Case No.

31
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
Mondejar vs. Rubia 496 SCRA 1 (2006)

FACTS: Sometime in 2002, Mondejar charged Marilyn Carido and her husband before the Digos City Prosecutor's Office
for violation of the Anti-Dummy Law. During the pendency of the case, it was raised that on April 20, 2001, respondent
Rubia notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale of a parcel of land situated in Digos City, purportedly executed by Lozada as
vendor and Marilyn as vendee. Complainant alleged that respondent falsified the document by forging the signature of
Lozada who has been staying in Maryland, U.S.A. since 1992.

Mondejar sought the disbarment of Atty. Rubia and the cancellation of her notarial commission for allegedly committing
deceitful acts and malpractice in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

ISSUE: W/N respondent is guilty of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING: YES. Respondent is found to have violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states
that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

In this case, the document clearly appears to have been ante-dated in an attempt to exculpate Marilyn from the Anti-
Dummy charge against her in 2002. The document was allegedly notarized on January 9, 2001 but a new
revised/amended document was made in 2002 bearing the original date of execution/acknowledgment. If that were so,
how could an error have been committed regarding the other year 2001 original entries in the notarial register, when
the purported new document was to retain the original January 9, 2001 date as it would merely input additional
conditions thereto?

One of the grounds for revocation of notarial commission is the failure of the notary to send a copy of notarized
documents to the proper clerk of court or Executive Judge within the first ten (10) days of the month next following.

VERDICT: Atty. Vivian Rubia, for violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, is
suspended for One (1) Month, and warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
 Case No. 32
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
Lee vs. Tambago 544 SCRA 393 (2008)

FACTS: Lee charged Atty. Tambago with violation of Notarial Law and the Ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a
will that is alleged to be spurious in nature in containing forged signatures of his father, the decedent, Vicente Lee Sr.
and two other witnesses, which were also questioned for the unnotated Residence Certificates that are known to be a
copy of their respective voter's affidavit.

In addition to such, the contested will was executed and acknowledged before respondent on June 30, 1965 but bears a
Residence Certificate by the Testator dated January 5, 1962, which was never submitted for filing to the Archives
Division of the Records Management and Archives Office of the National Commission for Culture and Arts (NCAA).

ISSUE: W/N respondent committed a violation in Notarial Law and the Ethics of Legal Profession for notarizing a spurious
last will and testament?

RULING: YES. As the acknowledging officer of the contested will, respondent was required to faithfully observe the
formalities of a will and those of notarization. The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of notaries
public. They are required to certify that the party to every document acknowledged before him had presented the
proper residence certificate (or exemption from the residence tax); and to enter its number, place of issue and date as
part of such certification. These formalities are mandatory and cannot be disregarded, considering the degree of
importance and evidentiary weight attached to notarized documents.

The Notarial Law then in force required the exhibition of the residence certificate upon notarization of a document or
instrument. By having allowed decedent to exhibit an expired residence certificate, respondent failed to comply with the
requirements of both the old Notarial Law and the Residence Tax Act.

VERDICT: Atty. Regino B. Tambago is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year and his notarial
commission REVOKED.Because he has not lived up to the trustworthiness expected of him as a notary public and as an
officer of the court, he is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary public.
 Case No. 33
Notarial Duties
Crisostomo v. Nazareno AC 6677 (2014)

FACTS: In 2001, the complainants purchased housing units from Rudex and due to some construction defects,
complainants sought for rescission. Rudex was represented by Atty. Nazareno. In 2003, Rudex filed 3 petitions for review
before the HLURB assailing the same. Atty. Nazareno, stated that it has not commenced or has knowledge of any similar
action or proceeding involving the same issues pending before any court, tribunal or agency despite the fact that they
have previously filed an ejectment case on 2002.

In 2004, Rudex filed another complaint against Sps. Sioting before the HLURB for the rescission of their contract to sell
and the latter’s ejectment, with a certification that they had not commenced any action involving the same issues before
any court. It was notarized by Atty. Nazareno himself.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Nazareno should be held administratively liable.

RULING: YES. In the realm of legal ethics, said infraction may be considered as a violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule
10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Code) which provides:

CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR
LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

It has been established that Atty. Nazareno made false declarations in the certifications against forum shopping attached
to Rudex’s pleadings, for which he should be held administratively liable. Atty. Nazareno should have truthfully declared
the existence of the pending related cases in the certifications against forum shopping attached to the pertinent
pleadings.

VERDICT: Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon his receipt
of this Decision, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Further, he is PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public and, his notarial commission, if
currently existing, is hereby REVOKED.
 Case No. 34
Notarial Duties
Almazan v. Suerte-Felipe AC 7184 (2014)

FACTS: Complainant Felipe B. Almazan, Sr. charged respondent, previously of the Public Attorney’s Office, 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 “Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Juliana P.  Vda. De Nieva”, stating that he
is a “notary public for and in the City of Marikina.” IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty for violating
the Notarial Law and the lawyer’s oath, reasoning that he could not notarize the acknowledgment of the subject
document in Marikina City as it was outside the territorial limits of his jurisdiction.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable.

RULING: YES. 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 of Marikina, 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

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 anathema to 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.

VERDICT: 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 or similar 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.
 Case No. 35
Notarial Duties
In re: Order of Judge Maramba AC 10119 (2014)

FACTS: Judge Maramba, Executive Judge of RTC Dagupan, issued an order ordering respondent Atty. Surdilla to cease
and desist from notarizing documents without authority. Despite this, respondent continued to notarize documents as
notarizing officer appearing on the Applications for Foreclosure of REM filed by the Rural Bank of Itogon. Thus, Judge
Maramba issued an order directing the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Pangasinan Chapter of the IBP for
appropriate action.

ISSUE: W/N respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

RULING: YES. Under Sec. 3 of the Rules, the grant of authority to perform notarial acts is evidenced by the notarial
commission issued by the Executive Judge. The notarial commission is issued upon application by any qualified person
for the issuance thereof, and after the Executive Judge had conducted a summary hearing on the application and
granted the same.

Only those who have been granted a notarial commission may serve as notaries public, and respondent clearly was not
one when he notarized the Applications for Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage. Notarization is not an empty,
meaningless, or routinary act, but one invested with substantive public interest such that only those who are qualified or
authorized to do so may act as notaries public. Notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public
one and makes it admissible ·in evidence without further proof of its authenticity.

By admitting to notarizing documents without a notarial commission, respondent veritably admits being gravely remiss
in his duties as a lawyer and failing to maintain a high standard of honesty and fair dealing.

VERDICT: Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS Atty. Surdilla, Jr. from the practice of law for one (1) year and DISQUALIFIES
him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. The Court hereby warns Atty. Surdilla, Jr. that a
repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall merit a more severe sanction.