Page 1 of 5

Sergio G. Amora Jr. vs. Commission on Elections and Arnel Olandria, January 25, 2011 Ponente: Nachura, J. Facts: On December 1, 2009, petitioner Amora filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor of Candijay, Bohol. At that time, he was the incumbent mayor. To oppose Amora, NPC fielded Trygve L. Olaivar for the mayoralty post. Respondent Olandria was one of the candidates for councillor of the NPC in the same municipality. On March 5, 2010, Olandria filed before the COMELEC a Petition for Disqualification against Amora. Olandria alleged that Amoras COC was not properly sworn contrary to the requirements of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He pointed out that, in executing his COC, Amora merely presented his CTC to the notary public, Atty. Oriculo Granada, instead of presenting a competent evidence of his identity. Consequently, Amoras COC had no force and effect and should be considered as not filed. Amora traversed his allegations. He countered that the petition for disqualification is actually a petition to deny due course, which is filed out of time; that the claim does not constitute a proper ground for the cancellation of the COC; that the COC is valid and effective because Amora is personally known to the notary public, Atty. Granada **Second Division of the COMELEC granted Olandrias petition and disqualified Amora. **COMELEC en banc denied Motion for Reconsideration, reiterating his previous arguments. Pending the decision, Amora already won in the mayoralty race. Section 73. Certificate of Candidacy. No person shall be eligible for any elective public office unless he files a sworn certificate of candidacy within the period fixed herein. Section 2. Affirmation or Oath. The term Affirmation or Oath refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and Section 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. The phrase competent evidence of identity refers to the identification of an individual based on: (a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photographand signature of the individual. x x x.

**SC: Petition granted. In this case, it was grave abuse of discretion to uphold Olandrias claim that an improperly sworn COC is equivalent to possession of a ground for disqualification. Not by any stretch of the imagination can they infer this as an additional ground for disqualification from the specific wording of the OEC in Section 68 and Section 40 of the LGC. Section 78 Petition to Deny Due Course; Sec. 68 (substitution) vs. Sec. 78 (not a candidate at all) Also, competent evidence of identity is not required in cases where the affiant is personally known to the Notary Public, which is the case herein. The purpose of election laws is to give effect to, rather than frustrate, the will of the voters. To disqualify [petitioner] at this late stage simply due to an overly strict reading of the 2004 Notarial Rules will effectively deprive the people who voted for him their rights to vote.

Page 2 of 5
Manuel L. Lee vs. Atty. Regino B. Tambago, February 12, 2008 Ponente: Corona, J. On April 10, 2000, complainant Manuel L. Lee charged respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago with violation of the Notarial Law and the ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a spurious last will and testament. In his complaint, complainant averred that his father, the decedent Vicente Lee, Sr., never executed the contested will. Furthermore, the spurious will contained the forged signatures of Cayetano Noynay and Loreto Grajo, the purported witnesses to its execution. In the will, the decedent supposedly bequeathed his entire estate to his wife Lim Hock Lee, save for a parcel of land, which he devised to Vincent Lee, Jr. and Elena Lee, half-siblings. The will was executed and acknowledged before respondent on June 30, 1965. The residence certificate, however, was dated January 5, 1962. Complainant averred that the signatures of his deceased father in the will and in the deed of donation were in any way (sic) entirely diametrically opposed from (sic) one another in all angle[s]. Complainant questioned the absence of notation of the residence certificates of the purported witnesses and that their signatures had likewise been forged. Complainant further asserted that no copy of such purported will was on file in the archives division of the Records Management and Archives Office of the NCCA. [[Doc. 14, Page No. 4, Book No. 1, Series of 1965 refers to an AFFIDAVIT executed by BARTOLOME RAMIREZ on June 30, 1965 and is available in this Office[s] files. ]] Respondent alleged that complainant was not a legitimate son of Vicente Lee, Sr. and the last will and testament was validly executed and actually notarized by respondent per affidavit of Gloria Nebato, common-law wife and corroborated by the joint affidavit of the children of Vicente Lee, Sr., namely Elena N. Lee and Vicente N. Lee, Jr. Respondent further stated that the complaint was filed simply to harass him because the criminal case filed by complainant against him in the Office of the Ombudsman did not prosper. Lastly, respondent pointed out that complainant had no valid cause of action against him as he (complainant) did not first file an action for the declaration of nullity of the will and demand his share in the inheritance. Referred to IBP: suspended from the practice of law for one year and respondents no tarial commission is revoked and disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for two (2) years. SC: Suspended from the practice of law for one year; notarial commission is revoked and perpetually disqualified. Guilty of professional misconduct 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. (Santiago vs. Rafanan) The old Notarial Law required the entry of the following matters in the notarial register, in chronological order: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him; person executing, swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument; witnesses, if any, to the signature; date of execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the instrument; fees collected by him for his services as notary; give each entry a consecutive number; and if the instrument is a contract, a brief description of the substance of the instrument.

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Page 3 of 5 JOSEFINA P. SORIANO, complainant, vs. ATTY. HUMBERTO B. BASCO, respondent. A.C. 6648, Sept. 21, 2005 Ponente: Garcia, J. Josefina P. Soriano charged Atty. Humberto B. Basco in a complaint for disbarment filed with the Committee on Bar Discipline, IBP with violations Sections 245 and 246 of the Revised Administrative Code, Title IV, Chapter II, known as the Notarial Law. That on June 30, 2000, respondent Atty. Humberto B. Basco, Notary Public of Manila testified before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 35, stating among others, that he allegedly notarized a Deed of Sale allegedly executed by complainant Josefina P. Soriano. Respondent testified that Josefina Soriano appeared before him when he notarized the Deed of Sale. Since complainant had never appeared before Notary Public, complainant requested for a copy of the alleged contract from the Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, RTC of Manila concerning the aforementioned Deed of Sale. Clerk of Court VII, Jennifer H. Dela Cruz-Buendia issued a Certification certifying that the alleged Deed of Sale was not among the document submitted to said office. Complainant also received a certified true copy of the notarial register of Notary Public Basco which disclosed his failure to indicate the names of the witnesses, fees charged, the respective residence certificates of the parties to the documents which he notarized. In his defense, respondent declared that on January 17, 1997, herein complainant together with her son, Marcial P. Soriano went to his office located at 234 City Hall Bldg. both carrying with them a duly pre-drafted deed of sale, contents whereof signified that complainant did convey to the son valuable property. Respondent further stated that he instructed his staff secretary, Ms. Elizabeth Roque-Sanchez, to effect the clerical entry of notarial particulars of the original and copies of the said mutually executed deed of sale. Respondent claim that his staff secretary of course, retained a copy for our file and advised complainant and her son to immediately return or call the office to furnish their respective Community Tax Certificate. Sections 245 and 246 of the Revised Administrative Code respectively provide: Sec. 245. Notarial Register. Every notary public shall keep a register to be known as the notarial register, wherein record shall be made of all his official acts as notary; and he shall supply a certified copy of such record, or any part thereof, to any person applying for it and paying the legal fees therefor. Sec. 246. Matters to be entered therein. The notary public shall enter in such register, in chronological order, the nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him, the person executing, swearing to or acknowledging the instrument, the witnesses, if any, to the signature, the date of the execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the instrument, the fees collected by him for his services as notary in connection therewith, and, when the instrument is a contract, he shall keep a correct copy thereof as part of his records, and shall likewise enter in said records a brief description of the substance thereof and shall give to each entry a consecutive number, beginning with number one in each calendar year. The notary shall give to each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state on the instrument the page or pages of his register on which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries.
Here, Atty. Basco violated the Notarial Law by failing to provide all the necessary information regarding the questioned Deed of Sale entered in his notarial register. He even notarized said instrument even without the notation of the residence certificate of the party to the document. As a notary public, respondent is required by the Notarial Law to certify that the party to the instrument acknowledged before him has presented the proper residence certificate (or exemption from the residence certificate) and to enter its number, place of issue and date as part of the certification. Worse, he likewise failed to send copy of the notarized document to the clerk of court of the proper RTC and to retain a copy thereof for his own records. These formalities are mandatory and cannot simply be neglected. Failure to perform this duty results in the revocation of a notary's commission SC: Revoked notarial commission and he is disqualified from being commissioned for one year.

Page 4 of 5 Luzviminda R. Lutestica vs. Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe, August 24, 2010 Ponente: Per curiam
or consideration is the disbarment complaint filed by Luzviminda R. Lustestica (complainant) against Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe (respondent) for notarizing a falsified or forged Deed of Donation of real property despite the non-appearance of the donors, Benvenuto H. Lustestica (complainants father) and his first wife, Cornelia P. Rivero, both of whom were already dead at the time of execution of the said document. The respondent claimed, however, that he had no knowledge that the real Benvenuto H. Lustestica and Cornelia P. Rivero were already dead at the time he notarized the Deed of Donation. He also claimed that he exerted efforts to ascertain the identities of the persons who appeared before him and represented themselves as the donors under the Deed of Donation. IBP Commission on Bar Discipline: *C+onsidering Respondents gross negligence in the performance of his duties as Notary Pu blic, Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and Respondents notarial commission is Revoked and Disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for two (2) years with a notification that this suspension of one year must be served in succession to the initial recommendation of the IBP Board of Suspension of one year in CBD Case No. 04-1371. Section 1 of Public Act No. 2013, otherwise known as the Notarial Law, explicitly provides: x x x The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. x x x. In view of Respondents judicial admission that the alleged donors, BENVENUTO H. LUSTESTICA and his first wife, CORNELIA P. RIVERO, died on 7 September 1987 and 24 September 1984, respectively, it is beyond reasonable doubt that said donors could not have personally appeared before him on 5 August 1994 to [acknowledge] to him that they freely and voluntary executed the Deed of Donation. CBD Case No. 04-1371: revoked notarial commission, suspended for 2 years from being recommissioned and suspension 1 year from practice of law. On October 8, 2009, the respondent, through a letter addressed to the Office of the Bar Confidant, requested that he be given clearance to resume the practice of law and to allow him to be commissioned as a notary public. In his letter, the respondent alleged that he has already served the penalties imposed against him in A.C. No. 6963 and the present case. He claimed that after the receipt of the IBP Resolutions in both cases, he did not practice his profession and had not been appointed or commissioned as a notary public. Maligsa: A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. 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. SC: Disbarred and perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as notary public, deny the clearance to practice law

Atty. Florita S. Linco vs. Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal, A.C. No. 7241, October 17, 2011 Ponente: Peralta, J.
The instant case stemmed from an Administrative Complaint1 dated June 6, 2005 filed by Atty. Florita S. Linco (complainant) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal for disciplinary action for his failure to perform his duty as a notary public, which resulted in the violation of their rights over their property. Complainant claimed that she is the widow of the late Atty. Alberto Linco (Atty. Linco), the registered owner of a parcel of land with improvements, consisting of 126 square meters, located at No. 8, Macopa St., Phase I-A, B, C & D, Valley View Executive Village, Cainta, Rizal and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 259001.

Page 5 of 5
Complainant alleged that Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal (respondent), a notary public for Mandaluyong City, notarized a deed of donation allegedly executed by her husband in favor of Alexander David T. Linco, a minor. The notarial acknowledgment thereof also stated that Atty. Linco and Lina P. Toledo (Toledo), mother of the donee, allegedly personally appeared before respondent on July 30, 2003, despite the fact that complainants husband died on July 29, 2003.3 Consequently, by virtue of the purported deed of donation, the Register of Deeds of Antipolo City cancelled TCT No. 259001 on March 28, 20054 and issued a new TCT No. 292515 in the name of Alexander David T. Linco. Aggrieved, complainant filed the instant complaint. She claimed that respondent's reprehensible act in connivance with Toledo was not only violative of her and her children's rights but also in violation of the law. Respondent's lack of honesty and candor is unbecoming of a member of the Philippine Bar. In his Answer, respondent admitted having notarized and acknowledged a deed of donation executed by the donor, Atty. Linco, in favor of his son, Alexander David T. Linco, as represented by Lina P. Toledo. Respondent narrated that on July 8, 2003, he was invited by Atty. Linco, through an emissary in the person of Claire Juele-Algodon (Algodon), to see him at his residence located at Guenventille II D-31-B, Libertad Street, Mandaluyong City. Respondent was then informed that Atty. Linco was sick and wanted to discuss something with him. Respondent pointed out that Atty. Linco appeared to be physically weak and sickly, but was articulate and in full control of his faculties. Atty. Linco showed him a deed of donation and the TCT of the property subject of the donation. Respondent claimed that Atty. Linco asked him a favor of notarizing the deed of donation in his presence along with the witnesses. However, respondent explained that since he had no idea that he would be notarizing a document, he did not bring his notarial book and seal with him. Thus, he instead told Algodon and Toledo to bring to his office the signed deed of donation anytime at their convenience so that he could formally notarize and acknowledge the same. On July 30, 2003, respondent claimed that Toledo and Algodon went to his law office and informed him that Atty. Linco had passed away on July 29, 2003. Respondent was then asked to notarize the deed of donation. Respondent admitted to have consented as he found it to be his commitment to a fellow lawyer. Thus, he notarized the subject deed of donation, which was actually signed in his presence on July 8, 2003. During the mandatory conference/hearing on September 7, 2005, it was established that indeed the deed of donation was presented to respondent on July 8, 2003.7 Respondent, likewise, admitted that while he was not the one who prepared the deed of donation, he, however, performed the notarization of the deed of donation only on July 30, 2003, a day after Atty. Linco died. Moreover, since the deed of donation was notarized only on July 30, 2003, a day after Atty. Linco died, the acknowledgement portion of the said deed of donation where respondent acknowledged that Atty. Linco personally came and appeared before me is false. This act of respondent is also violative of the Attorney's Oath to obey the laws and do no falsehood. The IBP-CBD, thus, recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, and that his notarial commission be revoked and he be disqualified from re-appointment as notary public for a period of two (2) years. The fact that respondent previously appeared before him in person does not justify his act of notarizing the deed of donation, considering the affiant's absence on the very day the document was notarized. We will reiterate that faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. Respondent 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. SC: Revoked notarial commission, disqualified from being recommissioned for 2 years, and suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.