Tali,SarahJeanZerrosaA.

3B
GregoryFabayvsAtty.RexA.Resuena
A.CNo.8723,January26,2016,ENBANC(percurium)
Shorttitle:FabayvsResuena
Topic:thiscaseisabouttheviolationof2004RulesofNotarialParactice
Facts:
OnOctober15,2003,acomplaintforejectmentwasfiledbyVirginia,Marcella,Amador,Gloria,Garcia
and Valentino Perez (plaintiffs) against Gregory Fabay, herein complainant, while Atty. Resuena, herein
respondent,wasthecounseloftheplaintiffs.
Onthesamedaythattheejectmentwasfiled,atty.ResuenanotarizedanSPA.TheSPAwasexecutedby
theplaintiffsinfavorofApoloD.Perez.However,itappearsthatitwasonlyRemedioPerezwhoactually
signedtheSPAinbehalfofAmador,Valentino,GloriaandGarciaPerez. Theejectmentcasewaslateron
decidedinfavoroftheplaintiffs.
Statementofthecase:

HencethecomplainantFabayfiledanadministrativecaseagainstAtty.ResuenaintheSupremeCourt
foranallegedviolationoftheprovisionsoftheNotarialLaw.FabayarguedthatAtty.Resuananotarizedthe
SPAdespitethefactthattwoofthegrantors,namelyAmadorandValentino,hadalreadydiedpriortothe
executionoftheSPA.Atty.ResuenaallowedthemtoberepresentedbyRemedioswithoutproperauthorityof
thelaw.
Atty.ResuenainhisanswerarguedthatiteventhoughitwasRemedioswhosignedtheSPAonbehalf
ofthegrantors,therewasnomisrepresentationsinceRemediosisthespouseofAmadoraandshewaslikewise
previouslyauthorizedbytheothercoowner,GlorianadGarciaPeres,torepresentthem.
The Supreme Court resolve the case by referring in to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
investigation,reportandrecommendation/decision
TheIBPCBDfoundAtty.ResuenaguiltyoftheviolationundertheprovisionsoftheNotariallaw,due
tothefactthattherespondentallowstheSPAtobenotarizedevenifthepersonsinvolvedassignatoryofthe
documentwerenotpersonallypresentbeforehim.Furthermorehefailedtopresentevidencethatwouldshow
theauthorityofRemediostosigntheSPA. Thus,IBPCBDrecommendedthathisnotarialcommissionbe
revokedandthathebedisqualifiedtobecommissionedasnotarypublicfor1year.
ThecomplainantfiledanMotionforrecommendationandprayedthatthedecisionbesetasideand
insteadofthepenaltyofsuspensionbeimposedagainstAtty,Resuenaasanerringmemberofthebarandnot
merelyasanotarypublic.
theIBPBoardofGovernors,deniedcomplainant'smotionforreconsideration,butmodifiedthepenalty
imposedtotwo(2)yearsdisqualificationfromnotarialpractice.

Issue:1.WhetherornotAtty.ResuanaviolatedtheNotarialLaw
Ruling:
1. Yes,Atty.ResuanaviolatedtheprovisionsoftheNotariallaw.
UnderSection2(b)ofRuleIVofthe2004RulesonNotarialPracticestressesthenecessity
oftheaffiant'spersonalappearancebeforethenotarypublic:
xxxx
(b)Apersonshallnotperformanotarialactifthepersoninvolvedassignatorytothe
instrumentordocument
(1)isnotinthenotary'spresencepersonallyatthetimeofthe
notarization;and
(2)isnotpersonallyknowntothenotarypublicorotherwiseidentifiedbythe
notarypublicthroughcompetentevidenceofidentityasdefinedbytheseRules.

Hence,anotarypublicshouldnotnotarizeadocumentunlessthepersonswhosignedthesamearethe
verysamepersonswhoexecutedandpersonallyappearedbeforehimtoattesttothecontentsandtruthofwhat
arestatedtherein.Thepurposeofthisrequirementistoenablethenotarypublictoverifythegenuinenessofthe
signatureoftheacknowledgingpartyandtoascertainthatthedocumentistheparty'sfreeactanddeed.
Intheinstantcase,itisundisputedthatAtty.Resuenaviolatednotonlythenotariallawbutalsohis
oathasalawyerwhenhenotarizedthesubjectSPAwithoutalltheaffiant'spersonalappearance.Asfoundby
theIBPCBD,thepurposeoftheSPAwastoauthorizeacertainApoloD.Pereztorepresenttheprincipals"to
sueandbesuedinanyadministrativeorjudicialtribunalinconnectionwithanysuitthatmayariseoutoftheir
properties." It is,thus,appallingthatAtty.ResuenapermittedRemediosPereztosignonbehalfofAmador
PerezandValentinoPerezknowingfullywellthatthetwowerealreadydeadatthattimeandmoresowhenhe
justifiedthatthelatter'snameswereneverthelessnotincludedintheacknowledgmentalbeittheyaresignatories
oftheSPA.EquallydeplorableisthefactthatRemedioswaslikewiseallowedtosignonbehalfofGraciaPerez
andGloriaPerez,whoweresaidtoberesidingabroad.Worse,hedeliberatelyallowedtheuseofthesubject
SPAinanejectmentcasethatwasfiledincourt.Ineffect,Atty.Resuena,innotarizingtheSPA,contented
himselfwithRemedios'representationoffourofthesixprincipalsoftheSPA,doingawaywiththeactual
physicalappearanceofalltheparties.ThereisnoquestionthenthatAtty.Resuenaignoredthebasicsofnotarial
procedureandactuallydisplayedhisclearignoranceoftheimportanceoftheofficeofanotarypublic.Notonly
didheviolatethenotariallaw,healsodidsowithoutthinkingofthepossibledamagethatmightresultfromits
nonobservance.
Atty.Resuena'sfailuretoperformhisdutyasanotarypublicresultednotonlydamagetothosedirectly
affectedbythenotarizeddocumentbutalsomadeamockeryoftheintegrityofanotarypublicanddegradedthe
functionofnotarization.Moreso,inthiscase,whereAtty.Resuenabeingthecounseloftheplaintiffsaffiants
canbeassumedtohaveknownthecircumstancesofthesubjectcase,aswellasthefactthataffiantsAmador
PerezandValentinoPerezwerealreadydeceasedatthetimeoftheexecutionofthesubjectSPA.Having
appearedtohaveintentionallyviolatedthenotariallaw,Atty.Resuenahas,infact,allowedhimselftobean
instrumentoffraudwhichthisCourtwillnottolerate.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Rex A.Resuena is found GUILTY of malpractice as a notary

public,andofviolatingthelawyer'soathaswellasRule1.01,Canon1oftheCodeofProfessional
Responsibility. Accordingly, he is DISBARRED from the practice of law and likewise
PERPETUALLYDISQUALIFIEDfrombeingcommissionedasanotarypublic.