Legal Ethics
the lawyer and the complainant or the nonpayment of the formers fees. 8 Hence, despite
Burba v Magulta
Facts:
A Complaint for the disbarment or suspension or any other disciplinary action against Atty.
Alberto C. Magulta. Filed by Dominador P. Burbe with the Commission on Bar Discipline of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Atty. Magulta represents Burba in the Civil case
regarding his business. However, even though Burba have already paid the fees for the
demand letter and other legal letters needed for the case, Burba have waited for notice
from the court but he did not received any information about the progress of his case.
Burba then filed a case for the deception, inconvenience and treatment he suffered. Atty.
Magulta denied the allegations to him. He contended that the petitioner never failed the
acceptance fee and other legal fees.
The IBPs Recommendation
In its Report and Recommendation dated March 8, 2000, the Commission on Bar Discipline
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) opined as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . [I]t is evident that the P25,000 deposited by complainant with the Respicio Law Office
was for the filing fees of the Regwill complaint. With complainants deposit of the filing
fees for the Regwill complaint, a corresponding obligation on the part of respondent was
created and that was to file the Regwill complaint within the time frame contemplated by
his client, the complainant. The failure of respondent to fulfill this obligation due to his
misuse of the filing fees deposited by complainant, and his attempts to cover up this
misuse of funds of the client, which caused complainant additional damage and prejudice,
constitutes highly dishonest conduct on his part, unbecoming a member of the law
profession: The subsequent reimbursement by the respondent of part of the money
deposited by complainant for filing fees, does not exculpate the respondent for his
misappropriation of said funds. Thus, to impress upon the respondent the gravity of his
offense, it is recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a
period of one (1) year."
The Courts Ruling
We agree with the Commissions recommendation.
Main Issue: Misappropriation of Clients Funds
Central to this case are the following alleged acts of respondent lawyer: (a) his non-filing
of the Complaint on behalf of his client and (b) his appropriation for himself of the money
given for the filing fee.
Lawyers must exert their best efforts and ability in the prosecution or the defense of the
clients cause. They who perform that duty with diligence and candor not only protect the
interests of the client, but also serve the ends of justice. They do honor to the bar and
help maintain the respect of the community for the legal profession. 5 Members of the bar
must do nothing that may tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the
fidelity, the honesty, and integrity of the profession.
A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very first moment complainant
asked respondent for legal advice regarding the formers business. To constitute
professional employment, it is not essential that the client employed the attorney
professionally on any previous occasion. It is not necessary that any retainer be paid,
promised, or charged; neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward
handle the case for which his service had been sought.
A lawyer-client relationship exists notwithstanding the close personal relationship between
the fact that complainant was kumpadre of a law partner of respondent, and that
respondent dispensed legal advice to complainant as a personal favor to the kumpadre,
the lawyer was duty-bound to file the complaint he had agreed to prepare and had
actually prepared at the soonest possible time, in order to protect the clients interest.
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that lawyers should not
neglect legal matters entrusted to them.
members of the bar often forget that the practice of law is a profession and not a
business. 11 Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law
advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. 12 The gaining of a livelihood is
not a professional but a secondary consideration. 13 Duty to public service and to the
administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must
subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves. The practice of law
is a noble calling in which emolument is a byproduct, and the highest eminence may be
attained without making much money. 14
In failing to apply to the filing fee the amount given by complainant as evidenced by
the receipt issued by the law office of respondent the latter also violated the rule that
lawyers must be scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to them in their
professional capacity. 15 Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that
lawyers shall hold in trust all moneys of their clients and properties that may come into
their possession.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Alberto C. Magulta is found guilty of violating Rules 16.01 and 18.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for a period of one (1) year, effective upon his receipt of this Decision. Let copies be
furnished all courts as well as the Office of the Bar Confidant, which is instructed to
include a copy in respondents file.
Re: Petition of Argosino
Facts:
Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the bar examinations held in 1993. The Court
however deferred his oath-taking due to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence
Resulting In Homicide.
The criminal case which resulted in petitioner's conviction, arose from the death of a
neophyte during fraternity initiation rites sometime in September 1991. Petitioner and
seven (7) other accused initially entered pleas of not guilty to homicide charges. The eight
(8) accused later withdrew their initial pleas and upon re-arraignment all pleaded guilty to
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
The trial court granted herein petitioner's application for probation.
On 11 April 1994, the trial court issued an order approving a report dated 6 April 1994
submitted by the Probation Officer recommending petitioner's discharge from probation.
On 14 April 1994, petitioner filed before this Court a petition to be allowed to take the
lawyer's oath based on the order of his discharge from probation.
On 13 July 1995, the Court through then Senior Associate Justice Florentino P. Feliciano
issued a resolution requiring petitioner Al C. Argosino to submit to the Court evidence that
he may now be regarded as complying with the requirement of good moral character
imposed upon those seeking admission to the bar.
In compliance with the above resolution, petitioner submitted no less than fifteen (15)
certifications/letters executed by among others two (2) senators, five (5) trial court
judges, and six (6) members of religious orders. Petitioner likewise submitted evidence
that a scholarship foundation had been established in honor of Raul Camaligan, the hazing
victim, through joint efforts of the latter's family and the eight (8) accused in the criminal
case.
On 26 September 1995, the Court required Atty. Gilbert Camaligan, father of Raul, to
comment on petitioner's prayer to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath.
In his comment, Atty. Camaligan states that As a Christian, he has forgiven petitioner and
his co-accused for the death of his son. However, as a loving father who had lost a son
whom he had hoped would succeed him in his law practice, he still feels the pain of an
untimely demise and the stigma of the gruesome manner of his death. He is not in a
position to say whether petitioner is now morally fit for admission to the bar. He therefore
submits the matter to the sound discretion of the Court.
After a very careful evaluation of this case, we resolve to allow petitioner Al Caparros
Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys and practice the legal
profession with the following admonition:
In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, the Court recognizes that Mr. Argosino
is not inherently of bad moral fiber. On the contrary, the various certifications show that
he is a devout Catholic with a genuine concern for civic duties and public service. The
Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts to atone for the death of Raul
Camaligan. We are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, taking judicial notice of
the general tendency of youth to be rash, temerarious and uncalculating.
We stress to Mr. Argosino that the lawyer's oath is NOT a mere ceremony or formality for
practicing law. Every lawyer should at ALL TIMES weigh his actions according to the sworn
promises he makes when taking the lawyer's oath. If all lawyers conducted themselves
strictly according to the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the
administration of justice will undoubtedly be faster, fairer and easier for everyone
concerned.
Caronan v Caronan
Facts: Richard Caronan, not obtaining a college degree, usurped the name of his brother,
Patrick Caronan, and his school records in order to enrol to a law school and eventually he
passed the bar using the name of Patrick. At first, Patrick did not confront Richard upon
learning that Richard indeed used his name and identity as a lawyer. However, due to the
controversies involving respondents use of the name, he filed a complaint-affidavit to
stop respondents use of the name. Respondent was involved in illegal practice of law and
Complainant feared for his own safety and security.
In his answer, respondent denied all the allegations and invoked res judicata as a defense.
He maintained that his identity can no longer be raised as an issue as it had already been
resolved in CBD Case No. 09-2362 where the IBP Board of Governors dismissed30 the
administrative case31 filed by Agtarap against him, and which case had already been
declared closed and terminated by this Court in A.C. No. 10074.32 Moreover, according to
him, complainant is being used by Reyes and her spouse, Brigadier General Joselito M.
Reyes, to humiliate,
disgrace, malign, discredit, and harass him because he filed several administrative and
criminal complaints against them before the Ombudsman.
The IBP-CBD conducted a scheduled mandatory conference twice but the two failed to
appear. IBP Investigating Commissioner Jose Villanueva Cabrera (Investigating
Commissioner) issued his Report and Recommendation,38 finding respondent guilty of
illegally and falsely assuming complainant's name, identity, and academic records. He
observed that respondent failed to controvert all the
allegations against him and did not present any proof to prove his identity. On the other
hand, complainant presented clear and overwhelming evidence that he is the real "Patrick
A. Caronan.
Since respondent falsely assumed the name, identity, and academic records of
complainant and the real "Patrick A. Caronan" neither obtained the bachelor of laws
degree nor took the Bar Exams, the
Investigating Commissioner recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" with Roll of
Attorneys No. 49069 be dropped and stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. 46 He also
recommended that respondent and the name "Richard A. Caronan" be barred from being
admitted as a member of the Bar; and finally, for
making a mockery of the judicial institution, the IBP was directed to institute appropriate
actions against respondent.
Issues: whether or not the IBP erred in ordering that: (a) the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be
stricken off the Roll of Attorneys; and (b) the name "Richard A. Caronan" be barred from
being admitted to the Bar.
Ruling: The court affirmed the findings and recommendations of the IBP.
To the Court's mind, the foregoing indubitably confirm that respondent falsely used
complainant's name, identity, and school records to gain admission to the Bar. Since
complainant - the real "Patrick A. Caronan" - never took the Bar Examinations, the IBP
correctly recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of
Attorneys.
The IBP was also correct in ordering that respondent, whose real name is "Richard A.
Caronan," be barred from admission to the Bar. Under Section 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court, no applicant for admission to the Bar Examination shall be admitted unless he had
pursued and satisfactorily completed a pre-law course, VIZ.:
Section 6. Pre-Law. - No applicant for admission to the bar examination
shall be admitted unless he presents a certificate that he has satisfied the Secretary of
Education that, before he began the study of law, he had pursued and satisfactorily
completed in an authorized and recognized university or college, requiring for admission
thereto the completion of a four-year high school course, the course of study prescribed
therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences with any of the following subject as
major or field of concentration: political science, logic, english, spanish, history, and
economics. (Emphases supplied)
The Court does not discount the possibility that respondent may later on
complete his college education and earn a law degree under his real name.
However, his false assumption of his brother's name, identity, and educational records
renders him unfit for admission to the Bar. The practice of law, after all, is not a natural,
absolute or constitutional right to be granted to everyone who demands it.57 Rather, it is
a privilege limited to citizens of good moral character.
Here, respondent exhibited his dishonesty and utter lack of moral fitness to be a member
of the Bar when he assumed the name, identity, and school records of his own brother
and dragged the latter into controversies which eventually caused him to fear for his
safety and to resign from PSC where he had been working for
years. Good moral character is essential in those who would be lawyers. This is imperative
in the nature of the office of a lawyer, the trust relation which exists between him and his
client, as well as between him and the court.
Finally, respondent made a mockery of the legal profession by pretending to have the
necessary qualifications to be a lawyer. He also tarnished the image of lawyers with his
alleged unscrupulous activities, which resulted in the filing of several criminal cases
against him. Certainly, respondent and his acts do not have a place in the legal profession
where one of the primary duties of its members is to uphold its integrity and dignity.
Arnado v Adaza
Facts: This is an administrative case against Atty. Homobono A. Adaza (respondent) for his
failure to comply with the requirements of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(MCLE) under Bar Matter No' 850.
In a letter from an assistant Executive Officer of the MCLE Office, forwarded to the Court
and informed the court that respondent applied for exemption for the First and Second
Compliance periods on the ground of expertise in law under Sec 3, Rule 7 BM No. 850.
The MCLE Governing Board denied the request. The respondent neither applied for
exemption nor complied with the third Compliance. In his Comment, respondent alleged
that he did not receive a copy of a letter from the Asst. Executive Officer. He stated that
he was wodering why his application for the exemption could not be granted. He further
alleged that he did not receive a formal denial of his application for exemption by the
MCLE Governing Board.
Respondent enumerated his achievements as a lawyer a claimed that he had been
practicing law for about 50 years. And that he had written five books. Thus, he asked for a
reconsideration of the notice for him to undergo MCLE. He asked for an exemption from
MCLE compliance, or in the alternative, for him to be allowed to practice law while
complying with th MCLE requirements.
In the report and recommendation of the OBC, it emphasized that "in order to be
exempted (fiom compliance) pusuant to expertise in law under Section 3, Rule 7 of Bar
Matter No. 850, the applicant must submit sufficient, satisfactory ahd cbnvincing proof to
establish his expertise in a certain area of law." The OBC reported that respondent failed
to meet the requirements necessary for the exemption.
The OBC further reported that under Rule 12 of Bar Matter No. 850 and Section 12 of the
MCLE Implementing Regulations, non-compliance with the MCLE requirements shall result
to the dismissal of the case and the striking out of the pleadings from the records. The
OBC also reported that under Section 12(d) of the MCLE Implementing Regulations, a
member of the Bar who failed to comply with the MCLE requirements is given 60 days
from receipt of notification to explain his deficiency or to show his compliance with the
requirements. Section 12(e) also provides that a member who fails to comply within the
given period shall pay a noncompliance
fee of P1,000 and shall be listed as a delinquent member of the
Inte;rated Bar of the Philippines '(IBP) upon the recommendation of the MCLE Governing
Board.
The OBC recommended that respondent be declared a delinquent member of the Bar and
guilty of non-compliance with the MCLE requirements. The OBC further recommended
respondent's suspension from the practice of law for six months with a stem warning that
a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely. The
OBC also recommended that respondent be directed to comply with the requirements set
forth by the MCLE Governing Board.
Issue: The only issue here is whether respondent is administratively liable for his failure to
comply with the MCLE requirements.
Ruling: Bar Matter No. 850 requires members of the IBP to undergo continuing legal
education "to ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and
jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the
practice of law."
The records of the MCLE Office showed that respondent failed to comply with the four
compliance periods. The records also showed that respondent filed an application for
exemption only on 5 January 2009. According to the MCLE Governing Board, respondent's
application for exemption covered the First and Second Compliance Periods' Respondent
did not apply for exemption for the Third Compliance Period' The MCLE Governing' -Board
denied respondent's application for-
exemption on 14 January 2009 on the ground that the application did not meet the
requirements of expertise in law under Section 3, Rule 7 of Bar Matter No. 850.
Clearly, respondent had been remiss in his responsibilities by failing to comply with Bar
Matter No. 850. His application for exemption for the First and Second Compliance Periods
was filed after the compliance periods had ended. He did not follow-up the status of his
application for exemption' He fumished the Court with his letter dated 7 February 201210
to the MCLE
Ofiice asking the office to act on his application for exemption but alleged that his
secretary failed to send it to the MCLE Office. He did not comply with the Fourth
Compliance Period.
The Court notes the lackadaisical attitude of respondent towards complying with the
requirements of Bar Matter No. 850. He assumed that his application for exemption, filed
after the compliance periods, would be granted.
Respondent's failure to comply with the MCLE requirements and disregard ofthe directives
ofthe MCLE Offrce warant his declaration as a delinquent member of the IBP While the
MCLE Implementing Regulations state that the MCLE Committee should recommend to the
IBP Board of
Govemors the listing of a lawyer as a delinquent member, there is nothing that prevents
the Court from using its administrative power and supervision to discipline erring lawyers
and from directing the IBP Board of Governors to declare such lawyers as delinquent
members of the IBP.
The OBC recommended respondent's suspension from the practice of
law for six months. We agree. In addition, his listing as a delinquent member of the IBP is
also akin to suspension because he shall not be permitted to practice law until such time
as he'submits proof of full compliance to the
IBP Board of Govemors, and the IBP Board of Govemors has notified the MCLE Committee
of his reinstatement. under Section 14 of the MCLE.
Implementing Regulations. Hence, we deem it proper to declare respondent as a
delinquent member ofthe IBP and to suspend him from the practice of law for six months
or until he has fully complied with the requirements of the MCLE for the First,
Second,.Third, and Fourth Compliance Periods, whichever is later, and he has fully paid
the required non-compliance and
reinstatement fees.

Additional cases: Notary Public
Nunga v. Viray
Facts: In his complaint, Victor Nunga seeks the disbarment of respondent Venancio Viray
on the ground of grave misconduct for notarizing documents without a commission to do
so.After issues were joined, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines conducted an
investigation.
Victor D. Nunga, president of the Masantol Rural Bank filed a complaint for disbarment
against Atty. Venancio M. Viray on the ground of gross and serious misconduct for
notarizing documents when he was not commissioned to do so at the time the said
documents were executed. Complainant allegedly discovered that one of the banks assets
consisting of 250 square meters house and lot in Kalookan City was sold without proper
bidding by its manager Jesus B. Manansala to Jesus Carlo Gerard M. Viray, a minor born
February 2, 1969 during the transaction on May 22, 1987. The deed of absolute sale was
notarized by the respondent who is not only the father of the buyer minor but also a
stockholder and legal counsel of the vendor bank and was not duly commissioned as
notary public as of that date.
Complainant further alleged that the said minor vendee wasnt capable to buy the said
property at its value of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00) but his parents
Atty. and Mrs. Venancio Viray, respondent herein. Being a minor he must [have been]
represented by a guardian in the said transaction. fter the title was allegedly issued in the
name of the minor vendee, the same title was allegedly used by Respondent and his wife
in mortgaging a property.
The aforesaid acts of Respondent allegedly constitute not only unprofessional and
unethical misconduct unbecoming of a lawyer but also gross and serious malpractice
which justifies disbarment.
Respondent for his part alleged in his comment that the sale of the lot by the Masantol
Rural Bank Inc. to his son was allegedly done in good faith all the formalities required by
law [were] properly complied with and the complaint from all indications is a leverage in
persuading him into a possible compromise. Respondent alleged that he was always
commissioned as notary public and the fact that Pampanga is under several feet of
floodwaters, he could not annex all the needed documents to support the
allegations. According to Respondent, there was no year in his practice of law that he was
not commissioned as notary public. In fact, in the alleged documents he had PTR for that
purpose [, and] he would not [have obtained] a commission without the PTR.
Complainant submitted certification and the respective orders of the Clerk of Court and
presiding judges in support of his contention, and previous certification issued by the
Clerk of Court of Pampanga to the effect that Respondent Atty. Venancio Viray had been
commissioned to act as notary public for the said province and had no record of any
notarial reports. These therefore negate respondents allegation that he [has been]
commissioned as notary public since 1965 to the present.
Nowhere from the records and evidence[] submitted was there any proof that Respondent
was commissioned as notary public in 1987 and 1991.
The respondents contention that he had a PTR for all the documents he prepared is only
an indication that the Professional Tax Receipt is a license for him to engage in the
practice of his profession as a lawyer but not a commission for him to act as notary public.
Inasmuch as Respondent was not able to counteract the averments of Complainant which
were duly supported with evidence[], it is apparent that Respondent violated the
provisions of the notarial law by having affixed his official signatures to the aforesaid
documents with the intent to impart the appearance of notarial authenticity thereto when
in fact as of those dates 1987 and 1991 he was not commissioned as notary public.
Ruling: the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar promulgated Resolution No. XIII-98-
196 adopting the Report of the Investigating Commissioner and recommending that
respondents commission as a notary public be revoked and that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for three months.
We concur with the finding of the Investigating Commissioner that respondent Atty.
Venancio Viray did not have a commission as notary public in 1987 and 1991 when he
notarized the assailed documents. Respondent knew that he could not exercise the
powers or perform the duties of a notary public unless he was duly appointed as such
pursuant to the Notarial Law (Chapter 11, Title IV, Book I, Revised Administrative Code).He
tried to impress upon the investigating commissioner that since 1965 to date he has
always been commissioned as a notary public. Yet, he was unable to rebut complainants
evidence that he was not so commissioned for the years in question.
We have emphatically stressed that 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 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.
The offender may be subjected to disciplinary action, for it is a violation of the lawyers
oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law. Further, it will be a violation of
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Prof. Responsibility as well as Canon 7 of the same
Code, w/c directs every lawyers to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession.
Needless to state, respondent cannot escape from disciplinary action in his capacity as a
notary public and as a member of the Philippine Bar. However, the penalty recommended
by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is too light. Respondent
must be barred from being commissioned as a notary public for three (3) years, and
suspended from the practice of law for also three (3) years.
Lee v. Tambago
Facts: Complainant Manuel L. Lee charged respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago with
violation of the Notarial Law and the ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a spurious
last will and testament. In his complaint, complainant averred that his father, the
decedent Vicente Lee, Sr., never executed the contested will. Furthermore, the spurious
will contained the forged signatures of Cayetano Noynay and Loreto Grajo, the purported
witnesses to its execution.
Complainant further asserted that no copy of such purported will was on file in the
archives division of the Records Management and Archives Office of the National
Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA).
Respondent in his comment dated July 6, 2001 claimed that the complaint against him
contained false allegations. He alleged that complainant was not a legitimate son of
Vicente Lee, Sr. and the last will and testament was validly executed and actually
notarized by respondent per affidavit of Gloria Nebato, common-law wife of Vicente Lee,
Sr. and corroborated by the joint affidavit of the children of Vicente Lee, Sr., namely Elena
N. Lee and Vicente N. Lee, Jr. xxx. Respondent further stated that the complaint was filed
simply to harass him because the criminal case filed by complainant against him in the
Office of the Ombudsman did not prosper.
Respondent further stated that the complaint was filed simply to harass him because the
criminal case filed by complainant against him in the Office of the Ombudsman did not
prosper.
The Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
report and recommendation.
the investigating commissioner found respondent guilty of violation of pertinent provisions
of the old Notarial Law as found in the Revised Administrative Code. The violation
constituted an infringement of legal ethics, particularly Canon 1 [11] and Rule 1.01[12] of the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). [13] Thus, the investigating commissioner of the
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the suspension of respondent for a
period of three months.
Ruling:
The Court affirmed with modification.
A will is an act whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities prescribed by law, to
control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate, to take effect after his death. [15] A
will may either be notarial or holographic.
The law provides for certain formalities (exercised by a person permitted by law,
subscribed the testator himself and should be attested by three or more credible
witnesses) that must be followed in the execution of wills. The object of solemnities
surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door on bad faith and fraud, to avoid
substitution of wills and testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity. These
formalities are mandatory and cannot be disregarded, considering the degree of
importance and evidentiary weight attached to notarized documents. A notary public,
especially a lawyer, is bound to strictly observe these elementary requirements.
Nevertheless, respondent should be faulted for having failed to make the necessary
entries pertaining to the will in his notarial register. The old Notarial Law required the
entry of the following matters in the notarial register, in chronological order:
1. nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him;
2. person executing, swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument;
3. witnesses, if any, to the signature;
4. date of execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the instrument;
5. fees collected by him for his services as notary;
6. give each entry a consecutive number; and
7. if the instrument is a contract, a brief description of the substance of the instrument.
Defects in the observance of the solemnities prescribed by law render the entire will
invalid. This carelessness cannot be taken lightly in view of the importance and delicate
nature of a will, considering that the testator and the witnesses, as in this case, are no
longer alive to identify the instrument and to confirm its contents. [34]Accordingly,
respondent must be held accountable for his acts. The validity of the will was seriously
compromised as a consequence of his breach of duty.
Respondent, as notary public, evidently failed in the performance of the elementary duties
of his office. Contrary to his claims that he exercised his duties as Notary Public with due
care and with due regard to the provision of existing law and had complied with the
elementary formalities in the performance of his duties xxx, we find that he acted very
irresponsibly in notarizing the will in question. Such recklessness warrants the less severe
punishment of suspension from the practice of law. It is, as well, a sufficient basis for the
revocation of his commission[50] and his perpetual disqualification to be commissioned as a
notary public.
FLORES VS. CHUA
306 SCRA 465
FACTS:
The complainant seeks the disbarment of respondent Atty. Chua, a practicing lawyer and a
notary public, for various offenses amounting to malpractice, gross misconduct, violation
of his lawyers oath, the CPR as well as the provisions of the laws of the Philippines, to wit:
(a) Fraud through falsification and forgery of public document; (b) foisting falsehood and
fabricated public document to molest and harass parties; and (c) libel, misrepresentation
and unlawful advertisement.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the charges against Atty. Chua sufficient to warrant disciplinary action
against him.
HELD:
Yes. When a notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed upon his shoulder
by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the
doing of any. The Code of Professional Responsibility also commands him not to engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and to uphold at all times the integrity
and dignity of legal profession. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal
proficiency as well as honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts, and to
his clients.