A.C. No.

10132, March 24, 2015

HEIRS OF PEDRO ALILANO REPRESENTED BY DAVID ALILANO, Complainants, v. ATTY. ROBERTO E.
EXAMEN, Respondent.
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before us is a complaint1 for disbarment filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) by the heirs of Pedro
Alilano against Atty. Roberto E. Examen for misconduct and malpractice for falsifying documents and presenting these as
evidence in court thus violating the Lawyers Oath, 2Canons 1,3 104 and 19,5 and Rules 1.01,6 1.02,7 10.01,8 and 19.019 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Pedro Alilano and his wife, Florentina, were the holders of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-23261 covering a
98,460 sq. m. parcel of land identified as Lot No. 1085 Pls-544-D located in Paitan, Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat. Pedro
and Florentina died on March 6, 1985 and October 11, 1989, respectively.
It appears that on March 31, 1984 and September 12, 1984 Absolute Deeds of Sale 10 were executed by the Spouses
Alilano in favor of Ramon Examen and his wife, Edna. Both documents were notarized by respondent Atty. Roberto
Examen, brother of the vendee. Sometime in September 1984, Spouses Examen obtained possession of the property.
On January 12, 2002, the heirs of Alilano filed a suit for recovery of possession before the Regional Trial Court of Sultan
Kudarat against Edna Examen and Atty. 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.
On November 15, 2003,12 the heirs of Alilano filed this complaint alleging that Atty. Examen, based on Barretto v.
Cabreza,13 violated the notarial law when he notarized 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 civil degree or affinity within
the second civil degree. It is also alleged that Atty. Examen notarized the documents knowing that the cedula or
residence certificate number used by Ramon Examen was not actually his but the residence certificate number of
Florentina. Atty. Examen also falsely acknowledged that the two witnesses personally appeared before him when they did
not. Lastly, it is alleged that despite knowing the infirmities of these documents, Atty. Examen introduced these
documents into evidence violating his oath as a lawyer and the CPR.
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 where one of the parties is related to him by consanguinity and affinity.14 With
regard to the use of Florentinas residence certificate as Ramons, Atty. Examen said that he was in good faith and that it
was office practice that the secretary type details without him personally examining the output. 15 In any event, he
reasoned that the use of anothers residence certificate is not a ground for disbarment and is 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 Discipline Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Section 1, Rule VIII, be revised to include a prescription
period for professional misconduct: within two years from the date of the act. 16cralawred
In its Report and Recommendation,17 the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) 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
evidence to support the complainants contention that the Spouses Alilano did not voluntarily and knowingly convey their
property, i.e. denials under oath by attesting witnesses and NBI Report by Handwriting Expert Jennifer Dominguez stating
that Pedro Alilanos signature in the September 1984 Absolute Deed of Sale was significantly different from the specimen
signatures. It also noted that Ramon Examens residence certificate number, date and place of issue were also falsified
since the residence certificate actually belonged to Florentina Pueblo. It thus recommended that the penalty of
disbarment be imposed.
The IBP Board of Governors (BOG) in its June 26, 2007 Resolution 18 adopted the IBP CBDs report but modified the
penalty to suspension from the practice of law for a period of two years and a suspension of Atty. Examens Notarial
Commission for a period of two years.
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 suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year and disqualification
from re-appointment as Notary Public for a period of two years. 19cralawred

We agree with the IBP that Atty. Examen is administratively liable and hereby impose a modified penalty.
In disbarment cases the only issue that is to be decided by the Court is whether the member of the bar is fit to be allowed
the privileges as such or not.20 It is not therefore the proper venue for the determination of whether there had been a
proper conveyance of real property nor is it the proper proceeding to take up whether witnesses signatures were in fact
forged.
NO PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS FOR
ACTS OF ERRING MEMBERS OF THE BAR
In Frias v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada,21 the Court En Banc opined that there can be no prescription in bar discipline cases. It
pointed out this has been the policy since 1967 with the Courts ruling in Calo, Jr. v. Degamo22 and reiterated in Heck v.
Santos23 where we had the chance to state:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
If the rule were otherwise, members of the bar would be emboldened to disregard the very oath 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 completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for. It is the duty of this Court to
protect the integrity of the practice of law as well as the administration of justice. No matter how much time has elapsed
from the time of the commission of the act complained of and the time of the institution of the complaint, erring members
of the bench and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court. This categorical pronouncement is aimed at
unscrupulous members of the bench and bar, to deter them from committing acts which violate the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, or the Lawyers Oath. x x x
Thus, even the lapse of considerable time from the commission of the offending act to the institution of the administrative
complaint will not erase the administrative culpability of a lawyer. (Italics supplied) 24cralawlawlibrary
We therefore ruled in Frias, that Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the IBP CBD was void and had no legal
effect for being ultra vires and thus null and void.25cralawred
This ruling was reiterated in the more recent case of Bengco v. Bernardo,26 where the Court stated that putting a
prescriptive period on administrative cases involving members of the bar would only serve to embolden them to disregard
the very oath 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 completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to
answer for.
Atty. Examens defense of prescription therefore is of no moment and deserves scant consideration.
THE SPANISH NOTARIAL LAW OF
1889 WAS REPEALED BY THE REVISED
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1917
Prior to 1917, governing law for notaries public in the Philippines was the Spanish Notarial Law of 1889. However, the law
governing Notarial Practice is changed with the passage of the January 3, 1916 Revised Administrative Code, which took
effect in 1917. In 2004, the Revised Rules on Notarial Practice27 was passed by the Supreme Court.
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 Notarial Law of 1889. Thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
It is petitioners contention that Notary Public Mateo Canonoy, who was related to the parties in the donation within the
fourth civil degree of affinity, was, under Articles 22 and 28 of the Spanish Notarial Law, incompetent and disqualified to
authenticate the deed of donation executed by the Kapunan spouses in favor of their daughter Concepcion Kapunan
Salcedo. Said deed of donation, according to petitioners, became a mere private instrument under Article 1223 of the old
Civil Code, so that under the ruling laid down in the case of Barretto vs. Cabreza (33 Phil., 413), the donation was
inefficacious. The appellate court, however, in the decision complained of held that the Spanish Notarial Law has been
repealed with the enactment of Act No. 496. We find this ruling to be correct. In the case of Philippine Sugar Estate vs.
Poizart (48 Phil., 536), cited in Vda. de Estuart vs. Garcia (Adm. Case No. 212, prom. February 15, 1957), this Court held
that The old Spanish notarial law and system of conveyance was repealed in the Philippines and another and
different notarial law and system became the law of the land with the enactment of Act No. 496.29 (Emphasis
supplied)cralawlawlibrary
In this case, the heirs of Alilano stated that Atty. Examen was prohibited to notarize the absolute deeds of sale since he

was related by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree with the vendee, Ramon. The prohibition might have still
applied had the applicable rule been the Spanish Notarial Law. However, following the Courts ruling in Kapunan, the law
in force at the time of signing was the Revised Administrative Code, thus, the prohibition was removed. Atty. Examen was
not incompetent to notarize the document even if one of the parties to the deed was a relative, his brother. As correctly
observed by the IBP CBD:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
At the time of notarization, the prevailing law governing notarization was Sections 231-259, Chapter 11 of the Revised
Administrative Code and there was no prohibition on a notary public from notarizing a document when one of the
interested parties is related to the notary public within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or second degree of
affinity.30cralawlawlibrary
Note must be taken that under 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule IV, Section 3(c), a notary public is disqualified
among others to perform the notarial act if he is related by affinity or consanguinity to a principal within the fourth civil
degree, to wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 3. Disqualifications. A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he:
xxxx
(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within
the fourth civil degree.cralawlawlibrary
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 conjunction with the provisions of the Notarial Law.
NOTARIES PUBLIC MUST PERFORM
THEIR DUTIES DILIGENTLY AND
WITH UTMOST CARE
In Nunga v. Atty. Viray,31 this Court stated:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
[N]otarization 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 the 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. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. For this reason, notaries public must
observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. 32 (Emphasis supplied; citations
omitted)cralawlawlibrary
Thus under the prevailing law at the time of notarization it was the duty of the notary public to comply with the
requirements of the Notarial Law. This includes the duty under Chapter 11, Section 251 of the Revised Administrative
Code:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 251. Requirement as to notation of payment of cedula [residence] tax. Every contract, deed, or other document
acknowledged before a notary public shall have certified thereon that the parties thereto have presented their proper
cedula [residence] certificates or are exempt from the cedula [residence] tax, and there shall be entered by the notary
public as a part of such certification the number, place of issue, and date of each cedula [residence] certificate as
aforesaid.
cralawlawlibrary
Under Chapter 11, Section 249 of the Revised Administrative Code provided a list of the grounds for
disqualification:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 249. Grounds for revocation of commission. The following derelictions of 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:
xxxx
(f) The failure of the notary to make the proper notation regarding cedula certificates.chanrobleslaw

xxxx
cralawlawlibrary
In Soriano v. Atty. Basco,33 the Court stated that notaries public are required to follow formalities as these are mandatory
and cannot be simply neglected. Thus, the Notarial Law requires them to certify that a party to the instrument
acknowledged before him has presented the proper residence certificate (or 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
revocation of a notarys commission. The Court said:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
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 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 sacrosanct. He cannot simply
disregard the requirements and solemnities of the Notarial Law.34 (Emphasis supplied)cralawlawlibrary
Here, based on the submission of the complainants, it is clear that the residence certificate number used by Ramon
Examen and as notarized by Atty. Examen in both Absolute Deeds of Sale was not in fact the residence certificate of
Ramon but Florentinas residence certificate number.35 Atty. Examen interposes that he was in good faith in that it was
office practice to have his secretary type up the details of the documents and requirements without him checking the
correctness of same.
A notary public must discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy and
fidelity.36 Good faith cannot be a mitigating circumstance in situations since the duty to function as a notary public is
personal. We note that the error could have been prevented had Atty. Examen diligently performed his functions:
personally checked the correctness of the documents. To say that it was his secretarys fault reflects disregard and
unfitness to discharge the functions of a notary public for it is he who personally acknowledges the document. He was
behooved under Section 251, Chapter 11 of the Revised Administrative Code to check if the proper cedulas were
presented and inspect if the documents to be acknowledged by him reflected the correct details. This Court cannot stress
enough that notarization is not a routinary act. It is imbued with substantive public interest owing to the public character of
his duties37.
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 disbarment proceeding. We disagree.
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 Court which provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. A member of the bar may be
disbarred or suspended from his office as 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 a crime involving moral turpitude, or
for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any
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 cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.cralawlawlibrary
By his negligent act of not checking the work of his secretary and merely 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 lawyers 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 appellants
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-appellants, 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 lawyers 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 Courts decision in Caalim-Verzonilla v.
Pascua.46cralawred
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto E. Examen is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for TWO (2)
YEARS. In addition, his present notarial commission, if any, is hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from
reappointment as a notary public for a period of two (2) years from finality of this Decision. He is further WARNED that
any similar act or infraction in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondents personal record
as an attorney, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Department of Justice and all courts in the country for their
information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.

A.C. No. 10695, March 18, 2015

CRESCENCIANO M. PITOGO, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSELITO TROY SUELLO, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
LEONEN, J.:
Crescenciano M. Pitogo (Pitogo) purchased a motorcycle from Emcor, Inc. However, Emcor, Inc. allegedly failed to cause
the registration of the motorcycle under his name. Pitogo, thus, filed a Civil Complaint before the Regional Trial Court
against EMCOR, Inc.1
The motorcycle was eventually registered in Pitogos name based on three (3) documents notarized by respondent Atty.
Joselito Troy Suello (Suello).2 The documents indicate that they are registered in Suellos notarial register as follows:
1. Deed of Assignment between
Maria P. Ponce / Rogelio
Ponce and EMCOR, Inc.
2. Deed of Sale with Assumption
of Mortgage between Maria P.
Ponce and Mariza G. Ono-on
3. Deed of Sale with Assumption
of Mortgage between Mariza
G. Ono-on and Crescenciano M.
Pitogo

Doc. No. 436;

Book No. 83;
Page No. 88;
Series of 20093
Doc. No. 437,
Page No. 88;
Book No. 83,
Series of 20094
Doc. No. 235;
Page No. 85;
Book No. 83;
Series of 20095

Pitogo obtained a copy of the three (3) documents from the Land Transportation Office, Danao City, Cebu. On August 3,
2009, he went to Suellos office to have them certified. Pitogo claims that when he called Suello the next day to tell him
about the importance of these documents to his civil case, Suello disowned the documents. 6 Suello instead ordered his
secretary to give Pitogo a copy of his notarial register.7
In the letter dated August 7, 2009, Pitogo reiterated to Suello that the documents were important in his civil case pending
before the Regional Trial Court. He requested Suello to certify the authenticity and veracity of the three (3) documents he
obtained from the Land Transportation Office.8 He wanted to determine if the documents were duly notarized by Suello or
were merely fabricated.9 Pitogo did not receive a reply from Suello.10
On September 10, 2009, Pitogo filed his Affidavit-Complaint against Suello before the Cebu Chapter of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines. Pitogo alleges that there were discrepancies between the three (3) documents notarized by Suello and
Suellos entries in his notarial register.11
Specifically, Pitogo claims that Suellos notarial register showed that the above entries pertain to the following documents:
a. Doc. No. 436: Deed of Absolute Sale of Mr. Roel D. Rago; 12
b. Doc. No. 437: Deed of Absolute Sale of Mrs. Conchita Pitogo Tautho; 13
c. Doc. No. 235: Contract to Sell of BF Property Development Corporation. 14
In his Answer to the Affidavit-Complaint, Suello denies having notarized the three (3) documents obtained from the Land
Transportation Office.15 He denies the allegation that he disowned the documents. 16 He admits that he certified the
documents as true copies.17
In his Position Paper, Suello explains that it was his secretary who certified Pitogos documents on August 3, 2009. 18
Pitogo called Suello the next day to ask for a certification. 19 When he advised Pitogo that he can get it at his office after
verifying the documents, Pitogo informed him that his secretary already certified them as true copies. 20 Suello told Pitogo
that his secretary was not given such authority.21
Suello also claims that Pitogo threatened to file an administrative case against him if he did not issue a certification stating
whether the documents were really notarized by him or were fabricated. 22 According to Suello, Pitogo needed the

certification that the three (3) documents used to register the motorcycle under his name were fabricated so he could
claim P1.7 million in damages for EMCOR, Inc.s alleged non-registration of his motorcycle. 23 Pitogos claim against
EMCOR, Inc. was apparently mooted by the registration of the motorcycle under his name.
On January 10, 2012, Commissioner Hector B. Almeyda of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines recommended Suellos suspension from the active practice of law for six (6) months, as well as the revocation
of his commission as a notary public. He also recommended Suellos disqualification as notary public for two (2) years. 24
On April 15, 2013, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors issued the Resolution adopting and approving
the findings of Commissioner Almeydas recommendation but further recommended to increase the penalty of
disqualification as notary public to four (4) years, thus:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution as Annex A, and finding the recommendation fully supported by evidence on record and the applicable laws
and rules and considering respondent violated the Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty.
Joselito Troy Suellos Notarial Commission is hereby REVOKED immediately if presently commissioned
and DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as Notary Public for four (4) years.25 (Emphasis in the original)
Suello filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the April 15, 2013 Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors
Resolution based on the ground that the penalty imposed on him was excessive:
1. That the sanction imposed is excessive. The respondent realizes that the mere existence of those documents with his
notarization makes him inevitably answerable for them. Regardless how unaware he may be of how these came about,
he is still the only one to answer for them. Not the complainant and not any party who may have access to his office
implements to do this. It made him aware of the need review his procedure to avoid these mistakes. Respondent
however finds the sanction against him is much too excessive and respectfully invokes the following, to wit:
A. This is the first infraction lodged against him in his 15 years of practice.
B. The respondent is not in bad faith and has no dishonest or selfish motive.
C. There is no actual or potential injury caused to any private party; 26

Suello also apologized for his oversight:

2. That substantial justice has not been done. The respondent completely understands that this matter only pertains to
him and his liability and not about anybody or anything else. His indignation distracted him to the mistaken belief that the
complainants dubious motives would not merit his complaint attention because he did not come with clean hands. After
being properly reminded, the respondent realizes his mistake and respectfully apologizes for his oversight to this
Honorable Commission. The respondent finds it however grossly unjust that he is imposed with such sanction for
resisting to accommodate and be a part of the unscrupulous undertaking sought to be accomplished motivating the
complaint which is much bigger wrong.27
On May 3, 2014, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors issued the Resolution partially granting Suellos
Motion for Reconsideration, thus:
RESOLVED to DENY Respondents Motion for Reconsideration, there being no cogent reason to reverse the findings of
the Commission and the resolution subject of the motion, it being a mere reiteration of the matters which had already
been threshed out and taken into consideration under Resolution No. XX-2013-416 dated April 15, 2013. However the
Board DEEMED it judicious to reduce the penalty imposed on Atty. Joselito Troy Suello from DISQUALIFICATION from
reappointment as Notary Public from four (4) years to two (2) years. The IMMEDIATE REVOCATION of his Notarial
Commission, if existing, under said Resolution stands. 28 (Emphasis in the original)
After reviewing the case records and considering the parties submissions, this court adopts the findings of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors in its May 3, 2014 Resolution but modifies the penalties imposed upon
respondent Atty. Joselito Troy Suello.
Respondent is administratively liable for his negligence in keeping and maintaining his notarial register. Recording every
notarial act in the notarial register is required under Rule VI the Notarial Rules, 29 thus:

Sec. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. (a) For every notarial act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the
time of the notarization the following:
(1) The entry number and page number;
(2) The date and time of day of the notarial act;
(3) The type of notarial act;
(4) The title or description of the instrument, document or proceeding;
(5) The name and address of each principal;
(6) The competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules if the signatory is not personally known to the notary;
(7) The name and address of each credible witness swearing to or affirming the persons identity;
(8) The fee charged for the notarial act;
(9) The address where the notarization was performed if not in the notarys regular place of work or business; and
(10) Any other circumstance the notary public may deem of significance or relevance.
....
(e) The notary public shall give to each instrument or document executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a
number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state on the instrument or document the page/s of his
register on which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries.
Failure to properly record entries in the notarial register is also a ground for revocation of notarial commission:
SECTION 1. Revocation and Administrative Sanctions. . . . .
(b) In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of, or impose appropriate administrative sanctions upon,
any notary public who:
....
(2) fails to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register concerning his notarial acts[.] 30
Notarial acts give private documents a badge of authenticity that the public relies on when they encounter written
documents and engage in written transactions. Hence, all notaries public are duty-bound to protect the integrity of notarial
acts by ensuring that they perform their duties with utmost care. This court explained in Bote v. Judge Eduardo:31
A notarial register is prima facie evidence of the facts there stated. It has the presumption of regularity and to contradict
the veracity of the entry, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant. . . .
....
. . . Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with such substantial public interest that only
those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public
document, making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. For this reason, notaries
must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of
the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined. 32
Hence, when respondent negligently failed to enter the details of the three (3) documents on his notarial register, he cast
doubt on the authenticity of complainants documents. He also cast doubt on the credibility of the notarial register and the
notarial process. He violated not only the Notarial Rules but also the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires
lawyers to promote respect for law and legal processes. 33
Respondent also appears to have committed a falsehood in the pleadings he submitted. In his Answer to complainants
Affidavit-Complaint, respondent claimed that he certified complainants documents as true copies. 34 Later, in his Position
Paper, he passed the blame to his secretary.35 This violates the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits
lawyers from engaging in dishonest and unlawful conduct. 36
Respondents secretary cannot be blamed for the erroneous entries in the notarial register. The notarial commission is a
license held personally by the notary public. It cannot be further delegated. It is the notary public alone who is personally
responsible for the correctness of the entries in his or her notarial register.37 Respondents apparent remorse may
assuage the injury done privately, but it does not change the nature of the violation.
Besides, respondents remorse was displayed after a penalty was recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Board of Governors. It was not motivated by a realization of a wrong committed on an individual but only by a desire to
temper the penalty. It came too late.

In Agadan, et al. v. Atty. Kilaan,38 the same violations of Notarial Rules and Code of Professional Responsibility were
meted with the penalty of one-year suspension of notarial commission and three-month suspension from the practice of
law.39 We find the same penalties proper under the circumstances.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Joselito Troy Suello GUILTY of violating Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for three (3) months and is STERNLY WARNED that any similar violation will be dealt with more severely. His notarial
commission is immediately revoked if presently commissioned. He is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as
notary public for one (1) year.
SO ORDERED.

A.C. No. 9514

April 10, 2013

BERNARD N. JANDOQUILE, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. QUIRINO P. REVILLA, JR., Respondent.
RESOLUTION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before us is a complaint1 for disbarment filed by complainant Bernard N. Jandoquile against respondent Atty. Quirino P.
Revilla, Jr.
The Facts of the case are not disputed.
Atty. Revilla, Jr. notarized a complaint-affidavit 2 signed by Heneraline L. Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa and Elmer L.
Alvarado. Heneraline Brosas is a sister of Heizel Wynda Brosas Revilla, Atty. Revilla, Jr.'s wife. Jandoquile complains that
Atty. Revilla, Jr. is disqualified to perform the notarial act 3 per Section 3( c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
which reads as follows:
SEC. 3. Disqualifications. A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he:
xxxx
(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal 4 within
the fourth civil degree.
Jandoquile also complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not require the three affiants in the complaint-affidavit to show their
valid identification cards.
In his comment5 to the disbarment complaint, Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not deny but admitted Jandoquiles material allegations.
The issue, according to Atty. Revilla, Jr., is whether the single act of notarizing the complaint-affidavit of relatives within the
fourth civil degree of affinity and, at the same time, not requiring them to present valid identification cards is a ground for
disbarment. Atty. Revilla, Jr. submits that his act is not a ground for disbarment. He also says that he acts as counsel of
the three affiants; thus, he should be considered more as counsel than as a notary public when he notarized their
complaint-affidavit. He did not require the affiants to present valid identification cards since he knows them personally.
Heneraline Brosas and Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa are sisters-in-law while Elmer Alvarado is the live-in houseboy of the
Brosas family.
Since the facts are not contested, the Court deems it more prudent to resolve the case instead of referring it to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation.
Indeed, Atty. Revilla, Jr. violated the disqualification rule under Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice. We agree with him, however, that his violation is not a sufficient ground for disbarment.
Atty. Revilla, Jr.s violation of the aforesaid disqualification rule is beyond dispute. Atty. Revilla, Jr. readily admitted that he
notarized the complaint-affidavit signed by his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. Section 3(c), Rule IV of the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly disqualifies him from notarizing the complaint-affidavit, from performing the
notarial act, since two of the affiants or principals are his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. Given the clear
provision of the disqualification rule, it behooved upon Atty. Revilla, Jr. to act with prudence and refuse notarizing the
document. We cannot agree with his proposition that we consider him to have acted more as counsel of the affiants, not
as notary public, when he notarized the complaint-affidavit. The notarial certificate 6 at the bottom of the complaint-affidavit
shows his signature as a notary public, with a notarial commission valid until December 31, 2012.
He cannot therefore claim that he signed it as counsel of the three affiants.

On the second charge, we agree with Atty. Revilla, Jr. that he cannot be held liable. If the notary public knows the affiants
personally, he need not require them to show their valid identification cards. This rule is supported by the definition of a
"jurat" under Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. A "jurat" refers to an act in which an individual on a
single occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document; (b) is personally
known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity; (c) signs the
instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to
such instrument or document. In this case, Heneraline Brosas is a sister of Atty. Revilla, Jr.s wife; Herizalyn Brosas
Pedrosa is his wifes sister-in-law; and Elmer Alvarado is the live-in houseboy of the Brosas family. Atty. Revilla, Jr. knows
the three affiants personally. Thus, he was justified in no longer requiring them to show valid identification cards. But Atty.
Revilla, Jr. is not without fault for failing to indicate such fact in the "jurat" of the complaint-affidavit. No statement was
included therein that he knows the three affiants personally.7 Let it be impressed that Atty. Revilla, Jr. was clearly
disqualified to notarize the complaint-affidavit of his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. While he has a valid
defense as to the second charge, it does not exempt him from liability for violating the disqualification rule.
As we said, Atty. Revilla, Jr.s violation of the disqualification rule under Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice is not a sufficient ground to disbar him. To our mind, Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not commit any deceit, malpractice,
gross misconduct or gross immoral conduct, or any other serious ground for disbarment under Section 27, 8 Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court. We recall the case of Maria v. Cortez9 where we reprimanded Cortez and disqualified him from being
commissioned as notary public for six months. We were convinced that said punishment, which is less severe than
disbarment, would already suffice as sanction for Cortezs violation. In Cortez, we noted the prohibition in Section 2(b),
Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice that a person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as
signatory to the instrument or document (1) is not in the notarys presence personally at the time of the notarization and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through a competent evidence
of identity. Cortez had notarized a special power of attorney without having the alleged signatories appear before him. In
imposing the less severe punishment, we were mindful that removal from the Bar should not really be decreed when any
punishment less severe such as reprimand, temporary suspension or fine would accomplish the end desired.1wphi1
Considering the attendant circumstances and the single violation committed by Atty. Revilla, Jr., we are in agreement that
a punishment less severe than disbarment would suffice.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr., is REPRIMANDED and DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned
as a notary public, or from performing any notarial act if he is presently commissioned as a notary public, for a period of
three (3) months. Atty. Revilla, Jr. is further DIRECTED to INFORM the Court, through an affidavit, once the period of his
disqualification has lapsed.
SO ORDERED.