A.C. No. 7184               September 17, 2014 FELIPE B. ALMAZAN, SR., Complainant, vs. ATTY. MARCELO B.
On reconsideration,21 the IBP Board of Governors, in a Resolution22 dated March 8, 2014, modifiedthe penalty stated
SUERTE-FELIPE, Respondent. R E S O L U T I O NPERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
This is an administrative case against respondent Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe (respondent) for malpractice as a
notary public, among others.
The Facts
In a Complaint1 dated April 27, 2006, complainant Felipe B. Almazan, Sr. (complainant) charged respondent,
previously of the Public Attorney's Office,2 for malpractice and gross negligence in the performance of his duty as a
notary public and/or lawyer, alleging that the latter, despite not having been registered as a notary public for the City of
Marikina, notarized the acknowledgment of the document entitled "Extra judicial Settlement of the Estate of the
Deceased Juliana P. Vda. De Nieva"3 dated "25th day of 1999" (subject document), stating that he is a "notary public
for and in the City of Marikina."4 Said document was one of the attachments to the Amended Complaint5 dated August
14, 2003 filed in Civil Case No. 03-849-MK entitled "Esperanza Nieva Dela Cruz[(as represented by respondent)] v.
Brita T. Llantada[(as represented by complainant)]." To prove his claim, complainant attached a Certification6 dated
May 26, 2005 issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City, certifying
that per the court’s record, respondent is not a commissioned notary public for the Cityof Marikina from March 30,
1994 to the date of issuance. In a Resolution7 dated July 5, 2006, the Court required respondent to file his
Comment8 which he eventually submitted on February 13, 2007 after proper service. In said pleading, respondent
admitted that he indeed notarized the acknowledgment of the subject document but denied that he was not
commissioned as a notary public at that time.9 To prove his defense, he attached a Certification10 dated August 23,
2006 issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Pasig City, certifying the fact of his appointment as notary
public for the City of Pasigand in the Municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and Mandaluyong for the years
1998-1999 under Appointment No. 98.11 Further, respondent, thru the comment, incorporated his own administrative
complaint against complainant for malpractice and harassment of a fellow lawyer in view of the filing of the instant
administrative case against him.12
In response, complainant filed a Reply13 dated April 26, 2007 asserting that he has the legitimate rightto file the
administrative complaint against respondent for his unlawful act of notarization, which is not an act of harassment as
respondent claims. He alsodraws attention to the fact that the subject document was incompletely dated and yet
notarized by respondent.14 In a Resolution15 dated July 11, 2007, the Court,inter alia, referred the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. Eventually, both parties
appeared during the mandatory conference held on April 30, 2008.16
The Report and Recommendation of the IBP
In a Report and Recommendation17 dated September 22, 2008, the IBP Investigating Commissioner foundrespondent
guilty for violating the Notarial Law and the lawyer’s oath, reasoning that he could not notarize the acknowledgment of
the subject document inMarikina City as it was outside the territorial limits of his jurisdiction. To this end, the
Investigating Commissioner pointed out that in the acknowledgment of the subject document, it was categorically
stated that respondent is a notary public for and in the City of Marikina, Province ofRizal, of which he was not, hence,
violating the Notarial Law. Moreover,respondent likewise violated the lawyer’s oath, specifically its mandate for
lawyers, to obey the laws and do no falsehood.18
In view of the foregoing, it was thus recommended that respondent be suspended for a period of two (2) years from
the practice of law. However, since it does not appear that he was still commissioned as a notary public, the
Investigating Commissioner did not recommend that he be disqualified as such.19
In a Resolution20 dated October 9, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner with modification, decreasing the penalty of suspension to one (1)
year, with immediate revocation of notarial commission if presently commissioned, and disqualification from being
commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.
Page 1 of 15
in its previous resolution, imposing, instead, the penalty ofreprimand with warning, and disqualification from being
commissioned as a notary public for the decreased period of one (1) year.
The Issue Before the Court
The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable.
The Court’s Ruling
The Court concurs with the findings of the IBP except as to the penalty.
As the Investigating Commissioner correctly observed, respondent, who himself admitted that he was commissioned
as notary public only in the City of Pasig and the Municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and Mandaluyong for the
years 1998-1999, could not notarize the subject document’s acknowledgment in the City ofMarikina, as said notarial
act is beyond the jurisdiction of the commissioning court, i.e.,the RTC of Pasig. The territorial limitation of a notary
public’s jurisdiction is crystal clear from Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice:23 Sec. 11.
Jurisdiction and Term– A person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning courtfor a period of two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the
year in which the commissioning court is made, unless either revoked or the notary public has resigned under these
Rules and the Rules of Court. (Emphasis supplied)
Said principle is equally echoed in the Notarial Law found in Chapter 12, Book V, Volume I of the Revised
Administrative Code of 1917, as amended,24 of which Section 240, Article II states:
Sec. 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 in the City of Manila shall be co-extensive with said city. No notary shall
possess authority to doany notarial act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction. (Emphases supplied)
For misrepresenting in the said acknowledgment that he was a notary public for and in the City of Marikina, when it is
apparent and, in fact, uncontroverted that he was not, respondent further committed a form of falsehood which is
undoubtedly anathemato the lawyer’s oath. Perceptibly, said transgression also runs afoul of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct."
In the case of Tan Tiong Bio v. Atty. Gonzales,25 citing Nunga v. Atty. Viray,26 the Court instructively expounded on
infractions similar to that of respondent:
While seemingly appearing to be a harmless incident, respondent’s act of notarizing documents in a place outside of
or beyond the authority granted by his notarial commission, partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. While
perhaps not on all fours because of the slight dissimilarity inthe violation involved, what the Court said in Nunga v.
Virayis very much apropos: 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 todo so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action. For one,
performing a notarial [act] without such commission is a violation of the lawyer’s 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 false hood, which the lawyer’s 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."
It cannot be over-emphasized that notarization isnot an empty, meaningless, routinary act. Far from
it.1âwphi1 Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized
may act as notaries public. Hence, the requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public are treated with
a formality definitely more than casual.27 (Emphases supplied)
With respondent’s liability herein established, and considering further the attendant circumstances of this case, take for
instance, that he is a first time offender and that he had already acknowledged his wrongdoings,28 the Court finds that
suspension for a period of six (6) months29 from the practice of law would suffice as a penalty. In addition, he is
disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of one (1) year and, his notarial commission, if
currently existing, is hereby revoked.30
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe is found GUILTY of malpractice as a notary public,and
violating the lawyer’s oath as well as Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, effective upon his receipt of this Resolution, with
a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same orsimilar acts will be dealt with more severely. He is likewise
DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of one (1) year and his notarial commission,
if currently existing, is hereby REVOKED.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent's personal
record as attorney. Further, let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the
Office of the Court Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all the courts in the country for their information
and guidance. SO ORDERED.
A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC, January 21, 2015 RE: VIOLATION OF RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This case stemmed from three (3) letter-complaints for Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice endorsed to the Office of
the Bar Confidant (OBC) for appropriate action. The first letter-complaint,1 dated March 2, 2009, was filed by the
commissioned notaries public within and for the jurisdiction of Lingayen, Pangasinan, namely, Atty. Butch Cardinal
Torio, Atty. Nepthalie Pasiliao, Atty. Dominique Evangelista, and Atty. Elizabeth C. Tugade (complainants) before the
Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Lingayen, Pangasinan (RTC-Lingayen) against Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr.
(Atty. Siapno) for notarizing documents without a commission.
In their letter, complainants alleged that Atty. Siapno was maintaining a notarial office along Alvear Street East,
Lingayen, Pangasinan, and was performing notarial acts and practices in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City
without the requisite notarial commission. They asserted that Atty. Siapno was never commissioned as Notary Public
for and within the jurisdiction of Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City. Instead, he applied and was commissioned to
perform notarial functions by Executive Judge Anthony Sison of the RTC, San Carlos City, Pangasinan from March 22,
2007 to December 31, 2008. His notarial commission, however, was never renewed upon expiration. Complainants
presented evidence supporting their 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 Lingayen, Natividad and
Dagupan City, to wit: (1) Addendum to Loan and Mortgage Agreement2 showing that the Promissory Note was
notarized before Atty. Siapno in Lingayen, Pangasinan in 2007; (2) Deed of Absolute Sale,3 dated January 24, 2008,
notarized in Natividad, Pangasinan; (3) Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons Re: Given Name and Date of
Birth,4 dated January 6, 2009, notarized in Dagupan City; and (4) Acknowledgement of Debt,5 dated January 24, 2008,
notarized in Dagupan City.
Complainants also averred that Atty. Siapno had delegated his notarial authority to his secretaries, Mina Bautista
(Bautista) and Mary Ann Arenas (Arenas), who wrote legal instruments and signed the documents on his behalf.
On March 17, 2009, the RTC-Lingayen forwarded the said letter-complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA)6 which, in turn, indorsed the same to the OBC.
The second letter-complaint7 was filed by Audy B. Espelita (Espelita) against Atty. Pedro L. Santos (Atty. Santos). It
alleged that in 2008, Espelita lost his driver’s license and he executed an affidavit of loss which was notarized by Atty.
Santos. The said affidavit, however, was denied for authentication when presented before the Notarial Section in
Manila because Atty. Santos was not commissioned to perform notarial commission within the City of Manila.
The third letter-complaint8 came from a concerned citizen reporting that a certain Atty. Evelyn who was holding office
at Room 402 Leyba Bldg., 381 Dasmariñas Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila, had been notarizing and signing documents for
and on behalf of several lawyers.
Page 2 of 15
In its Resolution,9 dated June 9, 2009, the Court directed the Executive Judge of the RTC-Lingayen to conduct a
formal investigation on the complaint against Atty. Siapno and Executive Judge Reynaldo G. Ros (Judge Ros) of the
RTC-Manila to 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 report and recommendation thereon.
Re: Complaint against Atty. Siapno
With regard to the complaint against Atty. Siapno, the Executive Judge conducted a hearing wherein the complainants
affirmed the allegations in their letter-complaint. For his part, Atty. Siapno denied the accusations and averred that the
law office in Lingayen, Pangasinan, was not his and that Bautista and Arenas were not his secretaries.10
In her Report and Recommendation,11 the Executive Judge found that Atty. Siapno was issued a notarial commission
within the jurisdiction of Lingayen, Pangasinan, from January 20, 2003 to December 31, 2004 and February 8, 2005 to
December 3, 2006. His commission, however, was cancelled on June 8, 2006 and he was not issued another
commission thereafter. The Executive Judge found Atty. Siapno to have violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Commission when he performed notarial functions without commission and recommended that he be fined in the
amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).
The Court agrees with the findings of the Executive Judge but not to the recommended penalty.
A review of the records and evidence presented by complainants shows that Atty. Siapno indeed maintained a law
office in Lingayen, Pangasinan, just beside the law office of one of the complainants, Atty. Elizabeth Tugade. It was
also proven that Atty. Siapno notarized several instruments with an expired notarial commission outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the commissioning court. Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides
that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Jurisdiction and Term – A person commissioned as notary public may perform 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 resigned under these
Rules and the Rules of Court.
Under the rule, only persons who are commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court which granted the commission. Clearly, Atty. Siapno could not perform notarial functions in
Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City of the Province of Pangasinan since he was not commissioned in the said
places to perform such act.
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 those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.12 It must be
emphasized that the act of notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document making
that document admissible in evidence 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 utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of their duties.
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 Practice but also Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which proscribes all lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and
directs them to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, at all times.13
In a plethora of cases, the Court has subjected lawyers to disciplinary action for notarizing documents outside their
territorial jurisdiction or with an expired commission. In the case of Nunga v. Viray,14 a lawyer was suspended by the
Court 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 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
In a letter,17 dated July 29, 2013, Judge Ros informed the Court that he could not have complied with the June 9, 2009
and August 4, 2009 orders of the Court because he was no longer the Executive Judge of the RTC-Manila at that time.
To date, no formal investigation has been conducted on the alleged violation of Atty. Santos and the reported illegal
activities of a certain Atty. Evelyn.
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.
The incumbent Executive Judge of the RTC-Manila, whether permanent or in acting capacity, is ordered to conduct a
formal investigation on the matter and to submit his Report and Recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of
copy of this decision.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the 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.
Let copies of this decision be furnished all the courts of the land through the Office of the Court Administrator, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant, and be recorded in the personal files of the
respondent.
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 cases. The Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Manila, is
ordered to conduct a formal investigation on the matter and to submit his Report and Recommendation within sixty
(60) days from receipt of a copy of this decision. SO ORDERED
A.C. No. 7036               June 29, 2009 JUDGE LILY LYDIA A. LAQUINDANUM, Complainant, vs. ATTY. NESTOR
Q. QUINTANA, Respondent. D E C I S I O N PUNO, CJ.:
This administrative case against Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana (Atty. Quintana) stemmed from a letter1 addressed to the
Court filed by Executive Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum (Judge Laquindanum) of the Regional Trial Court of
Midsayap, Cotabato requesting that proper disciplinary action be imposed on him for performing notarial functions in
Midsayap, Cotabato, which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial
commission, and for allowing his wife to do notarial acts in his absence.
In her letter, Judge Laquindanum alleged that pursuant to A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, executive judges are required to
closely monitor the activities of notaries public within the territorial bounds of their jurisdiction and to see to it that
notaries public shall not extend notarial functions beyond the limits of their authority. Hence, she wrote a letter2 to Atty.
Quintana directing him to stop notarizing documents within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of
Midsayap, Cotabato (which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial
commission for Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao) since certain documents3 notarized by him had been
reaching her office.
However, despite such directive, respondent continuously performed notarial functions in Midsayap, Cotabato as
evidenced by: (1) the Affidavit of Loss of ATM Card4 executed by Kristine C. Guro; and (2) the Affidavit of Loss of
Driver’s License5 executed by Elenita D. Ballentes.
Under Sec. 11, Rule III6 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Atty. Quintana could not extend his notarial acts
beyond Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao because Midsayap, Cotabato is not part of Cotabato City or
the Province of Maguindanao. Midsayap is part of the Province of Cotabato. The City within the province of Cotabato
is Kidapawan City, and not Cotabato City.
Page 3 of 15
Judge Laquindanum also alleged that, upon further investigation of the matter, it was discovered that it was Atty.
Quintana’s wife who performed notarial acts whenever he was out of the office as attested to by the Joint
Affidavit7 executed by Kristine C. Guro and Elenita D. Ballentes.
In a Resolution dated February 14, 2006,8 we required Atty. Quintana to comment on the letter of Judge Laquindanum.
In his Response,9 Atty. Quintana alleged that he filed a petition for notarial commission before Branch 18, Regional
Trial Court, Midsayap, Cotabato. However, the same was not acted upon by Judge Laquindanum for three weeks. He
alleged that the reason for Judge Laquindanum’s inaction was that she questioned his affiliation with the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Cotabato City Chapter, and 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 withdraw his petition.
After he withdrew his petition, he claimed that Judge Laquindanum sent a clerk from her office to ask him to return his
petition, but he did not oblige because at that time he already had a Commission for Notary Public10 issued by
Executive Judge Reno E. Concha of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cotabato City.
Atty. Quintana lamented that he was singled out by Judge Laquindanum, because the latter immediately issued
notarial commissions to other lawyers without asking for so many requirements. However, when it came to him, Judge
Laquindanum even tracked down all his pleadings; communicated with his clients; and disseminated information
through letters, pronouncements, and directives to court clerks and other lawyers to humiliate him and be ostracized
by fellow lawyers.
Atty. Quintana argued that he subscribed documents in his office at Midsayap, Cotabato; and Midsayap is part of the
Province of Cotabato. He contended that he did not violate any provision of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,
because he was 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 profession and subscribes documents, is part of the
province of Cotabato. He claimed that as a lawyer of good moral standing, he could practice his legal profession in the
entire Philippines.
Atty. Quintana further argued that Judge Laquindanum had no authority to issue such directive, because only
Executive Judge Reno E. Concha, who issued his notarial commission, and the Supreme Court could prohibit him
from notarizing in the Province of Cotabato.
In a Resolution dated March 21, 2006,11 we referred this case to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for
investigation, report and recommendation.
In the February 28, 2007 Hearing12 before the OBC presided by Atty. Ma. Crisitina B. Layusa (Hearing Officer), Judge
Laquindanum presented a Deed of Donation,13 which was notarized by Atty. Quintana in 2004.14 Honorata Rosil
appears as one of the signatories of the document as the donor’s wife. However, Honorata Rosil died on March 12,
2003, as shown by the Certificate of Death15 issued by the Civil Registrar of Ibohon, Cotabato.
Judge Laquindanum testified that Atty. Quintana continued to notarize documents 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 December 31, 2005, and he had not renewed the same.16 To support her claim, Judge Laquindanum
presented the following: (1) Affidavit of Loss [of] Title17 executed by Betty G. Granada with subscription dated April 8,
2006 at Cotabato City; (2) Certificate of Candidacy18 of Mr. Elias Diosanta Arabis with subscription dated July 18,
2006; (3) Affidavit of Loss [of] Driver’s License19 executed by Anecito C. Bernabe with subscription dated February 20,
2007 at Midsayap, Cotabato; and (4) Affidavit of Loss20 executed by Santos V. Magbanua with subscription dated
February 22, 2007 at Midsayap, Cotabato.
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 following: (1) Affidavit of Loss of ATM Card21 executed by Kristine C. Guro; and
(2) Affidavit of Loss of Driver’s License22 executed by Elenita D. Ballentes; and (3) Affidavit of Loss23 executed by
Santos V. Magbanua. He explained that those documents were signed by his wife and were the result of an
entrapment operation 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 wife to notarize documents. According to him,
he slapped his wife and told her to stop doing it as it would ruin his profession.
Atty. Quintana also claimed that Judge Laquindanum did not act on his petition, 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
President.
On the one hand, Judge Laquindanum explained that she was only performing her responsibility and had nothing
against Atty. Quintana. The reason why she did not 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 certification of payment
from the IBP, but she did not return.
This was denied by Atty. Quintana, who claimed that he enclosed in his Response the certification of good standing
and payments of his IBP dues. However, when the same was examined, there were no documents attached thereto.
Due to oversight, Atty. Quintana prayed that he be given time to send them later which was granted by the Hearing
Officer.
Finally, Atty. Quintana asked for forgiveness for what he had done and promised 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 family.
On March 5, 2007, Atty. Quintana submitted to the OBC the documents25 issued by the IBP Cotabato City Chapter to
prove that he had paid his IBP dues.
In a Manifestation26 dated March 9, 2007, Judge Laquindanum submitted a Certification27 and its entries show that
Atty. Quintana paid his IBP dues for the year 2005 only on January 9, 2006 per Official Receipt (O.R.) No. 610381.
Likewise, the arrears of his IBP dues for the years 1993, 1995, 1996, and 1998 to 2003 were also paid only on
January 9, 2006 per O.R. No. 610387. Hence, when he filed his petition for notarial commission in 2004, he had not
yet completely paid his IBP dues.
In its Report and Recommendation,28 the OBC recommended that Atty. Quintana be disqualified from being appointed
as a notary public for two (2) years; and that if his notarial commission still exists, the same should be revoked for two
(2) years. The OBC found the defenses and arguments raised by Atty. Quintana to be without merit, viz:
Apparently, respondent has extended his notarial acts in Midsayap and Kabacan, Cotabato, which is already outside
his territorial jurisdiction to perform as Notary Public.
Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides, thus:
"Jurisdiction and Term – A person commissioned as notary public may perform 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 court is made, unless earlier revoked [or] the notary public has resigned under
these Rules and the Rules of Court.
Under the rule[,] respondent may perform his notarial acts within the territorial 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 commission as notary public in Midsayap or Kabacan and in any place of the province of Cotabato as he is
not commissioned thereat to do such act. Midsayap and Kabacan are not part of either Cotabato City or [P]rovince of
Maguindanao but part of the province of North Cotabato. Thus, the claim of 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 merit.
Page 4 of 15
xxxx
Further, evidence on record also shows that there are several documents which the respondent’s 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 documents in his absence. According to him[,] he even scolded and told his wife not to do it anymore as it
would affect his profession.
In the case of Lingan v. Calubaquib et al., Adm. Case No. 5377, June 15, 2006 the Court held, thus:
"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) secretaries"
A person who is commissioned as a notary public takes full responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register.
Respondent cannot take refuge claiming that it was his wife’s 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 personnel including his
wife, who acts as his secretary.
Likewise, evidence reveals that respondent notarized in 2004 a Deed of Donation (Rollo, p. 79) wherein, (sic)
Honorata Rosel (Honorata Rosil) one of the affiants therein, was already dead at the time of notarization as shown in a
Certificate of Death (Rollo, p.80) issued by the Civil Registrar General of Libungan, Cotabato.
Sec. 2, (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides, thus[:]
"A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document (1) is not in
the notary’s presence personally at the time of the notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary public
through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules."
Clearly, in notarizing a Deed of Donation without even determining the presence or qualifications of affiants therein,
respondent only shows his gross negligence and ignorance of the provisions of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
xxxx
Furthermore, respondent claims that he, being a lawyer in good standing, has the right to practice his profession
including notarial acts in the entire Philippines. This statement is barren of merit.
While it is true that lawyers in good standing are allowed to engage in the practice of law in the Philippines.(sic)
However, not every lawyer even in good standing can perform notarial functions without having been commissioned as
notary public as specifically provided for under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He must have submitted himself to
the commissioning court by filing his petition for issuance of his notarial (sic) Notarial Practice. The commissioning
court may or may not grant 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 to the procedural rules for the
issuance of the notarial commission, he has no reason at all to claim that he can perform notarial act[s] in the entire
country for lack of authority to do so.
Likewise, contrary to the belief of respondent, complainant being the 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
liabilities, if any, of a notary public commissioned or those performing notarial acts without authority in her territorial
jurisdiction.29
xxxx
We adopt the findings of the OBC. However, we find the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six (6)
months and revocation and suspension of Atty. Quintana's notarial commission for two (2) years more appropriate
considering the gravity and number of his offenses.
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 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 acts with an expired
commission; (3) he let his wife notarize documents in his absence; and (4) he notarized a document where one of the
signatories therein was already dead at that time.
The act of notarizing documents outside one’s area of commission is not to be taken lightly. Aside from being a
violation of Sec. 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, it also partakes of malpractice of law and
falsification.30 Notarizing documents with an expired commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws,
more specifically, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Since the public is 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 documents without the presence of the signatory to the document is a violation of Sec. 2(b)(1),
Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,32 Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the lawyer’s
oath which unconditionally requires lawyers not to do or declare any falsehood. Finally, Atty. Quintana is personally
accountable for the documents that he admitted were signed by his wife. He cannot relieve himself of liability by
passing the blame to his wife. He is, thus, guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
requires lawyers 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.1avvphi1
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.C. No. 500             September 27, 1967 TAHIMIK RAMIREZ, petitioner, vs. ATTY. JAIME S. NER, respondent.
This is a proceeding for disbarment. Respondent Jaime S. Ner, a member of the Philippine Bar, is charged with
violation of his oath as lawyer and as notary public for having notarized a deed of sale of a motor vehicle the
acknowledgment clause whereof recited falsely that both the vendor and the vendee personally appeared before him.
The evidence shows that on April 5, 1960 respondent's office mate and friend, Atty. Gavino Abaya, Jr. presented to
him for notarization a duly prepared and typed deed of sale of Abaya's car. The acknowledgment clause reads:
Page 5 of 15
BEFORE ME, personally appeared GAVINO ABAYA, JR. with Residence Certificate No. A-141180 issued
on January 5, 1960 at Manila and EDWARDO I. REYES with Residence Certificate No. A-5092784 issued
on February 1, 1960 at Quezon City, known to me to be the same persons who executed the foregoing
instrument and acknowledge that the same is their free act and deed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and seal this 5th day of April, 1960 in the City
of Manila, Philippines.
The signatures of Abaya, as vendor, and of his witness were duly affixed and acknowledged by them before
respondent. But the alleged vendee and another witness were not then presented. Respondent was prevailed upon to
notarize the deed on Abaya's promise that he would not part with a single copy thereof but would only show it to the
buyer whom he promised to bring to respondent's office the next day not only to execute and acknowledge the
document, together with another witness, but also to pay the consideration therefor in respondent's presence.
However, in the afternoon of the same day Abaya informed respondent that his car object of the proposed sale had
been stolen by Reyes and his companions, together with all the copies of the notarized deed, the certificate of
registration of the car, and the certificate of tax payment. Respondent thereupon annotated in the corresponding entry
in his notarial register the remarks "stolen and cancelled."
Meanwhile, on the strength of the stolen deed of sale and certificate of registration of the motor vehicle, the supposed
vendee was able to obtain from the Cavite City branch of the Motor Vehicles Office — now Land Transportation
Commission — a new certificate of registration in his name. Reyes subsequently sold the car to herein petitioner, who
now claims that he bought the car in good faith, relying principally on the apparent authenticity of the deed of sale
purporting to vest ownership of the motor vehicle in Reyes, which deed had been notarized by respondent.
Later on a criminal information for qualified theft (Crim. Case No. 5146-P) was filed in the Court of First Instance of
Rizal against the alleged perpetrators. Included as defendants were Reyes and Ramirez, the subsequent purchaser.
Reyes was found guilty and sentenced accordingly, while Ramirez was acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt.
It was during the trial of the above-mentioned criminal case that respondent admitted having notarized the deed of sale
notwithstanding the fact that the vendee did not appear before him, much less affixed his signature to the document in
his presence. In defense respondent maintains that his having signed and affixed his notarial seal did not complete the
act of notarization, since it was still necessary that the vendee should appear to sign and acknowledge the instrument.
In other words, respondent submits that in affixing his signature and notarial seal to the instrument, which was
admittedly incomplete, he did not violate his oath as lawyer nor transgress any law so as to warrant disciplinary action.
We believe it is unnecessary to consider respondent's contention as to the incompleteness of the instrument. It may be
true that the subsequent unauthorized signature of the supposed vendee did not convert the instrument into a validly
notarized one. But what is material insofar as this proceeding is concerned is the fact that respondent did sign and
affix his notarial seal on a document which on its face and by respondent's own admission was incomplete, certifying
thereby that the vendee had personally appeared before him and acknowledged having executed the same. Had it not
been for the notarized deed of sale the motor vehicle could not have possibly been registered in the name of the
vendee and could not have been subsequently conveyed by him to petitioner, who relied upon the apparent regularity
of the transaction. It was respondent's ill-advised act which afforded an unscrupulous third party the opportunity to
consummate and give an appearance of legality to an illegal purpose. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith
and credit upon its face, and for this reason notaries public must observe the utmost care to comply with the
elementary formalities in the performance of their duties. Otherwise the confidence of the public in the integrity of this
form of conveyancing would be undermined.
All too often, in the name of friendship a notary public unwittingly lends the authority of his signature and notarial seal
to an incomplete instrument. He assumes his act to be harmless, little realizing that he may thereby facilitate the
commission of fraud by others.
We held once "that a member of the bar who performs an act as a notary public of a disgraceful or immoral character
may be held to account by the Court even to the extent of disbarment." (In re Rusiana, Adm. Case No. 270, May 29,
1959.) Withal, we believe that the act committed by respondent here is not serious enough to justify disbarment. It
merely suggests lack of caution, not culpable malpractice or immorality, and does not merit the penalty of either
suspension or disbarment.1awphîl.nèt
A reprimand, as recommended by the Solicitor General, would be sufficient to impress upon respondent the heavy
responsibility he assumes as a lawyer and as a notary public, especially considering that he was honest enough to
admit, in the trial of the criminal case, the irregularity of the procedure he followed.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, respondent is hereby reprimanded and admonished to be more careful hereafter,
upon pain of being dealt with more severely by this Court.
G.R. No. 225696, April 08, 2019 ATTY. BERNARDO T. CONSTANTINO, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N LEONEN, J.:
For a notary public to be found guilty of falsifying a notarial will, the prosecution must prove that he or she has falsified
or simulated the signatures of the testator or the instrumental witnesses to make it appear that they participated in the
execution of the document when they did not.
This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the January 19, 2016 Decision2 and June 9, 2016
Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 36327. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court
November 28, 2013 Judgment4 finding Atty. Bernardo T. Constantino (Atty. Constantino) guilty of falsification of a
public document under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
On May 27, 2008, an Information was filed against Atty. Constantino and Teresita C. Saliganan (Saliganan), charging
them with falsification of a public document.5 The Information read:
That on or about September 9, 2001 in the City of Laoag, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, ATTY. BERNARDO CONSTANTINO taking advantage of his being a notary public
for Laoag City and Ilocos Norte, together with TERESITA C. SALIGANAN, conspiring, confederating and mutually
helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously cause to appear in the LAST WILL AND
TESTAMENT executed by Severino C. Cabrales in favor of the accused TERESITA C. SALIGANAN, known as Doc.
No. 15909, Page No. 71, Book No. XXXI, Series of 2001 of the Notarial Register of Atty. BERNARDO
CONSTANTINO, a notary public for Laoag City and Province of Ilocos Norte, that SEVERINO C. CABRALES
participated in the execution of the LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT, when in fact he did not so participate, and making
it appear that the testator Severino Cabrales and the attesting witnesses, Dr. Eliezer Asuncion, Mary Balintona and Dr.
Justino Balintona acknowledge the Last Will and Testament before Atty. Bernardo Constantino while in truth they
never appeared to acknowledge the same.6
On June 13, 2008, warrants of arrest were issued against Atty. Constantino and Saliganan. On September 24, 2008,
Atty. Constantino filed a Motion for Recognizance in Lieu of Bail as he was unable to post the required bond of
P24,000.00.7
In its October 28, 2008 Order, the Regional Trial Court denied the Motion. Atty. Constantino, through his wife Editha,
was able to post bail on August 23, 2010. Saliganan, however, remained at large.8
On arraignment, Atty. Constantino pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Thus, trial on the merits ensued.9
Page 6 of 15
According to the prosecution, sometime in June 1998, Severino Cabrales (Severino), the father of Saliganan, suffered
a stroke and was rushed to the hospital, where he was confined for two (2) weeks. When he was discharged, he
returned to the family home in Laoag City. There, Saliganan stayed and took care of Severino until his death on
December 6, 2003.10
On February 8, 2005, a Petition for Probate of Severino's alleged Last Will and Testament was filed before the
Regional Trial Court of Laoag City.
Upon learning of the probate proceedings, Fernando Cabrales (Fernando), a son of Severino, secured a copy of the
purported Last Will and Testament. He claimed that the signature in the document was not Severino's. The document
was notarized by Atty. Constantino and registered in Book No. 31, Page No. 71 of Atty. Constantino's Notarial
Register, series of 2001. The witnesses who signed it were Rosalinda Cu (Cu), Dr. Justino Balintona and his wife Mary
Balintona (the Balintona Spouses), and Dr. Eliezer John Asuncion (Dr. Asuncion).11
The Joint Acknowledgment in the Last Will and Testament read:
JOINT ACKNOWLEDGMENT
BEFORE ME, a notary public for and in the City of Laoag, Philippines, this 9th day of September, 2001, personally
appeared:
The testator, SEVERINO CABRALES, with Community Tax Certificate No. 06002287 dated January 2, 2001, issued in
Laoag City;
Witness, DR. JUSTINO G. BALINTONA, with Community Tax Certificate No. _____ dated _____[;]
Witness, MRS. MARY B. BALINTONA, with Community Tax Certificate No. 06030819 dated April 10, 2001[;]
Witness, DR. ELIEZER ASUNCION, with Community Tax Certificate No. 08214902 dated January 6, 2001;
Witness, MRS. ROSALINDA F. CU, with Community Tax Certificate No. 06022789 dated 03, 18, 2001 [;] (sic)
All known to me to be the same persons who signed the foregoing will, the first as testator and the last four as
instrumental witnesses, and they respectively acknowledged to me that they signed the same as their own free act and
deed.
This Will consists of three (3) pages, including this page of the acknowledgment, and has been signed on the left hand
margin of the first and third pages and above their respective names on the second page, by the testator and his
witnesses and sealed with my notarial seal.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand the, [sic] month, year and place above written.
[sgd]
  BERNARDO T. CONSTANTINO
Notary Public12
Fernando immediately spoke to Dr. Asuncion, who told him that Rene Ferrer, Jr. (Ferrer), Saliganan's son-in-law, had
gone to his clinic and asked him to sign the document. Dr. Asuncion did as asked, having known Ferrer as a member
of his motorcycle club. He also told Fernando that only he, Ferrer, and some patients were present when he signed the
document.13
In his defense, Atty. Constantino alleged that Severino had been of sound mind and could walk with a cane when he
started visiting Atty. Constantino to prepare his Last Will and Testament. Atty. Constantino had advised him to bring a
listing of his assets and properties, with which Severino complied.14
Atty. Constantino further alleged that when he asked Severino why he was executing a will, Severino told him that he
wanted his only child, Saliganan, to have his properties since Fernando was going around claiming to be his son. Atty.
Constantino claimed that Severino had also admitted promising to bequeath Fernando all his properties in Solsona,
Ilocos Norte, provided that Saliganan approve of it.15
Atty. Constantino further narrated that in the morning of September 9, 2001, he brought three (3) typed copies of the
Last Will and Testament to Severino's house for signing. Together in the room were Severino, Atty. Constantino, his
wife Editha and son Bernard Christian, the Balintona Spouses, Cu, Saliganan, and one (1) other person.16
Atty. Constantino stated that Severino's hands were trembling as he attempted to sign the first page of the document,
so he asked Saliganan to hold his wrist to sign all three (3) copies. The three (3) instrumental witnesses present—the
Balintona Spouses and Cu—then signed the document, after which Atty. Constantino affixed his signature. Upon
seeing a stamp pad nearby, Atty. Constantino asked Severino if he would like to place his thumbmark on the
documents. Severino agreed and again asked Saliganan to assist him.17
Addressing the absence of Dr. Asuncion, whose name was indicated as an instrumental witness, Atty. Constantino
assured Severino that only three (3) witnesses were needed for the document. He then allegedly instructed Severino
to leave the document as it was and "not make any erasures or crossing-out on it [in] order not to make it dirty."18 Atty.
Constantino took a copy of the document and gave the other two (2) to Severino.19
On his way out, Atty. Constantino alleged that Saliganan took his copy of the document, telling him that Dr. Asuncion
had already arrived. Sometime later, Saliganan returned the copy, but Atty. Constantino stated that he did not check if
Dr. Asuncion had signed it.20
In its November 28, 2013 Judgment,21 the Regional Trial Court found Atty. Constantino guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of falsification of a public document under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code. It pointed out that while only a
photocopy of the allegedly falsified document was presented, the parties nonetheless did not dispute its
execution.22 The trial court, however, found that the prosecution failed to establish that Severino had not been of sound
mind when the Last Will and Testament was executed.23
Nonetheless, the trial court found Atty. Constantino liable for making it appear that Dr. Asuncion appeared before him
and witnessed the execution of the Last Will and Testament. It ruled that Atty. Constantino should have been aware of
the legal consequences to leaving Dr. Asuncion's name on the document despite his absence.24
Likewise, the trial court cited the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which prohibited notaries public from notarizing
incomplete documents or false information. It pointed out that removing Dr. Asuncion's name from the document was
easy and could have been accomplished within minutes. Thus, it did not give credence to Atty. Constantino's defense
that he instructed Severino not to make any markings on the document.25
Moreover, the trial court considered Atty. Constantino's failure to immediately surrender to authorities as indicative of
his guilt, as he only posted bail two (2) years after warrants of arrest had been issued.26
The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court Judgment read:
Page 7 of 15
WHEREFORE, the accused Atty. Bernardo Constantino is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification of
Public Document under Article 171 (2) of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty
ranging from two years of prision correccional as minimum to eight years and one day of prision mayor as maximum.
He is also ordered to pay a fine of three thousand pesos (P3,000.00). Costs against the said accused.
SO ORDERED.27
Atty. Constantino appealed before the Court of Appeals.28
In its January 19, 2016 Decision,29 the Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court.
Agreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeals found that Atty. Constantino could have easily removed Dr.
Asuncion's name if he believed in good faith that only three (3) witnesses were needed. Instead, the Court of Appeals
pointed out that Atty. Constantino made it appear as if Dr. Asuncion were present before him as a witness. It also
noted his testimony that he knew Dr. Asuncion would still want to sign the document, which was why he gave his copy
to Saliganan. It held that Atty. Constantino should have checked the copy when it was returned to him.30
The Court of Appeals, likewise, affirmed the trial court's finding that Atty. Constantino's failure to immediately surrender
was a manifestation of his guilt, as he had no persuasive reason to do so.31
Atty. Constantino moved for reconsideration, but his Motion was denied in the Court of Appeals June 9, 2016
Resolution.32 Hence, he filed this Petition.33
Petitioner claims that it would have been difficult for him to remove Dr. Asuncion's name at the time of signing. Due to
his muscular dystrophy, he had to be accompanied by his wife and two (2) sons to climb to the second floor of the
house. Additionally, there was no typewriter, clerk, or typist in Severino's house for the corrections to be done.
Petitioner also alleges that he wanted the notarization to be made in Severino's residence to honor the testator's wish.
Then and there, he asserts, he notarized the document to avoid going up the steep stairway again.34
Petitioner argues that precisely due to his physical condition, he has relied on his secretary to file the office
documents. As such, he was not able to check the Last Will and Testament when Saliganan returned it to his
secretary. While he admits that he had been negligent for failing to cross out Dr. Asuncion's name in the document, he
asserts that it should not be taken against him, but on Dr. Asuncion, who admitted to signing the document without
reading it.35
Petitioner, likewise, explains that his failure to immediately surrender was due to his failing health and his wife being
abroad to take care of their two (2) daughters. He alleges that as litigation had started in 2008, Saliganan assured him
on the phone not to worry as she was trying to settle the case as a family misunderstanding, which was why he did not
pay attention to the case.36
The Office of the Solicitor General, on the other hand, claims that petitioner raises questions of fact improper in a Rule
45 petition.37 Maintaining that there was no error in the finding of guilt, it asserts that all the elements of the crime of
falsification of a public document under Article 171 (2) of the Revised Penal Code were duly proven by the evidence
on record.38 However, it requests that this Court impose with leniency any penalty it will have ruled due to petitioner's
advanced age and physical condition.39
In rebuttal, petitioner contends that there are recognized exceptions to Rule 45 that apply to this case, considering that
his conviction was "overtly based on conjectures, presumptions[,] and speculations, not proof beyond reasonable
doubt[.]"40
The issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that
petitioner Atty. Bernardo T. Constantino was guilty of falsifying a public document under Article 171(2) of the Revised
Penal Code.
Before this issue can be passed upon, however, this Court must first address the procedural question of whether the
Petition presents questions of fact not cognizable in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court.
I petitioner, as a notary public, falsified a public document, punishable under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code,
The Constitution guarantees that an accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proven.41 Thus, every
conviction requires no less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Rule 133, Section 2 of the Rules of Court provides:
Here, however, the factual findings are not disputed. Severino executed a Last Will and Testament on September 9,
2001, which was notarized by petitioner. The Joint Acknowledgment indicated that the Balintona Spouses, Cu, and Dr.
Asuncion were all present as witnesses and personally appeared before petitioner. This makes it appear that Dr.
Asuncion signed the document in the presence of petitioner when, in reality, he did not. It was later discovered that Dr.
Asuncion signed it after it had been notarized. Neither party disputes this sequence of events.
The prosecution's theory, however, is that a falsity in a public document occurred because petitioner failed to delete
Dr. Asuncion's name in the Joint Acknowledgment. Petitioner's main defense, on the other hand, is that he ordered the
testator, Severino, not to delete Dr. Asuncion's name. This Court is, thus, confronted with the legal question of whether
when he failed to delete Dr. Asuncion's name in the Joint Acknowledgment upon notarization.
II

SECTION 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his
guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as,
excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof
which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
The burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Guilt must be founded on the strength of the prosecution's evidence,
not on the weakness of the defense.42 Reasonable doubt on the evidence presented will result in an acquittal. In
People v. Capili:43
Before one can be held criminally liable for falsification of public documents, it is essential that the document allegedly
falsified is a public document.
Public documents are defined in Cacnio v. Baens53 as "those instruments authorized by a notary public or by a
competent public official with all the solemnities required by law[.]" 54 By this definition, any notarized document is
considered a public document.
Rule 132, Section 19 of the Rules of Court, however, provides:

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed to overcome the presumption of innocence. Accused-appellant's guilt must
be proved beyond reasonable doubt[;] otherwise, the Court would be left without any other recourse but to rule for SECTION 19. Classes of documents. — For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either public
acquittal. Courts should be guided by the principle that it would be better to set free ten men who might be probably or private.
guilty of the crime charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit.44

Public documents are:

In criminal cases, courts must evaluate the evidence in relation to the elements of the crime charged. Thus, the finding
of guilt is always a question of fact.45
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals,
and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
The Petition before this Court, however, is one filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Rule 45 mandates that only
questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari.46 Thus, this Court generally gives great respect to    
the factual findings of the trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor during trial and
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
assess their testimonies.47
   
Considering that criminal cases involve the constitutional right to liberty and the constitutional guarantee of the (c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.
presumption of innocence, appeals of criminal cases before this Court are not necessarily treated in the same manner
as appeals in civil cases. In Ferrer v. People:48
All other writings are private. (Emphasis supplied)
It is a well-settled rule that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review and that it
becomes the duty of the Court to correct such errors as may be found in the judgment appealed from, whether they Notarization confers a public character upon private documents so that, for the purposes of admissibility in court, no
are assigned as errors or not.49 further evidence is required to prove the document's authenticity.55 The notary public swears to the truth of the
document's contents and its due execution. In Antillon v. Barcelon:56
Appeals of criminal cases confer upon the reviewing court full jurisdiction and render it competent to examine the
records, revise the judgment from which an appeal arose, increase the penalty, and cite the appropriate penal law The principal function of a notary public is to authenticate documents. When a notary public certifies the due execution
provision.50 and delivery of a document under his hand and seal he thereby gives such a document the force of evidence.

Thus, this Court may still review the factual findings of the trial court "if it is not convinced that [such findings] are ....
conformable to the evidence of record and to its own impressions of the credibility of the witnesses."51 Significant facts
and circumstances may have been overlooked, which, if properly considered, could affect the result of the case.52

Page 8 of 15
Indeed, one of the very purposes of requiring documents to be acknowledged before a notary public, in addition to the
solemnity which should surround the execution and delivery of documents, is to authorize such documents to be given
in evidence without further proof of their execution and delivery.57
Thus, notaries public are cautioned to take due care in notarizing documents to ensure the public's confidence in
notarized documents. In Ramirez v. Ner:58
A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason notaries public must
observe the utmost care to comply with the elementary formalities in the performance of their duties. Otherwise the
confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyancing would be undermined.59
Under the Rules on Evidence, notarized documents are clothed with the presumption of regularity; that is, that the
notary public had the authority to certify the documents as duly executed. A last will and testament, however, is
specifically excluded from the application of Rule 132, Section 19 of the Rules of Court. This implies that when the
document being presented as evidence is a last will and testament, further evidence is necessary to prove its due
execution, whether notarized or not.
A last will and testament is a "species of conveyance whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities prescribed by
law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate after his death."60 A notarial will is one that is
"acknowledged before a notary public by a testator and the attesting witnesses[.]"61 Moreover, Article 806 of the Civil
Code provides:
ARTICLE 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. The notary
public shall not be required to retain a copy of the will, or file another with the office of the Clerk of Court.
This acknowledgment is embodied in an attestation clause at the end of the instrument. An attestation clause,
in Caneda v. Court of Appeals,62 is:
. . . that part of an ordinary will whereby the attesting witnesses certify that the instrument has been executed before
them and to the manner of the execution of the same. It is a separate memorandum or record of the facts surrounding
the conduct of execution and once signed by the witnesses, it gives affirmation to the fact that compliance with the
essential formalities required by law has been observed. It is made for the purpose of preserving in a permanent form
a record of the facts that attended the execution of a particular will, so that in case of failure of the memory of the
attesting witnesses, or other casualty, such facts may still be proved.63
By this definition, the formalities required by law to prove a notarial will's authenticity do not pertain to the notarization,
but to the attestation and subscription of the testator and the attesting witnesses. In Caneda, this Court further
explained:
[T]he subscription of the signatures of the testator and the attesting witnesses is made for the purpose of
authentication and identification, and thus indicates that the will is the very same instrument executed by the testator
and attested to by the witnesses.
Further, by attesting and subscribing to the will, the witnesses thereby declare the due execution of the will as
embodied in the attestation clause. The attestation clause, therefore, provides strong legal guaranties for the due
execution of a will and to insure the authenticity thereof. As it appertains only to the witnesses and not to the testator, it
need be signed only by them. Where it is left unsigned, it would result in the invalidation of the will as it would be
possible and easy to add the clause on a subsequent occasion in the absence of the testator and the witnesses.64
Hence, an authentic attestation clause must not only contain the names of the instrumental witnesses. Mere mention
of their names in the attestation clause will not accurately represent the fact of their attestation and subscription.
Instead, the instrumental witnesses must also sign the instrument before it is notarized by the notary public.
Page 9 of 15
Here, petitioner was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code. The
provision reads:
ARTICLE 171. Falsification by Public Officer, Employee or Notary or Ecclesiastic Minister. — The penalty of prisión
mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking
advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:
....
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate
[.]
There is falsification of a public document when the public document is simulated "in a manner so as to give it the
appearance of a true and genuine instrument, thus, leading others to errors as to its authenticity[.]"65 Moreover, "[w]hat
is punished in falsification of public document is principally the undermining of the public faith and the destruction of
truth as solemnly proclaimed therein."66
When a notary public falsifies a public document, his or her act effectively undermines the public's trust and reliance
on notarized documents as evidence. Thus, he or she is held criminally liable for the offense when the falsity
committed leads others to believe the document was authentic when it is not.
In falsification of public documents under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must prove that
these elements exist:
1. That the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public.
2. That he takes advantage of his official position.
3. That he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding.
4. That such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the proceeding.67
Here, the first element has already been proven since both the prosecution and the defense stipulate that petitioner is
a notary public. The second element is presumed when the alleged falsity committed by the notary public pertains to
the notarization, since only notaries public have the duty and authority to notarize documents.
Thus, the elements that remain to be proven by the prosecution are: (1) that petitioner falsified a document "by
causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding"; and (2) that "such person or persons did
not in fact so participate in the proceeding."68
The due execution of a notarized will is proven through the validity of its attestation clause. The prosecution must
prove that either the testator could not have authored the instrument, or the instrumental witnesses had no capacity to
attest to the due execution of the will. This requires that the notary public must have falsified or simulated the
signatures appearing on the attestation clause.
Here, petitioner was found to have falsely certified in the Joint Acknowledgment that Dr. Asuncion was an instrumental
witness to the execution of Severino's Last Will and Testament since he did not sign it in petitioner's presence.
The trial court and the Court of Appeals, however, disregarded one crucial detail from its finding of facts: Dr. Asuncion
signed the Joint Acknowledgment after it was notarized by petitioner.
Based on the findings of the trial court, at the time petitioner notarized the Last Will and Testament, only three (3)
witnesses had signed it. The trial court, however, did not make any finding that petitioner had falsified the participation
of the three (3) witnesses who attested and subscribed to its due execution. It likewise found that Dr. Asuncion signed
the document at the urging of Saliganan's son-in-law, Ferrer, and that petitioner seemed unaware that Dr. Asuncion
later signed the document. Dr. Asuncion also admitted that his signature was genuine and that he was aware of what
he was signing.
Since Dr. Asuncion did not sign the Joint Acknowledgment before it was notarized, he cannot be considered as having
attested and subscribed to its due execution at the time of its notarization. Thus, when petitioner certified that the
persons who attested and subscribed to the document were present before him, there could have been no falsity. It
was not petitioner who made it appear that Dr. Asuncion participated in the execution of the Joint Acknowledgment,
but Ferrer and Dr. Asuncion himself. Petitioner, therefore, must be acquitted.
Nonetheless, while petitioner's acts may be inadequate to find him criminally liable, he may still be liable for
administrative sanctions.
Petitioner's failure to cross out Dr. Asuncion's name when he notarized the Joint Acknowledgment has allowed Dr.
Asuncion to still sign the document despite not having participated in its due execution. This is the mischief being
guarded against in disallowing notaries public to notarize incomplete documents. Rule XI, Section l(b)(9), in relation to
Rule IV, Section 569 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, states:
RULE XI
Revocation of Commission and Disciplinary Sanctions
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:
...
(9) executes a false or incomplete certificate under Section 5, Rule IV[.]
To be sure, the incidents here occurred in 2001, or before the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice was promulgated. While
the previous Notarial Law70 did not contain a provision on false and incomplete certificates, this Court has already
cautioned notaries public from notarizing incomplete documents even before the applicability of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice. In Bote v. Eduardo:71
Respondent [notary public] was . . . negligent when he notarized the deed with unfilled spaces and incomplete entries,
making uncertified and fraudulent insertions easy to accomplish. 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.72
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The January 19, 2016 Decision and June 9, 2016 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 36327 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Atty. Bernardo T. Constantino
is ACQUITTED of the crime of falsification of a public document, and the bail bond posted for his provisional liberty is
ordered canceled. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant for the filing of the
appropriate administrative action. SO ORDERED.
Page 10 of 15
A.C. No. 9364 [Formerly CBD Case No.13-3696] FLORDELIZA E. COQUIA, Complainant vs. ATTY. EMMANUEL
E. LAFORTEZA, RespondentD E C I S I O N PERALTA, J.:
Before us is a Petition for Disbarment dated February 6, 4012 filed by Flordeliza E. Coquia1 (Coquia) against
respondent Atty. Emmanuel E. Laforteza (Atty. Laforteza), docketed as A.C. No. 9364, for Conduct Unbecoming of a
Lawyer due to the unauthorized notarization of documents relative to Civil Case No. 18943.2
Atty. Laforteza was a former Clerk of Court of Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 68, Lingayen, Pangasinan, having
assumed office in November 17, 2004 until January 31, 2011.3 On February 1, 2011, Atty. Laforteza transferred to the
Department of Justice.4
In her Complaint, Coquia alleged that on January 7, 2009, while in office as clerk of court, Atty. Laforteza conspired
with Clemente Solis (Clemente) to falsify two (2) documents, to wit: (1) an Agreement between Clemente Solis and
Flordeliza Coquia,5 and the (2) Payment Agreement executed by Flordeliza Coquia, and subsequently notarized the
said documents. Coquia claimed that the documents were forged to make it appear that on the said date, she
subscribed and sworn to the said documents before Atty. Laforteza when in truth and in fact on the said date and time,
she was attending to her classes at the Centro Escolar University in Manila as evidenced by the certified true copy of
the Centro Escolar University Faculty Daily Time Record for the period of December 16, 2008 to January 14, 2009.6
Coquia asserted that under the law, Atty. Laforteza is not authorized to administer oath on documents not related to
his functions and duties as Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 68, Lingayen, Pangasinan. Thus, the instant complaint for
disbarment for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.
On January 12, 2012, the Office of the Bar Confidant referred the complaint to Atty. Cristina B. Layusa, Deputy Clerk
of Court and Bar Confidant, Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court, for appropriate action.7
On March 19, 2012, the Court resolved to require Atty. Laforteza to comment on the complaint against him.8
In compliance, Atty. Laforteza submitted his Comment9 dated July 2, 2012 where he denied the allegations in the
complaint. Atty. Laforteza recalled that on January 7, 2009, while attending to· his work, fellow court employee,
Luzviminda Solis (Luzviminda), wife of Clemente, with other persons, came to him. He claimed that Luzviminda
introduced said persons to him as the same parties to the subject documents. Luzviminda requested him to subscribe
the subject documents as proof of their transaction considering that they are blood relatives. Atty. Laforteza claimed
that he hesitated at first and even directed them to seek the services of a notary public but they insisted for his
assistance and accommodation. Thus, in response to the exigency of the situation and thinking in all good faith that it
would also serve the parties' interest having arrived at a settlement, Atty. Laforteza opted to perform the subscription
of the jurat. He, however, insisted that at that time of subscription, after propounding some questions, he was actually
convinced that the persons who came to him are the same parties to the said subject documents.10
Atty. Laforteza likewise denied that there was conspiracy or connivance between him and the Solis'. He pointed out
that other than the subject documents and Coquia's bare allegation of conspiracy, no evidence was presented to
substantiate the same. Atty. Laforteza lamented that he was also a victim of the circumstances with his reliance to the
representations made before him. He invoked the presumption of regularity and extended his apology to this Court
should his act as a subscribing officer be deemed improper.11
In a Joint-Affidavit12 dated July 2, 2012 of Clemente and Luzviminda, both denied to have connived or conspired with
Atty. Laforteza in the preparation and execution of the subject documents. They narrated that Atty. Laforteza in fact
initially refused to grant their request to notarize the subject documents but they were able to convince him to assist
them in the interest of justice. Clemente insisted that he was one of the signatories in the said documents and that he
has personal knowledge that the signature of Coquia inscribed in the same documents are her true signatures having
seen her affixed her signatures.13
On October 11, 2012, the Court resolved to refer the instant case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation.14
During the mandatory conference, both parties agreed that Atty. Laforteza is authorized to administer
oaths.1âwphi1 However, as to the requirement to establish the identity of the parties, Atty. Laforteza admitted that he
does not personally know both Coquia and Clemente, and he merely relied on Luzviminda and Loma Viray, who are
known to him as fellow court employees, to establish the identities of the parties. He likewise admitted that Coquia did
not sign the documents in his presence and that someone present on the said date allegedly owned the signature of
Coquia as hers.15
In its Report and Recommendation16 dated December 18, 2013, the IBP-Commission on Bar
Discipline (CED) recommended that the instant complaint be dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.
However, in a Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-818 dated October 11, 2014, the IBP-Board of Governors resolved to
reversed and set aside the Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD, and instead reprimanded and cautioned
Atty. Laforteza to be careful in performing his duties as subscribing officer.17
We concur with the findings of the IBP-Board of Governors, except as to the penalty.
In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is clearly
preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant.18 In the absence of cogent proof, bare
allegations of misconduct cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.19
In the instant case, We find that Coquia failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to show that Atty. Laforteza
had direct and instrumental participation, or was in connivance with the Solis' in the preparation of the subject
documents. While it may be assumed that Atty. Laforteza had a hand in the preparation of the subject documents, We
cannot give evidentiary weight to such a supposition in the absence of any evidence to support it. The Court does not
thus give credence to charges based on mere suspicion and speculation.20
As to the allegation of unauthorized notarization:
As early as the case of Borre v. Moya,21 this Court had already clarified that the power of ex officio notaries public
have been limited to notarial acts connected to the exercise of their official functions and duties.
Consequently, the empowerment of ex officio notaries public to perform acts within the competency of regular notaries
public - such as acknowledgments, oaths and affirmations, jurats, signature witnessing, copy certifications, and other
acts authorized under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice - is now more of an exception rather than a general rule.
They may perform notarial acts on such documents that bear no relation to their official functions and duties only if (1)
a certification is included in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any other lawyer or notary public in the
municipality or circuit; and (2) all notarial fees charged will be for the account of the government and turned over to the
municipal treasurer. No compliance with these two requirements are present in this case.
In the instant case, it is undisputed that Atty. Laforteza notarized and administered oaths in documents that had no
relation to his official function. The subject documents, to wit: (1) an Agreement between Clemente Solis and
Flordeliza Coquia, 22 and the (2) Payment Agreement executed by Flordeliza Coquia, are both private documents
which are unrelated to Atty. Laforteza's official functions. The civil case from where the subject documents originated
is not even raffled in Branch 68 where Atty. Laforteza was assigned. While Atty. Laforteza serve as notary public ex
officio and, thus, may notarize documents or administer oaths, he should not in his ex officio capacity take part in the
execution of private documents bearing no relation at all to his official functions.
Under the provisions of Section 4123 (as amended by Section 2 of R. A. No. 673324) and Section 24225 of the Revised
Administrative Code, in relation to Sections G,26 M27 and N,28 Chapter VIII of the Manual for Clerks of Court, Clerks of
Court are notaries public ex officio, and may thus notarize documents or administer oaths but only when the matter is
related to the exercise of their official functions.29 In Exec. Judge Astorga v. Solas,30 the Court ruled that clerks of court
should not, in their ex-officio capacity, take part in the execution of private documents bearing no relation at all to their
official functions. Notarization of documents that have no relation to the performance of their official functions is now
considered to be beyond the scope of their authority as notaries public ex officio. Any one of them who does so would
Page 11 of 15
be committing an unauthorized notarial act, which amounts to engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and abuse
of authority.
As to the Violation of Notarial Law:
We likewise agree and adopt the findings of the IBP-Board of Governors which found Atty. Laforteza to have violated
the Notarial Law.1âwphi1
In this case, it is undisputed that Atty. Laforteza failed to comply with the rules of notarial law. He admitted that he
notarized a pre-signed subject document presented to him. He also admitted his failure to personally verify the identity
of all parties who purportedly signed the subject documents and who, as he claimed, appeared before him on January
7, 2009 as he merely relied upon the assurance of Luzviminda that her companions are the actual signatories to the
said documents. In ascertaining the identities of the parties, Atty. Laforteza contented himself after propounding
several questions only despite the Rules' clear requirement of presentation of competent evidence of identity such as
an identification card with photograph and signature. Such failure to verify the identities of the parties was further
shown by the fact that the pertinent identification details of the parties to the subject documents, as proof of their
identity, were lacking in the subject documents' acknowledgment portion. Atty. Laforteza even affixed his signature in
an incomplete notarial certificate. From the foregoing, it can be clearly concluded that there was a failure on the part of
Atty. Laforteza to exercise the due diligence required of him as a notary public ex-officio.
Notarization of documents ensures the authenticity and reliability of a document. Notarization of a private document
converts such document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity.
Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a
notary public and appended to a private instrument. Notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages
public interest in a substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires preventing those who are not qualified
or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon the public and the courts and administrative offices
generally.31
Hence, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same
persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated
therein. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the
acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act and deed.32
The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice stresses the necessity of the affiant's personal appearance before the notary
public Rule II, Section 1 states:
SECTION 1. Acknowledgment.-"Acknowledgment" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents and integrally complete instrument or document;
(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and
(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for
the purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or document as his
free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign
in that capacity. (Emphasis supplied)
Rule IV, Section 2(b) further states:
SEC. 2. Prohibitions. - x x x
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document –
(1) is not in the notary's 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
competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
Thus, a document should not be notarized unless the persons who are executing it are the very same ones who are
personally appearing before the notary public. The affiants should be present to attest to the truth of the contents of
the document and to enable the notary to verify the genuineness of their signature. Notaries public are enjoined from
notarizing a fictitious or spurious document. In fact, it is their duty to demand that the document presented to them for
notarization be signed in their presence. Their function is, among others, to guard against illegal deeds.33 For this
reason, notaries public 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.34
PENALTY
While Atty. Laforteza was merely an ex-officio notary public by virtue of his position as clerk of court then, it did not
relieve him of compliance with the same standards and obligations imposed upon other commissioned notaries
public.35 However, this Court can no longer acquire administrative jurisdiction over Atty. Laforteza for the purpose of
imposing disciplinary sanctions over erring court employees since the instant complaint against him was filed after he
has ceased to be a court employee.
In Talisic vs. Atty. Rinen,36 respondent, as ex-officio notary public, failed to verify the identity of all the parties to the
document. Thus, the Court ordered his notarial commission revoked and disqualified him from being commissioned as
a notary public for a period of one year. We deem it proper to impose the same penalty.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Atty. Emmanuel E. Laforteza's notarial commission, if there is any,
is REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of one (1) year. He
is likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to Atty. Laforteza's personal
record. Further, let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the
Court Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all the courts in the country for their information and
guidance. SO ORDERED.
A.C. No. 9364 [Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3696], February 08, 2017 FLORDELIZA E.
COQUIA, Complainant, v. ATTY. EMMANUEL E. LAFORTEZA, Respondent. PERALTA, J.:
Before us is a Petition for Disbarment dated February 6, 2012 filed by Flordeliza E. Coquia1 (Coquia) against
respondent Atty. Emmanuel E. Laforteza (Atty. Laforteza), docketed as A.C. No. 9364, for Conduct Unbecoming of a
Lawyer due to the unauthorized notarization of documents relative to Civil Case No. 18943.2
Atty. Laforteza was a former Clerk of Court of Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 68, Lingayen, Pangasinan, having
assumed office in November 17, 2004 until January 31, 2011.3 On February 1, 2011, Arty. Laforteza transferred to the
Department of Justice.4
In her Complaint, Coquia alleged that on January 7, 2009, while in office as clerk of court, Atty. Laforteza conspired
with Clemente Solis (Clemente) to falsify two (2) documents, to wit: (1) an Agreement between Clemente Solis and
Flordeliza Coquia,5 and the (2) Payment Agreement executed by Flordeliza Coquia, and subsequently notarized the
said documents. Coquia claimed that the documents were forged to make it appear that on the said date, she
subscribed and sworn to the said documents before Atty. Laforteza when in truth and in fact on the said date and time,
she was attending to her classes at the Centro Escolar University in Manila as evidenced by the certified true copy of
the Centro Escolar University Faculty Daily Time Record for the period of December 16, 2008 to January 14, 2009.6
Page 12 of 15
Coquia asserted that under the law, Atty. Laforteza is not authorized to administer oath on documents not related to
his functions and duties as Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 68, Lingayen, Pangasinan. Thus, the instant complaint for
disbarment for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.
On January 12, 2012, the Office of the Bar Confidant referred the complaint to Atty. Cristina B. Layusa, Deputy Clerk
of Court and Bar Confidant, Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court, for appropriate action.7
On March 19, 2012, the Court resolved to require Atty. Laforteza to comment on the complaint against him.8
In compliance, Atty. Laforteza submitted his Comment9 dated July 2, 2012 where he denied the allegations in the
complaint. Atty. Laforteza recalled that on January 7, 2009, while attending to his work, fellow court employee,
Luzviminda Solis (Luzviminda), wife of Clemente, with other persons, came to him. He claimed that Luzviminda
introduced said persons to him as the same parties to the subject documents. Luzviminda requested him to subscribe
the subject documents as proof of their transaction considering that they are blood relatives. Atty. Laforteza claimed
that he hesitated at first and even directed them to seek the services of a notary public but they insisted for his
assistance and accommodation. Thus, in response to the exigency of the situation and thinking in all good faith that it
would also serve the parties' interest having arrived at a settlement, Atty. Laforteza opted to perform the subscription
of the jurat. He, however, insisted that at that time of subscription, after propounding some questions, he was actually
convinced that the persons who came to him are the same parties to the said subject documents.10
Atty. Laforteza likewise denied that there was conspiracy or connivance between him and the Solis'. He pointed out
that other than the subject documents and Coquia's bare allegation of conspiracy, no evidence was presented to
substantiate the same. Atty. Laforteza lamented that he was also a victim of the circumstances with his reliance to the
representations made before him. He invoked the presumption of regularity and extended his apology to this Court
should his act as a subscribing officer be deemed improper.11
In a Joint-Affidavit12 dated July 2, 2012 of Clemente and Luzviminda, both denied to have connived or conspired with
Atty. Laforteza in the preparation and execution of the subject documents. They narrated that Atty. Laforteza in fact
initially refused to grant their request to notarize the subject documents but they were able to convince him to assist
them in the interest of justice. Clemente insisted that he was one of the signatories in the said documents and that he
has personal knowledge that the signature of Coquia inscribed in the same documents are her true signatures having
seen her affixed her signatures.13
On October 11, 2012, the Court resolved to refer the instant case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation.14
During the mandatory conference, both parties agreed that Atty. Laforteza is authorized to administer oaths. However,
as to the requirement to establish the identity of the parties, Atty. Laforteza admitted that he does not personally know
both Coquia and Clemente, and he merely relied on Luzviminda and Lorna Viray, who are known to him as fellow
court employees, to establish the identities of the parties. He likewise admitted that Coquia did not sign the documents
in his presence and that someone present on the said date allegedly owned the signature of Coquia as hers.15
In its Report and Recommendation16 dated December 18, 2013, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD)
recommended that the instant complaint be dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.
However, in a Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-818 dated October 11, 2014, the IBP-Board of Governors resolved to
reversed and set aside the Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD, and instead reprimanded and cautioned
Atty. Laforteza to be careful in performing his duties as subscribing officer.17
We concur with the findings of the IBP-Board of Governors, except as to the penalty.
In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is clearly
preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant.18 In the absence of cogent proof, bare
allegations of misconduct cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.19
In the instant case, We find that Coquia failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to show that Atty. Laforteza
had direct and instrumental participation, or was in connivance with the Solis1 in the preparation of the subject
documents. While it may be assumed that Atty. Laforteza had a hand in the preparation of the subject documents, We
cannot give evidentiary weight to such a supposition in the absence of any evidence to support it. The Court does not
thus give credence to charges based on mere suspicion and speculation.20
As to the allegation of unauthorized notarization:
As early as the case of Borre v. Moya,21 this Court had already clarified that the power of ex officio notaries public have
been limited to notarial acts connected to the exercise of their official functions and duties.
Consequently, the empowerment of ex officio notaries public to perform acts within the competency of regular notaries
public - such as acknowledgments, oaths and affirmations, jurats, signature witnessing, copy certifications, and other
acts authorized under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice - is now more of an exception rather than a general rule.
They may perform notarial acts on such documents that bear no relation to their official functions and duties only if (1)
a certification is included in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any other lawyer or notary public in the
municipality or circuit; and (2) all notarial fees charged will be for the account of the government and turned over to the
municipal treasurer. No compliance with these two requirements are present in this case.
In the instant case, it is undisputed that Atty. Laforteza notarized and administered oaths in documents that had no
relation to his official function. The subject documents, to wit: (1) an Agreement between Clemente Solis and
Flordeliza Coquia,22 and the (2) Payment Agreement executed by Flordeliza Coquia, are both private documents which
are unrelated to Atty. Laforteza's official functions. The civil case from where the subject documents originated is not
even raffled in Branch 68 where Atty. Laforteza was assigned. While Atty. Laforteza serve as notary public ex
officio and, thus, may notarize documents or administer oaths, he should not in his ex-officio capacity take part in the
execution of private documents bearing no relation at all to his official functions.
Under the provisions of Section 4123 (as amended by Section 2 of R. A. No. 673324) and Section 24225 of the Revised
Administrative Code, in relation to Sections G,26 M27 and N,28 Chapter VIII of the Manual for Clerks of Court, Clerks of
Court are notaries public ex officio, and may thus notarize documents or administer oaths but only when the matter is
related to the exercise of their official functions.29 In Exec. Judge Astorga v. Solas,30 the Court ruled that clerks of court
should not, in their ex-officio capacity, take part in the execution of private documents bearing no relation at all to their
official functions. Notarization of documents that have no relation to the performance of their official functions is now
considered to be beyond the scope of their authority as notaries public ex officio. Any one of them who does so would
be committing an unauthorized notarial act, which amounts to engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and abuse
of authority.
As to the Violation of Notarial Law:
The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice stresses the necessity of the affiant's personal appearance before the notary
public Rule II, Section 1 states:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SECTION 1. Acknowledgment.—"Acknowledgment" refers to an act in which an individual on a single
occasion:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents and integrally complete instrument or
document;chanrobleslaw
(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and
(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for
the purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or document as his
free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign
in that capacity. (Emphasis supplied)
Rule IV, Section 2(b) further states:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 2. Prohibitions. - x x x
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document —
(1) is not in the notary's 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
competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
Thus, a document should not be notarized unless the persons who are executing it are the very same ones who are
personally appearing before the notary public. The affiants should be present to attest to the truth of the contents of
the document and to enable the notary to verify the genuineness of their signature. Notaries public are enjoined from
notarizing a fictitious or spurious document. In fact, it is their duty to demand that the document presented to them for
notarization be signed in their presence. Their function is, among others, to guard against illegal deeds.33 For this
reason, notaries public 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.34

We likewise agree and adopt the findings of the IBP-Board of Governors which found Atty. Laforteza to have violated
PENALTY
the Notarial Law.
While Atty. Laforteza was merely an ex-officio notary public by virtue of his position as clerk of court then, it did not
In this case, it is undisputed that Atty. Laforteza failed to comply with the rules of notarial law. He admitted that he
relieve him of compliance with the same standards and obligations imposed upon other commissioned notaries
notarized a pre-signed subject document presented to him. He also admitted his failure to personally verify the identity
public.35 However, this Court can no longer acquire administrative jurisdiction over Atty. Laforteza for the purpose of
of all parties who purportedly signed the subject documents and who, as he claimed, appeared before him on January
imposing disciplinary sanctions over erring court employees since the instant complaint against him was filed after he
7, 2009 as he merely relied upon the assurance of Luzviminda that her companions are the actual signatories to the
has ceased to be a court employee.
said documents. In ascertaining the identities of the parties, Atty. Laforteza contented himself after propounding
several questions only despite the Rules' clear requirement of presentation of competent evidence of identity such as
In Talisic vs. Atty. Rinen,36 respondent, as ex-officio notary public, failed to verify the identity of all the parties to the
an identification card with photograph and signature. Such failure to verify the identities of the parties was further
document. Thus, the Court ordered his notarial commission revoked and disqualified him from being commissioned as
shown by the fact that the pertinent identification details of the parties to the subject documents, as proof of their
a notary public for a period of one year. We deem it proper to impose the same penalty.
identity, were lacking in the subject documents' acknowledgment portion. Atty. Laforteza even affixed his signature in
an incomplete notarial certificate. From the foregoing, it can be clearly concluded that there was a failure on the part of
Atty. Laforteza to exercise the due diligence required of him as a notary public ex-officio.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Arty. Emmanuel E. Laforteza's notarial commission, if there is any,
is REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of one (1) year. He
Notarization of documents ensures the authenticity and reliability of a document. Notarization of a private document
is likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
converts such document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity.
Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to Atty. Laforteza's personal
notary public and appended to a private instrument. Notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages
record. Further, let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the
public interest in a substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires preventing those who are not qualified
Court Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all the courts in the country for their information and
or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon the public and the courts and administrative offices
guidance. SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
generally.31

Hence, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same
persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated
therein. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the
acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act and deed.32

Page 13 of 15
A.C. No. 11478 SPOUSES ANDRE CHAMBON AND MARIA FATIMA CHAMBON, Complainants vs. ATTY.
CHRISTOPHER S. RUIZ, Respondent
TIJAM, J.:
This administrative case arose from a verified Complaint1 for gross violation of Section 2 (b ), paragraph 2 of Rule IV
and Section 2, paragraphs (a), (d), and (e) of Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice filed by complainant
Spouses Andre and Maria Fatima Chambon (Spouses Chambon) against Atty. Christopher S. Ruiz (respondent)
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines(IBP).
The Facts
Spouses Chambon alleged that they were creditors of a certain Suzette Camasura Auman, also known as Mrs.
Suzette Camasura Remoreras (Remoreras). To secure her obligation, Remoreras executed a real estate
mortgage2 (REM) over a parcel of land with improvements covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
29490,3 which was registered in her maiden name. Said REM was annotated in the Registry of Deeds of Mandaue City
in 2006. TCT No. 29490 was handed over to Spouses Chambon.4
As Remoreras failed to pay her loan obligation, Spouses Chambon were prompted to institute an extra-judicial
foreclosure proceedings on the subject property before the Ex-Officio Sheriff of Mandaue City. The public auction was
set on April 27, 2010. 5
In February 2010, counsel for Spouses Chambon learned that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City,
Branch 56, issued an Order6 dated March 24, 2008, which directed the issuance of a new Owner's Duplicate Copy of
TCT No. 29490. Apparently, a Petition for Issuance of a new Owner's Duplicate Copy of TCT No. 29490, which was
grounded on an alleged Notice of Loss/Affidavit of Loss of the subject title, was filed by Remoreras.
Before the scheduled public auction, Remoreras filed a complaint to enjoin the holding of the same on the basis of an
alleged execution and delivery of a Release of Mortgage document on the subject property purportedly executed by
Spouses Chambon.7
Spouses Chambon discovered that the Notice of Loss/ Affidavit of Loss8 and the Release of Mortgage9 were notarized
by the respondent in Cebu City and that certain defects were found in said notarized documents and in the Notarial
Register. In the jurat of said Notice, there was no competent evidence of identity of the executor. Also, in said Release,
Spouses Chambon denied having executed the same.10
These incidents prompted Spouses Chambon to file a complaint for gross violation of Section 2 (b), paragraph 2 of
Rule IV and Section 2, paragraphs (a), (d), and (e) of Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice before the IBP.
In his Answer, the respondent denied the existence and notarization of the Release of Mortgage. As to the Notice of
Loss/Affidavit of Loss, he admitted its existence and its entry in the Notarial Register. However, he imputed negligence
on the part of his secretary as regards certain lapses in his Notarial Register.11
After investigation, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) rendered a Report
and Recommendation12 dated June 19, 2013, to wit:
Viewed from the foregoing, we recommend that the Respondent's present commission as notary public, if any, be
revoked and that he be barrt!d from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of four (4) years.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 13
Page 14 of 15
In a Resolution 14 dated October 11, 2014, the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted the findings of the IBP-CBD, but
modified the penalty, viz:
RESOLVED TO ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby 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 for violation of Rule IV, Section 2 (b), Rule VI, Section (a). par. 4, 5, and 6 and Rule VI, Section (2),
par. (e) of the 2004 Rules of [sic] Notarial Practice, Atty. Christopher S. Ruiz's notarial commission if presently
commissioned is immediately REVOKED. Further, he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as notary public for three
(3) years and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years. 15 (Emphasis supplied)
The Issue
Should respondent be administratively disciplined based on the allegations in the complaint and evidence on record?
Our Ruling
By law, a notary public is empowered to perform the following acts: acknowledgments, oaths and affirmations, jurats,
signature witnessing, copy certifications, among others. 16 The duties of a notary public is dictated by public policy and
impressed with public interest. It is not a meaningless ministerial act of acknowledging documents executed by parties
who are willing to pay the fees for notarization. 17 For notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a
public document, making the same admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity; thus, a notarial
document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.18
In this case, We find that the respondent failed to live up with the duties of a notary public as dictated by the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice. The subject Notice of Loss/Affidavit of Loss, allegedly executed by Remoreras, was
undisputedly notarized by the respondent and entered in his Notarial Register. However, a careful examination of said
Notice reveals that violation of the 2004 Rules was committed.
For one, the jurat was incomplete in that the competent proof of identity of the executor, Remoreras, was left in blank.
Also, reference to the Notarial Register indicates that the entries pertaining to said Notice were also left in blank. The
title/description of instrument, name and addresses of parties, competent evidence of identity, date and time of
notarization, and type of notarial act were not filled up.
We emphasize that Section 5 of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules provides:
Sec. 5. False or Incomplete Certificate. - A notary public shall not:
(a) execute a certificate containing information known or believed by the notary to be false.
(b) affix an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete.
Relevantly, Section 8 defines a notarial certificate as part of, or attachment to, a notarized instrument or document that
is completed by the notary public, bears the notary's signature and seal, and states the facts attested to by the notary
public in a particular notarization as provided for by these Rules.
In this case, the respondent affixed his signature and seal on the notarial certificate without verifying the identity of the
executor. Such was inferred from the fact that the competent proof of such executor's identity was left in blank. Hence,
his act of signing the notarial certificate, notwithstanding the fact that it was incomplete, is a clear violation of the said
Rules. No allegation as well that Remoreras is personally known to the respondent to dispense with the presentation
of a competent evidence of identity. 19
Moreover, entries in the respondent's Notarial Register, which refer to said Notice of Loss/Affidavit ofLoss were also
not properly accomplished.
RULE VI - NOTARIAL REGISTER
SEC. 1. Form of Notarial Register. - (a) A notary public shall keep, maintain, protect and provide for lawful inspection
as provided in these Rules, a chronological official notarial register of notarial acts consisting of a permanently bound
book with numbered page.
xxxx
SEC. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. - (a) For every notarial act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the
time of 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 person's identity;
(8) the fee charged for the notarial act;
(9) the address where the notarization was performed if not in the notary's regular place of work or business; and
(10) any other circumstance the notary public may deem of significance or relevance.
(b) A notary public shall record in the notarial register the reasons and circumstances for not completing a notarial act.
Here, it is undisputed that the respondent's Notarial Register did not bear the details pertaining to said Notice of
Loss/Affidavit of Loss. To exculpate himself from liability, he attributed negligence and omission on the part of his
secretary who prepared the same.
On this note, We reiterate that 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 his secretary.20 The act of recording such entries in
the Notarial Register is part and parcel of the duties of a notary public. Keeping in mind the nature of a notary public's
responsibility, the respondent should not have shifted such responsibility to his office secretary and allowed her to
make such pertinent entries.
As to the second subject document, i.e., Release of Mortgage, the respondent denied having notarized the same. He
averred that reference to the book number, document number, and page number of the such alleged Release points to
Page 15 of 15
a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in his Notarial Register. The respondent admitted that while an SP A is indicated
therein, it was actually a Deed of Absolute Sale, which he actually notarized. Such inadvertence was also blamed to
his office secretary.
Said Release of Mortgage bears similarities as to the signature and seal of the respondent as provided in the Notice of
Loss/ Affidavit of Loss. Nevertheless, his admission that inadvertence on the part of his secretary was committed with
regard to the entries in his Notarial Register also constitutes a violation under the Rules as aforementioned.
We stress that a notary public carries with him a duty imbued with public interest. At all times, a notary public must be
wary of the duties pertaining to his office. Thus, those who are not qualified to live up with the mandate of such office
must, in absolute terms, be stripped off such authority.
As to penalty, We deem it proper to modify the same in accordance with jurisprudence. For failure to make proper
entries in the notarial register, We imposed the penalty of revocation of the notarial commission and suspension from
the practice of law for different durations. In the cases of Agadan, et al. v. Atty. Kilaan21 and Father Aquino v. Atty.
Pascuai,22 the duration for the suspension is for three months, while in the case of Bernardo v. Atty. Ramos, 23 the
duration is for six months. On the other hand, for affixing signature and seal on an incomplete notarial certificate, the
penalty of revocation of notarial commission, prohibition from being a notary public for two years, and suspension from
the practice of law for one year was viewed as wise in the case of Gaddi v. Atty. Velasco, Jr,24 while in the case
of Flodeliza E. Coquia v. Atty. Emmanuel E. Laforteza, 25 the penalty of revocation of notarial commission and
disqualification from being a notary public for one year was considered proper. Lastly, in the case of Bartolome v.
Basilio,26 wherein the notary public was found to have failed to make proper entries in his notarial register and affixed
his signature in an incomplete notarial certificate, the penalty imposed was revocation of the notarial commissio,
suspension from the practice of law for one year, and prohibition from being a notary public for two years.
Guided by the foregoing precedents, the imposition of the penalty of revocation of notarial commission and suspension
from the practice of law for a period of one year is considered as just and proper. Also, We deem it proper to impose
the penalty of perpetual disqualification from being a notary public. It is beyond question that respondent was doubly
negligent in the performance of his duties as a notary public. Not only did he notarize an incomplete notarial document,
but he also admittedly delegated to his secretary his duty of entering details in his Notarial Register. To recall, such
admission was apparent from respondent's act of shifting the blame to his secretary when attention was called out as
to the non-accomplishment of pertinent entries in his Notarial Register. To Our mind, such acts constitute dishonesty
to this Court, warranting perpetual disqualification from being a notary public.
WHEREFORE, the instant complaint is GRANTED. Respondent Atty. Christopher S. Ruiz is found GUILTY of violating
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Accordingly, We hereby REVOKE his notarial commission and PERPETUALLY
DISQUALIFY him from being a notary public. Atty. Ruiz is also SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
one (1) year, effective immediately. He is STERNLY WARNED that repetition of the same will be dealt with more
severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnish all courts, the Office of the Bar Confidant, and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for their information and guidance.1âwphi1 The Office of the Bar Confidant is directed to append a copy of
this Decision to respondent's record as member of the Bar.
SO ORDERED.