Maniago vs De Dios - set the guidelines

WON after suspension, the resumption to practice law is automatically

lifted?

IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is hereby RESOLVED that the

following guidelines be observed in the matter of the lifting of an order
suspending a lawyer from the practice of law:
1) After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from the
practice of law, the Court shall render a decision imposing the penalty;
2) Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately
executory upon receipt thereof, respondent has 15 days within which to file a
motion for reconsideration thereof. The denial of said motion shall render the
decision final and executory;
3) Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall file a
Sworn Statement with the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant,
stating therein that he or she has desisted from the practice of law and has
not appeared in any court during the period of his or her suspension;
4) Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of
the IBP and to the Executive Judge of the courts where respondent has
pending cases handled by him or her, and/or where he or she has appeared
as counsel;
5) The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondents
compliance with the order of suspension;
6) Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the lawyer
under oath shall be a ground for the imposition of a more severe
punishment, or disbarment, as may be warranted.

Powers and Limitations of notary public

Espinosa vs. Omana

The Extrajudicial dissolution of conjugal partnership without judicial approval

is void. A notary public should not facilitate the disintegration of marriage
and family by encouraging the separation of spouses and extrajudicially
dissolving the conjugal partnership.

Jurisdiction of notary public and place of notarization:

Bio vs Gonzales:

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 lawyers 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, citing Nunga v. Atty. Viray, the
Court instructively expounded on infractions similar to that of respondent:
While seemingly appearing to be a harmless incident, respondents 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 in the
violation involved, what the Court said in Nunga v. Viray is 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 to do so, the
offender may be subjected to disciplinary action. For one, performing a
notarial [act] without such commission is a violation of the lawyers 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 falsehood, which the lawyers
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
Term of Office of notary public:
Uy vs. Sao

This is a disbarment case filed by complainant Uy against

respondent Sano for allegedly notarizing several documents despite
the expiration of his commission.
The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of
honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by
faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his
clients. To this end, a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from
doing any act which might lessen, in any degree, the confidence and trust
reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal
profession. Apropos to the case at bar, it has been emphatically stressed that
notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with

substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified and
authorized may act as notaries public. It must be underscored that the act of
notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public
document making it admissible in evidence without further proof of
authenticity. A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit
upon its face. For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care
the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.
Cruz vs. Dimaano
Made untruthful statements in the acknowledgment portion of the
notarized document when he made it appear, among other things, that
complainants personally came and appeared before him and that they
affixed their signatures on the document in his presence.

Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge with

fidelity the duties of their offices, such duties being dictated by public policy
and impressed with public interest. It must be remembered that notarization
is not a routinary, meaningless act, for notarization converts a private
document to a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without
the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution. 1[6] A
notarized document is by law entitled to full credit upon its face and it is for
this reason that notaries public must observe the basic requirements in
notarizing documents. Otherwise, the confidence of the public on notorized
documents will be eroded.
Linco vs. Lacebal
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. Hence, again, 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. This responsibility is more pronounced when
the notary public is a lawyer. A graver responsibility is placed upon him by
reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or
consent to the doing of any. He is mandated to the sacred duties
appertaining to his office, such duties, being dictated by public policy and
impressed with public interest. Respondent's failure to perform his duty as a
notary public resulted not only in damaging complainant's rights over the
property subject of the donation but also in undermining the integrity of a
notary public. He should, therefore, be held liable for his acts, not only as a
notary public but also as a lawyer