Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
TAMBAGO
Facts:
Complainant Manuel Lee charged Atty. Regino Tambago with violation of the Notarial
Law and the ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a spurious will.
The will, allegedly executed by Lee’s father, the decedent Vicente Lee Sr., supposedly
bequeathed his entire estate to his wife, Lim Hock Lee, save for a parcel of land which he
devised to Vicente Lee Jr. and Elena Lee, complainant’s half-siblings.
The will was allegedly executed and acknowledged before Tambago on June 30, 1965.
However, Lee alleges that his father never executed the will, pointing out the ff.
inconsistencies:
o The residence certificate of the testator noted in the acknowledgement of the will
was January 5, 1962
o The signature of the testator was not the same as his signature in a deed of
donation
Entirely and diametrically opposed to one another in all angles
o The absence of notation of the residence certificates of the purported witnesses
Cayetano Noynay and Loreto Grajo
Alleged that ehse were forged and merely copied from their voters
affidavits
o No copy of the will was on file in the archives division of the NCAA
According to the certification of the chief of the archives division, their
record refers to an affidavit executed by one Bartolome Ramirez on June
30, 1965
To these allegations, Tambago responded in his comment:
o Complainant was not a legitimate son of Vicente Lee Sr.
o The will was validly executed and was actually notarized by him per affidavit of
Gloria Nebato, common law wife of the decedent, and corroborated by the joint
affidavit of the Vicente Jr. and Elena, children of the deceased
o Lee filed the complaint to harass him because the criminal case filed by Lee
against Tambago in the Ombudsman did not prosper
o Admitted that there was no copy of the will on file in the NCAA archives, because
none was ever filed
o The complainant did not have a cause of action since he did not first file an
action for the declaration of nullity of the will and demand his share in the
inheritance
The Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation.
o Found respondent guilty of violating the old Notarial Law as found in the Revised
Administrative Code
o This violation constituted an infringement of the Canon of Professional
Responsibility
o Recommended the suspension of Tambago for 3 months
Ruling:
IBP decision affirmed. In addition, Tambago perpetually disqualified from reappointment
as a notary public.