gimeno posited that by appearing against a former client, Atty. commissioner noted that the evidence presented on this issue is not enough to
Zaide violated the prohibition against the representation of conflicting clients' prove that Atty. Zaide signed and notarized the March 29, 2002 partial extrajudicial
interests.9 Lastly, Gimeno contended that Atty. Zaide called her a "notorious partition even after his admission to the Bar and receipt of his notarial
extortionist" in the same administrative complaint that Somontan filed against commission.20
her.10 In another civil case where she was not a party, Gimeno observed that Atty.
Zaide referred to his opposing counsel as someone suffering from "serious mental Commissioner Magpayo also found that the evidence presented proved that
incompetence" in one of his pleadings.11 According to Gimeno, these statements Gimeno was indeed Atty. Zaide's former client. He disagreed with Atty. Zaide's
constitute intemperate, offensive and abusive language, which a lawyer is defense that Gimeno only hired ZMZ but did not personally hire him to defend
proscribed from using in his dealings. In his answer 12 dated September 13, 2007, them in their annulment of title case. The retainer of a law firm is equivalent to the
Atty. Zaide argued that he did not notarize the March 29, 2002 partial extrajudicial retainer of all its lawyers.21 But despite this previous attorney-client relationship,
partition. As it appeared on the notarial page of this document, his notarial stamp the investigating commissioner noted that Atty. Zaide should not be held liable for
and falsified signature were superimposed over the typewritten name of Atty. representing conflicting interests since the annulment of title case is totally
Elpedio Cabasan, the lawyer who actually notarized this document. 13 Atty. Zaide unrelated to the Ombudsman complaint that Somontan filed against Gimeno
claimed that Gimeno falsified his signature to make it appear that he notarized it through Atty. Zaide.
before his admission to the Bar. On the alleged falsification of his notarial entries,
Finally, the investigating commissioner noted that Atty. Zaide used intemperate, This Court notes that at the time the document was purportedly notarized, Atty.
offensive, and abusive language when he called Gimeno a "notorious extortionist" Zaide's details as a lawyer and as a notary public had not yet existed. He was
in one of his pleadings.22 admitted to the Bar only on May 2, 2002; thus, he could not have obtained and
used the exact figures pertaining to his roll number, PTR number, IBP number and
For violating the Notarial Practice Rules, Commissioner Magpayo recommended the expiration date of his notarial commission, prior to this date, particularly on
that Atty. Zaide be suspended for three months, and for another six months for March 29, 2002.
employing abusive and insulting language.23
The IBP Board of Governors' Findings This circumstance, coupled with the absence of any evidence supporting Gimeno's
claim such as a witness to the alleged fictitious notarization, leads us to the
In its November 19, 2011 resolution, the IBP Board of Governors (Board) opined conclusion that Atty. Zaide could not have notarized the document before his Bar
that the evidence on record fully supports the findings of the investigating admission and receipt of his notarial commission.
commissioner. However, the Board modified the recommended penalty and
imposed instead the penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law, We can only conclude that his professional details, which were only generated after
revocation of notarial commission, if existing, and two years suspension from being his Bar admission, were stamped on the March 29, 2002 document. How this
commissioned as a notary public.24 happened is not clear from the evidence before us.

Atty. Zaide sought for the reconsideration25 of the Board's November 19, 2011 b. Maintaining different notarial registers in separate notarial offices
resolution but this was also denied in its subsequent June 21, 2013 resolution. 26
The Court's Ruling We find that Atty. Zaide violated the Notarial Practice Rules by maintaining different
notarial registers in several offices. Because of this practice, the following notarized
The Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors' findings and recommended documents had been irregularly numbered and entered:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
penalty, and accordingly confirms them. Document27 Date Doc. No. Page Book Year
Special Power of
6/20/05 273 55 18 2005
For an orderly disposition of the case, we shall discuss each of the main issues that Attorney
the parties identified. Secretary's Certificate 10/28/05 226 46 18 2005
Affidavit of Quitclaim 10/31/05 272 55 18 2005
Violation of the Notarial Practice Rules Affidavit of Loss 4/17/06 54 11 25 2006
Affidavit of Two
4/17/06 310 61 25 2006
a. Usurpation of a notarial office Disinterested Persons
Petition for Issuance of
4/17/06 72 15 25 2006
As the investigating commissioner found, Gimeno did not present any concrete Owner's Duplicate copy
evidence to show that Atty. Zaide notarized the March 29, 2002 partial extrajudicial Affidavit of Parental
4/19/06 461 93 23 2006
partition prior to his admission to the Bar and receipt of his notarial commission. Consent
It appears that this document originally carried the name of one Atty. Elpedio Confirmation of Sale 4/21/06 283 56 25 2006
Cabasan, as notary public. Atty. Zaide's signature and notarial stamp that bears his Deed of Absolute Sale 4/27/06 304 60 25 2006
name, roll number,, PTR number, IBP number, and the expiration date of his Section l(a), Rule VI of the Notarial Practice Rules provides that "a notary public
notarial commission, were merely superimposed over Atty. Cabasan's typewritten shall keep, maintain, protect and provide for lawful inspection as provided in these
name. Rules, a chronological official notarial register of notarial acts consisting of a
Notably, Atty. Zaide admitted that the details stamped on the document are his true permanently bound book with numbered pages." The same section further provides
information. However, he denied that he personally stamped and signed the that "a notary public shall keep only one active notarial register at any given
document. In fact, this document never appeared in his notarial register and was time."28 On this basis, Atty. Zaide's act of simultaneously keeping several active
never included in his notarial report for the year 2002. He contended that Gimeno notarial registers is a blatant violation of Section 1, Rule VI.
falsified his signature and used his notarial stamp to make it appear that he was the
one who notarized it. The Notarial Practice Rules strictly requires a notary public to maintain only one
active notarial register and ensure that the entries in it are chronologically Atty. Zaide and Gimeno ceased when Atty. Zaide left ZMZ. Moreover, the case
arranged. The "one active notarial register" rule is in place to deter a notary public where Gimeno engaged ZMZ's services is an entirely different subject matter and is
from assigning several notarial registers to different offices manned by assistants not in any way connected to the complaint that Somontan filed against Gimeno
who perform notarial services on his behalf. with the Ombudsman.
Since a notarial commission is personal to each lawyer, the notary public must also The prior case where Gimeno hired ZMZ and where Atty. Zaide represented her
personally administer the notarial acts 29 that the law authorizes him to execute. family pertained to the annulment of a land title. Somontan was never a party to
This important duty is vested with public interest. Thus, no other person, other than this case since this only involved Gimeno's relatives. On the other hand, the case
the notary public, should perform it. where Atty. Zaide appeared against Gimeno involved Somontan's Ombudsman
On the other hand, entries in a notarial register need to be in chronological complaint against Gimeno for her alleged mishandling of the funds that Somontan
sequence in order to address and prevent the rampant practice of leaving blank entrusted to her, and for Gimeno's alleged corruption as an examiner in the
spaces in the notarial register to allow the antedating of notarizations. Register of Deeds of Iligan City. Clearly, the annulment of title case and the
In these lights, we cannot accept Atty. Zaide's explanation that he needed to Ombudsman case are totally unrelated.
maintain several active notarial registers in separate offices so he could
accommodate the increasing number of his clients requiring his notarial services. There was also no double-dealing on the part of Atty. Zaide because at the time
Somontan engaged his services, he had already left ZMZ. More importantly,
This Court stresses that a notary public should not trivialize his functions as his nothing in the record shows that Atty. Zaide used against Gimeno any confidential
powers and duties are impressed with public interest. 30 A notary public's office is information which he acquired while he was still their counsel in the annulment
not merely an income-generating venture. It is a public duty that each lawyer who of title case.
has been privileged to receive a notarial commission must faithfully and
conscientiously perform. Under these circumstances, Atty. Zaide should not be held liable for violating the
Atty. Zaide should have been acutely aware of the requirements of his notarial prohibition against the representation of conflicting interests.
commission. His flagrant violation of Section 1, Rule VI of the Notarial Practice Rules
is not merely a simple and excusable negligence. It amounts to a clear violation of Use of intemperate, offensive and abusive language in professional dealings
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that "a lawyer
[should] uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect The prohibition on the use of intemperate, offensive and abusive language in a
for law and legal processes." lawyer's professional dealings, whether with the courts, his clients, or any other
person, is based on the following canons and rules of the Code of Professional
Representing conflicting interests Responsibility:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The investigating commissioner properly noted that Atty. Zaide should not be held Canon 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor
liable for representing conflicting clients' interests. toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility opposing counsel.
provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
In Aninon v. Sabitsana,31 the Court laid down the tests to determine if a lawyer is Canon 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to
guilty of representing conflicting interests between and among his clients. judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
One of these tests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing
full discharge of a lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or language or behavior before the Courts. (emphasis supplied)
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that As shown in the record, Atty. Zaide, in the reply that he drafted in the Ombudsman
duty.32Another test is whether a lawyer would be called upon in the new relation case, called Gimeno a "notorious extortionist." 34 And in another case, Gimeno
to use against a former client any confidential information acquired through their observed that Atty. Zaide used the following demeaning and immoderate language
connection or previous employment.33 in presenting his comment against his opposing counsel:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Applying these tests, we find no conflict of interest when Atty. Zaide appeared Her declaration in Public put a shame, DISGRACE, INDIGNITY AND HUMILIATION in
against Gimeno, his former law firm's client. The lawyer-client relationship between the whole Justice System, and the Department of Justice in particular, where the
taxpayers paid for her salary over her incompetence and poor performance as a
prosecutor... This is a clear manifestation that the Public prosecutor suffers serious
mental incompetence as regard her mandate as an Assistant City
Prosecutor.35(emphasis supplied)
This clearly confirms Atty. Zaide's lack of restraint in the use and choice of his words
— a conduct unbecoming of an officer of the court.

While a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such
enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language. Language
abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful,
convincing but not derogatory, and illuminating but not offensive. 36

On many occasions, the Court has reminded the members of the Bar to abstain
from any offensive personality and to refrain from any act prejudicial to the honor
or reputation of a party or a witness. In keeping with the dignity of the legal
profession, a lawyer's language even in his pleadings, must be dignified. 37

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to ADOPT the recommended

penalty of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Atty.
Paul Centillas Zaide is found GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
and for using intemperate, offensive and, abusive language in violation of Rule 8.01,
Canon 8 and Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His
notarial commission, if existing, is hereby REVOKED, and he is
declared DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of
two (2) years. He is also SUSPENDED for one (1) year from the practice of law.

SO ORDERED.c
 The respondent argued that the complainant’s greed to get the just
Compensation9 caused her to file this "baseless, unfounded and malicious"
3. DISQUALIFICATIONS disbarment case.10 He claimed that the sale was their voluntary transaction and that
Adm. Case No. 6475               January 30, 2013 he "simply ratified the document."11 He also claimed that Reynold and Laurentino
FE A. YLAYA, vs. ATTY. GLENN CARLOS GACOTT had originally jointly purchased the properties from Cirilo Arellano on July 10, 2000;
that they were co-owners for some time; and that Laurentino subsequently sold his
DECISION share to Reynold under a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 4, 2001. 12
BRION, J.: The respondent specifically denied asking the complainant and her late husband to
For the Court's consideration is the disbarment complaint 1 tiled by Fe A. Ylaya execute any "preparatory deed of sale" in favor of the City Government. 13 He also
(complainant) against Atty. Glenn Carlos Gacott (respondent) who allegedly denied that the Deed of Absolute Sale contained blanks when they signed it. 14 That
deceived the complainant and her late husband, Laurentino L. Ylaya, into signing a he filed for the spouses Ylaya and Reynold an opposition to the just compensation
"preparatory" Deed of Sale that the respondent converted into a Deed of Absolute the RTC fixed proved that there was no agreement to use the document for the
Sale in favor of his relatives. expropriation case.15 He also argued that it was clear from the document that the
After the submission of the respondent's comment to the complaint, the Court intended buyer was a natural person, not a juridical person, because there were
referred the complaint to the Commission on Bar Discipline ofthe Integrated Bar of spaces for the buyer’s legal age, marital status, and citizenship, 16 and he was even
the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, evaluation and recommendation. constrained to file a subsequent Motion to Intervene on behalf of Reynold because
The complainant alleged that she and her late husband are the registered owners of the complainant "maliciously retained" the TCTs to the subject properties after
two (2) parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title ( TCT) Nos. 162632 borrowing them from his office.17 Lastly, he denied violating the Rules on Notarial
and 162633 located at Barangay Sta. Lourdes, Puerto Princesa City. Prior to the Practice.18
acquisition of these properties, TCT No. 162632 (property) was already the subject On September 4, 2006, the respondent filed a Motion to Resolve or Decide the Case
of expropriation proceedings filed by the City Government of Puerto Princesa (City dated August 24, 2006 praying for the early resolution of the complaint. 19
Government) on May 23, 1996 against its former registered owner, Cirilo Arellano. On December 5, 2006, the complainant filed an Ex Parte Motion to Withdraw the
The expropriation case was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Palawan and Verified Complaint and To Dismiss the Case dated November 14, 2006. 20
Puerto Princesa, Branch 95, and was docketed as Civil Case No. 2902. The RTC On February 28, 2008, the complainant executed an Affidavit 21 affirming and
already fixed the price and issued an order for the City Government to deposit confirming the existence, genuineness and due execution of the Deed of Absolute
₱6,000,000.00 as just compensation for the property. 2 Sale notarized on March 6, 2000;22 the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated
The respondent briefly represented the complainant and her late husband in the April 19, 2000;23 and the Deed of Absolute Sale notarized in 2001. 24 The respondent
expropriation case as intervenors for being the new registered owners of the submitted this Affidavit to the IBP as an attachment to his Motion for
property. The complainant alleged that the respondent convinced them to sign a Reconsideration of April 21, 2008.25
"preparatory deed of sale" for the sale of the property, but he left blank the space The IBP’s Findings
for the name of the buyer and for the amount of consideration. The respondent In her Report and Recommendation dated November 19, 2007, IBP Commissioner
further alleged that the deed would be used in the sale to the City Government Anna Caridad Sazon-Dupaya found the respondent administratively liable for
when the RTC issues the order to transfer the titles. 3 The respondent then violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
fraudulently – without their knowledge and consent, and contrary to their immoral or deceitful conduct) and Canon 16 ("A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys
understanding – converted the "preparatory deed of sale" into a Deed of Absolute and properties of his client that may come into his possession) of the Code of
Sale dated June 4, 2001,4 selling the subject property to Reynold So and Sylvia Professional Responsibility, and Section 3(c), Rule IV of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC (2004
Carlos So for ₱200,000.00.5 Rules on Notarial Practice).26 She recommended his suspension from the practice of
The complainant denied that she and Laurentino were paid the ₱200,000.00 law for a period of six (6) months.27
purchase price or that they would sell the property "for such a measly sum" when In its Resolution No. XVIII-2007-30228 dated December 14, 2007, the IBP Board of
they stood to get at least ₱6,000,000.00 as just compensation. 6 Governors adopted the IBP Commissioner’s finding, but increased the penalty
The complainant also claimed that the respondent notarized the Deed of Absolute imposed to two (2) years suspension and a warning:
Sale dated June 4, 2001 even though Reynold and Sylvia (his mother’s sister) are his RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and
uncle and his aunt, respectively.7 APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the
The respondent denied all the allegations in the complaint. 8 Investigating Commissioner [in] the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the The Court’s Ruling
evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering respondent’s We set aside the findings and recommendations of the IBP Commissioner and those
violations of Canon 1, [Rule] 1.01 and Canon 16 of the Code of Professional of the IBP Board of Governors finding the respondent liable for violating Canon 1,
Responsibility and Rule IV, Sec. 39(c) of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC (2004 Rules on Notarial Rules 1.01 and Section 3(c), Rule IV of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC. 34
Practice), Atty. Glenn Carlos Gacott is hereby SUSPENDED from practice of law for We however hold the respondent liable for violating Canon 16 of the Code of
two (2) years with a Warning that commission of a similar offense will be dealt with Professional Responsibility for being remiss in his obligation to hold in trust his
more severely. [emphases supplied] client’s properties. We likewise find him liable for violation of (1) Canon 15, Rule
On May 8, 2008, the respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated April 21, 15.03 for representing conflicting interests without the written consent of the
2008, attaching, among others, a copy of the complainant’s Affidavit dated February represented parties, thus, violating the rule on conflict of interests; and (2) Canon
27, 2008, admitting the existence, genuineness and due execution of the Deed of 18, Rule 18.03 for neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him.
Absolute Sale between Cirilo and Laurentino; the MOA between Laurentino and a. Due process violation
Reynold; the Deed of Absolute Sale between Laurentino and Reynold; and the The most basic tenet of due process is the right to be heard. Denial of due process
Compromise Agreement between Reynold and the complainant dated November means the total lack of opportunity to be heard or to have one’s day in court. As a
14, 2006 for the expropriation case.29 rule, no denial of due process takes place where a party has been given an
On September 4, 2008, the respondent filed a Manifestation with the Supreme opportunity to be heard and to present his case; 35 what is prohibited is the absolute
Court, requesting that the IBP be directed to resolve his Motion for lack of opportunity to be heard.
Reconsideration.30 The respondent claims that the IBP violated his right to due process because he was
By Resolution No. XIX-2010-545 dated October 8, 2010, 31 the IBP Board of not given the "amplest opportunity to defend himself, to cross examine the witness
Governors denied the respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration for failing to raise complainant, to object to the admissibility of documents or present controverting
any new substantial matter or any cogent reason to warrant a reversal or even a evidence"36 when the IBP rendered its conclusion without requiring the complainant
modification of its Resolution No. XVIII-2007-302.32 to adduce evidence in a formal hearing and despite the absence of corroborative
On March 14, 2012, the respondent filed a Petition for Review (on appeal) assailing proof. He insists that these defects rendered the complainant’s allegations as
the IBP’s findings, as follows:33 hearsay, and the IBP’s report, recommendation or resolution null and void.
a) In conveniently concluding that the Deed of Absolute Sale was pre-signed and Although the respondent failed to have a face-to-face confrontation with the
fraudulently notarized without requiring Fe Ylaya to adduce evidence in a formal complainant when she failed to appear at the required mandatory conference on
hearing thus, violated the respondent’s right to due process as he was not able to October 6, 2005,37 the records reveal that the respondent fully participated during
cross-examine her. This is not to mention that the complainant failed to offer the entire proceedings and submitted numerous pleadings, including evidence,
corroborative proof to prove her bare allegations; before the IBP. He was even allowed to file a motion for reconsideration supported
b) In sweepingly and arbitrarily disregarded/skirted (sic) the public documents by his submitted evidence, which motion the IBP considered and ruled upon in its
(MOA and 2 other DOAS) duly executed by the parties therein and notarized by the Resolution No. XIX-2010-545 dated October 8, 2010.38
respondent; In Alliance of Democratic Free Labor Organization v. Laguesma, 39 we held that due
c) In totally ignoring the complainant’s Affidavit admitting the genuineness and due process, as applied to administrative proceedings, is the opportunity to explain
execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale in issue; one’s side. In Samalio v. Court of Appeals,40 due process in an administrative context
d) In arbitrarily concluding the absence of co-ownership by Reynold So and Fe Ylaya does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. Where
of the subject lots despite the existence of a notarized MOA clearly showing the co- the opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or through pleadings, is
ownership of Ylaya and So; and accorded, no denial of procedural due process takes place. The requirements of due
e) In finding the respondent/appellant’s act of notarizing the DOAS as contrary to process are satisfied where the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable
the notarial rules. opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand.
The Issues Similarly, in A.Z. Arnaiz Realty, Inc. v. Office of the President, 41 we held that "due
From the assigned errors, the complainant poses the following issues: process, as a constitutional precept, does not always, and in all situations, require a
(1) whether the IBP violated the respondent’s right to due process; and trial-type proceeding. Litigants may be heard through pleadings, written
(2) whether the evidence presented supports a finding that the respondent is explanations, position papers, memoranda or oral arguments. The standard of due
administratively liable for violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 16 of the Code of process that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of
Professional Responsibility, and Section 3(c), Rule IV of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC. latitude[, provided that] fairness is not ignored. It is, therefore, not legally
objectionable for being violative of due process, for an administrative agency to considering the whole record, finds that such defect has resulted or may result in a
resolve a case based solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence miscarriage of justice, in which event the
submitted by the parties."42 Board shall take such remedial action as the circumstances may warrant, including
In this case, the respondent’s failure to cross-examine the complainant is not a invalidation of the entire proceedings.
sufficient ground to support the claim that he had not been afforded due process. In this case, the IBP Commissioner’s findings were twice reviewed by the IBP Board
The respondent was heard through his pleadings, his submission of alleged of Governors – the first review resulted in Resolution No. XVIII-2007-302 45 dated
controverting evidence, and his oral testimony during the October 6, 2005 December 14, 2007, affirming the IBP Commissioner’s findings, but modifying the
mandatory conference. These pleadings, evidence and testimony were received and penalty; the second review resulted in Resolution No. XIX-2010-545 dated October
considered by the IBP Commissioner when she arrived at her findings and 8, 2010,46denying the respondent’s motion for reconsideration. In both instances,
recommendation, and were the bases for the IBP Board’s Resolution. the IBP Board of Governors found no defect or miscarriage of justice warranting a
Moreover, "any seeming defect in the observance of due process is cured by the remedial action or the invalidation of the proceedings.
filing of a motion for reconsideration. A denia of due process cannot be successfully We emphasize that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis in that
invoked by a party who has had the opportunity to be heard on his motion for they are neither purely civil nor purely criminal; they involve investigations by the
reconsideration. Undoubtedly in this case, the requirement of the law was afforded Court into the conduct of one of its officers,47 not the trial of an action or a suit.
to the respondent."43 Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor
We also note that the respondent, on a Motion to Resolve or Decide the Case dated purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an
August 24, 2006, submitted his case to the IBP for its resolution without any further investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended
hearings. The motion, filed almost one year after the mandatory conference on to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is
October 6, 2005, significantly did not contain any statement regarding a denial of neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the Court motu
due process. In effect, the respondent himself waived his cross-examination of the proprio. Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for
complainant when he asked the IBP Board of Governors to resolve the case based determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the
on the pleadings and the evidence on record. To quote his own submission: privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely
1. On June 30, 2004, a complaint was filed in this case; calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the
2. On October 19, 2004, the respondent filed his comment with all its attachments Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the
denying all the allegations in the complaint; proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members
3. On June 23, 2005, the respondent filed his position paper. On April 28, 2006, the who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted
respondent also filed his supplemental position paper. By contrast, up to this date, with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. In such
the complainant/petitioner has not filed her verified position paper thus, waived posture, there can thus be no occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor.
her right to file the same; [emphases deleted]
4. There being no other genuine issues to be heard in this case as all the defenses The complainant in disbarment cases is not a direct party to the case but a witness
and counter-arguments are supported by documentary evidence, it is most who brought the matter to the attention of the Court.48 Flowing from its sui generis
respectfully prayed that the instant case be resolved on its merits or be ordered character, it is not mandatory to have a formal hearing in which the complainant
dismissed for lack of merit without further hearing; must adduce evidence.
5. Further, considering that there is an on-going case in Branch 52 of the Regional From all these, we find it clear that the complainant is not indispensable to the
Trial Court of Palawan in Civil Case No. 2902 for Expropriation involving the same disciplinary proceedings and her failure to appear for cross-examination or to
property, and such fact was deliberately omitted by the complainant in her Verified provide corroborative evidence of her allegations is of no merit. What is important
Complaint as shown in the certification of non-forum shopping, the outright is whether, upon due investigation, the IBP
dismissal of this case is warranted, hence, this motion; and Board of Governors finds sufficient evidence of the respondent’s misconduct to
6. This is meant to expedite the termination of this case. 44 (underscore ours; italics warrant the exercise of its disciplinary powers.
supplied) b. Merits of the Complaint
Finally, we note Section 11, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court which provides that: "In administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is
No defect in a complaint, notice, answer, or in the proceeding or the Investigator’s preponderance of evidence which the complainant has the burden to
Report shall be considered as substantial unless the Board of Governors, upon discharge."49 Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one
side is, as a whole, superior to or has a greater weight than that of the other. It
means evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief Commission finds it hard to believe Laurentino Ylaya would sell it to Reynold So for
compared to the presented contrary evidence. ₱200,000 x x x when his minimum expenses for the purchase thereof is already
Under Section 1, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, in determining whether ₱225,000.00 and he was expecting to receive ₱7,000,000.00, more or less. That
preponderance of evidence exists, the court may consider the following: (a) all the would mean that if Reynold So and the complainant were co-owners, the
facts and circumstances of the case; (b) the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their ₱7,000,000.00 would then be equally divided among them at ₱3,500,000.00 each,
intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are far above the ₱200,000.00 selling price reflected in the pre-signed Deed of Sale.
testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, and the probability or As to the second issue, this Commission believes that the respondent committed
improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses’ interest or want of interest, and serious error in notarizing the Deed of Sale and the Memorandum of Agreement
also their personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; between his uncle Reynold So and Laurentino Ylaya based on Rule IV, Section 3 (c)
and (d) the number of witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC which provides as follows:
necessarily with the greater number.50 By law, a lawyer enjoys the legal "Sec. 3. Disqualifications – a notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial
presumption that he is innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is act if he:
proven, and that as an officer of the court, he is presumed to have performed his (a) x x x.
duties in accordance with his oath.51 (b) x x x.
The IBP Commissioner set out her findings as follows: (c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or
The undersigned, after a careful evaluation of the evidence presented by both consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree."
parties, finds that the charges of the complainant against the respondent are The defense therefore of the respondent that he did not violate the
worthy of belief based on the following: aforementioned Rule becausehis uncle Reynold So, the buyer is not the principal in
First, the allegation of the respondent that Reynold So was actually co-owner of the Subject Deed of Sale but the seller Laurentino Ylaya (please see page 3 of the
spouses Ylanas (sic) in the properties subject of the Deed of Sale between Felix respondent’s Supplemental Position Paper) is misplaced. Clearly, both the buyer
Arellano and Spouses Ylanas (sic) is hard to believe despite the presentation of the and the seller in the instant case are considered principals in the contract entered
Memorandum of Agreement. into.
It is elementary in Rules of Evidence that when the contents of a written document Furthermore, if we are to consider the argument of the respondent that his uncle
are put in issue, the best evidence would be the document itself. In the Deed of Sale was not a principal so as to apply the afore-quoted provision of the Rules, the
between Felix Arellano and Spouses Ylanas (sic), the buyer of the subject properties respondent still violated the Rules when he notarized the subject Memorandum of
is only Laurentino L. Ylaya married to Fe A. Ylaya. The document does not state that Agreement between Laurentino Ylaya and his uncle Reynold So. Clearly, both
Reynold So was likewise a buyer together with Laurentino Ylaya, or that the former complainant and Reynold So were principal parties in the said Memorandum of
paid half of the purchase price. Agreement.52
Also, it is hard for this Commission to believe that Reynold So, assisted by a lawyer The respondent argues that the IBP Commissioner’s findings are contrary to the
at that and who allegedly paid half of the purchase price, would not insist for the presented evidence, specifically to the MOA executed by Laurentino and Reynold
inclusion of his name in the Deed of Sale as well as the Transfer Certificate of Title acknowledging the existence of a co-ownership; 53 to the complainant’s Ex Parte
subsequently issued. Motion to Withdraw the Verified Complaint and To Dismiss the Case dated
The Memorandum of Agreement between the spouses Ylaya and Reynold So November 14, 2006 where she stated that the parties have entered into a
produced by the respondent cannot overturn the belief of this Commission compromise agreement in Civil Case No. 2902, and that the disbarment complaint
considering that the Memorandum of Agreement was executed more than a month arose from a misunderstanding, miscommunication and improper appreciation of
AFTER the Deed of Sale between Felix Arellano and the Ylayas was notarized. This is facts;54to her Affidavit dated February 27, 200855 affirming and confirming the
not to mention the fact that the complainant denied ever having executed the existence, genuineness and due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale notarized
Memorandum of Agreement. A close examination of the signatories in the said on March 6, 2000;56 and to the Deed of Absolute Sale notarized in 2001. 57
Memorandum of Agreement would reveal that indeed, the alleged signatures of the In all, the respondent claims that these cited pieces of evidence prove that this
complainant and her husband are not the same with their signatures in other administrative complaint against him is fabricated, false and untrue. He also points
documents. to Atty. Robert Peneyra, the complainant’s counsel in this administrative case, as
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Memorandum of Agreement is valid, the hand behind the complaint.58 According to the respondent, Atty. Peneyra
thereby making Laurentino Ylaya and co-owner Reynold So co-owners of the harbors ill-will against him and his family after his father filed several administrative
subject properties (Please see Annex "B" of respondent’s Comment), this
cases against Atty. Peneyra, one of which resulted in the imposition of a warning 2003;69 the complainant’s Counter Affidavit dated March 26, 2004 against the
and a reprimand on Atty. Peneyra.59 charge of libel;70 and the respondent’s letter to the Provincial Attorney of Palawan
Reynold, in his Affidavit dated October 11, 2004, confirms that there was a co- dated April 5, 2004, requesting for "official information regarding the actual
ownership between him and Laurentino; that Laurentino decided to sell his half of attendance of Atty. ROBERT Y. PENEYRA" at an MCLE seminar. 71
the property to Reynold because he (Laurentino) had been sickly and in dire need of We do not see these documentary pieces of evidence as proof of specific acts
money to pay for his medical bills; that Laurentino agreed to the price of constituting deceit or fraud on the respondent’s part. The documents by
₱200,000.00 as this was almost the same value of his investment when he and themselves are neutral and, at the most, show the breakdown of the attorney-client
Reynold jointly acquired the property; and that the sale to Reynold was with the relationship between the respondent and the complainant. It is one thing to allege
agreement and consent of the complainant who voluntarily signed the Deed of deceit and misconduct, and it is another to demonstrate by evidence the specific
Sale.60 acts constituting these allegations.72
After examining the whole record of the case, we agree with the respondent and We reiterate that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is on the
find the evidence insufficient to prove the charge that he violated Canon 1, Rule complainant; the Court exercises its disciplinary power only if the complainant
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 3(c), Rule IV of A.M. No. establishes her case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. 73Preponderance
02-8-13-SC. Specifically, (1) the evidence against the respondent fails to show the of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to
alleged fraudulent and deceitful acts he has taken to mislead the complainant and or has a greater weight than that of the other party. When the pieces of evidence of
her husband into signing a "preparatory deed of sale" and the conversion into a the parties are evenly balanced or when doubt exists on the preponderance of
Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 4, 2001 in favor of Reynold; and (2) no prohibition evidence, the equipoise rule dictates that the decision be against the party carrying
exists against the notarization of a document in which any of the parties interested the burden of proof.74
is the notary’s relative within the 4th civil degree, by affinity or consanguinity, at In this case, we find that the complainant’s evidence and the records of the case do
that time the respondent notarized the documents. not show the respondent’s deliberate fraudulent and deceitful acts. In the absence
In her Report and Recommendation,61 the IBP Commissioner concluded that the of such proof, the complaint for fraud and deceit under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the
respondent is liable for deceit and fraud because he failed to prove the existence of Code of Professional Responsibility must perforce be dismissed.
a co-ownership between Laurentino and Reynold; in her opinion, the signatures of We note that the respondent has not squarely addressed the issue of his
the complainant and of her husband on the MOA "are not the same with their relationship with Reynold, whom the complainant alleges to be the respondent’s
signatures in other documents."62 uncle because Reynold is married to the respondent’s maternal aunt. 75However,
We do not agree with this finding. While the facts of this case may raise some this is of no moment as the respondent cannot be held liable for violating Section
questions regarding the respondent’s legal practice, we nevertheless found nothing 3(c), Rule IV of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC because the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June
constituting clear evidence of the respondent’s specific acts of fraud and deceit. His 4, 200176 and the MOA dated April 19, 200077 were notarized by the respondent
failure to prove the existence of a co-ownership does not lead us to the conclusion prior to the effectivity of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC on July 6, 2004. The notarial law in
that the MOA and the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 4, 2001 are spurious and force in the years 2000 - 2001 was Chapter 11 of Act No. 2711 (the Revised
that the respondent was responsible for creating these spurious documents. We are Administrative Code of 1917) which did not contain the present prohibition against
further persuaded, after noting that in disregarding the MOA, the IBP Commissioner notarizing documents where the parties are related to the notary public within the
failed to specify what differences she observed in the spouses Ylaya’s signatures in 4th civil degree, by affinity or consanguinity. Thus, we must likewise dismiss the
the MOA and what documents were used in comparison. charge for violation of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC.
Apart from her allegations, the complainant’s pieces of evidence consist of TCT Nos. c. Liability under Canons 15, 16 and 18 We find the respondent liable under Canon
162632 and 162633;63 her Motion for Leave to Intervene in Civil Case No. 2902 15, Rule 15.03 for representing conflicting interests without the written consent of
dated May 17, 2000;64 the RTC order in Civil Case No. 2902 dated November 6, 2000 all concerned, particularly the complainant; under Canon 16 for being remiss in his
fixing the price of just compensation;65 the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 4, obligation to hold in trust his client’s properties; and under Canon 18, Rule 18.03 for
2001;66the spouses Ylaya’s Verified Manifestation dated September 2, 2002, filed neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him.
with the RTC in Civil Case No. 2902, assailing the Motion to Deposit Just Canon 15, Rule 15.03 states:
Compensation filed by the respondent on behalf of Reynold and manifesting the A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
sale between Laurentino and Reynold;67 the Provincial Prosecutor’s Subpoena to concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. [emphasis ours]
the complainant in connection with the respondent’s complaint for libel; 68 the The relationship between a lawyer and his client should ideally be imbued with the
respondent’s complaint for libel against the complainant dated August 27, highest level of trust and confidence. Necessity and public interest require that this
be so. Part of the lawyer’s duty to his client is to avoid representing conflicting We likewise find the respondent liable for violating Canon 18, Rule 18.03 for
interests. He is duty bound to decline professional employment, no matter how neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him. Despite the respondent’s admission that
attractive the fee offered may be, if its acceptance involves a violation of the he represented the complainant and her late husband in Civil Case No. 2902 and
proscription against conflict of interest, or any of the rules of professional conduct. that he purportedly filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene in their behalf, the records
Thus, a lawyer may not accept a retainer from a defendant after he has given show that he never filed such a motion for the spouses Ylaya. The complainant
professional advice to the plaintiff concerning his claim; nor can he accept herself states that she and her late husband were forced to file the Motion for
employment from another in a matter adversely affecting any interest of his former Leave to Intervene on their own behalf. The records of the case, which include the
client. It is his duty to decline employment in any of these and similar circumstances Motion for Leave to Intervene filed by the spouses Ylaya, support this conclusion. 87
in view of the rule prohibiting representation of conflicting interests. 78 Canon 18, Rule 18.03 requires that a lawyer "shall not neglect a legal matter
The proscription against representation of conflicting interest applies "even if the entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection [therewith] shall render him
lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer liable." What amounts to carelessness or negligence in a lawyer’s discharge of his
has to oppose for the other, or that there would be no occasion to use the duty to his client is incapable of an exact formulation, but the Court has consistently
confidential information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the other as the held that the mere failure of a lawyer to perform the obligations due his client is per
two actions are wholly unrelated."79 The sole exception is provided in Canon 15, se a violation.88
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility – if there is a written consent In Canoy v. Ortiz,89 we held that a lawyer’s failure to file a position paper was per se
from all the parties after full disclosure. a violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Similar to
Based on the records, we find substantial evidence to hold the respondent liable for Canoy, the respondent clearly failed in this case in his duty to his client when,
violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The facts without any explanation, he failed to file the Motion for Leave to Intervene on
of this case show that the respondent retained clients who had close dealings with behalf of the spouses Ylaya. Under the circumstances, we find that there was want
each other. The respondent admits to acting as legal counsel for Cirilo Arellano, the of diligence; without sufficient justification, this is sufficient to hold the respondent
spouses Ylaya and Reynold at one point during the proceedings in Civil Case No. liable for violating Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
2902.80 Subsequently, he represented only Reynold in the same d. The Complainant’s Ex Parte Motion to Withdraw the Verified Complaint and to
proceedings,81 asserting Reynold’s ownership over the property against all other Dismiss the Case and her Affidavit
claims, including that of the spouses Ylaya.82 We are aware of the complainant’s Ex Parte Motion to Withdraw the Verified
We find no record of any written consent from any of the parties involved and we Complaint and To Dismiss the Case dated November 14, 2006 90 and her
cannot give the respondent the benefit of the doubt in this regard. We find it clear Affidavit91 affirming and confirming the existence, genuineness and due execution
from the facts of this case that the respondent retained Reynold as his client and of the Deed of Absolute Sale notarized on March 6, 2000. 92 The complainant
actively opposed the interests of his former client, the complainant. He thus explains that the parties have entered into a compromise agreement in Civil Case
violated Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. No. 2902, and that this disbarment complaint was filed because of a
We affirm the IBP Commissioner’s finding that the respondent violated Canon 16. "misunderstanding, miscommunication and improper appreciation of facts"; 93 she
The respondent admits to losing certificates of land titles that were entrusted to his erroneously accused the respondent of ill motives and bad intentions, but after
care by Reynold.83 According to the respondent, the complainant "maliciously being enlightened, she is convinced that he has no personal or pecuniary interests
retained" the TCTs over the properties sold by Laurentino to Reynold after she over the properties in Civil Case No. 2902; that such misunderstanding was due to
borrowed them from his office.84 Reynold confirms that the TCTs were taken by the her unfamiliarity with the transactions of her late husband during his lifetime. 94 The
complainant from the respondent’s law office.85 complainant now pleads for the respondent’s forgiveness, stating that he has been
The respondent is reminded that his duty under Canon 16 is to "hold in trust all her and her late husband’s lawyer for over a decade and affirms her trust and
moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession." Allowing a confidence in him.95 We take note that under their Compromise Agreement dated
party to take the original TCTs of properties owned by another – an act that could November 14, 2006 for the expropriation case,96 the complainant and Reynold
result in damage – should merit a finding of legal malpractice. While we note that it equally share the just compensation, which have since increased to ₱10,000,000.00.
was his legal staff who allowed the complainant to borrow the TCTs and it does not While the submitted Ex Parte Motion to Withdraw the Verified Complaint and to
appear that the respondent was aware or present when the complainant borrowed Dismiss the Case and the Affidavit appear to exonerate the respondent, complete
the TCTs,86 we nevertheless hold the respondent liable, as the TCTs were entrusted exoneration is not the necessary legal effect as the submitted motion and affidavit
to his care and custody; he failed to exercise due diligence in caring for his client’s are immaterial for purposes of the present proceedings. Section 5, Rule 139-B of
properties that were in his custody. the Rules of Court states that, "No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated
by reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of with the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme
charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same." Court for final action.1âwphi1
In Angalan v. Delante,97 despite the Affidavit of Desistance, we disbarred the The Supreme Court exercises exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of
respondent therein for taking advantage of his clients and for transferring the title law.102 It exercises such disciplinary functions through the IBP, but it does not
of their property to his name. In Bautista v. Bernabe, 98 we revoked the lawyer’s relinquish its duty to form its own judgment. Disbarment proceedings are exercised
notarial commission, disqualified him from reappointment as a notary public for under the sole jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and the IBP’s recommendations
two years, and suspended him from the practice of law for one year for notarizing a imposing the penalty of suspension from the practice of law or disbarment are
document without requiring the affiant to personally appear before him. In this always subject to this Court’s review and approval.
cited case, we said: The Penalty
Complainant’s desistance or withdrawal of the complaint does not exonerate In Solidon v. Macalalad,103 we imposed the penalty of suspension of six ( 6) months
respondent or put an end to the administrative proceedings. A case of suspension from the practice of law on the respondent therein for his violation of Canon 18,
or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the Rule 18.03 and Canon 16, Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In
complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the Josefina M. Aniñon v. Atty. Clemencio Sabitsana, Jr., 104 we suspended the
record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been proven. This rule respondent therein from the practice of law for one (1) year, for violating Canon 15,
is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Under the circumstances, we
or disbarment is not a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the find a one (1) year suspension to be a sufficient and appropriate sanction against
respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private the respondent.
interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and WHEREFORE, premises considered, we set aside Resolution No. XVIII-.2007-302
prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of dated December 14, 2007 and Resolution No. XIX-2010-545 dated October 8, 2010
preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice of the IBP Board of Governors, and find respondent Atty. Glenn Carlos Gacott
in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of GUILTY of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15, Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18
the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As a penalty, he is SUSPENDED from the
the attorney’s alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no practice of law for one (1) year, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or
interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper similar act will be dealt with more severely.
administration of justice.99 SO ORDERED.
In sum, in administrative proceedings against lawyers, the complainant’s desistance
or withdrawal does not terminate the proceedings. This is particularly true in the
present case where pecuniary consideration has been given to the complainant as a
consideration for her desistance. We note in this regard that she would receive
₱5,000,000.00, or half of the just compensation under the Compromise
Agreement,100 and thus agreed to withdraw all charges against the
respondent.101 From this perspective, we consider the complainant’s desistance to
be suspect; it is not grounded on the fact that the respondent did not commit any
actual misconduct; rather, because of the consideration, the complainant is now
amenable to the position of the respondent and/or Reynold.
e. Procedural aspect
We remind all parties that resolutions from the IBP Board of Governors are merely
recommendatory and do not attain finality without a final action from this Court.
Section 12, Rule 139-B is clear on this point that:
Section 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors. –
xxxx
(b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that
the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall
issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which, together BERNARD N. JANDOQUILE, vs. ATTY. QUIRINO P. REVILLA, JR., 
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: "jurat" under Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. A "jurat"
Before us is a complaint1 for disbarment filed by complainant Bernard N. Jandoquile refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person
against respondent Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr. The Facts of the case are not before the notary public and presents an instrument or document; (b) is personally
disputed. Atty. Revilla, Jr. notarized a complaint-affidavit 2 signed by Heneraline L. known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent
Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa and Elmer L. Alvarado. Heneraline Brosas is a evidence of identity; (c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the
sister of Heizel Wynda Brosas Revilla, Atty. Revilla, Jr.'s wife. Jandoquile complains notary; and (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such
that Atty. Revilla, Jr. is disqualified to perform the notarial act 3 per Section 3( c), instrument or document. In this case, Heneraline Brosas is a sister of Atty. Revilla,
Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice which reads as follows: Jr.’s wife; Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa is his wife’s sister-in-law; and Elmer Alvarado is
SEC. 3. Disqualifications. – A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial the live-in houseboy of the Brosas family. Atty. Revilla, Jr. knows the three affiants
act if he: (c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by personally. Thus, he was justified in no longer requiring them to show valid
affinity or consanguinity of the principal4within the fourth civil degree. identification cards. But Atty. Revilla, Jr. is not without fault for failing to indicate
Jandoquile also complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not require the three affiants in such fact in the "jurat" of the complaint-affidavit. No statement was included
the complaint-affidavit to show their valid identification cards. therein that he knows the three affiants personally. 7 Let it be impressed that Atty.
In his comment5 to the disbarment complaint, Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not deny but Revilla, Jr. was clearly disqualified to notarize the complaint-affidavit of his relatives
admitted Jandoquile’s material allegations. The issue, according to Atty. Revilla, Jr., within the fourth civil degree of affinity. While he has a valid defense as to the
is whether the single act of notarizing the complaint-affidavit of relatives within the second charge, it does not exempt him from liability for violating the
fourth civil degree of affinity and, at the same time, not requiring them to present disqualification rule. As we said, Atty. Revilla, Jr.’s violation of the disqualification
valid identification cards is a ground for disbarment. Atty. Revilla, Jr. submits that rule under Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice is not a
his act is not a ground for disbarment. He also says that he acts as counsel of the sufficient ground to disbar him. To our mind, Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not commit any
three affiants; thus, he should be considered more as counsel than as a notary deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct or gross immoral conduct, or any other
public when he notarized their complaint-affidavit. He did not require the affiants to serious ground for disbarment under Section 27, 8 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
present valid identification cards since he knows them personally. Heneraline We recall the case of Maria v. Cortez9 where we reprimanded Cortez and
Brosas and Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa are sisters-in-law while Elmer Alvarado is the disqualified him from being commissioned as notary public for six months. We were
live-in houseboy of the Brosas family. Since the facts are not contested, the Court convinced that said punishment, which is less severe than disbarment, would
deems it more prudent to resolve the case instead of referring it to the Integrated already suffice as sanction for Cortez’s violation. In Cortez, we noted the prohibition
Bar of the Philippines for investigation. Indeed, Atty. Revilla, Jr. violated the in Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice that a person shall not
disqualification rule under Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or
Practice. We agree with him, however, that his violation is not a sufficient ground document (1) is not in the notary’s presence personally at the time of the
for disbarment. Atty. Revilla, Jr.’s violation of the aforesaid disqualification rule is notarization and (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise
beyond dispute. Atty. Revilla, Jr. readily admitted that he notarized the complaint- identified by the notary public through a competent evidence of identity. Cortez
affidavit signed by his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. Section 3(c), had notarized a special power of attorney without having the alleged signatories
Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly disqualifies him from appear before him. In imposing the less severe punishment, we were mindful that
notarizing the complaint-affidavit, from performing the notarial act, since two of removal from the Bar should not really be decreed when any punishment less
the affiants or principals are his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. severe such as reprimand, temporary suspension or fine would accomplish the end
Given the clear provision of the disqualification rule, it behooved upon Atty. Revilla, desired. Considering the attendant circumstances and the single violation
Jr. to act with prudence and refuse notarizing the document. We cannot agree with committed by Atty. Revilla, Jr., we are in agreement that a punishment less severe
his proposition that we consider him to have acted more as counsel of the affiants, than disbarment would suffice. WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr.,
not as notary public, when he notarized the complaint-affidavit. The notarial is REPRIMANDED and DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public, or
certificate6 at the bottom of the complaint-affidavit shows his signature as a notary from performing any notarial act if he is presently commissioned as a notary public,
public, with a notarial commission valid until December 31, 2012. He cannot for a period of three (3) months. Atty. Revilla, Jr. is further DIRECTED to INFORM the
therefore claim that he signed it as counsel of the three affiants. Court, through an affidavit, once the period of his disqualification has lapsed.
On the second charge, we agree with Atty. Revilla, Jr. that he cannot be held liable. SO ORDERED.
If the notary public knows the affiants personally, he need not require them to 4) REFUSAL TO NOTARIZE AND FALSE OR INCOMPLETE CERTIFICATES
show their valid identification cards. This rule is supported by the definition of a A.C. No. 6470, July 08, 2014
MERCEDITA DE JESUS,  v. ATTY. JUVY MELL SANCHEZ-MALIT charge against complainant was not the representation of herself as owner of the
RESOLUTION mortgaged property, but her guarantee that it was free from all liens and
SERENO, C.J.: encumbrances. The perjury charge was even dismissed, because the prosecutor
Before the Court is a disbarment complaint filed by Mercedita De Jesus (De Jesus) found that complainant and her spouse had, indeed, paid the debt secured with the
against respondent Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchez-Malit (Sanchez-Malit) on the following previous mortgage contract over the same market stall. With respect to the lease
grounds: grave misconduct, dishonesty, malpractices, and unworthiness to become agreement, respondent countered that the document attached to the Affidavit-
an officer of the Court. Complaint was actually new. She gave the court’s copy of the agreement to
THE FACTS OF THE CASE complainant to accommodate the latter’s request for an extra copy. Thus,
In the Affidavit-Complaint 1 filed by complainant before the Office of the Bar respondent prepared and notarized a new one, relying on complainant’s assurance
Confidant on 23 June 2004, she alleged that on 1 March 2002, respondent had that the lessees would sign it and that it would be returned in lieu of the original
drafted and notarized a Real Estate Mortgage of a public market stall that falsely copy for the court. Complainant, however, reneged on her promise. As regards the
named the former as its absolute and registered owner. As a result, the mortgagee purchase agreement of a property covered by a CLOA, respondent claimed that
sued complainant for perjury and for collection of sum of money. She claimed that complainant was an experienced realty broker and, therefore, needed no advice on
respondent was a consultant of the local government unit of Dinalupihan, Bataan, the repercussions of that transaction. Actually, when the purchase agreement was
and was therefore aware that the market stall was government-owned. notarized, complainant did not present the CLOA, and so the agreement mentioned
Prior thereto, respondent had also notarized two contracts that caused nothing about it. Rather, the agreement expressly stated that the property was the
complainant legal and financial problems. One contract was a lease agreement subject of a case pending before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
notarized by respondent sometime in September 1999 without the signature of the Board (DARAB); complainant was thus notified of the status of the subject property.
lessees. However, complainant only found out that the agreement had not been Finally, respondent maintained that the SPAs submitted by complainant as
signed by the lessees when she lost her copy and she asked for another copy from additional evidence were properly notarized. It can be easily gleaned from the
respondent. The other contract was a sale agreement over a property covered by a documents that the attorney-in-fact personally appeared before respondent;
Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) which complainant entered into with a hence, the notarization was limited to the former’s participation in the execution of
certain Nicomedes Tala (Tala) on 17 February 1998. Respondent drafted and the document. Moreover, the acknowledgment clearly stated that the document
notarized said agreement, but did not advise complainant that the property was still must be notarized in the principal’s place of residence. An exchange of pleadings
covered by the period within which it could not be alienated. In addition to the ensued after respondent submitted her Comment. After her rejoinder, complainant
documents attached to her complaint, complainant subsequently submitted three filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Submission of Additional Evidence. 5 Attached
Special Powers of Attorney (SPAs) notarized by respondent and an Affidavit of Irene thereto were copies of documents notarized by respondent, including the
Tolentino (Tolentino), complainant’s secretary/treasurer. The SPAs were not signed following: (1) an Extra Judicial Deed of Partition which referred to the SPAs naming
by the principals named therein and bore only the signature of the named attorney- Limpioso as attorney-in-fact; (2) five SPAs that lacked the signatures of either the
in-fact, Florina B. Limpioso (Limpioso). Tolentino’s Affidavit corroborated principal or the attorney-in-fact; (3) two deeds of sale with incomplete signatures of
complainant’s allegations against respondent. 2 the parties thereto; (4) an unsigned Sworn Statement; (5) a lease contract that
On 4 August 2004, the Second Division of the Supreme Court issued a Resolution lacked the signature of the lessor; (6) five unsigned Affidavits; (7) an unsigned
requiring respondent to submit her comment on the Complaint within ten (10) days insurance claim form (Annual Declaration by the Heirs); (8) an unsigned Invitation
from receipt of notice.3 In her Comment,4 respondent explained that the mortgage Letter to a potential investor in Japan; (9) an unsigned Bank Certification; and (10)
contract was prepared in the presence of complainant and that the latter had read an unsigned Consent to Adoption. After the mandatory conference and hearing, the
it before affixing her signature. However, complainant urgently needed the loan parties submitted their respective Position Papers.6Notably, respondent’s Position
proceeds so the contract was hastily done. It was only copied from a similar file in Paper did not tackle the additional documents attached to complainant’s Urgent Ex
respondent’s computer, and the phrase “absolute and registered owner” was Parte Motion.
inadvertently left unedited. Still, it should not be a cause for disciplinary action,
because complainant constructed the subject public market stall under a “Build THE FINDINGS OF THE IBP
Operate and Transfer” contract with the local government unit and, technically, she In his 15 February 2008 Report, IBP Investigating Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid,
could be considered its owner. Besides, there had been a prior mortgage contract Jr. recommended the immediate revocation of the Notarial Commission of
over the same property in which complainant was represented as the property’s respondent and her disqualification as notary public for two years for her violation
absolute owner, but she did not complain. Moreover, the cause of the perjury of her oath as such by notarizing documents without the signatures of the parties
who had purportedly appeared before her. He accepted respondent’s explanations because those documents were obtained in violation Rule 24, Administrative Order
with respect to the lease agreement, sale contract, and the three SPAs pertaining to No. 1, Series of 1993.17 Rejecting his argument, the Court reasoned as follows:
Limpioso. However, he found that the inaccurate crafting of the real estate Section 3, Rule 128 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that “evidence is
mortgage contract was a sufficient basis to hold respondent liable for violation of admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these
Canon 187 and Rule 18.038 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thus, he also rules.” There could be no dispute that the subject birth certificates are relevant to
recommended that she be suspended from the practice of law for six months. 9 The the issue. The only question, therefore, is whether the law or the rules provide for
IBP Board of Governors, in its Resolution No. XVIII-2008-245 dated 22 May 2008, the inadmissibility of said birth certificates allegedly for having been obtained in
unanimously adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the violation of Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993.
Investigating Commissioner, with the modification that respondent be suspended Note that Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 only provides for
from the practice of law for one year.10 Respondent filed her first Motion for sanctions against persons violating the rule on confidentiality of birth records, but
Reconsideration11 and Second Motion for Reconsideration.12 She maintained that nowhere does it state that procurement of birth records in violation of said rule
the additional documents submitted by complainant were inadmissible, as they would render said records inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand, the Revised
were obtained without observing the procedural requisites under Section 4, Rule VI Rules of Evidence only provides for the exclusion of evidence if it is obtained as a
of Adm. No. 02-08-13 SC (2004 Rules on Notarial Practice). 13 Moreover, the result of illegal searches and seizures. It should be emphasized, however, that said
Urgent Ex Parte Motion of complainant was actually a supplemental pleading, rule against unreasonable searches and seizures is meant only to protect a person
which was prohibited under the rules of procedure of the Committee on Bar from interference by the government or the state. In People vs. Hipol, we explained
Discipline; besides, she was not the proper party to question those documents. that:
Hence, the investigating commissioner should have expunged the documents from The Constitutional proscription enshrined in the Bill of Rights does not concern itself
the records, instead of giving them due course. Respondent also prayed that with the relation between a private individual and another individual. It governs the
mitigating circumstances be considered, specifically the following: absence of prior relationship between the individual and the State and its agents. The Bill of Rights
disciplinary record; absence of dishonest or selfish motive; personal and emotional only tempers governmental power and protects the individual against any
problems; timely good-faith effort to make restitution or to rectify the aggression and unwarranted interference by any department of government and its
consequences of her misconduct; full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board agencies. Accordingly, it cannot be extended to the acts complained of in this case.
or cooperative attitude toward the proceedings; character or reputation; remorse; The alleged "warrantless search" made by Roque, a co-employee of appellant at the
and remoteness of prior offenses. treasurer's office, can hardly fall within the ambit of the constitutional proscription
The IBP Board of Governors, in its Resolution No. XX-2012-119 dated 10 March on unwarranted searches and seizures.
2012, denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration for lack of substantial reason
to justify a reversal of the IBP’s findings. 14 Consequently, in this case where complainants, as private individuals, obtained the
Pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, Director for Bar Discipline Pura subject birth records as evidence against respondent, the protection against
Angelica Y. Santiago – through a letter addressed to then acting Chief Justice unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply.
Antonio T. Carpio – transmitted the documents pertaining to the disbarment Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 and the Revised Rules
Complaint against respondent.15 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
THE COURT’S RULING properly taken into consideration in the resolution of this administrative case
After carefully reviewing the merits of the complaint against respondent and the against respondent.18Similarly, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Law contain no provision
parties’ submissions in this case, the Court hereby modifies the findings of the IBP. declaring the inadmissibility of documents obtained in violation thereof. Thus, the
Before going into the substance of the charges against respondent, the Court shall IBP correctly considered in evidence the other notarized documents submitted by
first dispose of some procedural matters raised by respondent. Respondent argues complainant as additional evidence. Respondent’s argument that the Urgent Ex-
that the additional documents submitted in evidence by complainant are Parte Motion of complainant constitutes a supplemental pleading must fail as well.
inadmissible for having been obtained in violation of Section 4, Rule VI of the 2004 As its very name denotes, a supplemental pleading only serves to bolster or adds
Rules on Notarial Practice. A comparable argument was raised in Tolentino v. something to the primary pleading. Its usual office is to set up new facts which
Mendoza,16 in which the respondent therein opposed the admission of the birth justify, enlarge or change the kind of relief with respect to the same subject matter
certificates of his illegitimate children as evidence of his grossly immoral conduct, as the controversy referred to in the original complaint. 19 Accordingly, it cannot be
said that the Urgent Ex-Parte Motion filed by complainant was a supplemental
pleading. One of her charges against respondent is that the latter notarized Certainly, respondent is unfit to continue enjoying the solemn office of a notary
incomplete documents, as shown by the SPAs and lease agreement attached to the public. In several instances, the Court did not hesitate to disbar lawyers who were
Affidavit-Complaint. Complainant is not legally barred from submitting additional found to be utterly oblivious to the solemnity of their oath as notaries public. 30 Even
evidence to strengthen the basis of her complaint. so, the rule is that disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that
Going now into the substance of the charges against respondent, the Court finds seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court
that she committed misconduct and grievously violated her oath as a notary public. and the Court will not disbar a lawyer where a lesser penalty will suffice to
The important role a notary public performs cannot be overemphasized. The Court accomplish the desired end.31 The blatant disregard by respondent of her basic
has repeatedly stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary duties as a notary public warrants the less severe punishment of suspension from
act, but one invested with substantive public interest. Notarization converts a the practice of law and perpetual disqualification to be commissioned as a notary
private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without public.
further proof of its authenticity. Thus, a notarized document is, by law, entitled to
full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this reason that a notary public must WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchez-Malit is found guilty of violating
observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his notarial Canon 1 and Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
duties; otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document as well as her oath as notary public. Hence, she is SUSPENDED from the practice of
would be undermined.20 Where the notary public admittedly has personal law for ONE YEAR effective immediately. Her notarial commission, if still existing,
knowledge of a false statement or information contained in the instrument to be is IMMEDIATELY REVOKED and she is hereby PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from
notarized, yet proceeds to affix the notarial seal on it, the Court must not hesitate being commissioned as a notary public.
to discipline the notary public accordingly as the circumstances of the case may
dictate. Otherwise, the integrity and sanctity of the notarization process may be Let copies of this Resolution be entered into the personal records of respondent as
undermined, and public confidence in notarial documents diminished. 21 In this a member of the bar and furnished to the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the
case, respondent fully knew that complainant was not the owner of the mortgaged Philippines, and the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts of the country
market stall. That complainant comprehended the provisions of the real estate for their information and guidance.
mortgage contract does not make respondent any less guilty. If at all, it only
heightens the latter’s liability for tolerating a wrongful act. Clearly, respondent’s No costs.
conduct amounted to a breach of Canon 122 and Rules 1.0123 and 1.0224 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. SO ORDERED.

Respondent’s explanation about the unsigned lease agreement executed by

complainant sometime in September 199925 is incredulous. If, indeed, her file copy
of the agreement bore the lessees’ signatures, she could have given complainant a
certified photocopy thereof. It even appears that said lease agreement is not a
rarity in respondent’s practice as a notary public. Records show that on various
occasions from 2002 to 2004, respondent has notarized 22 documents that were
either unsigned or lacking signatures of the parties. Technically, each document
maybe a ground for disciplinary action, for it is the duty of a notarial officer to
demand that a document be signed in his or her presence. 26

A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it
are the very same ones who executed it and who personally appeared before the
said notary public to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated
therein.27 Thus, in acknowledging that the parties personally came and appeared
before her, respondent also violated Rule 10.01 28 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and her oath as a lawyer that she shall do no falsehood. 29
A.C. No. 6677, June 10, 2014
EUPROCINA I. CRISOSTOMO vs  ATTY. PHILIP Z. A. NAZARENO On April 1, 2004, six (6) similar complaints20 for rescission of contracts to sell and
ejectment, plus damages for non-payment of amortizations due, were filed by Atty.
DECISION Nazareno, on behalf of Rudex, against the other complainants before the HLURB.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: The certifications against forum shopping attached thereto likewise stated that
For the Court’s resolution is an administrative complaint 1 filed by complainants Rudex has not commenced or has any knowledge of any similar pending action
Euprocina I. Crisostomo (Crisostomo), Marilyn L. Solis (Solis), Evelyn Marquizo before any court, tribunal or agency. 21On February 21, 2005, complainants jointly
(Marquizo), Rosemarie Balatucan (Balatucan), Mildred Batang (Batang), Marilen filed the present administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Nazareno,
Minerales (Minerales), and Melinda D. Sioting (Sioting) against respondent Atty. claiming that in the certifications against forum shopping attached to the
Philip Z. A. Nazareno (Atty. Nazareno), charging him with making false declarations complaints for rescission and ejectment of Rudex filed while Atty. Nazareno was its
in the certifications against forum shopping subject of this case in disregard of counsel, the latter made false declarations therein that no similar actions or
Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, and malpractice as a notary public in proceedings have been commenced by Rudex or remained pending before any
violation of  the Code of Professional Responsibility.cra1awredjgc other court, tribunal or agency when, in fact, similar actions or proceedings for
rescission had been filed by herein complainants before the HLURB against Rudex
The Facts and Atty. Nazareno, and an ejectment complaint was filed by Rudex, represented by
Sometime in 2001, complainants individually purchased housing units (subject Atty. Nazareno, against Sps. Sioting. In addition, complainants asserted that Atty.
properties) in Patricia South Villa Subdivision, Anabu-II, Imus, Cavite, from Rudex Nazareno committed malpractice as a notary public since he only assigned one (1)
International Development Corp. (Rudex).2In view of several inadequacies and document number (i.e., Doc. No. 1968) in all the certifications against forum
construction defects3 in the housing units and the subdivision itself, complainants shopping that were separately attached to the six (6) April 1, 2004 complaints for
sought the rescission of their respective contracts to sell before the Housing and rescission and ejectment.22
Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), seeking the refund of the monthly Despite notice, Atty. Nazareno failed to file his comment and refute the
amortizations they had paid.4 The first batch of rescission cases was filed by herein administrative charges against him.23
complainants Sioting5 on May 24, 2002, and Crisostomo6and Marquizo7 on June 10, In the interim, the HLURB, in the Resolutions dated April 14, 2005 24 and May 12,
2002, while the second batch of rescission cases was filed by complainants 2005,25 dismissed Rudex’s complaints for rescission and ejectment 26 on the ground
Balatucan8 on March 3, 2003, Solis9 and Ederlinda M. Villanueva10 (represented by that its statements in the certifications against forum shopping attached thereto
Minerales) on May 12, 2003, and Batang11 on July 29, 2003. In all the foregoing were false due to the existence of similar pending cases in violation of Section 5,
rescission cases, Rudex was represented by herein respondent Atty. Nazareno. Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.cra1awredjgc
Judgments of default were eventually rendered against Rudex in the first batch of
rescission cases.12Sometime in August 2003, Rudex filed three (3) petitions for The IBP’s Report and Recommendation
review13 before the HLURB assailing the same. In the certifications against forum In a Report and Recommendation27 dated March 8, 2012, Integrated Bar of the
shopping attached to the said petitions, Rudex, through its President Ruben P. Baes, Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero recommended the
and legal counsel Atty. Nazareno, stated that it has not commenced or has suspension of Atty. Nazareno for a period of six (6) months for his administrative
knowledge of any similar action or proceeding involving the same issues pending violations. The Investigating Commissioner found, among others, that there were
before any court, tribunal or agency 14 – this, notwithstanding the fact that Rudex, unassailable proofs that the certification against forum shopping attached to
under the representation of Atty. Nazareno, previously filed an ejectment case on Rudex’s ejectment complaint against Sps. Sioting had been erroneously declared,
September 9, 2002 against Sioting and her husband, Rodrigo Sioting (Sps. Sioting), considering that at the time Rudex filed the said complaint in September 2002, Sps.
before the Municipal Trial Court of Imus, Cavite (MTC). 15On January 29, 2004, Sioting’s rescission complaint against Rudex, filed on May 24, 2002, was already
Rudex, again represented by Atty. Nazareno, filed another complaint 16 against Sps. pending. Hence, it was incumbent upon Rudex to have declared its existence, more
Sioting before the HLURB for the rescission of their contract to sell and the latter’s so, since both complaints  involve the same transaction and essential facts, and a
ejectment, similar to its pending September 9, 2002 ejectment complaint. Yet, in decision on the rescission complaint would amount to res judicata on the ejectment
the certification against forum shopping attached thereto executed by the Head of complaint.28  In this relation, the Investigating Commissioner observed that Atty.
its Credit and Collection department, Norilyn D. Unisan, 17 Rudex declared that it has Nazareno cannot claim innocence of his omission since he was not only Rudex’s
not commenced or is not aware of any action or proceeding involving the same counsel but the notarizing officer as well. Having knowingly made false entries in
issues pending before any court, tribunal or agency. 18 The said certification was the subject certifications against forum shopping, the Investigating Commissioner
notarized by Atty. Nazareno himself.19 recommended that Atty. Nazareno be held administratively liable and thereby
penalized with six (6) months suspension. 29In a Resolution30 dated April 15, 2013, any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court,
the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the
Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation, but modified the recommended acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum
penalty from a suspension of six (6) months to only one (1) month. shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall
constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
The Issue Before the Court (Emphases supplied)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The essential issue in this case is whether or not Atty. Nazareno should be held
administratively liable and accordingly suspended for a period of one (1) In the realm of legal ethics, said infraction may be considered as a violation of Rule
month.cra1awredjgc 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(Code) which read as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The Court’s Ruling CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
The Court affirms the IBP’s findings with modification as to the penalty imposed. LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Separate from the proscription against forum shopping 31 is the violation of the
certification requirement against forum shopping, which was distinguished in the Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
case of  Sps. Ong v. CA32 as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary conduct.
The distinction between the prohibition against forum shopping and the CANON 10 – A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
certification requirement should by now be too elementary to be misunderstood. COURT.
To reiterate, compliance with the certification against forum shopping is separate Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
from and independent of the avoidance of the act of forum shopping itself. There is Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
a difference in the treatment between failure to comply with the certification
requirement and violation of the prohibition against forum shopping not only in In this case, it has been established that Atty. Nazareno made false declarations in
terms of imposable sanctions but also in the manner of enforcing them. The former the certifications against forum shopping attached to Rudex’s pleadings, for which
constitutes sufficient cause for the dismissal without prejudice to the filing of the he should be held administratively liable. Records show that Atty. Nazareno, acting
complaint or initiatory pleading upon motion and after hearing, while the latter is a as Rudex’s counsel, filed, in August 2003, petitions for review assailing the
ground for summary dismissal thereof and for direct contempt.  x x x.33 judgments of default rendered in the first batch of rescission cases without
Under Section 5,  Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, the submission of false entries in a disclosing in the certifications against forum shopping the existence of the
certification against forum shopping constitutes indirect or direct contempt of ejectment case it filed against Sps. Sioting which involves an issue related to the
court, and subjects the erring counsel to the corresponding administrative and complainants’ rescission cases. Further, on January 29, 2004, Rudex, represented by
criminal actions Atty. Nazareno, filed a complaint for rescission and ejectment against Sps. Sioting
Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The plaintiff or principal party without disclosing in the certifications against forum shopping the existence of
shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a Sioting’s May 24, 2002 rescission complaint against Rudex as well as Rudex’s own
claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed September 9, 2002 ejectment complaint also against Sps. Sioting. Finally, on April 1,
therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim 2004, Atty. Nazareno, once more filed rescission and ejectment complaints against
involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the the other complainants in this case without disclosing in the certifications against
best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there forum shopping the existence of complainants’ own complaints for rescission.
is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status Owing to the evident similarity of the issues involved in each set of cases, Atty.
thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim Nazareno – as mandated by the Rules of Court and more pertinently, the canons of
has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom the Code – should have truthfully declared the existence of the pending related
to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. cases in the certifications against forum shopping attached to the pertinent
pleadings. Considering that Atty. Nazareno did not even bother to refute the
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere charges against him despite due notice, the Court finds no cogent reason to deviate
amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the from the IBP’s resolution on his administrative liability. However, as for the penalty
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion to be imposed, the Court deems it proper to modify the IBP’s finding on this score.
and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with In Molina v. Atty. Magat,34 a penalty of six (6) months suspension from the practice
of law was imposed against the lawyer therein who was shown to have deliberately may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public
made false and untruthful statements in one of his pleadings. Given that Atty. document thus making that document admissible in evidence without further proof
Nazareno’s infractions are of a similar nature, but recognizing further that he, as of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit
may be gleaned from the foregoing discussion, had repetitively committed the upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able
same, the Court hereby suspends him from the practice of law for a period of one to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a
(1) year. Separately, the Court further finds Atty. Nazareno guilty of malpractice as a private instrument.
notary public, considering that he assigned only one document number (i.e., Doc.
No. 1968) to the certifications against forum shopping attached to the six (6) April 1, xxxx
2004 complaints for rescission and ejectment despite the fact that each of them
should have been treated as a separate notarial act. It is a standing rule that for When a notary public certifies to the due execution and delivery of the document
every notarial act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of the under his hand and seal he gives the document the force of evidence. Indeed, one
notarization, among others, the entry and page number of the document notarized, of the purposes of requiring documents to be acknowledged before a notary public,
and that he shall give to each instrument or document executed, sworn to, or in addition to the solemnity which should surround the execution and delivery of
acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his documents, is to authorize such documents to be given without further proof of
register.35 Evidently, Atty. Nazareno did not comply with the foregoing rule. their execution and delivery. Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver
Worse, Atty. Nazareno notarized the certifications against forum shopping attached responsibility is placed upon him by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and
to all the aforementioned complaints, fully aware that they identically asserted a to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. Failing in this, he must accept the
material falsehood, i.e., that Rudex had not commenced any actions or proceedings consequences of his unwarranted actions.
or was not aware of any pending actions or proceedings involving the same issues in
any other forum. The administrative liability of an erring notary public in this WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Philip Z. A. Nazareno is found GUILTY of making
respect was clearly delineated as a violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code in false declarations in the certifications against forum shopping subject of this case,
the case of Heirs of the Late Spouses Villanueva v. Atty. Beradio, 36 to as well as malpractice as a notary public. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the
wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon his receipt of this
Where admittedly the notary public has personal knowledge of a false statement or Decision, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will
information contained in the instrument to be notarized, yet proceeds to affix his or be dealt with more severely. Further, he is PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED from
her notarial seal on it, the Court must not hesitate to discipline the notary public being commissioned as a notary public and, his notarial commission, if currently
accordingly as the circumstances of the case may dictate. Otherwise, the integrity existing, is hereby REVOKED.
and sanctity of the notarization process may be undermined and public confidence
on notarial documents diminished. In this case, respondent’s conduct amounted to Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be
a breach of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires appended to respondent’s personal record as attorney. Likewise, copies shall be
lawyers to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for
processes. Respondent also violated Rule 1.01 of the Code which proscribes their information and guidance.
lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.37 
In said case, the lawyer who knowingly notarized a document containing false SO ORDERED.
statements had his notarial commission revoked and was disqualified from being
commissioned as such for a period of one (1) year. Thus, for his malpractice as a
notary public, the Court is wont to additionally impose the same penalties of such
nature against him. However, due to the multiplicity of his infractions on this front,
coupled with his willful malfeasance in discharging the office, the Court deems it
proper to revoke his existing commission and permanently disqualify him from
being commissioned as a notary public. Indeed, respondent ought to be reminded
that:38
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with JOY T. SAMONTE vs ATTY. VIVENCIO V. JUMAMIL
substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized
RESOLUTION In a Resolution16 dated December 13, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors adopted
PERLAS-BERNABE, J: and approved the aforesaid Report and Recommendation, finding the same to be
For the Court’s resolution is a Complaint 1 dated March 15, 2013, filed before the fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), by complainant Joy T. Samonte The Issue Before the Court
(complainant) against respondent Atty. Vivencio V. Jumamil (respondent), praying The sole issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held
that the latter be disbarred for acts unbecoming of a lawyer and betrayal of trust. administratively liable.
The Facts The Court’s Ruling
Complainant alleged that sometime in October 2012, she received summons from The Court concurs with and affirms the findings of the IBP, with modification,
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Regional Arbitration Branch XI, however, as to the penalty in order to account for his breach of the rules on notarial
Davao City, relative to an illegal dismissal case, i.e., NLRC Case RAB-XI-10-00586-12, practice.
filed by four (4) persons claiming to be workers in her small banana The relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with utmost trust
plantation.2 Consequently, complainant engaged the services of respondent to and confidence. In this regard, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-
prepare her position paper, and paid him the amount of P8,000.00 3 as attorney’s mindful of their cause, and accordingly, exercise the required degree of diligence in
fees.4 Despite constantly reminding respondent of the deadline for the submission handling their affairs. Accordingly, lawyers are required to maintain, at all times, a
of her position paper, complainant discovered that he still failed to file the high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote their full attention, skill, and
same.5 As such, on January 25, 2013, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision 6 based competence to their cases, regardless of their importance, and whether they accept
on the evidence on record, whereby complainant was held liable to the workers in them for a fee or for free.17To this end, lawyers are enjoined to employ only fair and
the total amount of P633,143.68.7 When complainant confronted respondent about honest means to attain lawful objectives. 18 These principles are embodied in Rule
the said ruling, the latter casually told her to just sell her farm to pay the farm 10.01 of Canon 10 and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the CPR, which respectively read
workers.8 Because of respondent’s neglect, complainant claimed that she was left as follows:
defenseless and without any remedy to protect her interests against the execution CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
of the foregoing judgment;9 hence, she filed the instant complaint. Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
In an Order10 dated March 26, 2013, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
directed respondent to submit his Answer to the complaint. CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND
In his Answer11 dated April 19, 2013, respondent admitted that he indeed failed to DILIGENCE.
file a position paper on behalf of complainant. However, he maintained that said Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
omission was due to complainant’s failure to adduce credible witnesses to testify in negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
her favor. In this relation, respondent averred that complainant instructed her to In this case, it is undisputed that a lawyer-client relationship was forged between
prepare an Affidavit12 for one Romeo P. Baol (Romeo), who was intended to be her complainant and respondent when the latter agreed to file a position paper on her
witness; nevertheless, respondent was instructed that the contents of Romeo’s behalf before the NLRC and, in connection therewith, received the amount of
affidavit were not to be interpreted in the Visayan dialect so that the latter would P8,000.00 from complainant as payment for his services. Case law instructs that a
not know what he would be testifying on. Respondent added that complainant’s lawyer-client relationship commences when a lawyer signifies his agreement to
uncle, Nicasio Ticong, who was also an intended witness, refused to execute an handle a client’s case and accepts money representing legal fees from the
affidavit and testify to her lies. Thus, it was complainant who was deceitful in her latter,19 as in this case. From then on, as the CPR provides, a lawyer is duty-bound to
conduct and that the complaint against him should be dismissed for lack of merit. 13 “serve his client with competence and diligence,” and in such regard, “not neglect a
The IBP’s Report and Recommendation legal matter entrusted to him.”
In its Report and Recommendation14 dated March 14, 2014, the IBP-CBD found However, it is fairly apparent that respondent breached this duty when he
respondent administratively liable and, accordingly, recommended that he be admittedly failed to file the necessary position paper before the NLRC, which had, in
suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year. Essentially, the IBP- fact, resulted into an adverse ruling against his client, i.e., herein complainant. To
CBD found respondent guilty of violating Rule 10.01, Canon 10, and Rule 18.03, be sure, it is of no moment that complainant purportedly failed to produce any
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), as well as the 2004 Rules credible witnesses in support of her position paper; clearly, this is not a valid
on Notarial Practice.15 justification for respondent to completely abandon his client’s cause. By voluntarily
taking up complainant’s case, respondent gave his unqualified commitment to
advance and defend the latter’s interest therein. Verily, he owes fidelity to such
cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. 20 In Abay v. SEC. 4. Refusal to Notarize. - A notary public shall not perform any notarial act
Montesino,21 it was explained that regardless of a lawyer’s personal view, the latter described in these Rules for any person requesting such an act even if he tenders
must still present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law to the appropriate fee specified by these Rules if:
support his client’s cause: (a) the notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or
Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to transaction is unlawful or immoral[.](Emphasis supplied)
such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. On this score, it is well to stress that “notarization is not an empty, meaningless
He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter’s routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest. It must be underscored
cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. Otherwise stated, he owes that the notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public
entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and document, making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of
defense of his client’s rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to authenticity thereof. A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit
the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, upon its face. For this reason, a notary public must observe with utmost care the
legally applied. This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any basic requirements in the performance of their duties; otherwise, the confidence of
and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined.” 27
may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. If much is Having established respondent’s administrative liability, the Court now determines
demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law the proper penalty.
carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to The appropriate penalty to be meted against an errant lawyer depends on the
the bar, and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts. In Del Mundo
candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, v. Capistrano,28 the Court suspended the lawyer for a period of one (1) year for his
does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the failure to perform his undertaking under his retainership agreement with his client.
legal profession.22 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Similarly, in Conlu v. Aredonia, Jr.,29 the same penalty was imposed on a lawyer for
In light of the foregoing, the Court therefore agrees with the IBP that respondent his inexcusable negligence in failing to file the required pleading to the prejudice of
should be held administratively liable for violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the his client. Hence, consistent with existing jurisprudence, the Court adopts the
CPR. penalty recommended by the IBP and accordingly suspends respondent from the
Likewise, the IBP correctly found that respondent violated Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of practice of law for a period of one (1) year. Moreover, as in the case of Dela Cruz v.
the CPR. Records show that he indeed indulged in deliberate falsehood when he Zabala,30 where the notary public therein notarized an irregular document, the
admittedly prepared23 and notarized24 the affidavit of complainant’s intended Court hereby revokes respondent’s notarial commission and further disqualifies him
witness, Romeo, despite his belief that Romeo was a perjured witness. In Spouses from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years.
Umaguing v. De Vera,25 the Court highlighted the oath undertaken by every lawyer WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Vivencio V. Jumamil is found GUILY of violating Rule
to not only obey the laws of the land, but also to refrain from doing any 10.01, Canon 10 and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
falsehood, viz.: Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of one (1) year,
The Lawyer’s Oath enjoins every lawyer not only to obey the laws of the land but effective upon his receipt of this Resolution. Moreover, in view of his violation of
also to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, his notarial commission, if still existing, is
the doing of any in court, and to conduct himself according to the best of his hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the courts as well as to his public for a period of two (2) years. Finally, he is STERNLY WARNED that a
clients. Every lawyer is a servant of the law, and has to observe and maintain the repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
rule of law as well as be an exemplar worthy of emulation by others. It is by no Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be
means a coincidence, therefore, that the core values of honesty, integrity, and appended to respondent’s personal record as a member of the Bar. Likewise, let
trustworthiness are emphatically reiterated by the Code of Professional copies of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office
Responsibility. In this light, Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional of the Court Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all courts in the
Responsibility provides that “[a] lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to country for their information and guidance.
the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by SO ORDERED.
any artifice.”26 (Emphases supplied)
Notably, the notarization of a perjured affidavit also constituted a violation of the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Section 4 (a), Rule IV thereof pertinently provides:
5) Commission Period and Examination The Court modifies the IBP Board of Governors' Resolution.

A.C. No. 8384 : April 11, 2013 Complainant presented evidence supporting her allegation that respondent had
EFIGENIA M. TENOSO Complainant, v. ATTY. ANSELMO S. ECHANEZ, Respondent. notarized various documents in Cordon, Isabela from 2006 to 2008 and that
respondent's name does not appear on the list of notaries public commissioned by
RESOLUTION the RTC of Santiago City, Isabela for the years 2006 to 2007 and 2007 to 2008.
LEONEN, J.: Respondent failed to present evidence to rebut complainant's allegations. Per
Etigenia M. Tenoso (complainant) tiled a complaint against Atty. Anselmo S. Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court,9 the burden of proof is vested upon the
Echanez (respondent) alleging that respondent was engaged in practice as a notary party who alleges the truth of his claim or defense or any fact in issue. Thus, in
public in Cordon, lsabela, without having been properly commissioned by the Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v.
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Santiago City, Isabela. This is the RTC exercising Gutierrez,10 where a party resorts to bare denials and allegations and fails to
jurisdiction over the Municipality of Cordon. This alleged act violates Rule III of the submit evidence in support of his defense, the determination that he committed
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC). To support her allegations, the violation is sustained. Respondent merely posited that the notarized documents
complainant attached the following documents to her pleadings: presented by complainant were "tampered and adulterated" or were results of
a. Two (2) documents signed and issued by RTC Santiago City Executive Judge Efren forgery, but he failed to present any proof.11 Respondent also resorted to a
M. Cacatian bearing the names of commissioned notaries public within the sweeping and unsupported statement that he never notarized any document.
territorial jurisdiction of the RTC of Santiago City for the years 2006 to 2007 and Accordingly, the reasonable conclusion is that respondent repeatedly notarized
2007 to 2008.1 Respondent's name does not appear on either list;cralawlibrary documents without the requisite notarial commission. Time and again, this Court
b. Copies of ten (10) documents that appear to have been notarized by respondent emphasizes that the practice of law is imbued with public interest and that "a
in the years 2006, 2007, and 2008; and lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the
c. A copy of a certification issued by Judge Cacatian stating that a joint-affidavit profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of the most
notarized by respondent in 2008 could not be "authenticated as to respondent's important functions of the State - the administration of justice - as an officer of the
seal and signature as NO Notarial Commission was issued upon him at the time of court."12 Accordingly, '"lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of
the document's notarization."2chanroblesvirtualawlibrary legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing." Similarly,
the duties of notaries public are dictated by public policy and impressed with public
In his two-page Answer, respondent denied the allegations saying, "I have never interest.14 "Notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act, for notarization
been notarizing any document or pleadings"3 and added that he has "never converts a private document to a public instrument, making it admissible in
committed any malpractice, nor deceit nor have violated thelawyers (sic) oath".4 He evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due
dismissed such allegations as being "preposterous, full of lies, politically motivated execution." In misrepresenting himself as a notary public, respondent exposed
and x x x meant to harass or intimidate him".5chanroblesvirtualawlibrary party-litigants, courts, other lawyers and the general public to the perils of ordinary
Also, he surmised that the documents annexed to the Affidavit-Complaint were documents posing as public instruments. As noted by the Investigating
"tampered and adulterated," or that "somebody might have forged his signature."6 Commissioner, respondent committed acts of deceit and falsehood in open
He failed to attend the mandatory conference and likewise failed to file his Position violation of the explicit pronouncements of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Paper. In his Report and Recommendation dated 29 September 2008, Investigating Evidently, respondent's conduct falls miserably short of the high standards of
Commissioner Atty. Salvador B. Hababag recommended that respondent be morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing required from lawyers. It is proper that
suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months and disqualified from being he be sanctioned.
commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years for violating Rules 1.01 and 10.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In a Resolution dated 11 December 2008, WHEREFORE, We find Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez guilty of engaging in notarial
the IBP Board of Governors affirmed the findings of the Investigating Commissioner practice without a notarial commission, and accordingly, We SUSPEND him from the
but increased the penalty of suspension from six (6) months to one (1) year. practice of law for two (2) years and DISQUALIFY him from being commissioned as a
Respondent did not file a Motion for Reconsideration or any other subsequent notary public for two (2) years. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar
pleading. On 12 August 2009, the IBP Board of Governors transmitted its Resolution act in the future shall merit a more severe sanction.
to the Supreme Court for its action following Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. SO ORDERED.
ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY LABORATORY HIGH SCHOOL (SLU-LHS) FACULTY and STAFF 4.                  Affidavit[5] dated 23 December 1993, executed by Ponciano V. Abalos,
vs. ATTY. ROLANDO C. DELA CRUZ subscribed and sworn to before Rolando Dela Cruz;
A.C. No. 6010; August 28, 2006 5.                  Absolute Date of Sale[6] dated 23 June 1993, executed
by Danilo Gonzales in favor of Senecio C. Marzan, notarized by Rolando Dela Cruz;
DECISION 6.                  Joint Affidavit By Two Disinherited Parties[7] dated 5 March 1994,
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: executed by Evelyn C. Canullas and Pastora C. Tacadena, subscribed and sworn to
  before Rolando Dela Cruz; 
This is a disbarment case filed by the Faculty members and Staff of the Saint 7.                  Sworn Statement[8] dated 31 May 1994, executed
Louis University-Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) against Atty. Rolando by Felimon B. Rimorin, subscribed and sworn to before Rolando Dela Cruz;
C. Dela Cruz, principal of SLU-LHS, predicated on the following grounds: 8.                  Deed of Sale[9] dated 17 August 1994, executed by Woodrow Apurado in
1) Gross Misconduct: favor of Jacinto Batara, notarized by Rolando Dela Cruz; 
From the records of the case, it appears that there is a pending criminal case for 9.                  Joint Affidavit by Two Disinterested Parties[10] dated 1 June 1994,
child abuse allegedly committed by him against a high school student filed before executed by Ponciano V. Abalos and Arsenio C. Sibayan, subscribed and sworn to
the Prosecutors Office of Baguio City; a pending administrative case filed by the before Rolando Dela Cruz;
Teachers, Staff, Students and Parents before an Investigating Board created by SLU 10.              Absolute Deed of Sale[11] dated 23 March 1995, executed by
for his alleged unprofessional and unethical acts of misappropriating money Eleanor D.Meridor in favor of Leonardo N. Benter, notarized by Rolando Dela Cruz;
supposedly for the teachers; and the pending labor case filed by SLU-LHS Faculty 11.              Deed of Absolute Sale[12] dated 20 December 1996, executed
before the NLRC, Cordillera Administrative Region, on alleged illegal deduction of by Mandapat in favor of Mario R. Mabalot, notarized by Rolando Dela Cruz;
salary by respondent. 12.              Joint Affidavit By Two Disinterested Parties[13] dated 17 April 1996,
2) Grossly Immoral Conduct: executed by Villiam C. Ambong and Romeo L. Quiming, subscribed and sworn to
In contracting a second marriage despite the existence of his first marriage; and before Rolando Dela Cruz;
3) Malpractice: 13.              Conditional Deed of Sale[14] dated 27 February 1997, executed by
In notarizing documents despite the expiration of his commission. Aurelia Demot Cados in favor of Jose Ma. A. Pangilinan, notarized by
According to complainant, respondent was legally married to Teresita Rivera on 31 Rolando Dela Cruz;
May 1982 at Tuba, Benguet, before the then Honorable Judge Tomas 14.              Memorandum of Agreement[15] dated 19 July 1996, executed by JARCO
W. Macaranas. He thereafter contracted a subsequent marriage with one Mary represented by Mr. Johnny Teope and AZTEC Construction represented by Mr.
Jane Pascua, before the Honorable Judge Guillermo Purganan. On 4 October 1994, George Cham, notarized by Rolando Dela Cruz.
said second marriage was subsequently annulled for being bigamous.  
  Quite remarkably, respondent, in his comment, denied the charges of child abuse,
On the charge of malpractice, complainant alleged that respondent deliberately illegal deduction of salary and others which are still pending before the St. Louis
subscribed and notarized certain legal documents on different dates from 1988 to University (SLU), National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Prosecutors
1997, despite expiration of respondents notarial commission on 31 December Office. He did not discuss anything about the allegations of immorality in
1987. A Certification[1] dated 25 May 1999 was issued by the Clerk of Court of contracting a second marriage and malpractice in notarizing documents despite the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Baguio City, to the effect that respondent had not expiration of his commission.
applied for commission as Notary Public for and in the City of Baguio for the period After the filing of comment, We referred[16] the case to the Integrated Bar of the
1988 to 1997. Respondent performed acts of notarization, as evidenced by the Philippines (IBP), for investigation, report and recommendation.
following documents: The IBP conducted the mandatory preliminary conference.
1.                  Affidavit of Ownership[2] dated 8 March 1991, executed by Fernando T. The complainants, thereafter, submitted their position paper which is just a
Acosta, subscribed and sworn to before Rolando Dela Cruz; reiteration of their allegations in their complaint.
2.                  Affidavit[3] dated 26 September 1992, executed by Maria Cortez Atos, Respondent, on his part, expressly admitted his second marriage despite the
subscribed and sworn to before Rolando Dela Cruz; existence of his first marriage, and the subsequent nullification of the former. He
3.                  Affidavit[4] dated 14 January 1992, executed by Fanolex James A. Menos, also admitted having notarized certain documents during the period when
subscribed and sworn to before Rolando Dela Cruz; his notarial commission had already expired. However, he offered some
extenuating defenses such as good faith, lack of malice and noble intentions in and those charged with the administration of justice, rather than to punish an
doing the complained acts. attorney. Elaborating on this, we said on Maligsa  v. Atty.  Cabanting,[19] that the Bar
After the submission of their position papers, the case was deemed submitted for should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair
resolution. On 30 March 2005, Commissioner Acerey C. Pacheco submitted his dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his
report and recommended that: duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. A member of the legal
  fraternity should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that respondent confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of
be administratively penalized for the following acts: the legal profession. Towards this end, an attorney may be disbarred or suspended
  for any violation of his oath or of his duties as an attorney and counselor, which
a. For contracting a second marriage without taking the appropriate legal steps to include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,
have the first marriage annulled first, he be suspended from the practice of law for all of these being broad enough to cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer in
one (1) year, and his professional or private capacity.
b. For notarizing certain legal documents despite full knowledge of the expiration of  
his notarial commission, he be suspended from the practice of law for another one Equally worthy of remark is that the law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy
(1) year or for a total of two (2) years.[17] of standards among its members. There is no distinction as to whether the
On 17 December 2005, the IBP Board of Governors, approved and adopted the transgression is committed in the lawyers professional capacity or in his private
recommendation of Commissioner Pacheco, thus: life. This is because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the at one time and a mere citizen at another.[20] Thus, not only his professional
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above- activities but even his private life, insofar as the latter may reflect unfavorably upon
entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex A and, finding the the good name and prestige of the profession and the courts, may at any time be
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws the subject of inquiry on the part of the proper authorities. [21]
and rules, and considering that Respondent contracted a second marriage without  
taking appropriate legal steps to have the first marriage annulled, Atty. Rolando One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must
C. dela Cruz is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and for possess good moral character. Possession of such moral character as requirement
notarizing legal documents despite full knowledge of the expiration of to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice must be continuous.Otherwise,
his notarial commission Atty. Rolando C. dela Cruz is SUSPENDED from the practice membership in the bar may be terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good
of law for another one (1) year, for a total of two (2) years Suspension from the moral conduct.[22]
practice of law.[18]  
  In the case at bench, there is no dispute that respondent and Teresita Rivera
This Court finds the recommendation of the IBP to fault respondent well taken, contracted marriage on 31 May 1982 before Judge Tomas W. Macaranas. In less
except as to the penalty contained therein. than a year, they parted ways owing to their irreconcilable differences without
At the threshold, it is worth stressing that the practice of law is not a right but a seeking judicial recourse. The union bore no offspring. After their separation in-fact,
privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess the respondent never knew the whereabouts of Teresita Rivera since he had lost all
qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. Membership in forms of communication with her. Seven years thereafter, respondent became
the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege and right attracted to one Mary Jane Pascua, who was also a faculty member of SLU-
to practice law only during good behavior, and he can be deprived of it for LHS. There is also no dispute over the fact that in 1989, respondent married Mary
misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to Jane Pascua in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Baguio City, Branch
be heard has been afforded him. Without invading any constitutional privilege or 68. Respondent even admitted this fact. When the second marriage was entered
right, an attorneys right to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to into, respondents prior marriage with Teresita Rivera was still subsisting, no action
suspend, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to exercise the having been initiated before the court to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity or
duties and responsibilities of an attorney. It must be understood that the purpose of annulment of respondents prior marriage to Teresita Rivera or a judicial declaration
suspending or disbarring him as an attorney is to remove from the profession a of presumptive death of Teresita Rivera.
person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and Respondent was already a member of the Bar when he contracted the bigamous
responsibilities belonging to an office of attorney and, thus, to protect the public second marriage in 1989, having been admitted to the Bar in 1985. As such, he
cannot feign ignorance of the mandate of the law that before a second marriage b. His second marriage was a show of his noble intentions and total love for his
may be validly contracted, the first and subsisting marriage must first be annulled wife, whom he described to be very intelligent person;
by the appropriate court. The second marriage was annulled only on 4 October c. He never absconded from his obligations to support his wife and child;
1994 before the RTC of Benguet, Branch 9, or about five years after respondent d. He never disclaimed paternity over the child and husbandry (sic) with relation to
contracted his second marriage. The annulment of respondents second marriage his wife;
has no bearing to the instant disbarment proceeding. Firstly, as earlier emphasized, e. After the annulment of his second marriage, they have parted ways when the
the annulment came after the respondents second bigamous marriage. Secondly, as mother and child went to Australia;
we held in In re:  Almacen, a disbarment case is sui  generis for it is neither purely f. Since then up to now, respondent remained celibate. [26]
civil nor purely criminal but is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct  
of its officers. Thus, if the acquittal of a lawyer in a criminal action is not In the case of Terre v. Terre,[27] respondent was disbarred because his moral
determinative of an administrative case against him, or if an affidavit of withdrawal character was deeply flawed as shown by the following circumstances, viz: he
of a disbarment case does not affect its course, then neither will the judgment of convinced the complainant that her prior marriage to Bercenilla was null and
annulment of respondents second marriage also exonerate him from a wrongdoing void ab  initio and that she was legally single and free to marry him. When
actually committed. So long as the quantum of proof - clear preponderance of complainant and respondent had contracted their marriage, respondent went
evidence - in disciplinary proceedings against members of the Bar is met, then through law school while being supported by complainant, with some assistance
liability attaches.[23] from respondents parents. After respondent had finished his law course and gotten
  complainant pregnant, respondent abandoned the complainant without support
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court cites grossly immoral conduct as a ground and without the wherewithal for delivering his own child safely to a hospital.
for disbarment.  
  In the case of Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma,[28] respondent was also disbarred for his
The Court has laid down with a common definition of what constitutes immoral grossly immoral acts such as: first, he abandoned his lawful wife and three children;
conduct, vis--vis, grossly immoral conduct. Immoral conduct is that conduct which second, he lured an innocent young woman into marrying him; third,
is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the he mispresented himself as a bachelor so he could contract marriage in a foreign
opinion of the good and respectable members of the community  and what is land; and fourth, he availed himself of complainants resources by securing a plane
grossly immoral,  that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal ticket from complainants office in order to marry the latters daughter. He did this
act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree. [24] without complainants knowledge. Afterwards, he even had the temerity to assure
  complainant that everything is legal.
Undoubtedly, respondents act constitutes immoral conduct. But is it so gross as to  
warrant his disbarment? Indeed, he exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of Such acts are wanting in the case at bar. In fact, no less than the respondent himself
morality required of him as a member of the Bar. In particular, he made a mockery acknowledged and declared his abject apology for his misstep. He was humble
of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of enough to offer no defense save for his love and declaration of his commitment to
contracting a second marriage while the first marriage was still in place, is contrary his wife and child.
to honesty, justice, decency and morality. [25]  
However, measured against the definition, we are not prepared to consider Based on the reasons stated above, we find the imposition of disbarment upon him
respondents act as grossly immoral. This finds support in the following to be unduly harsh. The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and
recommendation and observation of the IBP Investigator and IBP Board of may be imposed only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the
Governors, thus: standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court. Disbarment should
  never be decreed where any lesser penalty could accomplish the end desired. [29] In
The uncontested assertions of the respondent belies any intention to flaunt the law line with this philosophy, we find that a penalty of two years suspension is more
and the high moral standard of the legal profession, to wit: appropriate. The penalty of one (1) year suspension recommended by the IBP is too
  light and not commensurate to the act committed by respondent.
a. After his first failed marriage and prior to his second marriage or for a period of As to the charge of misconduct for having notarized several documents during the
almost seven (7) years, he has not been romantically involved with any woman; years 1988-1997 after his commission as notary public had expired, respondent
  humbly admitted having notarized certain documents despite his knowledge that
he no longer had authority to do so. He, however, alleged that he received no respondent, need not be discussed, as they are still pending before the proper
payment in notarizing said documents. forums. At such stages, the presumption of innocence still prevails in favor of the
  respondent.
It has been emphatically stressed that notarization is not an empty,  
meaningless, routinary act. On the contrary, it is invested with substantive public WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Rolando Dela Cruz guilty of immoral conduct,
interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries in disregard of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he is
public. Notarization of a private document converts the document into a public one hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, and
making it admissible in court without further proof of its another two (2) years for notarizing documents despite the expiration of his
authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its commission or a total of four (4) years of suspension.
face and, for this reason, notaries public must observe with the utmost care the  
basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of Let copies of this Decision be furnished all the courts of the land through the Court
the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined. [30] Administrator, as well as the IBP, the Office of the Bar Confidant, and recorded in
The requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public must not be the personal records of the respondent.
treated as a mere casual formality. The Court has characterized a lawyers act of  
notarizing documents without the requisite commission to do so as reprehensible, SO ORDERED.
constituting as it does not only malpractice but also x x x the crime of falsification of  
public documents.[31]
 
The Court had occasion to state that where the notarization of a document is done
by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or
commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action or one,
performing a notarial act without such commission is a violation of the lawyers oath
to obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear
that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and
purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyers oath similarly
proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: A lawyer shall
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. By acting as a
notary public without the proper commission to do so, the lawyer likewise violates
Canon 7 of the same Code, which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
In the case of Buensuceso  v. Barera,[32]  a lawyer was suspended for one year when
he notarized five documents after his commission as Notary Public had expired, to
wit: a complaint for ejectment, affidavit, supplemental affidavit, a deed of sale, and
a contract to sell. Guided by the pronouncement in said case, we find that a
suspension of two (2) years is justified under the circumstances. Herein respondent
notarized a total of fourteen (14) documents [33] without the
requisite notarial commission.
Other charges constituting respondents misconduct such as the pending criminal
case for child abuse allegedly committed by him against a high school student filed
before the Prosecutors Office of Baguio City; the pending administrative case filed
by the Teachers, Staff, Students and Parents before an Investigating Board created
by SLU; and the pending labor case filed by SLU-LHS Faculty before the NLRC,
Cordillera Administrative Region, on alleged illegal deduction of salary by
HEINZ R. HECK, complainant, vs. JUDGE ANTHONY E. SANTOS (RTC CDO) 2. Based on the records of transmittals of notarial reports, Atty. Anthony E. Santos
submitted his notarial reports in the ff. years:
DECISION a. January 1980 report - was submitted on Feb. 6, 1980
CALLEJO SR., J.: b. February to April 1980 report - was submitted on June 6, 1980
May a retired judge charged with notarizing documents without the requisite c. May to June 1980 report - was submitted on July 29, 1980
notary commission more than twenty years ago be disciplined therefor? This is the d. July to October 1980 report - submitted but no date of submission
novel issue presented for resolution before this Court. e. November to December 1980-no entry
The instant case arose when in a verified Letter-Complaint dated March 21, 2001 f. January to February 1981 - no entry
Heinz R. Heck prayed for the disbarment of Judge Anthony E. Santos, Regional Trial g. March to December 1981 - submitted but no date of submission
Court, Branch 19, Cagayan de Oro City. h. January to December 1982 - submitted but no date of submission
The complainant alleged that prior to the respondents appointment as RTC judge i. January to June 1983 - submitted on January 5, 1984
on April 11, 1989, he violated the notarial law, thus: j. July to December 1983 - no entry
Judge Santos, based on ANNEX A, was not duly commissioned as notary public until k. January to December 1984 - submitted on January 20, 1986
January 9, 1984 but still subscribed and forwarded (on a non-regular basis) l. January to December 1985 - submitted on January 20, 1986
notarized documents to the Clerk of Court VI starting January 1980 4. Records fail to show any entry of transmittal of notarial documents under the
uncommissioned until the 9th of January 1984. name Atty. Anthony Santos after December 1985.
a) Judge Santos was commissioned further January 16th 1986 to December 5. It is further certified that the last notarial commission issued to Atty. Anthony
31st 1987 and January 6th 1988 to December 31st 1989 but the records fail to show Santos was on January 6, 1988 until December 31, 1989. [4]
any entry at the Clerk of Court after December 31st 1985 until December 31st 1989. In his Answer dated June 13, 2001, the respondent judge categorically denied the
b) Judge Santos failed to forward his Notarial Register after the expiration of his charges against him. He also submitted a certification [5] from Clerk of Court, Atty.
commission in December 1989.[2] Sabio-Beja, to prove that there was no proper recording of the commissioned
... lawyers in the City of Cagayan de Oro as well as the submitted notarized
WHEREFORE in light of the foregoing complainant pray[s] to order respondent: documents/notarial register. The respondent further averred as follows:
1. To disbar Judge Anthony E. Santos and to prohibit him from all future public That the complainant has never been privy to the documents notarized and
service. submitted by the respondent before the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional
2. To forfeit [the] retirement benefits of Judge Santos. Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, nor his rights prejudiced on account of the said
3. To prohibit Judge Santos from future practice of Law. notarized documents and therefore not the proper party to raise the said issues;
4. To file a criminal suit against Judge Santos. That the complainant was one of the defendants in Civil Case No. 94-334 entitled
5. To conduct a speedy investigation and not to grant/accept any delaying tactics Vinas Kuranstalten Gesmbh et al. versus Lugait Aqua Marine Industries, Inc., and
from Judge Santos or any agency and or public servants involved in this Heinz Heck, for Specific Performance & Sum of Money, filed before the Regional
administrative case. Trial Court, Branch 19, Cagayan de Oro City, wherein respondent is the Presiding
6. To pay all costs and related costs involved in this administrative case. Judge. The undersigned resolved the case in favor of the plaintiffs. [6]
and prays for other relief in accordance with equity and fairness based on the Pursuant to the report of the Office of the Court Administrator recommending the
premises.[3] need to resort to a full-blown investigation to determine the veracity of the parties
The complainant submitted a certification from Clerk of Court, Atty. Beverly Sabio- assertions, the Court, in a Resolution dated September 10, 2001, resolved to: (a)
Beja, Regional Trial Court, Misamis Oriental, which contained the following: treat the matter as a regular administrative complaint; and (b) refer the case to
THIS CERTIFIES that upon verification from the records found and available in this Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz of the Court of Appeals (CA) for investigation,
office, the following data appear: report and recommendation.[7]
1. The name Atty. Anthony E. Santos is listed as a duly commissioned notary public In his Letters dated December 10, 2001 and February 1, 2002, the complainant
in the following years: requested that the hearing be held at Cagayan de Oro City. Justice Cruz initially
a. January 9, 1984 to December 31, 1985 denied the request but upon the complainants insistence, the matter was
b. January 16, 1986 to December 31, 1987 forwarded to the Court, which favorably acted thereon in a Resolution dated July 8,
c. January 6, 1988 to December 31, 1989 2002.[8] The complainant presented his evidence in Cagayan de Oro City before
retired Court of Appeals Justice Romulo S. Quimbo.[9]
In a Sealed Report dated August 14, 2003, Investigating Justice Edgardo P. Cruz lawyers are based on grounds which are likewise grounds for the disciplinary action
made the following recommendation: of members of the Bar for violation of the Lawyers Oath, the Code of Professional
It is recommended that [i] respondent (who retired on May 22, 2002) be found Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics, or for such other forms of
guilty of violation of the Notarial Law by (a) notarizing documents without breaches of conduct that have been traditionally recognized as grounds for the
commission; (b) tardiness in submission of notarial reports; and (c) non-forwarding discipline of lawyers.
of his notarial register to the Clerk of Court upon expiration of his commission; and In any of the foregoing instances, the administrative case shall also be considered a
[ii] that for these infractions, he be suspended from the practice of law and barred disciplinary action against the respondent justice, judge or court official concerned
from being commissioned as notary public, both for one year, and his present as a member of the Bar. The respondent may forthwith be required to comment on
commission, if any, be revoked.[10] the complaint and show cause why he should not also be suspended, disbarred or
According to the Investigating Justice, the respondent did not adduce evidence in otherwise disciplinary sanctioned as a member of the Bar. Judgment in both
his defense, while the complainant presented documentary evidence to support the respects may be incorporated in one decision or resolution.
charges: Before the Court approved this resolution, administrative and disbarment cases
It is noteworthy that in his answer, respondent did not claim that he was against members of the bar who were likewise members of the court were treated
commissioned as notary public for the years 1980 to 1983 nor deny the accuracy of separately. Thus, pursuant to the new rule, administrative cases against erring
the first certification. He merely alleged that there was no proper recording of the justices of the CA and the Sandiganbayan, judges, and lawyers in the government
commissioned lawyers in the City of Cagayan de Oro nor of the submitted Notarized service may be automatically treated as disbarment cases. The Resolution, which
Documents/Notarial Register. And, as already observed, he presented no evidence, took effect on October 1, 2002, also provides that it shall supplement Rule 140 of
particularly on his appointment as notary public for 1980 to 1983 (assuming he was the Rules of Court, and shall apply to administrative cases already filed where the
so commissioned) and submission of notarial reports and notarial register. respondents have not yet been required to comment on the complaints.
On the other hand, the second certification shows that there were only two Record Clearly, the instant case is not covered by the foregoing resolution, since the
Books available in the notarial section of the RTC of Misamis Oriental (Cagayan de respondent filed his Answer/Comment on June 13, 2001.
Oro City); and that the (f)irst book titled Petitions for Notarial Commission contains The Procedure To Be Followed In Disbarment Cases Involving A Retired Judge For
items on the Name, Date Commission was issued and Expiration of Commission of Acts Committed While He Was Still A Practicing Lawyer
the notary public. First entry appearing was made on December 1982. The undisputed facts are as follows: (1) the respondent is a retired judge; (2) the
If respondent was commissioned in 1980 to 1983, then the first book would disclose complainant prays for his disbarment; and (3) the acts constituting the ground for
so (at least, for the years 1982 and 1983). However, he did not present said book. disbarment were committed when the respondent was still a practicing lawyer,
Neither did he present a certification from the Clerk of Court, RTC of Misamis before his appointment to the judiciary. Thus, the respondent is being charged not
Oriental, or documents from his files showing that he was commissioned in 1980 to for acts committed as a judge; he is charged, as a member of the bar, with
1983. Similarly, he did not submit a certificate of appointment for all those years. notarizing documents without the requisite notarial commission therefor.
Under Section 238 of the Notarial Law, such certificate must be prepared and Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court on Disbarment and Discipline of
forwarded by the Clerk of Court, RTC, to the Office of the Solicitor General, together Attorneys provides:
with the oath of office of the notary public.[11] Section 1. Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys
Thus, the Investigating Justice concluded, based on the evidence presented by the may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the
complainant, that the respondent notarized documents in 1980 and 1983 without Philippines (IBP) upon verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall state
being commissioned as a notary public therefor, considering that his earliest clearly, and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of
commission of record was on January 9, 1984. [12] persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such
The Procedural Issues documents as may substantiate said facts.
Before the Court passes upon the merits of the instant complaint, a brief The IBP Board of Governors may, motu proprio or upon referral by the Supreme
backgrounder. Court or by a Chapter Board of Officers, or at the instance of any person, initiate
and prosecute proper charges against erring attorneys including those in the
On the Applicability of Resolution A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC government service: Provided, however, That all charges against Justices of the
On September 17, 2002, we issued Resolution A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, [13] to wit: Court of Tax Appeals and lower courts, even if lawyers are jointly charged with
Some administrative cases against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the them, shall be filed with the Supreme Court: Provided, further, That charges filed
Sandiganbayan; judges of regular and special courts; and the court officials who are against Justices and Judges before the IBP, including those filed prior to their
appointment to the Judiciary, shall be immediately forwarded to the Supreme Court A contrary rule would be fraught with injustice and pregnant with dreadful and
for disposition and adjudication.[14] dangerous implications... If innocent, respondent public official merits vindication of
The investigation may thereafter commence either before the Integrated Bar of the his name and integrity as he leaves the government which he has served well and
Philippines (IBP), in accordance with Sections 2 to Sections 12 of Rule 139-B, or faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the corresponding censure and a penalty
before the Supreme Court in accordance with Sections 13 and 14, thus: proper and imposable under the situation. [19]
Section 13. Supreme Court Investigators. - In proceedings initiated motu proprio by However, recognizing the proliferation of unfounded or malicious administrative or
the Supreme Court or in other proceedings when the interest of justice so requires, criminal cases against members of the judiciary for purposes of harassment, we
the Supreme Court may refer the case for investigation to the Solicitor General or to issued A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC[20] which took effect on November 3, 2003. It reads in
any officer of the Supreme Court or judge of a lower court, in which case the part:
investigation shall proceed in the same manner provided in Sections 6 to 11 hereof, 1. If upon an informal preliminary inquiry by the Office of the Court Administrator,
save that the review of the report shall be conducted directly by the Supreme an administrative complaint against any Justice of the Court of Appeals or
Court. Sandiganbayan or any Judge of the lower courts filed in connection with a case in
Section 14. Report of the Solicitor General or other Court designated court is shown to be clearly unfounded and baseless and intended to harass the
Investigator.  Based upon the evidence adduced at the investigation, the Solicitor respondent, such a finding should be included in the report and recommendation of
General or other Investigator designated by the Supreme Court shall submit to the the Office of the Court Administrator. If the recommendation is approved or
Supreme Court a report containing his findings of fact and recommendations affirmed by the Court, the complainant may be required to show cause why he
together with the record and all the evidence presented in the investigation for the should not be held in contempt of court. If the complainant is a lawyer, he may
final action of the Supreme Court. further be required to show cause why he or she should not be administratively
It is clear from the Rules then that a complaint for disbarment is cognizable by the sanctioned as a member of the Bar and as an officer of the court.
Court itself, and its indorsement to the IBP is not mandatory. The Court may refer 2. If the complaint is (a) filed within six months before the compulsory retirement of
the complaint for investigation, report and recommendation to the Solicitor a Justice or Judge; (b) for an alleged cause of action that occurred at least a year
General, any officer of the court or a judge of a lower court, on which the Court will before such filing and (c) shown prima facie that it is intended to harass the
thereafter base its final action.[15] respondent, it must forthwith be recommended for dismissal. If such is not the
Although the respondent has already retired from the judiciary, he is still case, the Office of the Court Administrator must require the respondent to file a
considered as a member of the bar and as such, is not immune to the disciplining comment within ten (10) days from receipt of the complaint, and submit to the
arm of the Supreme Court, pursuant to Article VIII, Section 6 [16]of the 1987 Court a report and recommendation not later than 30 days from receipt of the
Constitution.Furthermore, at the time of the filing of the complaint, the respondent comment. The Court shall act on the recommendation before the date of
was still the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Cagayan de Oro compulsory retirement of the respondent, or if it is not possible to do so, within six
City. As such, the complaint was cognizable by the Court itself, as the Rule (6) months from such date without prejudice to the release of the retirement
mandates that in case the respondent is a justice of the Court of Tax Appeals or the benefits less such amount as the Court may order to be withheld, taking into
lower court, the complaint shall be filed with the Supreme Court. [17] account the gravity of the cause of action alleged in the complaint.
Thus, in order for an administrative complaint against a retiring or retired judge or
The Substantive Issues justice to be dismissed outright, the following requisites must concur: (1) the
The Retirement Or Resignation Of A Judge Will Not Preclude The Filing Thereafter complaint must have been filed within six months from the compulsory retirement
Of An Administrative Charge Against Him For Which He Shall Still Be Held of the judge or justice; (2) the cause of action must have occurred at least a year
Answerable If Found Liable Therefor before such filing; and, (3) it is shown that the complaint was intended to harass the
The fact that a judge has retired or has otherwise been separated from the service respondent.
does not necessarily divest the Court of its jurisdiction to determine the veracity of In this case, the Administrative Complaint dated March 21, 2001 was received by
the allegations of the complaint, pursuant to its disciplinary authority over the Office of the Court Administrator on March 26, 2001. [21] The respondent retired
members of the bench. As we held in Gallos v. Cordero:[18] compulsorily from the service more than a year later, or on May 22, 2002. Likewise,
The jurisdiction that was ours at the time of the filing of the administrative the ground for disbarment or disciplinary action alleged to have been committed by
complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the respondent, had ceased in office the respondent did not occur a year before the respondents separation from the
during the pendency of his case. The Court retains jurisdiction either to pronounce service. Furthermore, and most importantly, the instant complaint was not prima
the respondent public official innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof. facieshown to be without merit and intended merely to harass the
respondent. Clearly, therefore, the instant case does not fall within the ambit of the Notarizing Documents Without The Requisite Commission Therefore Constitutes
foregoing resolution. Malpractice, If Not The Crime Of Falsification Of Public Documents
It must be remembered that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary
A Judge May Be Disciplined For Acts Committed Before His Appointment To The act. On the contrary, it is invested with substantive public interest, such that only
Judiciary those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. [31] Notarization by
It is settled that a judge may be disciplined for acts committed prior to his a notary public converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible
appointment to the judiciary.[22] In fact, even the new Rule itself recognizes this, as in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due
it provides for the immediate forwarding to the Supreme Court for disposition and execution.[32]
adjudication of charges against justices and judges before the IBP, including those The requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public must not be
filed prior to their appointment to the judiciary.[23] It need not be shown that the treated as a mere casual formality. [33] The Court has characterized a lawyers act of
respondent continued the doing of the act or acts complained of; it is sufficient that notarizing documents without the requisite commission therefore as reprehensible,
the evidence on record supports the charge on the respondent, considering the constituting as it does not only malpractice, but also the crime of falsification of
gravity of the offense. public documents.[34] For such reprehensible conduct, the Court has sanctioned
Indeed, there is jurisprudence to the effect that the act complained of must be erring lawyers by suspension from the practice of law, revocation of the notarial
continuing in order for the respondent judge to be disciplined therefor. In Sevilla v. commission and disqualification from acting as such, and even disbarment. [35]
Salubre,[24]  the respondent judge was charged with violating Canon 16 of the Code In the case of Nunga v. Viray,[36] the Court had the occasion to state -
of Professional Responsibility, for acts committed while he was still a practicing Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at
lawyer. The respondent therein refused to turn over the funds of his client despite a time when he has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be
demands, and persisted in his refusal even after he was appointed as a subjected to disciplinary action. For one, performing a notarial [act] without such
judge. However, the Court also stated in this case that the respondents subsequent commission is a violation of the lawyers oath to obey the laws, more specifically,
appointment as a judge will not exculpate him from taking responsibility for the the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly commissioned when
consequences of his acts as an officer of the court. [25] he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood,
In the case of Alfonso v. Juanson,[26] we held that proof of prior immoral conduct which the lawyers oath similarly proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the
cannot be used as basis for administrative discipline against a judge if he is not prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
charged with immorality prior to his appointment. We ratiocinated, thus: provides: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
...[I]t would be unreasonable and unfair to presume that since he had wandered conduct.[37] The importance of the function of a notary public cannot, therefore, be
from the path of moral righteousness, he could never retrace his steps and walk over-emphasized. No less than the public faith in the integrity of public documents
proud and tall again in that path. No man is beyond information and redemption. A is at stake in every aspect of that function.[38]
lawyer who aspires for the exalted position of a magistrate knows, or ought to
know, that he must pay a high price for that honor - his private and official conduct The Charge Against The Respondent Is Supported By The Evidence On Record
must at all times be free from the appearance of impropriety. ... [27] The respondent did not object to the complainants formal offer of evidence,
The Court ruled in that case that the complainant failed to prove the charges by prompting the Investigating Justice to decide the case on the basis of the pleadings
substantial evidence.[28] The complainant therein presented evidence pertaining to filed.[39] Neither did he claim that he was commissioned as notary public for the
the respondents previous indiscretion while still a practicing lawyer; no evidence years 1980 to 1983, nor deny the accuracy of the first certification. The respondent
was, however, adduced to prove that the latter continued to engage in illicit acts merely alleged in his answer that there was no proper recording of the
after being appointed to the bench. Thus, the respondent was exonerated in this commissioned lawyers in the City of Cagayan de Oro nor of the submitted Notarized
case because the complainant failed to present evidence that the indiscretion Documents/Notarial Register. Furthermore, as found by the Investigating Justice,
continued even after the respondent was appointed to the judiciary. the respondent presented no evidence of his commission as notary public for the
The practice of law is so ultimately affected with public interest  that it is both the years 1980 to 1983, as well as proof of submission of notarial reports and the
right and duty of the State to control and regulate it in order to promote the public notarial register.[40] The respondent in this case was given an opportunity to answer
welfare. The Constitution vests this power of control and regulation in this Court. the charges and to controvert the evidence against him in a formal
[29]
The Supreme Court, as guardian of the legal profession, has ultimate disciplinary investigation. When the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not
power over attorneys, which authority is not only a right but a bounden duty as enough that he deny the charges; he must meet the issue and overcome the
well. This is why respect and fidelity to the Court is demanded of its members. [30] evidence against him.[41]
The respondents allegation that the complainant was not a party in any of the respondent be dismissed on the ground that the complainants failed to adduce
documents so notarized, and as such was not prejudiced thereby, is unavailing. An evidence that the respondents immoral conduct was still ongoing. Aside from being
attorney may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath or of his duties found guilty of illicit conduct, the respondent was also found guilty of dishonesty for
as an attorney and counselor which include the statutory grounds under Section 27, falsifying her childrens certificates of live birth to show that her paramour was the
Rule 138[42] of the Revised Rules of Court. Any interested person or the court motu father. The complaint in this case was filed on August 5, 1999, almost twenty years
proprio may initiate disciplinary proceedings. There can be no doubt as to the right after the illicit affair ended.[50] The Court held that administrative offenses do not
of a citizen to bring to the attention of the proper authority acts and doings of prescribe.[51]
public officers which citizens feel are incompatible with the duties of the office and Pursuant to the foregoing, there can be no other conclusion than that an
from which conduct the citizen or the public might or does suffer undesirable administrative complaint against an erring lawyer who was thereafter appointed as
consequences.[43] a judge, albeit filed only after twenty-four years after the offending act was
committed, is not barred by prescription. If the rule were otherwise, members of
An Administrative Complaint Against A Member Of The Bar Does Not Prescribe the bar would be emboldened to disregard the very oath they took as lawyers,
The qualification of good moral character is a requirement which is not dispensed prescinding from the fact that as long as no private complainant would immediately
with upon admission to membership of the bar. This qualification is not only a come forward, they stand a chance of being completely exonerated from whatever
condition precedent to admission to the legal profession, but its continued administrative liability they ought to answer for. It is the duty of this Court to
possession is essential to maintain ones good standing in the profession. It is a protect the integrity of the practice of law as well as the administration of
continuing requirement to the practice of law and therefore does not preclude a justice. No matter how much time has elapsed from the time of the commission of
subsequent judicial inquiry, upon proper complaint, into any question concerning the act complained of and the time of the institution of the complaint, erring
ones mental or moral fitness before he became a lawyer. This is because his members of the bench and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court. This
admission to practice merely creates a rebuttable presumption that he has all the categorical pronouncement is aimed at unscrupulous members of the bench and
qualifications to become a lawyer.[44] The rule is settled that a lawyer may be bar, to deter them from committing acts which violate the Code of Professional
suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, or the Lawyers Oath. This should
activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity particularly apply in this case, considering the seriousness of the matter involved -
or good demeanor. Possession of good moral character is not only a prerequisite to the respondents dishonesty and the sanctity of notarial documents.
admission to the bar but also a continuing requirement to the practice of law. [45] Thus, even the lapse of considerable time, from the commission of the offending act
Furthermore, administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own, to the institution of the administrative complaint, will not erase the administrative
distinct from and may proceed independently of civil and criminal cases. [46] As we culpability of a lawyer who notarizes documents without the requisite authority
held in the leading case of In re Almacen:[47] therefor.
[D]isciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor
purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but are rather At Most, The Delay In The Institution Of The Administrative Case Would Merely
investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being Mitigate The Respondents Liability
intended to inflict punishment, [they are] in no sense a criminal prosecution. Time and again, we have stressed the settled principle that the practice of law is not
Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. [They] may be a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess
initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is [their] primary objective, and the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. Membership
the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A high sense of morality, honesty,
person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar. [52] By his
powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations, the respondent failed to live up to such standards; [53] he undermined the
actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of confidence of the public on notarial documents and thereby breached Canon I of
the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to uphold the
the profession of members who by their misconduct have prove[n] themselves no Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal
longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the processes. The respondent also violated Rule 1.01 thereof which proscribes lawyers
office of an attorney. ....[48] from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. [54] In
In a case involving a mere court employee[49] the Court disregarded the Court representing that he was possessed of the requisite notarial commission when he
Administrators recommendation that the charge for immorality against the
was, in fact, not so authorized, the respondent also violated Rule 10.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer that he shall do no falsehood.
The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct
that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the
court. While we will not hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed
brotherhood of lawyers where the evidence calls for it, we will likewise not disbar
him where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end.
[55]
 Furthermore, a tempering of justice is mandated in this case, considering that
the complaint against the respondent was filed twenty-four years after the
commission of the act complained of;[56] that there was no private offended party
who came forward and claimed to have been adversely affected by the documents
so notarized by the respondent; and, the fact that the respondent is a retired judge
who deserves to enjoy the full measure of his well-earned retirement benefits.
[57]
 The Court finds that a fine of P5,000.00 is justified in this case.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Anthony E. Santos is found GUILTY of notarizing
documents without the requisite notarial commission therefor. He is hereby
ORDERED to pay a fine in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).
SO ORDERED.

[A.C. NO. 6753 - September 5, 2012]

MILA VIRTUSIO, Complainant, v. ATTY. GRENALYN V. VIRTUSIO, Respondent. the legal profession, all in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
DECISION rendering her unfit to remain a member of the bar. 8ςrνllςrνll
ABAD, J.: In a July 27, 2005 Resolution,9Ï‚rνll the Court required Atty. Virtusio to comment on
This administrative case concerns a lawyer who failed to use the money given by the complaint. She asked for extension of time to comply but did not file her
another to fund the checks she issued as accommodation party in payment for the comment just the same.10Ï‚rνll On Mila s motion,11Ï‚rνll the Court again required
property that was purchased by such person and performed a notarial act without Atty. Virtusio to file her comment and to show cause why she had not complied
commission. with its previous orders.12Ï‚rνll Still, she did not file any comment, prompting the
Court to impose on her on November 15, 2006 a P 500.00 fine. The court again
The Facts and the Case reiterated its order for her to file her comment. 13ςrνllςrνll
On June 14, 2005, Mila Virtusio (Mila) filed with this Court a Complaint 1Ï‚rνll for With no response, on August 1, 2007, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to
disbarment against her husband's distant relative, Atty. Grenalyn V. Virtusio.Mila resend its November 15, 2006 Resolution to Atty. Virtusio 14Ï‚rνll but this was
alleged that sometime in 1999 Atty. Virtusio convinced her to buy a house and lot at returned unserved with the notation, "RTS-Person moved out." On December 3,
North Olympus Subdivision in Novaliches, Quezon City, from its developer, 2007 the Court ordered the resending of the May 3 and November 15, 2006
Stateland Investment Corporation (Stateland). Mila agreed for Atty. Virtusio to use Resolutions to Atty. Virtusio, this time at an address in Sta. Mesa that Mila
her personal checks in paying the seller with Mila reimbursing her. Under this furnished. When this last resolution was returned unserved with the notation, "RTS-
arrangement, Mila gave Atty. Virtusio the following Unclaimed," the Court issued a Resolution15ςrνllon April 30, 2008 that considered
amounts: P 95,000.00, P 25,000.00, P 65,000.00, P 64,000.00 and P 64,000.00. All of Atty. Virtusio to have waived her right to file a comment considering that she filed
these were properly receipted except for the P 95,000.00 for which she got a none despite having sought an extension from the Court. The Court also referred
receipt from her for only P 90,000.00.2Ï‚rνll On October 25 and November 24, the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and
1999, Mila deposited identical amounts of P 64,000.00 each in Atty. Virtusio s recommendation. The IBP Investigating Commissioner directed Atty. Virtusio to file
checking account with Equitable Bank.3Ï‚rνll In all, Mila gave her P 441,000.00. a position paper. She filed a motion for extension of time to file the same but did
To her surprise, however, Mila began receiving letters from Stateland, demanding not. Based on the pleadings on hand, the IBP Investigating Commissioner reported
that she make good the dishonored checks that it got. When she confronted Atty. having found that Atty. Virtusio appropriated portions of the money that Mila gave
Virtusio regarding this, the latter assured her that she would take care of the her for payment to Stateland, thus evidencing her moral unfitness to practice the
problem. But the demand letters persisted. profession. The Commissioner recommended the imposition of the penalty of one
For fear of losing the property, Mila directly dealt with Stateland in January 2000. year suspension from the practice of law with a two-year disqualification from
She then found out that her arrearages had come close to P 200,000.00, inclusive of reappointment as Notary Public, given that she had notarized documents despite
penalty and interest. In order not to lose the property, Mila and her husband the expiration of her notarial commission. The IBP Board of Governors approved
decided to settle their overdue obligation with money they borrowed at high the report and recommendation. Atty. Virtusio filed a motion for reconsideration of
interest.4Ï‚rνll In turn, Stateland turned over to her three checks of Atty. Virtusio, the IBP Investigating Commissioner s action on April 30, 2009. 20Ï‚rνll She explained
each for P 71,944.97, with the notation "DAIF."5Ï‚rνllÏ‚rνll that her failure to file her position paper was brought about by her belief that she
Mila further alleged that Atty. Virtusio declined to return to her the money the needed to wait for the IBP s action on her motion for extension of time to file the
latter misappropriated despite demand. Only when Mila threatened to file a case same. Thus, she prayed that her attached position paper be admitted and
against her did Atty. Virtusio agree to pay her on February 20, 2001 by executing a considered in resolving her motion for reconsideration. In her version of the facts,
deed of sale in her favor covering her Mazda car. Despite the sale, however, Atty. Atty. Virtusio wants to convince the Court that she committed no intentional
Virtusio pleaded with Mila and her husband to let her keep the car meanwhile since wrongs and that she was but a victim of circumstances. Although she admitted
she needed it in her work. When she refused to give up the car, Mila filed a replevin using Mila s money rather than pay Stateland with it, she explained that, having
case against Atty. Virtusio that the court eventually decided in Mila s been busy attending to her sick son in Manila, she failed to monitor her check
favor.6Ï‚rνll But, as it turned out, Atty. Virtusio had managed to register the car in disbursements, entrusting it to an office staff. Only in December 1999 was she able
her children s name and sold it to a third person. Mila filed a case of estafa against to audit the same and discover the mismanagement of her funds and its co-
Atty. Virtusio7Ï‚rνll apart from the present disbarment case. mingling with office funds, resulting in overlapping of accountabilities and non-
Mila claimed that Atty. Virtusio evaded the return of money she misappropriated, funding of the checks for Stateland when they fell due. On becoming aware of the
impeded the execution of a final judgment, and engaged in conduct that discredits lapses, however, Atty. Virtusio borrowed P 165,000.00 from Engr. Marciano de
Guzman so she could pay Mila but, having failed to pay him as well, he went after
Mila who was co-maker of the loan. When Atty. Virtusio tried to make further professional or private capacity, is ground for suspension or disbarment under the
arrangements to pay what she owed Mila, the latter refused to negotiate and did principle that, since good moral character is an essential qualification for the
not acknowledge the past payments she had already made. When Atty. Virtusio admission to the practice of law, maintaining such trait is a condition for keeping
refused to yield to Mila s demand for payment of the entire P 165,000.00, she filed the privilege. By her own account, Atty. Virtusio admitted misusing the money that
a replevin case, a complaint for estafa, and disbarment charge against her. Mila entrusted to her for payment to Stateland. Her excuse is that she lost track of
Atty. Virtusio averred that in October 2006 she and Mila entered into a verbal her finances and mixed up her office funds with her personal funds. But this excuse
agreement whereby she would pay her P 200,000.00, with P 87,500.00 up front, in is too thin. She admitted misusing P 165,000.00 of Mila s money, which is not petty
exchange for Mila s dismissal of all her actions. Notwithstanding that the cash. Indeed she tried to borrow money from a third person to cover it up rather
compromise agreement had not been formalized, Atty. Virtusio claimed that it than just offer her shallow excuse to Mila. Atty. Virtusio s use for personal purpose
obliterated her liabilities, given that she substantially settled her obligations to Mila. of money entrusted to her constitutes dishonest and deceitful conduct under the
Atty. Virtusio also pointed out, that the charges against her were not born of some Code of Professional Responsibility. It provides:
professional relation between Mila and her. She had acted as an accommodation Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
party, allowing Mila to make use of her personal checks to facilitate the purchase of conduct.
a property from Stateland. And, assuming that the predicament she finds herself in CANON 7 A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF
has a bearing on her professional conduct, the same does not amount to grossly THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
immoral conduct since she owned up to her responsibilities and exerted tireless Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
effort to settle her accounts. Atty. Virtusio claimed that she should not be penalized to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
for violation of the notarial law since this offense did not form part of the original scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
complaint to which she was required to respond. At any rate, she merely committed chanrobles virtual law library
an oversight. She had religiously renewed her notarial commission yearly since May Atty. Virtusio cannot absolve herself of liability by claiming that she failed to attend
1995. When she notarized the questioned documents, she believed in good faith to her finances because she had to look after a sick child at that time. Assuming she
that she had renewed her notarial commission for 2006 and 2007 just as before. had such a child, the fact is that it was not by mere oversight that she failed to
She asked not to be punished for her mistake since it was brought about by her finance the checks for Stateland. For, if this were so, she could have easily rectified
sincere commitment to extend free legal service to the disadvantaged. Lastly, Atty. her mistake by using her other funds. In truth, she spent the money that Mila
Virtusio asked the Court to reconsider the harsh penalty imposed on her in the light entrusted to her because she had no other funds. Indeed, she had to borrow money
of the peculiar circumstances of her case and the good faith she showed. On June from a third party later to remedy her financial problems.
26, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution XIX-2011- What is more, supposedly to cover up for her fault, Atty. Virtusio executed a deed
47728Ï‚rνll denying the motion despite an affidavit of desistance that Mila filed in of sale covering her car in Mila s favor rather than return the money she defalcated.
the meantime.29Ï‚rνll As provided in Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, But, again acting with guile, she withheld possession of the car and transferred its
the IBP forwarded the instant case to this Court for final action. registration in the name of her children.
Atty. Virtusio is guilty by her above acts of gross misconduct that warrants her
Questions Presented suspension for one year from the practice of law following Section 27, 32Ï‚rνll Rule
The questions presented in this case are: 138 of the Rules of Court.
1. Whether or not the IBP erred in finding Atty. Virtusio guilty of grave misconduct The Court cannot also countenance Atty. Virtusio s notarization of documents after
in her dealings with Mila and in notarizing documents without a renewed her notarial commission had expired. Although the IBP discovered this violation of
commission; andcralawlibrary the notarial law only in the course of the proceedings and was not a subject matter
2. Assuming Atty. Virtusio was guilty of some offenses, whether or not the IBP of Mila s complaint, it cannot close its eyes to the same. Besides, Atty. Virtusio had
imposed the appropriate penalties on her. an opportunity to defend herself against this additional charge. 33Ï‚rνll Her defense
chanrobles virtual law library is that she thought that she had renewed her commission.
Again, Atty. Virtusio s defense is unsubstantial. She did not renew her notarial
Rulings of the Court commission for two years, 2006 and 2007, not just one. She could not have missed
Lawyers are, as officers of the court and instruments for the administration of that fact considering that, as she said, she had been renewing her commission
justice, expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of yearly from 1995 to 2005.
morality, honesty, and fair dealing. A lawyer s gross misconduct, whether in his
A lawyer who notarizes a document without a proper commission violates his
lawyer s oath to obey the law. He makes it appear that he is commissioned when he
is not. He thus indulges in deliberate falsehood that the lawyer s oath forbids. This
violation falls squarely under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Canon 7 as well.34Ï‚rνll A proper sanction is
authorized.35ςrνllςrνll
Considering, however, that based on the evidence Atty. Virtusio had notarized only
two documents without a proper notarial commission, the Court finds her
suspension from notarial practice for one year adequate. 36ςrνllςrνll
That Mila had agreed after some financial settlement to withdraw her complaint
against Atty. Virtusio cannot exempt the latter from the prescribed sanction. She
has outraged the country s professional code and this demands a measure of
justice. As the Court said in Spouses Soriano v. Atty. Reyes, 37ςrνlldisbarment is a
disciplinary action taken for the public good. Consequently, it is as a rule not subject
to some compromise entered into with the complainant. Besides, Mila's evidence is
already a matter of record and the Court cannot simply ignore the
same.38ςrνllςrνll
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS Atty. Grenalyn V. Virtusio GUILTY of gross
misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and IMPOSES on her the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for one
year, effective immediately. In addition, the Court REVOKES any Notarial
Commission she may presently have and DISQUALIFIES her from applying for it for
one year also effective immediately. Further, she is WARNED of a more severe
penalty should she commit a similar infraction in the future.
Let cop1es of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Court Administrator, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Bar Confidant. Finally, let this
judgment be made part of Atty. Virtusio's personal record 1n the latter office.
SO ORDERED.
A.C. No. 6963             February 9, 2006 1. Atty. Sergio Esquibel Bernabe be suspended from the practice of the legal
VICTORINA BAUTISTA vs. ATTY. SERGIO E. BERNABE, profession for one (1) month;
2. Any existing commission of Atty. Sergio Esquibel Bernabe as notary public, be
DECISION revoked; and
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: 3. Atty. Sergio Esquibel Bernabe be barred from being granted a notarial
In a Complaint1 filed before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar commission for a period of one (1) year.10
of the Philippines (IBP) on November 16, 2004, complainant Victorina In a resolution dated October 22, 2005, the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted
Bautista2 prays for the suspension or disbarment of respondent Atty. Sergio E. and approved the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner with
Bernabe for malpractice and unethical conduct in the performance of his duties as a modification that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year
notary public and a lawyer. and his notarial commission be revoked and that he be disqualified for
Complainant alleged that on January 3, 1998, respondent prepared and notarized reappointment as notary public for two years.
a Magkasanib na Salaysay3purportedly executed by Donato Salonga and We agree with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
complainant’s mother, Basilia de la Cruz. 4 Both affiants declared that a certain The records sufficiently established that Basilia was already dead when the joint
parcel of land in Bigte, Norzagaray, Bulacan, was being occupied by Rodolfo Lucas affidavit was prepared on January 3, 1998. Respondent’s alleged lack of knowledge
and his family for more than 30 years. Complainant claimed that her mother could of Basilia’s death does not excuse him. It was his duty to require the personal
not have executed the joint affidavit on January 3, 1998 because she has been dead appearance of the affiant before affixing his notarial seal and signature on the
since January 28, 1961.5 instrument.
In his Answer,6 respondent denied that he falsified the Magkasanib na Salaysay. He A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the
disclaimed any knowledge about Basilia’s death. He alleged that before he same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him
notarized the document, he requested for Basilia’s presence and in her absence, he to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The presence of the
allowed a certain Pronebo, allegedly a son-in-law of Basilia, to sign above the name parties to the deed will enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the
of the latter as shown by the word "by"  on top of the name of Basilia. Respondent signature of the affiant.11
maintained that there was no forgery since the signature appearing on top of Respondent’s act of notarizing the Magkasanib na Salaysay  in the absence of one
Basilia’s name was the signature of Pronebo. of the affiants is in violation of Rule 1.01,12 Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
On April 4, 2005, respondent filed a manifestation 7 attaching thereto the affidavit of Responsibility and the Notarial Law.13 By affixing his signature and notarial seal on
desistance8 of complainant which reads in part: the instrument, he led us to believe that Basilia personally appeared before him and
Ako na si, VICTORINA BAUTISTA CAPA, x x x matapos makapanumpa ng naaayon sa attested to the truth and veracity of the contents of the affidavit when in fact it was
batas ay malaya at kusang loob na nagpapahayag ng mga sumusunod: a certain Pronebo who signed the document. Respondent’s conduct is fraught with
1. Na ako ang siyang tumatayong nagrereklamo laban kay Abogado, SERGIO dangerous possibilities considering the conclusiveness on the due execution of a
EXQUIVEL BERNABE, sa isang kaso sa Tanggapan ng Integrated Bar of the document that our courts and the public accord on notarized documents.
Philippines na may Blg. CBD CASE NO. 04-1371; Respondent has clearly failed to exercise utmost diligence in the performance of his
2. Na ang nasabing habla ay hindi ko kagustuhan sapagkat iyon ay pinapirmahan function as a notary public and to comply with the mandates of the law. 14
lamang sa akin ni ELISEO OLOROSO at ng kanyang Abogado na si Atty. MARCIAL Respondent was also remiss in his duty when he allowed Pronebo to sign in behalf
MORFE MAGSINO at sa katunayan hindi ako nakaharap sa Notaryo Publiko na si of Basilia. A member of the bar who performs an act as a notary public should not
Abogado CARLITOS C. VILLARIN; notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same
3. Na ang pagpapapirma sa akin ay isang panlilinlang at ako ay ginawang persons who executed and personally appeared before him. The acts of the affiants
kasangkapan para sirain ang magandang pangalan nitong si Abogado SERGIO cannot be delegated to anyone for what are stated therein are facts of which they
ESQUIVEL BERNABE; have personal knowledge. They should swear to the document personally and not
4. Na dahil sa ganitong pangyayari, aking hinihiling sa Tanggapan ng Integrated Bar through any representative. Otherwise, their representative’s name should appear
of the Philippines (IBP) na ang reklamo ko laban sa nasabing Abogado SERGIO in the said documents as the one who executed the same. That is the only time the
ESQUIVEL BERNABE ay mapawa[la]ng bisa. representative can affix his signature and personally appear before the notary
In the report dated August 29, 2005, the Investigating public for notarization of the said document. Simply put, the party or parties who
Commissioner9 recommended that: executed the instrument must be the ones to personally appear before the notary
public to acknowledge the document.15
Complainant’s desistance or withdrawal of the complaint does not exonerate
respondent or put an end to the administrative proceedings. A case of suspension
or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the
complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the
record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been proven. This rule
is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension
or disbarment is not a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the
respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private
interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and
prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of
preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice
in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of
the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to
the attorney’s alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no
interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper
administration of justice.16
We find the penalty recommended by the IBP to be in full accord with recent
jurisprudence. In Gonzales v. Ramos,17 respondent lawyer was found guilty of
notarizing the document despite the non-appearance of one of the signatories. As a
result, his notarial commission was revoked and he was disqualified from
reappointment for a period of two years. In addition, he was suspended from the
practice of law for one year.
Finally, it has not escaped our notice that in paragraph 218 of complainant’s affidavit
of desistance, she alluded that Atty. Carlitos C. Villarin notarized her Sinumpaang
Salaysay19 dated November 12, 2004 which was attached to the complaint filed with
the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP, without requiring her to personally
appear before him in violation of the Notarial Law. This allegation must likewise be
investigated.
WHEREFORE, for breach of the Notarial Law and Code of Professional
Responsibility, the notarial commission of respondent Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe,
is REVOKED. He is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as Notary Public for a period
of two years. He is also SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one
year, effective immediately. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or
of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. He is DIRECTED to report the date
of receipt of this Decision in order to determine when his suspension shall take
effect.
The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is
DIRECTED to investigate the allegation that Atty. Carlitos C. Villarin notarized
the Sinumpaang Salaysay  of Victorina Bautista dated November 12, 2004 without
requiring the latter’s personal appearance.lavvph!1.net
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all courts all over the country. Let a copy of
this Decision likewise be attached to the personal records of the respondent.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 157434             September 19, 2006 3. That as a consequence, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 37189 was cancelled and
SPOUSES CLARO and NIDA BAUTISTA, vs. BERLINDA F. SILVA in lieu thereof, Transfer Certificate of Title No. V-2765 of the Registry of Deeds for
the Valenzuela Branch was issued in the names of Spouses Claro Bautista and Nida
DECISION Bautista on March 4, 1988.11
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: Based on the evidence presented, the RTC also found that the signature appearing
To establish his status as a buyer for value in good faith, a person dealing with land on the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) as that of Berlina Silva is a forgery, and that
registered in the name of and occupied by the seller need only show that he relied consequently the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Pedro in favor of Spouses
on the face of the seller's certificate of title.1 But for a person dealing with land Bautista is not authorized by Berlina.12
registered in the name of and occupied by the seller whose capacity to sell is The RTC rendered judgment on January 10, 1995, the decretal portion of which
restricted, such as by Articles 1662 and 1733 of the Civil Code or Article 1244 of the reads:
Family Code, he must show that he inquired into the latter's capacity to sell in order WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered:
to establish himself as a buyer for value in good faith. 5 The extent of his inquiry 1. Declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 3, 1988 executed by Pedro M.
depends on the proof of capacity of the seller. If the proof of capacity consists of a Silva, for himself and as attorney-in-fact of Berlina F. Silva, in favor of defendants-
special power of attorney duly notarized, mere inspection of the face of such public spouses Claro Bautista and Nida Bautista over the parcel of land, described and
document already constitutes sufficient inquiry. If no such special power of attorney covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. B-37189 Metro Manila District III, null
is provided or there is one but there appear flaws in its notarial and void and the resulting Transfer Certificate of Title No. V-2765 of Valenzuela
acknowledgment mere inspection of the document will not do; the buyer must Registry in the name of Spouses Claro Bautista and Nida Bautista cancelled and that
show that his investigation went beyond the document and into the circumstances Transfer Certificate of Title No. B-37189 reinstated.
of its execution. 2. Ordering defendants to reconvey the property covered by the said Transfer
Appealed by Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court Certificate of Title No. V-2765 together with the improvements thereon to the
are the November 21, 2001 Decision6 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. plaintiff.
487677 which affirmed in toto the January 10, 1995 Decision of the Regional Trial 3. Condemning the defendants to pay the plaintiff the sum of P5,000.00 in the
Court (RTC) in Civil Case No. 3091-V-89, and the February 27, 2003 CA Resolution concept of reasonable attorney's fees and the costs of suit.
which denied the motion for reconsideration. Defendants' counterclaim is dismissed.
Civil Case No. 3091-V-89 is a Complaint for Annulment of Deed of Absolute Sale and Judgment on default is hereby entered in favor of the third-party plaintiffs Spouses
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. V-2765, Reconveyance and Damages filed with Claro Bautista and Nida Bautista against third-party defendants Pedro M. Silva,
the RTC, Branch 171, Valenzuela, Metro Manila by Berlina F. Silva (Berlina), through condemning the third-party defendant Pedro Silva to indemnify/pay third-party
Hermes Dorado (Dorado) as Attorney-in-Fact, against Spouses Claro and Nida plaintiffs Spouses Claro Bautista and Nida Bautista the amount of Seventy Thousand
Bautista (Spouses Bautista). Spouses Bautista filed their Answer 8 and a Third-Party Pesos (P70,000.00) the contract price of the sale of the property, with interest at
Complaint against Berlina's husband, Pedro M. Silva (Pedro). 9 In an Order dated the legal rate from the date of the execution of the said document on March 3,
August 6, 1991, the RTC declared third-party defendant Pedro in default for failure 1988 until the amount is fully paid and for whatever amount that the third–party
to file an answer to the Third-Party Complaint. 10 plaintiffs were adjudged and paid to the plaintiff by reason of this decision and the
The undisputed facts of the case, as found by the RTC, are as follows: costs of suit.
1. That Transfer Certificate of Title No. B-37189 of the Registry of Deeds for xxx SO ORDERED.13
Metro Manila District III over a parcel of land (Lot 42, Block 10, of the subdivision Spouses Bautista filed an appeal with the CA which, in its November 21, 2001
plan (LRC) Psd-210217, Sheet 2, being a portion of Lot 903, Malinta Estate, LRC Decision, affirmed in toto the RTC decision;14 and, in a Resolution
Record No. 5941) situated in xxx Barrio of Parada, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, dated February 27, 2003, denied the Motion for Reconsideration. 15
containing an area of 216 square meters, more or less, was registered in the names Hence, the herein petition filed by Spouses Bautista praying that the CA Decision
of Spouses Berlina F. Silva and Pedro M. Silva on August 14, 1980; and Resolution be annulled and set aside on the following grounds:
2. That on March 3, 1988, Pedro M. Silva, for himself and as attorney-in-fact of his I. Respondent as represented by Hermes Dorado in his capacity as attorney-in-fact
wife Berlina F. Silva, thru a Special Power of Attorney purportedly executed on has no legal authority to file action against spouses petitioners.
November 18, 1987 by Berlina F. Silva in his favor, signed and executed a Deed of II. The petitioners are considered as purchasers in good faith and for value having
Absolute Sale over the said parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. relied upon a Special Power of Attorney which appears legal, valid and genuine on
B-37189 in favor of defendants-spouses Claro Bautista and Nida Bautista; and its face.
III. Gratia argumenti that the special power of attorney is a forgery and the deed of Whether or not petitioners are buyers for value in good faith is a question of fact
sale executed by the husband is null and void, the nullity [thereof] does not include not cognizable by us in a petition for review. 31 We resolve only questions of law; we
the one half share of the husband.16 do not try facts nor examine testimonial or documentary evidence on record. We
The petition fails for lack of merit. leave these to the trial and appellate courts to whose findings and conclusions we
As to the first ground, petitioners argue that for lack of authority of Dorado to accord great weight and respect, especially when their findings concur. 32 We may
represent respondent, the latter's Complaint failed to state a cause of action and have at times reversed their findings and conclusions but we resort to this only
should have been dismissed.17 under exceptional circumstances as when it is shown that said courts failed to take
The argument holds no water. into account certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a
True, there was no written authority for Dorado to represent respondent in the different conclusion.33 No such exceptional circumstance obtains in the present case
filing of her Complaint. However, no written authorization of Dorado was needed for we find the conclusions of the RTC and CA supported by the established facts
because the Complaint was actually filed by respondent, and not merely through and applicable law. However, we do not fully subscribe to some of their views on
Dorado as her attorney-in-fact. As correctly observed by the CA, respondent herself why petitioners cannot be considered in good faith, as we will discuss below.
signed the verification attached to the Complaint. 18 She stated therein that she is A holder of registered title may invoke the status of a buyer for value in good faith
the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 3091-V-89 and that she caused the preparation of the as a defense against any action questioning his title.34 Such status, however, is never
Complaint.19 Respondent also personally testified on the facts alleged in her presumed but must be proven by the person invoking it. 35
Complaint.20 In reality, respondent acted for and by herself, and not through any A buyer for value in good faith is one who buys property of another, without notice
representative, when she filed the Complaint. Therefore, respondent being the real that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays full and
party in interest, by virtue of the then prevailing Articles 166 21 and 17322 of the Civil fair price for the same, at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the
Code, the Complaint she filed sufficiently stated a cause of action. The sufficiency of claim or interest of some other persons in the property. He buys the property with
the Complaint was not affected by the inclusion of Dorado as party representative the well-founded belief that the person from whom he receives the thing had title
for this was an obvious error which, under Section 11 of Rule 3, 23 is not a ground for to the property and capacity to convey it.36
dismissal, as it may be corrected by the court, on its own initiative and at any stage To prove good faith, a buyer of registered and titled land need only show that he
of the action, by dropping such party from the complaint. 24 relied on the face of the title to the property. He need not prove that he made
Anent the second ground, there is no merit to petitioners' claim that they are further inquiry for he is not obliged to explore beyond the four corners of the
purchasers in good faith. title.37 Such degree of proof of good faith, however, is sufficient only when the
That the SPA is a forgery is a finding of the RTC and the CA on a question of following conditions concur: first, the seller is the registered owner of the
fact.25 The same is conclusive upon the Court, 26 especially as it is based on the land; 38 second, the latter is in possession thereof;39 and third, at the time of the
expert opinion of the NBI which constitutes more than clear, positive and sale, the buyer was not aware of any claim or interest of some other person in the
convincing evidence that respondent did not sign the SPA, and on the property,40 or of any defect or restriction in the title of the seller or in his capacity to
uncontroverted Certification of Dorado that respondent was in Germany working as convey title to the property.41
a nurse when the SPA was purportedly executed in 1987. Absent one or two of the foregoing conditions, then the law itself puts the buyer on
The SPA being a forgery, it did not vest in Pedro any authority to alienate the notice and obliges the latter to exercise a higher degree of diligence by scrutinizing
subject property without the consent of respondent. Absent such marital consent, the certificate of title and examining all factual circumstances in order to determine
the deed of sale was a nullity.27 the seller's title and capacity to transfer any interest in the property. 42 Under such
But then petitioners disclaim any participation in the forgery of the SPA or in the circumstance, it is no longer sufficient for said buyer to merely show that he relied
unauthorized sale of the subject property. They are adamant that even with their on the face of the title; he must now also show that he exercised reasonable
knowledge that respondent was in Germany at the time of the sale, they acted in precaution by inquiring beyond the title. 43 Failure to exercise such degree of
good faith when they bought the subject property from Pedro alone because the precaution makes him a buyer in bad faith.44
latter was equipped with a SPA which contains a notarial acknowledgment that the In the present case, petitioners were dealing with a seller (Pedro) who had title to
same is valid and authentic.28 They invoke the status of buyers in good faith whose and possession of the land but, as indicated on the face of his title, whose capacity
registered title in the property is already indefeasible and against which the remedy to sell was restricted, in that the marital consent of respondent is required before
of reconveyance is no longer available.29 In the alternative, petitioners offer that he could convey the property. To prove good faith then, petitioners must show that
should respondent be declared entitled to reconveyance, let it affect her portion they inquired not only into the title of Pedro but also into his capacity to sell.
only but not that of Pedro.30
According to petitioners, to determine Pedro's capacity to sell, they conducted the When the document under scrutiny is a special power of attorney that is duly
following forms of inquiry: first, they inspected the photocopy of the SPA presented notarized, we know it to be a public document where the notarial acknowledgment
to them by Pedro;45 second, they brought said copy to Atty. Lorenzo Lucero (the is prima facie evidence of the fact of its due execution. 51 A buyer presented with
notary public who prepared the deed of sale) and asked whether it was such a document would have no choice between knowing and finding out whether
genuine;46 and third, they inspected the original copy of the SPA after they a forger lurks beneath the signature on it. The notarial acknowledgment has
advanced payment of Php55,000.00 to Pedro.47 Essentially, petitioners relied on the removed that choice from him and replaced it with a presumption sanctioned by
SPA, specifically on its notarial acknowledgment which states that respondent law that the affiant appeared before the notary public and acknowledged that he
appeared before the notary public and acknowledged having executed the SPA in executed the document, understood its import and signed it. In reality, he is
favor of Pedro. deprived of such choice not because he is incapable of knowing and finding out but
The RTC and CA, however, found such inquiry superficial. They expected of because, under our notarial system, he has been given the luxury of merely relying
petitioners an investigation not only into the whereabouts of respondent at the on the presumption of regularity of a duly notarized SPA. And he cannot be faulted
time of the execution of the SPA48 but also into the genuineness of the signature for that because it is precisely that fiction of regularity which holds together
appearing on it.49 commercial transactions across borders and time.
We find such requirements of the RTC and CA too stringent that to adopt them In sum, all things being equal, a person dealing with a seller who has possession
would be to throw commerce into madness where buyers run around to probe the and title to the property but whose capacity to sell is restricted, qualifies as a buyer
circumstances surrounding each piece of sales document while sellers scramble to in good faith if he proves that he inquired into the title of the seller as well as into
produce evidence of its good order. Remember that it is not just any scrap of paper the latter's capacity to sell; and that in his inquiry, he relied on the notarial
that is under scrutiny but a SPA, the execution and attestation of which a notary acknowledgment found in the seller's duly notarized special power of attorney. He
public has intervened. need not prove anything more for it is already the function of the notarial
To what extent, therefore, should an inquiry into a notarized special power of acknowledgment to establish the appearance of the parties to the document, its
attorney go in order for one to qualify as a buyer for value in good faith? due execution and authenticity.52
We agree with one author who said: Note that we expressly made the foregoing rule applicable only under the operative
x x x To speak of "notice", as applied to the grantee, is to follow the language of the words "duly notarized" and "all things being equal." Thus, said rule should not apply
Statue of Elizabeth. Its proviso protects the man who purchases "upon good when there is an apparent flaw afflicting the notarial acknowledgment of the
consideration and bona fide * * * not having at the time * * * any manner of special power of attorney as would cast doubt on the due execution and
notice or knowledge." The term "notice", however, is really but an approach to the authenticity of the document; or when the buyer has actual notice of circumstances
test of good faith, and all modern legislation tends toward that point. outside the document that would render suspect its genuineness.
Thus, some present day statutes (outside of the Uniform Law) may speak of notice, In Domingo v. Reed,53 we found that the special power of attorney relied upon by
actual and constructive, and define both terms, but they should be "liberally the buyers contained a defective notarial acknowledgment in that it stated there
construed, so as to protect bona fide purchaser for value." They may require the that only the agent-wife signed the document before the notary public while the
grantee to have "knowledge" of the debtor's intent, but save for technical purposes principal-husband did not. Such flaw rendered the notarial acknowledgment of no
of pleading, the term is read in the light of the rules we are studying. It comes effect and reduced the special power of attorney into a private document. We
always to a question of the grantee's good faith as distinct from mere negligence. 50 declared the buyer who relied on the private special power of attorney a buyer in
There must, indeed, be more than negligence. There must be a conscious turning bad faith.
away from the subject x x x. As put by the Supreme Court, the grantee must take In Lao v. Villones-Lao,54 and Estacio v. Jaranilla,55 we found that the buyers knew of
the consequences if he "chooses to remain ignorant of what the necessities of the circumstances extrinsic to the special power of attorney which put in question the
case require him to know." The search, therefore, is described by the question, did actual execution of said document. In Domingo Lao, the buyer knew that the agent-
the grantee make a choice between not knowing and finding out the truth; or wife was estranged from the principal-husband but was living within the same city.
were the circumstances such that he was not faced with that choice? (Emphasis In the Estacio case, we found admissions by the buyers that they knew that at the
ours) time of the purported execution of the special power of attorney, the alleged
This means that no automatic correlation exists between the state of forgery of a principal was not in the Philippines. In both cases we held that the buyers were not
document and the bad faith of the buyer who relies on it. A test has to be done in good faith, not because we found any outward defect in the notarial
whether the buyer had a choice between knowing the forgery and finding it out, or acknowledgment of the special powers of attorney, but because the latter had
he had no such choice at all.
actual notice of facts that should have put them on deeper inquiry into the capacity
to sell of the seller.
In the present case, petitioners knew that Berlina was in Germany at the time they
were buying the property and the SPA relied upon by petitioners has a defective
notarial acknowledgment. The SPA was a mere photocopy 56 and we are not
convinced that there ever was an original copy of said SPA as it was only this
photocopy that was testified to by petitioner Nida Bautista and offered into
evidence by her counsel.57 We emphasize this fact because it was actually this
photocopy that was relied upon by petitioners before they entered into the deed of
sale with Pedro. As admitted to by petitioner Nida Bautista, upon inspection of the
photocopy of the SPA, they gave Pedro an advanced payment of Php55,000.00; this
signifies that, without further investigation on the SPA, petitioners had agreed to
buy the subject property from Pedro.
But then said photocopy of the SPA contains no notarial seal. A notarial seal is a
mark, image or impression on a document which would indicate that the notary
public has officially signed it.58 There being no notarial seal, the signature of the
notary public on the notarial certificate was therefore incomplete. The notarial
certificate being deficient, it was as if the notarial acknowledgment was unsigned.
The photocopy of the SPA has no notarial acknowledgment to speak of. It was a
mere private document which petitioners cannot foist as a banner of good faith.
All told, it was not sufficient evidence of good faith that petitioners merely relied on
the photocopy of the SPA as this turned out to be a mere private document. They
should have adduced more evidence that they looked beyond it. They did not.
Instead, they took no precautions at all. They verified with Atty. Lucero whether the
SPA was authentic but then the latter was not the notary public who prepared the
document. Worse, they purposely failed to inquire who was the notary public who
prepared the SPA. Finally, petitioners conducted the transaction in haste. It took
them all but three days or from March 2 to 4, 1988 to enter into the deed of sale,
notwithstanding the restriction on the capacity to sell of Pedro. 59 In no way then
may petitioners qualify as buyers for value in good faith.
That said, we come to the third issue on whether petitioners may retain the portion
of Pedro Silva in the subject property. Certainly not. It is well-settled that the nullity
of the sale of conjugal property contracted by the husband without the marital
consent of the wife affects the entire property, not just the share of the wife. 60 We
see no reason to deviate from this rule.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated November 21,
2001 and Resolution dated February 27, 2003 of the Court of Appeal are AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
6) Notarial Jurisdiction deceased Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura in accordance with Article 960 of the [Civil
Code], to wit: "Art. 960. Legal or intestate succession takes place: (1) If a person
DECISION dies without a will, or with a void will, or one which has subsequently lost its
CORONA, J.: validity, xxx."
The Scriptures tell the story of the brothers Jacob and Esau [1], siblings who fought SO ORDERED.[3]
bitterly over the inheritance of their father Isaac's estate. Jurisprudence is also
replete with cases involving acrimonious conflicts between brothers and sisters Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals but the appellate court
over successional rights. This case is no exception. dismissed the appeal and affirmed the resolution of the trial court. [4]
On February 19, 1994, Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura, mother of petitioner Bella A. Thus, this petition.[5]Petitioner admits that the will was acknowledged by the
Guerrero and respondent Resurreccion A. Bihis, died at the Metropolitan Hospital in testatrix and the witnesses at the testatrix's residence in Quezon City before Atty.
Tondo, Manila. On May 24, 1994, petitioner filed a petition for the probate of the Directo and that, at that time, Atty. Directo was a commissioned notary public for
last will and testament of the decedent in Branch 95 [2] of the Regional Trial Court of and in Caloocan City. She, however, asserts that the fact that the notary public was
Quezon City where the case was docketed as Sp. Proc. No. Q-94-20661. acting outside his territorial jurisdiction did not affect the validity of the notarial
The petition alleged the following: petitioner was named as executrix in the will. Did the will "acknowledged" by the testatrix and the instrumental witnesses
decedent's will and she was legally qualified to act as such; the decedent was a before a notary public acting outside the place of his commission satisfy the
citizen of the Philippines at the time of her death; at the time of the execution of requirement under Article 806 of the Civil Code? It did not.
the will, the testatrix was 79 years old, of sound and disposing mind, not acting
under duress, fraud or undue influence and was capacitated to dispose of her Article 806 of the Civil Code provides:
estate by will. Respondent opposed her elder sister's petition on the following ART. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator
grounds: the will was not executed and attested as required by law; its attestation and the witnesses. The notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of the
clause and acknowledgment did not comply with the requirements of the law; the will, or file another with the office of the Clerk of Court.
signature of the testatrix was procured by fraud and petitioner and her children One of the formalities required by law in connection with the execution of a notarial
procured the will through undue and improper pressure and influence. will is that it must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the
witnesses.[6] This formal requirement is one of the indispensable requisites for the
In an order dated November 9, 1994, the trial court appointed petitioner as special validity of a will.[7] In other words, a notarial will that is not acknowledged before a
administratrix of the decedent's estate. Respondent opposed petitioner's notary public by the testator and the instrumental witnesses is void and cannot be
appointment but subsequently withdrew her opposition. Petitioner took her oath as accepted for probate.
temporary special administratrix and letters of special administration were issued to
her. On January 17, 2000, after petitioner presented her evidence, respondent filed An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before
a demurrer thereto alleging that petitioner's evidence failed to establish that the some competent officer and declaring it to be his act or deed. [8] In the case of a
decedent's will complied with Articles 804 and 805 of the Civil Code. In a resolution notarial will, that competent officer is the notary public. The acknowledgment of a
dated July 6, 2001, the trial court denied the probate of the will ruling that Article notarial will coerces the testator and the instrumental witnesses to declare before
806 of the Civil Code was not complied with because the will was "acknowledged" an officer of the law, the notary public, that they executed and subscribed to the
by the testatrix and the witnesses at the testatrix's, residence at No. 40 Kanlaon will as their own free act or deed.[9] Such declaration is under oath and under pain
Street, Quezon City before Atty. Macario O. Directo who was a commissioned of perjury, thus paving the way for the criminal prosecution of persons who
notary public for and in Caloocan City. The dispositive portion of the resolution participate in the execution of spurious wills, or those executed without the free
read: consent of the testator.[10] It also provides a further degree of assurance that the
testator is of a certain mindset in making the testamentary dispositions to the
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds, and so declares that it persons instituted as heirs or designated as devisees or legatees in the will. [11]
cannot admit the last will and testament of the late Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura Acknowledgment can only be made before a competent officer, that is, a lawyer
to probate for the reasons hereinabove discussed and also in accordance with duly commissioned as a notary public.
Article 839 [of the Civil Code] which provides that if the formalities required by law
have not been complied with, the will shall be disallowed. In view thereof, the Court In this connection, the relevant provisions of the Notarial Law provide:
shall henceforth proceed with intestate succession in regard to the estate of the SECTION 237. Form of commission for notary public. -The appointment of a notary
public shall be in writing, signed by the judge, and substantially in the following unless the law itself declares its continuing validity. Here, mandatory and
form: prohibitory statutes were transgressed in the execution of the alleged
GOVERNMENT OF THE "acknowledgment." The compulsory language of Article 806 of the Civil Code was
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES not complied with and the interdiction of Article 240 of the Notarial Law was
PROVINCE OF ___________ breached. Ineluctably, the acts of the testatrix, her witnesses and Atty. Directo were
all completely void.
This is to certify that ____________, of the municipality of ________ in said
province, was on the ___ day of __________, anno Domini nineteen hundred and The Court cannot turn a blind eye to Atty. Directo's participation in the preparation,
_______, appointed by me a notary public, within and for the said province, for the execution and unlawful "acknowledgment" of Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura's will.
term ending on the first day of January, anno Domini nineteen hundred and _____. Had he exercised his notarial commission properly, the intent of the law to
effectuate the decedent's final statements[15] as expressed in her will would not
_________________ have come to naught.[16] Hence, Atty. Directo should show cause why he should not
Judge of the Court of be administratively sanctioned as a member of the bar and as an officer of the
irst Instance[12] of said court.
Province
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
SECTION 240. Territorial jurisdiction. - The jurisdiction of a notary public in a
province shall be co-extensive with the province. The jurisdiction of a notary public Costs against petitioner.
in the City of Manila shall be co-extensive with said city. No notary shall possess
authority to do any notarial act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction. (emphases Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
supplied) Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation on
A notary public's commission is the grant of authority in his favor to perform the possible misconduct of Atty. Macario O. Directo.
notarial acts.[13] It is issued "within and for" a particular territorial jurisdiction and
the notary public's authority is co-extensive with it. In other words, a notary public SO ORDERED.
is authorized to perform notarial acts, including the taking of acknowledgments,
within that territorial jurisdiction only. Outside the place of his commission, he is
bereft of power to perform any notarial act; he is not a notary public. Any notarial
act outside the limits of his jurisdiction has no force and effect. As this Court
categorically pronounced in Tecson v. Tecson:[14]

An acknowledgment taken outside the territorial limits of the officer's jurisdiction is

void as if the person taking it ware wholly without official character. (emphasis
supplied) Since Atty. Directo was not a commissioned notary public for and in
Quezon City, he lacked the authority to take the acknowledgment of the testatrix
and the instrumental witnesses. In the same vein, the testatrix and her witnesses
could not have validly acknowledged the will before him. Thus, Felisa Tamio de
Buenaventura's last will and testament was, in effect, not acknowledged as required
by law.

Moreover, Article 5 of the Civil Code provides:

ART. 5. Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall
be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity.

The violation of a mandatory or a prohibitory statute renders the act illegal and void
A.C. No. 7036 the same was not acted upon by Judge Laquindanum for three weeks.He alleged
JUDGE LILY LYDIA A. LAQUINDANUM, vs ATTY. NESTOR Q. QUINTANA that the reason for Judge Laquindanums inaction was that she questioned his
affiliation with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Cotabato City Chapter, and
DECISION required him to be a member of IBP Kidapawan City Chapter and to obtain a
  Certification of Payments from the latter chapter. Because of this, he opted to
PUNO, C.J.: withdraw his petition. After he withdrew his petition, he claimed that Judge
This administrative case against Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana (Atty. Quintana) stemmed Laquindanum sent a clerk from her office to ask him to return his petition, but he
from a letter[1] addressed to the Court filed by Executive Judge Lily Lydia A. did not oblige because at that time he already had a Commission for Notary
Laquindanum (Judge Laquindanum) of the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Public[10] issued by Executive Judge Reno E. Concha of the Regional Trial Court,
Cotabato requesting that proper disciplinary action be imposed on him for Branch 14, Cotabato City.
performing notarial functions in Midsayap, Cotabato, which is beyond the territorial  
jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial commission, and for Atty. Quintana lamented that he was singled out by Judge Laquindanum, because
allowing his wife to do notarial acts in his absence. the latter immediately issued notarial commissions to other lawyers without asking
In her letter, Judge Laquindanum alleged that pursuant to A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, for so many requirements. However, when it came to him, Judge Laquindanum
executive judges are required to closely monitor the activities of notaries public even tracked down all his pleadings; communicated with his clients; and
within the territorial bounds of their jurisdiction and to see to it that notaries public disseminated information through letters, pronouncements, and directives to court
shall not extend notarial functions beyond the limits of their authority. Hence, she clerks and other lawyers to humiliate him and be ostracized by fellow lawyers.
wrote a letter[2] to Atty. Quintana directing him to stop notarizing documents within  
the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Cotabato (which Atty. Quintana argued that he subscribed documents in his office at Midsayap,
is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his Cotabato; and Midsayap is part of the Province of Cotabato. He contended that he
notarial commission for Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao) since did not violate any provision of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, because he was
certain documents[3] notarized by him had been reaching her office. equipped with a notarial commission. He maintained that he did not act outside
  the province of Cotabato since Midsayap, Cotabato, where he practices his legal
However, despite such directive, respondent continuously performed notarial profession and subscribes documents, is part of the provinceof Cotabato. He
functions in Midsayap, Cotabato as evidenced by: (1) the Affidavit of Loss of ATM claimed that as a lawyer of good moral standing, he could practice his legal
Card[4] executed by Kristine C. Guro; and (2) the Affidavit of Loss of Drivers profession in the entire Philippines.
License[5] executed by Elenita D. Ballentes.  
  Atty. Quintana further argued that Judge Laquindanum had no authority to issue
Under Sec. 11, Rule III[6] of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Atty. Quintana could such directive, because only Executive Judge Reno E. Concha, who issued his
not extend his notarial acts beyond Cotabato City and notarial commission, and the Supreme Court could prohibit him from notarizing in
the Province of Maguindanao because Midsayap, Cotabato is not part the Province of Cotabato.
of Cotabato City or the Province of Maguindanao. Midsayap is part of  
the Province of Cotabato. The City within In a Resolution dated March 21, 2006,[11] we referred this case to the Office of the
the province of Cotabato is Kidapawan City, and not Cotabato City. Bar Confidant (OBC) for investigation, report and recommendation.
Judge Laquindanum also alleged that, upon further investigation of the matter, it  
was discovered that it was Atty. Quintanas wife who performed notarial acts In the February 28, 2007 Hearing[12] before the OBC presided by Atty. Ma. Crisitina
whenever he was out of the office as attested to by the Joint Affidavit [7]executed by B. Layusa (Hearing Officer), Judge Laquindanum presented a Deed of Donation,
[13]
Kristine C. Guro and Elenita D. Ballentes.  which was notarized by Atty. Quintana in 2004. [14]Honorata Rosil appears as one
  of the signatories of the document as the donors wife. However, Honorata Rosil
In a Resolution dated February 14, 2006,[8] we required Atty. Quintana to comment died on March 12, 2003, as shown by the Certificate of Death [15] issued by the Civil
on the letter of Judge Laquindanum. Registrar of Ibohon, Cotabato.
   
In his Response,[9] Atty. Quintana alleged that he filed a petition for notarial Judge Laquindanum testified that Atty. Quintana continued to notarize documents
commission before Branch 18, Regional Trial Court, Midsayap, Cotabato. However, in the years 2006 to 2007 despite the fact that his commission as notary public for
and in the Province of Maguindanao and Cotabato City had already expired on On March 5, 2007, Atty. Quintana submitted to the OBC the documents [25] issued by
December 31, 2005, and he had not renewed the same. [16] To support her claim, the IBP Cotabato City Chapter to prove that he had paid his IBP dues.
Judge Laquindanum presented the following: (1) Affidavit of Loss [of]  
Title[17] executed by Betty G. Granada with subscription dated April 8, 2006 In a Manifestation[26] dated March 9, 2007, Judge Laquindanum 
at Cotabato City; (2) Certificate of Candidacy[18] of Mr. Elias Diosanta Arabis with submitted a Certification[27] and its entries show that Atty. Quintana paid his IBP
subscription dated July 18, 2006; (3) Affidavit of Loss [of] Drivers License [19] executed dues for the year 2005 only on January 9, 2006 per Official Receipt (O.R.) No.
by Anecito C. Bernabe with subscription dated February 20, 2007 at Midsayap, 610381. Likewise, the arrears of his IBP dues for the years 1993, 1995, 1996, and
Cotabato; and (4) Affidavit of Loss[20] executed by Santos V. Magbanua with 1998 to 2003 were also paid only on January 9, 2006 per O.R. No. 610387. Hence,
subscription dated February 22, 2007 at Midsayap, Cotabato. when he filed his petition for notarial commission in 2004, he had not yet
  completely paid his IBP dues.
For his part, Atty. Quintana admitted that all the signatures appearing in the  
documents marked as exhibits of Judge Laquindanum were his except for the In its Report and Recommendation,[28] the OBC recommended that Atty. Quintana
following: (1) Affidavit of Loss of ATM Card[21] executed by Kristine C. Guro; and (2) be disqualified from being appointed as a notary public for two (2) years; and that if
Affidavit of Loss of Drivers License[22] executed by Elenita D. Ballentes; and (3) his notarial commission still exists, the same should be revoked for two (2)
Affidavit of Loss[23] executed by Santos V. Magbanua. He explained that those years. The OBC found the defenses and arguments raised by Atty. Quintana to be
documents were signed by his wife and were the result of an entrapment operation without merit, viz:
of Judge Laquindanum: to let somebody bring and have them notarized by his wife,  
when they knew that his wife is not a lawyer. He also denied the he authorized his Apparently, respondent has extended his notarial acts in Midsayap and Kabacan,
wife to notarize documents. According to him, he slapped his wife and told her to Cotabato, which is already outside his territorial jurisdiction to perform as Notary
stop doing it as it would ruin his profession. Public.
   
Atty. Quintana also claimed that Judge Laquindanum did not act on his petition, Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides, thus:
because he did not comply with her requirements for him to transfer his  
membership to the Kidapawan Chapter, wherein her sister, Atty. Aglepa, is the IBP Jurisdiction and Term A person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial
President. acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a
  period of two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the year in which the
On the one hand, Judge Laquindanum explained that she was only performing her commissioning court is made, unless earlier revoked [or] the notary public has
responsibility and had nothing against Atty. Quintana. The reason why she did not resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.
act on his petition was that he had not paid his IBP dues, [24]which is a requirement  
before a notarial commission may be granted. She told his wife to secure a Under the rule[,] respondent may perform his notarial acts within the territorial
certification of payment from the IBP, but she did not return. jurisdiction of the commissioning Executive Judge Concha, which is in Cotabato City
  and the [P]rovince of Maguindanao only. But definitely he cannot extend his
This was denied by Atty. Quintana, who claimed that he enclosed in his Response commission as notary public in Midsayap or Kabacan and in any place of
the certification of good standing and payments of his IBP dues. However, when the the province of Cotabato as he is not commissioned thereat to do such
same was examined, there were no documents attached thereto.Due to oversight, act. Midsayap and Kabacan are not part of either Cotabato City or [P]rovince of
Atty. Quintana prayed that he be given time to send them later which was granted Maguindanao but part of the province of North Cotabato. Thus, the claim of
by the Hearing Officer. respondent that he can exercise his notarial commission in Midsayap, Cotabato
  because Cotabato City is part of the province of Cotabato is absolutely devoid of
Finally, Atty. Quintana asked for forgiveness for what he had done and promised merit.
not to repeat the same. He also asked that he be given another chance and not be  
divested of his privilege to notarize, as it was the only bread and butter of his xxxx
family.  
  Further, evidence on record also shows that there are several documents which the
respondents wife has herself notarized. Respondent justifies that he cannot be
blamed for the act of his wife as he did not authorize the latter to notarize submitted himself to the commissioning court by filing his petition for issuance of
documents in his absence. According to him[,] he even scolded and told his wife not his notarial (sic) Notarial Practice. The commissioning court may or may not grant
to do it anymore as it would affect his profession. the said petition if in his sound discretion the petitioner does not meet the required
  qualifications for [a] Notary Public. Since respondent herein did not submit himself
In the case of Lingan v. Calubaquib et al., Adm. Case No. 5377, June 15, 2006 the to the procedural rules for the issuance of the notarial commission, he has no
Court held, thus: reason at all to claim that he can perform notarial act[s] in the entire country for
  lack of authority to do so.
A notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register; He  
cannot relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the buck to their (sic) Likewise, contrary to the belief of respondent, complainant being the
secretaries commissioning court in Midsayap, Cotabato has the authority under Rule XI of the
  2004 Rules on Notarial Practice to monitor the duties and responsibilities including
A person who is commissioned as a notary public takes full responsibility for all the liabilities, if any, of a notary public commissioned or those performing notarial acts
entries in his notarial register. Respondent cannot take refuge claiming that it was without authority in her territorial jurisdiction. [29]
his wifes act and that he did not authorize his wife to notarize documents. He is  
personally accountable for the activities in his office as well as the acts of his xxxx
personnel including his wife, who acts as his secretary.  
  We adopt the findings of the OBC. However, we find the penalty of suspension from
Likewise, evidence reveals that respondent notarized in 2004 a Deed of the practice of law for six (6) months and revocation and suspension of Atty.
Donation (Rollo, p. 79) wherein, (sic) Honorata Rosel (Honorata Rosil) one of the Quintana's notarial commission for two (2) years more appropriate considering the
affiants therein, was already dead at the time of notarization as shown in a gravity and number of his offenses.
Certificate of Death (Rollo, p.80)  issued by the Civil Registrar General of Libungan,  
Cotabato. After a careful review of the records and evidence, there is no doubt that Atty.
  Quintana violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional
Sec. 2, (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides, thus[:] Responsibility when he committed the following acts: (1) he notarized documents
  outside the area of his commission as a notary public; (2) he performed notarial
A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the acts with an expired commission; (3) he let his wife notarize documents in his
instrument or document (1) is not in the notarys presence personally at the time of absence; and (4) he notarized a document where one of the signatories therein was
the notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary public through already dead at that time.
competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.  
  The act of notarizing documents outside ones area of commission is not to be taken
Clearly, in notarizing a Deed of Donation without even determining the presence or lightly. Aside from being a violation of Sec. 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
qualifications of affiants therein, respondent only shows his gross negligence and Practice, it also partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. [30]Notarizing
ignorance of the provisions of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. documents with an expired commission is a violation of the lawyers oath to obey
  the laws, more specifically, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Since the public is
xxxx deceived into believing that he has been duly commissioned, it also amounts to
  indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath proscribes. [31] Notarizing
Furthermore, respondent claims that he, being a lawyer in good standing, has the documents without the presence of the signatory to the document is a violation of
right to practice his profession including notarial acts in the entire Philippines. This Sec. 2(b)(1), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, [32] Rule 1.01 of the Code
statement is barren of merit. of Professional Responsibility, and the lawyers oath which unconditionally requires
  lawyers not to do or declare any falsehood. Finally, Atty. Quintana is personally
While it is true that lawyers in good standing are allowed to engage in the practice accountable for the documents that he admitted were signed by his wife. He cannot
of law in the Philippines.(sic) However, not every lawyer even in good standing can relieve himself of liability by passing the blame to his wife. He is, thus, guilty of
perform notarial functions without having been commissioned as notary public as violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers
specifically provided for under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He must have not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
 
All told, Atty. Quintana fell miserably short of his obligation under Canon 7 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which directs every lawyer to uphold at all
times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
That Atty. Quintana relies on his notarial commission as the sole source of income
for his family will not serve to lessen the penalty that should be imposed on him. On
the contrary, we feel that he should be reminded that a notarial commission should
not be treated as a money-making venture. It is a privilege granted only to those
who are qualified to perform duties imbued with public interest. As we have
declared on several occasions, notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary
act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are
qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. The protection of that interest
necessarily requires that those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented
from imposing upon the public, the courts, and the administrative offices in general.
It must be underscored that notarization by a notary public converts a private
document into a public document, making that document admissible in evidence
without further proof of the authenticity thereof.[33]
 
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the notarial commission of Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana, if still
existing, is hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as
notary public for a period of two (2) years. He is also SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for six (6) months effective immediately, with a WARNING that the repetition
of a similar violation will be dealt with even more severely. He is DIRECTED to report
the date of his receipt of this Decision to enable this Court to determine when his
suspension shall take effect.
 
Let a copy of this decision be entered in the personal records of respondent as a
member of the Bar, and copies furnished the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, and the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the
country.
 
SO ORDERED.
 
A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC, January 21, 2015 said affidavit, however, was denied for authentication when presented before the
RE: VIOLATION OF RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE Notarial Section in Manila because Atty. Santos was not commissioned to perform
DECISION notarial commission within the City of Manila.
MENDOZA, J.:
This case stemmed from three (3) letter-complaints for Violation of Rules on The third letter-complaint8 came from a concerned citizen reporting that a certain
Notarial Practice endorsed to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for appropriate Atty. Evelyn who was holding office at Room 402 Leyba Bldg., 381 Dasmariñas
action. The first letter-complaint,1 dated March 2, 2009, was filed by the Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila, had been notarizing and signing documents for and on
commissioned notaries public within and for the jurisdiction of Lingayen, behalf of several lawyers.
Pangasinan, namely, Atty. Butch Cardinal Torio, Atty. Nepthalie Pasiliao, Atty.
Dominique Evangelista, and Atty. Elizabeth C. Tugade (complainants) before the In its Resolution,9 dated June 9, 2009, the Court directed the Executive Judge of the
Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Lingayen, Pangasinan (RTC-Lingayen) RTC-Lingayen to conduct a formal investigation on the complaint against Atty.
against Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. (Atty. Siapno) for notarizing documents without a Siapno and Executive Judge Reynaldo G. Ros (Judge Ros) of the RTC-Manila to
commission. conduct a formal investigation on the alleged violation of the Notarial Law by Atty.
Santos, and the illegal activities of a certain Atty. Evelyn, and thereafter, to submit a
In their letter, complainants alleged that Atty. Siapno was maintaining a notarial report and recommendation thereon.
office along Alvear Street East, Lingayen, Pangasinan, and was performing notarial
acts and practices in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City without the requisite Re: Complaint against Atty. Siapno
notarial commission. They asserted that Atty. Siapno was never commissioned as
Notary Public for and within the jurisdiction of Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan With regard to the complaint against Atty. Siapno, the Executive Judge conducted a
City. Instead, he applied and was commissioned to perform notarial functions by hearing wherein the complainants affirmed the allegations in their letter-complaint.
Executive Judge Anthony Sison of the RTC, San Carlos City, Pangasinan from March For his part, Atty. Siapno denied the accusations and averred that the law office in
22, 2007 to December 31, 2008. His notarial commission, however, was never Lingayen, Pangasinan, was not his and that Bautista and Arenas were not his
renewed upon expiration. Complainants presented evidence supporting their secretaries.10
allegations such as the pictures of Atty. Siapno’s law office in Lingayen, Pangasinan;
and documents to prove that Atty. Siapno performed acts of notarization in In her Report and Recommendation,11 the Executive Judge found that Atty. Siapno
Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City, to wit: (1) Addendum to Loan and Mortgage was issued a notarial commission within the jurisdiction of Lingayen, Pangasinan,
Agreement2 showing that the Promissory Note was notarized before Atty. Siapno in from January 20, 2003 to December 31, 2004 and February 8, 2005 to December 3,
Lingayen, Pangasinan in 2007; (2) Deed of Absolute Sale, 3 dated January 24, 2008, 2006. His commission, however, was cancelled on June 8, 2006 and he was not
notarized in Natividad, Pangasinan; (3) Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons issued another commission thereafter. The Executive Judge found Atty. Siapno to
Re: Given Name and Date of Birth,4 dated January 6, 2009, notarized in Dagupan have violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Commission when he performed notarial
City; and (4) Acknowledgement of Debt, 5dated January 24, 2008, notarized in functions without commission and recommended that he be fined in the amount of
Dagupan City. Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).

Complainants also averred that Atty. Siapno had delegated his notarial authority to The Court agrees with the findings of the Executive Judge but not to the
his secretaries, Mina Bautista (Bautista) and Mary Ann Arenas (Arenas), who wrote recommended penalty.
legal instruments and signed the documents on his behalf.
A review of the records and evidence presented by complainants shows that Atty.
On March 17, 2009, the RTC-Lingayen forwarded the said letter-complaint to the Siapno indeed maintained a law office in Lingayen, Pangasinan, just beside the law
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)6 which, in turn, indorsed the same to the office of one of the complainants, Atty. Elizabeth Tugade. It was also proven that
OBC. Atty. Siapno notarized several instruments with an expired notarial commission
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. Section 11, Rule III of
The second letter-complaint7 was filed by Audy B. Espelita (Espelita) against Atty. the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Pedro L. Santos (Atty. Santos). It alleged that in 2008, Espelita lost his driver’s Jurisdiction and Term – A person commissioned as notary public may perform
license and he executed an affidavit of loss which was notarized by Atty. Santos. The notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning
court for a period of two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the year
in which the commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked or the notary public has In a letter,17 dated July 29, 2013, Judge Ros informed the Court that he could not
resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court. have complied with the June 9, 2009 and August 4, 2009 orders of the Court
Under the rule, only persons who are commissioned as notary public may perform because he was no longer the Executive Judge of the RTC-Manila at that time. To
notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the court which granted the date, no formal investigation has been conducted on the alleged violation of Atty.
commission. Clearly, Atty. Siapno could not perform notarial functions in Lingayen, Santos and the reported illegal activities of a certain Atty. Evelyn.
Natividad and Dagupan City of the Province of Pangasinan since he was not
commissioned in the said places to perform such act. With respect to the complaints against Atty. Santos and a certain Atty. Evelyn, the
Clerk of Court is ordered to RE-DOCKET the same as separate administrative cases.
Time and again, this Court has stressed that notarization is not an empty,
meaningless and routine act. It is invested with substantive public interest that only The incumbent Executive Judge of the RTC-Manila, whether permanent or in acting
those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. 12 It must be capacity, is ordered to conduct a formal investigation on the matter and to submit
emphasized that the act of notarization by a notary public converts a private his Report and Recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of copy of this
document into a public document making that document admissible in evidence decision.
without further proof of authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full
faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe with WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the
utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. practice of law for two (2) years and BARRED PERMANENTLY from being
commissioned as Notary Public, effective upon his receipt of a copy of this decision.
By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission from the court, Atty.
Siapno violated not only his oath to obey the laws particularly the Rules on Notarial Let copies of this decision be furnished all the courts of the land through the Office
Practice but also Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which of the Court Administrator, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the
proscribes all lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful Bar Confidant, and be recorded in the personal files of the respondent.
conduct and directs them to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession,
at all times.13 With respect to the complaints against Atty. Pedro L. Santos and a certain Atty.
Evelyn, the Clerk of Court is ordered to RE-DOCKET them as separate administrative
In a plethora of cases, the Court has subjected lawyers to disciplinary action for cases. The Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Manila, is ordered to conduct
notarizing documents outside their territorial jurisdiction or with an expired a formal investigation on the matter and to submit his Report and Recommendation
commission. In the case of Nunga v. Viray,14 a lawyer was suspended by the Court within sixty (60) days from receipt of a copy of this decision.
for three (3) years for notarizing an instrument without a commission. In Zoreta v.
Simpliciano,15 the respondent was likewise suspended from the practice of law for a SO ORDERED.
period of two (2) years and was permanently barred from being commissioned as a
notary public for notarizing several documents after the expiration of his
commission. In the more recent case of Laquindanum v. Quintana,16 the Court
suspended a lawyer for six (6) months and was disqualified from being
commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years because he notarized
documents outside the area of his commission, and with an expired commission.

Considering that Atty. Siapno has been proven to have performed notarial work in
Ligayen, Natividad and Dagupan City in the province of Pangasinan without the
requisite commission, the Court finds the recommended penalty insufficient.
Instead, Atty. Siapno must be barred from being commissioned as notary public
permanently and suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.

Re: Complaints against Atty. Santos and Atty. Evelyn