ATTY. BENIGNO T. BARTOLOME, Complainant, v. ATTY. CHRISTOPHER A. BASILIO, Respondent.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

This administrative case stems from a complaint1 filed by complainant Atty. Benigno T. Bartolome
(Bartolome) on May 19, 2009 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against respondent Atty.
Christopher A. Basilio (Basilio) for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice2 (Notarial
Rules).chanrobleslaw

The Facts

In the complaint, Bartolome alleged that Basilio, a notary public in Tarlac City, notarized a document
entitled "Joint Affidavit of Non-Tenancy and Aggregate Landholdings"3 (Joint Affidavit) purportedly
subscribed and sworn to before him by Loreto M. Tañedo (Tanedo) and Ramon T. Lim on January 15,
2006, and supposedly recorded as Doc. No. 375, Page No. 75, Book No. X, Series of 2007 in his notarial
register,4 despite the fact that Tañedo had already passed away as early as December 1, 2003.5

In his Answer/Comment6 dated June 24, 2009, Basilio admitted having notarized the Joint Affidavit but
claimed that, prior to the notarization, he verified the identities of the persons who appeared before
him through their respective Social Security System (SSS) identification cards and driver's licenses. He
further denied any knowledge that the one who appeared before him misrepresented himself as Tañedo
and that the latter was already dead as of December 1, 2003.7

During the clarificatory hearing, Basilio, who undisputedly notarized the Joint Affidavit, admitted his
failure to: (a) record the subject document in his notarial book; (b) submit a copy of the same to the
Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City (RTC); and (c) have the notarization revoked or recalled.8

The IBP's Report and Recommendation

In a Report and Recommendation9 dated June 10, 2010 submitted by IBP Investigating Commissioner
Randall C. Tabayoyong (Investigating Commissioner), Basilio was found to have manifested gross
negligence and a complete disregard of the Notarial Rules. The Investigating Commissioner pointed out
that contrary to Section 8, in relation to Section 6, Rule II of the Notarial Rules, Basilio failed to indicate
in the Joint Affidavit the details of the SSS identification card and driver's license which were allegedly
shown as competent evidence of identity of the persons who appeared before him. Thus, his claim that
he verified the identities of the persons who subscribed the Joint Affidavit could not be given credence.
Basilio also failed to record in his notarial register his notarial act on the Joint Affidavit in violation of
Section 2 (a), Rule VI of the Notarial Rules. Lastly, the Investigating Commissioner found that Basilio
failed to submit a copy of the Joint Affidavit to the Clerk of Court of the RTC, contrary to Section 2 (h),
Rule VI of the Notarial Rules.10 Accordingly, he recommended that Basilio's notarial commission, if still
existing, be revoked; he be disqualified from obtaining a notarial commission for a period of one (1) year
and suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.11
In a Resolution12 dated December 29, 2012, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the
Investigating Commissioner's Report and Recommendation. Dissatisfied, Basilio filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution13 dated September 27, 2014.

The Issue Before the Court

The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the IBP correctly found Basilio liable for
violation of the Notarial Rules.

The Court's Ruling

The act of notarization is impressed with public interest.14 As such, a notary public must observe the
highest degree of care in complying with the basic requirements in the performance of his duties in
order to preserve the confidence of the public in the integrity of the notarial system.15

In the present case, Basilio, as duly found by the IBP, failed to faithfully comply with his duties as a
notary public.

Section 5 (b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules clearly states that:

SEC. 5. False or Incomplete Certificate. — A notary public shall not:

xxxx
(b) affix an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete. (Emphases supplied)

A notarial certificate, as defined in Section 8, Rule II of the Notarial Rules, requires a statement of the
facts attested to by the notary public in a particular notarization, viz.:

SEC. 8. Notarial Certificate. — "Notarial Certificate" refers to the 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. (Emphasis supplied)

Meanwhile, a jurat is, among others, an attestation that the person who presented the instrument or
document to be notarized is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public
through competent evidence of identity as defined by the Notarial Rules:16

SEC. 6. Jurat. — "Jurat" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:

(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or
document;cralawlawlibrary

(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules;
(c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and

(d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document. (Emphasis
supplied)

As the records bear out, Basilio affixed his official signature and seal on the notarial certificate of the
Joint Affidavit without properly identifying the person/s who signed the same. His claim that he verified
the identities of the affiants through their respective SSS identification cards and driver's licenses cannot
be given any credence considering the ostensible lack of their details on the face of the certificate.
Neither was he able to provide the fact of identification in any way. On the other hand, it has been
established that one of the named signatories to the Joint Affidavit was already dead when he notarized
the aforesaid document. Hence, it is sufficiently clear that Basilio had indeed affixed his official signature
and seal on an incomplete, if not false, notarial certificate.

Moreover, by the same account, Basilio violated Section 2 (b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules which
prohibits the notarization of a document if the person involved is not personally known to the notary
public or has not identified himself through competent evidence of identity:

SEC. 2. Prohibitions. - x x x

xxxx

(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. (Emphasis supplied)

To add, Basilio himself admitted that he failed to record his notarial act on the Joint Affidavit in his
notarial register, contrary to Section 2 (a), Rule VI of the Notarial Rules, which states:

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;cralawlawlibrary

(2) the date and time of day of the notarial act;cralawlawlibrary

(3) the type of notarial act;cralawlawlibrary

(4) the title or description of the instrument, document or proceeding;cralawlawlibrary

(5) the name and address of each principal;cralawlawlibrary

(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;cralawlawlibrary

(8) the fee charged for the notarial act;cralawlawlibrary

(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.ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

x x x x (Emphases supplied)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Since the notarial register is a record of the notary public's official acts, he is charged with recording
therein the necessary information regarding the document or instrument notarized. If the document or
instrument does not appear in the notarial records, doubt as to its nature arises so that the alleged
notarized document cannot be considered a public document.17 Considering the evidentiary value given
to the notarized documents, the failure of the notary public to record the document in his notarial
register is tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when, in fact, it was
not,18 as in this case.

It should be clarified, however, that while Basilio had also failed to submit a copy of the Joint Affidavit to
the Clerk of Court of the RTC, and to retain a copy thereof for his own records, the requirement
therefor, as stated under Section 2 (h),19 Rule VI of the Notarial Rules, applies only to instruments
acknowledged before the notary public. Documents like the Joint Affidavit which contain a jurat and not
an acknowledgment are not required to be forwarded to the Clerk of Court. Hence, there should be no
administrative infraction on this score. Nevertheless, Basilio's afore-discussed violations of the Notarial
Rules are grave enough to warrant sanctions from the Court.

A notary public exercises duties calling for carefulness and faithfulness.20 Notaries must inform
themselves of the facts they certify to; most importantly, they should not take part or allow themselves
to be part of illegal transactions.21 In line with this mandate, a notary public should not notarize a
document unless the person who signed the same is the very person who executed and personally
appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein.22 By failing in
this regard, the notary public permits a falsehood which does not only transgress the Notarial Rules but
also 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."23 Verily, a notarized document is, by
law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face; and it is for this reason that a notary public must
observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties; otherwise, the
public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined.
As herein discussed, Basilio's failure to properly perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only in
damage to those directly affected by the notarized document, but also in undermining the integrity of
the office of a notary public and in degrading the function of notarization. In fine, he should be meted
out with the modified penalty of disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for a period
of two (2) years and suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year. Although there is no showing
that Basilio prepared the document in question, his utter disregard of the Notarial Rules as exhibited
during the proceedings before the IBP, together with his admitted failure to revoke or recall his
notarization despite his knowledge of its irregularity, warrants the same treatment as the errant lawyer
in Agbulos v. Viray:24

[T]he Court finds the need to increase that recommended by the IBP which is one month suspension as
a lawyer and six months suspension as notary public, considering that respondent himself prepared the
document, and he performed the notarial act without the personal appearance of the affiant and
without identifying her with competent evidence of her identity. With his indiscretion, he allowed the
use of a CTC by someone who did not own it. Worse, he allowed himself to be an instrument of fraud.
Based on existing jurisprudence, when a lawyer commissioned as a notary public fails to discharge his
duties as such, he is meted the penalties of revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from
being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years, and suspension from the practice of
law for one year.25 (Emphasis supplied)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Christopher A. Basilio GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules
of Notarial Practice and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the
Court hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one (1) year; REVOKES his incumbent
commission as a notary public, if any; and PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public
for two (2) years, effective immediately. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same offense or similar
acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.
January 8, 2018 A.C. No. 10689

ROMEO A. ALMARIO, Complainant

vs.
ATTY. DOMINICA LLERA-AGNO, Respondent

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This administrative case stemmed from a Complaint1 filed by complainant Romeo A. Almario
(complainant) before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
seeking to disbar Atty. Dominica L. Agno (respondent lawyer), for notarizing a Special Power of Attorney
(SPA) without the personal appearance of one of the affiants therein.

Factual Background

On July 5, 2006, a Complaint for Judicial Partition with Delivery of Certificate of Title, docketed as Civil
Case No. 061154162 (civil case), was instituted before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila by the
herein complainant against therein defendants Angelita A. Barrameda and several other persons. It was
therein alleged that complainant is the sole surviving registered owner of a parcel of land situated at No.
973 Del Pan Street, San Antonio, Tondo, Manila, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
244909, and that the defendants therein are co-owners of that parcel of land by virtue of intestate
succession.

Relative to the said civil case, herein respondent lawyer, as counsel for therein defendants, notarized
and acknowledged a SPA3 which reads:

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

WE, x x x the HEIRS OF THE LATE VICTORIA ALMARIO, to wit: RONALD A. GA TD ULA, of legal age,
Filipino, married, and a resident of 973 Del Pan St., Tondo, Manila and FRANCISCA A. MALLARI, of the
same address, do hereby appoint, name and constitute also MA. LOURDES ALMARIO P. PEDIA, above
named, to do the following acts and things:

1. To act as our representative and agent in administering our property x x x located at District of Tondo,
City of Manila consisting of SEVENTY EIGHT SQUARE METERS AND SIXTY FIVE DECIMETERS (78.65)
Square meters, covered by TCT No. T-244909 of the [Register] of Deeds of the City of Manila;

xxxx

HEREBY GIVING AND GRANTING unto our said attorney-in-fact full power and authority, whatsoever
requisite to be done in or about the premises, as fully as we might or could lawfully do if personally
present and hereby ratifying and confirming all that our said attorney shall do or cause to be done by
virtue of these presents until revoked in writing by me.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have signed this instrument on the 26th day of July 2006 at Muntinlupa City.

xxxx
HEIRS OF THE LATE VICTORIA A. ALMARIO:

(Signed)
RONALD A. GATDULA

(Signed)
FRANCISCA A. MALLARI

xxxx

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) SS.

CITY OF MUNTINLUPA )

BEFORE ME, a notary public for the City of Muntinlupa, personally appeared the following persons on
the 26[th] day of July 2006:

xxxx

Ronald A. Gatdula with CTC No. 16785315 issued at Manila on 1-19-06 Francisca Mallari with CTC No.
16785314 issued at Manila on 1-19-06 known to me and to me known to be the same persons who
executed the foregoing Special Power of Attorney, consisting of three (3) pages including this page
where the acknowledgement is written, signed by the parties and their instrumental witnesses and they
acknowledged to me that the same is their own true act and deed.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL.

(Signed)
DOMINICA L. AGNO

Notary Public
Until 31 Dec 2006
PTR No. 0007769
Muntinlupa City
06 January 2006
IBP Life Roll 00577
Doc. No. 193
Page No. 55
Book No. 11
Series of 2006

It is complainant's contention: (l) that the said SPA was falsified because one of the affiants therein,
Francisca A. Mallari (Mallari),4 could not possibly have executed the same because she was in Japan at
the time the SPA was executed, as certified to5 by the Bureau of Immigration (BI); (2) that this SPA was
used in the said civil case to perpetrate fraud and deception against complainant resulting in the filing of
Criminal Case No. 452612-CR, for violation of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (Use of Falsified
Document) against Ma. Lourdes Almario Pedia, (Pedia), the attorney-in-fact mentioned in the SPA; (3)
that respondent lawyer notarized the SPA although Mallari did not personally appear before her; (4)
that in the process of notarizing the SPA, respondent lawyer also accepted a Community Tax Certificate
(CTC), which is no longer considered a competent evidence of identity pursuant to the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice; and (5) that, therefore, respondent lawyer violated Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which state -

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.

Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.

Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or
delay any man's cause.

xxxx

CANON 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

Rule 10.01 -A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he
mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

In her Answer,6 respondent lawyer prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and offered the following
arguments:

1) On July 12, 2006, Pedia sent the SPA to Mallari in Japan and it was brought back to the Philippines on
July 25, 2006 by Mallari's son, Roman Mallari-Vestido;

2) The SPA was notarized on July 26, 2006 for reasons of expediency, because therein defendants were
pressed for time in filing their Answer in the civil case, and that in any event, Mallari undertook to have
the SPA acknowledged before the Philippine Consulate in Tokyo, Japan on August 28, 2006, (thereby
giving it retroactive effect). Respondent lawyer claimed that the aforementioned circumstances showed
that she acted in good faith in notarizing the SPA;

3) Mallari was able to acknowledge the SP A with red ribbon7 before the Philippine Consulate in Tokyo,
Japan on August 28, 2006;

4) Neither fraud nor deception was perpetrated as the parties in the said civil case executed a
Compromise Agreement,8 which was approved by the RTC;9

5) Contrary to complainant's claim, CTCs are still presently accepted as proof of personal identification in
cases where no other proof of personal identification is available; and,

6) That, if at all, it was complainant himself who defrauded the RTC when he stated in his verified
complaint that Mallari is a resident of No. 973 Del Pan St., San Antonio, Tondo, Manila, even though he
knew that Mallari was in Japan at the time of filing of the civil case.
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner

In a Report and Recommendation,10 the Investigating Commissioner found respondent lawyer liable for
violation of Section 12 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and recommended that she be suspended
for six months as notary public.

According to the Investigating Commissioner, it was evident that respondent lawyer notarized the SPA
despite knowing that Mallari, one of the affiants therein, did not personally appear before her.

Recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors

On April 16, 2013, the Board of Governors of the IBP issued a Resolution11 adopting the finding and
approving the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.

Respondent lawyer filed a verified Motion for Reconsideration,12 which was denied by the IBP Board of
Governors in a Resolution13 dated May 3, 2014.

Hence, the instant Petition for Review.

Respondent lawyer admits the infraction imputed against her, and simply pleads that the penalty
recommended by the IBP be reduced or lowered. She argues that: (1) this is her first offense since she
was first commissioned as a notary public in 1973; (2) the case involved only one document; (3) the
notarization was done in good faith; (4) the civil case wherein the questioned SP A was used ended in a
Compromise Agreement; and finally (5) she is already 71 years old and is truly sorry for what she had
done, and promises to be more circumspect in the performance of her duties as a notary public.14

In his Comment15 to the Petition, complainant insists that respondent lawyer must be disciplined
accordingly and that suspension is the appropriate penalty for such infraction.

The sole issue that this Court must thus address is the appropriate penalty to be meted out against
respondent lawyer.

Our Ruling

The importance of the affiant's personal appearance when a document is notarized is underscored by
Section 1, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice which 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 an 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)
Furthermore, Section 2(b), Rule 1V of the same Rules provides that:

(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. (Emphasis supplied)

These provisions mandate the notary public to require the physical or personal presence of the person/s
who executed a document, before notarizing the same. In other words, a document should not be
notarized unless the person/s who is/are executing it is/are personally or physically present before the
notary public. The personal and physical presence of the parties to the deed is necessary to enable the
notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature/s of the affiant/s therein and the due execution
of the document.

Notaries public are absolutely prohibited or forbidden from notarizing a fictitious or spurious
document.1âwphi1 They are the law's vanguards and sentinels against illegal deeds. The confidence of
the public in the integrity of notarial acts would be undermined and impaired if notaries public do not
observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties spelled out in the
notarial law.

This Court, in Ferguson v. Atty. Ramos, 16 held that "notarization is not an empty, meaningless and
routinary act[;i]t is imbued with public interest x xx."

In cognate or similar cases,17 this Court likewise held that a notary public must not notarize a document
unless the persons who signed it are the very same persons who executed the same, and personally
appeared before him to attest to the truth of the contents thereof. 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 and voluntary act and deed.

In the present case, the SPA in question was notarized by respondent lawyer despite the absence of
Mallari, one of the affiants therein. Mallari could not have personally appeared before respondent
lawyer in Muntinlupa City, Philippines where the SPA was notarized on July 26, 2006 because Mallari
was in Japan at that time, as certified to by the Bureau of Immigration.

It goes without saying that it was respondent lawyer's bounden duty, as a lawyer and notary public, to
obey the laws of the land and to promote respect for legal processes. Respondent lawyer may only
forsake this duty at the risk of forfeiting her membership in the Philippine Bar and the revocation of her
license as a notary public. Considering however, the circumstances attendant upon this case, we resolve
to reduce or lower the recommended penalty on respondent lawyer.

The Court opts to suspend respondent lawyer as a notary public for two months, instead of six months
as the IBP had recommended. We are impelled by the following reasons for taking this course of action:
first, the apparent absence of bad faith in her notarizing the SP A in question; second, the civil case
wherein the flawed SP A was used ended up in a judicial Compromise Agreement; and finally, this is her
first administrative case since she was commissioned as a Notary Public in 1973. In addition, respondent
lawyer invites our attention to the fact that she is already in the twilight years of her life.
ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Dominica L. Agno is hereby SUSPENDED as Notary Public for the
aforesaid infraction for two months and WARNED that the commission of a similar infraction will be
dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to Atty. Agno's
personal record. Further, let copies of this Decision be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
and the Office of the Court Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all courts in the country
for their info1mation and guidance.

SO ORDERED.

A.C. No. 8574

CARMELO IRINGAN, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. CLAYTON B. GUMANGAN,, Respondent.

DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

This is an administrative complaint for disbarment or suspension filed by complainant Carmelo Iringan
(Carmelo) against respondent Atty. Clayton B. Gumangan (Atty. Gumangan) relative to Civil Case No.
518-09, entitled Sps. Renato and Carmen A. lringan v. Carmelo A. lringan, for Illegal Detainer and
Ejectment with Damages, before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of the City of Tabuk, Kalinga.

Civil Case No. 518-09 was instituted before the MTCC by spouses Renato (Renato) and Cannen Iringan
(spouses Iringan) against Carmelo, who is Renato's brother. The spouses Iringan alleged in their
complaint that they are the owners of a piece of land, with an area of about 625 square meters, located
in Tabuk, Kalinga, registered under Original Certificate of Title No. P-88641 in Renato’s name. A two-
storey structure stands on said piece of land, which was used as a restaurant with the name "Emilia's
Kitchenette." Renato acquired the right to operate said restaurant from his mother, Lourdes Iringan, by
virtue of a Deed of Assignment to Operate Establishments2 dated January 19, 1982, for the
consideration of ₱5,000.00. Pursuant to a Contract of Lease3 dated December 30, 2005, Renato agreed
to lease to Carmelo the land and the two-storey building thereon (collectively referred to herein as the
premises) for a period of one year, for a monthly rental of ₱5,000.00. The Contract of Lease was
notarized by Atty. Gumangan also on December 30, 2005. The lease expired but Carmelo continued to
possess the premises upon spouses Iringan's tolerance. In September 2008, the spouses Iringan
demanded that Carmelo vacate the premises but to no avail. A Final Demand dated April 1, 2009 was
served upon Carmelo on April 2, 2009, signed by Atty. Gumangan, with Renato's approval and
conformity. Carmelo, however, still refused to vacate the premises. The barangay heard the dispute
between the spouses Iringan and Carmelo on April 29, 2009 but no settlement was reached. Thus, the
spouses Iringan had no other recourse but to file Civil Case No. 518-09 for Illegal Detainer and Ejectment
with Damages against Carmelo.

In his defense, Carmelo averred that he and Renato are brothers. The premises actually belonged to
their late parents Sixto and Lourdes Iringan, and upon their parents' deaths, the premises descended to
Carmelo, Renato, and their other siblings. Hence, Renato is not the sole owner of the premises even
though the certificate of title to the land is registered in his name alone. Renato is a mere trustee of the
premises for his siblings. The Deed of Assignment to Operate Establishments did not vest title to the
premises upon the spouses Iringan as this was in derogation of the succession rights of Renato's siblings.
Carmelo further claimed that the Contract of Lease for the premises was spurious as he had never
entered into such a contract with Renato. Carmelo asserted that he did not sign the Contract of Lease
nor did he appear before Atty. Gumangan who notarized the same.

In its Decision4 dated September 24, 2009, the MTCC rendered a Decision in favor of the spouses
Iringan. Particularly on the matter of the Contract of Lease, the MTCC found:

THERE IS AV ALID CONTRACT OF LEASE EXECUTED BY THE PARTIES

Exhibit "D" of the [spouses Iringan] is the alleged "Spurious" Contract of Lease. It is a document duly
notarized before a Notary public. It was executed with all the formalities required by law and duly
acknowledged before Atty. Clayton Gumangan. This Contract of Lease is a public document, which needs
no further proof of its content and is entitled to much faith and confidence, unless clear evidences show
otherwise. This is where [Carmelo] failed. [Carmelo] offered no evidence tending to show that said
document is indeed spurious. What we have, are the allegations of [Carmelo] and his witnesses, which
allegations are, to say the least, self-serving and biased. Allegations are not proofs.

On this point, the [spouses Iringan] submitted the Affidavit of the Notary Public before whom the
document was executed and acknowledged. In said Affidavit, Atty. Gumangan affirmed that he prepared
the document and that Carmelo and Renato Iringan signed the contract of lease in his presence. There is
no showing that Atty. Gumangan was telling a lie, or that he was ill-motivated. His affidavit rings true
and is credible.

xxxx

Then too, we have the affidavit of the instrumental witnesses, in the person of Hilda Langgaman and
Narcisa Padua (Exhibit "Q"). They were the witnesses to the execution of the contract at the office of
Atty. Gumangan. They saw with their own eyes Carmelo and Renato signing the Contract of Lease. These
are impartial witnesses. In order to discredit the allegations of the Affidavit of Atty. Gumangan,
[Carmelo] submitted the Affidavit of Atty. Mary Jane Andomang to the effect that Atty. Clayton
Gumangan has not submitted his notarial register containing the questioned document. But the non-
submission of Atty. Gumangan of his notarial register does not preclude the fact that said document was
executed and notarized as claimed by the affiants. If any, it should be Atty. Gumangan who is brought to
task for his negligence, not the [spouses Iringan]. The failure of Gumangan to submit his register should
not prejudice the cause of the [spouses Iringan]. This Affidavit of Atty. Andomang only proved that Atty.
Gumangan failed to submit his register. It cannot disprove the due execution of the Contract of lease.

Much noise has been made on the fact that the document was allegedly executed in December 2005 but
that the Community Tax Receipt of Renato was dated January 17, 2006. Also, that the CTR of [Carmelo]
has not been indicated in the said document. Again, to [Carmelo], this smacks of fraud.

The court is not convinced. This may have been a typographical error attributable to human frailties. The
intent to defraud or falsify was not shown by [Carmelo] through independent and credible evidences.
Fraud is not assumed.5
The MTCC decreed:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the [spouses Iringan] and against Carmelo Iringan,
ordering [Carmelo] to;

1. VACATE immediately the property in dispute and turnover peacefully its possession to the [spouses
Iringan];

2. Pay FIVE THOUSAND (₱15,000.00) PESOS a month from April 2, 2009 up to the time the finality of
Judgment with interest at 6% per annum;

3. The total amount awarded above shall earn legal interest at 12% per annum from the time judgment
became final until the same shall have been fully paid;

4. PAY TWENTY THOUSAND (₱120,000.00) PESOS as attorney's fees and cost of litigation; and

5. [P]ay the cost of the suit.6

Carmelo filed an appeal with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulanao, Tabuk City, Kalinga, Branch 25,
docketed as Civil Case No. 762. In a Decision7 dated May 25, 2010, the RTC affirmed in toto the MTCC
judgment. The RTC eventually issued a Writ of Execution and an Alias Writ of Execution dated November
2, 2010 and February 22, 2011, respectively, for the implementation of its judgment.

In the meantime, while Civil Case No. 762 was still pending before the RTC, Carmelo instituted on April
5, 2010, before the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), the present administrative
complaint8 against Atty. Gumangan, alleging as follows:

3. That [Atty. Gumangan] is a practicing attorney and a notary public, principally based [in] Tabuk,
Kalinga;

4. That sometime on December 30, 2005, a "Contract of Lease" was purportedly executed by and
between [Carmelo] and Renato Iringan; This document was prepared and notarized by [Atty.
Gumangan];

5. That the aforecited "Contract of Lease" became the principal subject of a Civil Case between
[Carmelo] and Sps. Renato and Carmen Iringan docketed as Civil Case No. 518-09; The original copy of
the pertinent Summons (with the Complaint and annexes thereto) is made Annex "A" and appended
therewith is a certified machine copy of the said "Contract of Lease" (Annex "C" of the Complaint);

6. That the purported "Contract of Lease" is entirely spurious and fraudulent; [Carmelo] never executed
such instrument and did not appear before [Atty. Gumangan] for its due subscription under oath;
[Carmelo] never ever entered into any lease contract with Renato A. Iringan whether verbal or in
writing;

7. That it is too obvious that the alleged Lease Contract prepared and notarized by [Atty. Gumangan] is
fraudulent since by simple examination, the same was executed and subscribed before [Atty.
Gumangan] on December 30, 2005, when in fact Renato Iringan's CTC (08768743) was issued on
January 17, 2006; [Carmelo's] own CTC does not appear thereon, meaning that he never appeared to
execute it; That besides not appearing before [Atty. Gumangan], [Carmelo] has not been or seen the
alleged witnesses to the contract;
8. That more importantly, [Carmelo] had not known, met or had any transaction with [Atty.
Gumangan]; He only saw him for the first time in the Municipal Trial Court, Tabuk, Kalinga, during one
of the proceedings in Civil Case No. 518-09 where [Atty. Gumangan] happened to be present in
attendance;

9. Moreover, the said "Contract of Lease" was never filed with the notarial report of [Atty. Gumangan]
with the Office of the Clerk of Court of Kalinga.; The Sworn Affidavit of Atty. Mary Jane A. Andomang
(Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Clerk of Court) made Annex "B" hereof attests to this fact;

10. That the very blatant act of [Atty. Gumangan] in preparing and notarizing said "Contract of Lease"
bespeaks of wanton and willful violation of the Canons of Professional Responsibility for lawyers; As
officers of the Court they are mandated not to involve themselves in fraudulent and deceitful acts, to
the grave damage and prejudice of private individuals;

11. That [Atty. Gumangan] had not acted with honesty and faithfulness to the responsibilities and duties
of his profession; He must then be sanctioned and subjected to disciplinary action by this Honorable
Supreme Court.9

Carmelo prayed that Atty. Gumangan DISBARRED/SUSPENDED from the practice of law, and with
attendant accessory penalties and fines to be justly imposed."10

In support of his allegations, Carmelo attached, among other documents, the purported Contract of
Lease between him and Renato and the Affidavit11 dated September 3, 2009 of Mary Jane A. Andomang
(Andomang), RTC Clerk of Court VI, certifying that Atty. Gumangan "did not submit his Notarial Report
and a copy of a 'Contract of Lease,’ appearing as Doc. No. 191, Page No. 39, Book No. X, Series of2005."

Atty. Gumangan, in his Comment/Answer,12 asserted that Carmelo instituted the instant administrative
complaint to harass and embarrass him, and to extricate himself, Carmelo, from the felonious acts of
dispossessing his very own brother of the latter's property.

Atty. Gumangan admitted that he notarized the Contract of Lease, but maintained that Carmelo,
together with Renato, personally executed said Contract before Atty. Gumangan and in the presence of
two witnesses, namely, Hilda Langgaman (Langgaman) and Narcisa Padua (Padua). Atty. Gumangan
attached to his Comment/ Answer the Joint Affidavit13 dated July 20, 2009 in which Langgaman and
Padua affirmed that they were personally present at Atty. Gumangan's office when Carmelo and Renato
signed the Contract of Lease, and that they saw with their own eyes Carmelo signing said Contract. Atty.
Gumangan likewise attached to his Comment/Answer the Affidavit14 dated July 9, 2009 executed by
Carmelo's daughter-in-law,

Cathelyn Bawat Iringan (Cathelyn), attesting to the existence and implementation of the Contract of
Lease:

That as trustee of the Emilia's Kitchenette, I was instrumental in the payment of rentals over said
Kitchenette to plaintiffs [spouses Iringan] thus:

a) In June, 2007, I withdrew the sum of Twenty-five Thousand (₱25,000.00) Pesos from the Rural Bank of
Rizal, Kalinga and used it for the medical operation of Inez Gamad; the amount was treated as rentals of
Emilia's Kitchenette covering the months of November & December, 2006, January, February and March
of year 2007;
b) I paid Ten Thousand (₱10,000.00) Pesos on August 23, 2007 for our rental of April and May 2007;

c) I paid rental of Thirty Thousand (₱ 30,000.00) Pesos to Carmen Iringan, which was used for the eye
treatment of Renato Iringan;

d) I issued a check in the sum of One Hundred Thousand (₱100,000.00) Pesos, given to Engr. Federico
Iringan, son of [spouses Iringan]; Sixty Thousand (₱60,000.00) Pesos was used to cover rentals of the
Kitchenette and Forty Thousand (₱40,000.00) Pesos was personal to Federico[.]

Atty. Gumangan proffered the following explanation for the irregularities as regards the community tax
certificates (CTCs) of Carmelo and Renato, the parties to the Contract of Lease:

A. [Carmelo] and his brother Renato Iringan appeared before the herein [Atty. Gumangan] in the
afternoon of December 30, 2005, and after they x x x, together with their witnesses, affixed their
signature on the Contract of Lease, the herein [Atty. Gumangan], directed them to produce their
community tax certificates, but they failed to do so, but they instead promised to secure their
community tax certificates the earliest possible opportunity;

B. Considering that December 30, 2005 is a Friday, and the next working day January 01, 2006, is a
holiday, Renato Iringan secured his community tax certificate on the 17th day of January 2006. x x x.15

Atty. Gumangan substantiated his foregoing averments by appending Renato’s Affidavit16 dated August
11, 2010 to his Comment/Answer, in which the latter deposed and stated:

1. That on the 30th day of December 2005, I together with my brother Carmelo Iringan, went to the
office of Atty. Clayton B. Gumangan, for the purpose of executing a Contract of Lease, over my two
storey building, located at Bulanao, Tabuk City, Kalinga;

2. That after we came to the terms and conditions of the Contract of Lease, Atty. Gumangan, prepared
the same, and explained the contents thereof to us in Ilokano dialect;

xxxx

5. That after we had affixed our signatures, Atty. Gumangan required us to present our community tax
certificates, but we have none that time;

6. That Atty. Gumangan, directed us to secure a cedula, but considering that it was then a Friday and the
30th of December 2005, we told him that we will just secure our community tax certificates, on the
following working day which is [in] January of 2006;

7. That I then entered the number of my community tax certificate the date of its issuance and place of
issuance on the 17th of January 2006;

8. That considering that Carmelo Iringan is my very own brother, I no longer [asked] him to secure his
community tax certificate for the purpose of entering its number, date of issue and place of issue, in our
Contract of Lease as directed by Atty. Gumangan[;]

9. That I hereby state that I and my very own brother CARMELO IRINGAN, together with our witnesses
are personally present before Atty. Gumangan, when we [executed] our contract of lease[.]
In addition, Atty. Gumangan belied Carmelo's claim that they do not know each other prior to Civil Case
No. 518-09. According to Atty. Gumangan, after Renato and Carmelo executed the Contract of Lease
before him, he frequented Emilia's Kitchenette, which was only 500 meters away from the RTC, and
Tabuk City, Kalinga is a small community where almost everyone know each other.

Atty. Gumangan also argued that the Contract of Lease was not the principal subject of Civil Case No.
518-09. Civil Case No. 518-09 was for Illegal Detainer and Ejectment with Damages filed by Renato
against Carmelo because of the latter's failure to vacate the premises. It was Carmelo who alleged that
the Contract of Lease between him and Renato was spurious, but both the MTCC and the R TC found
that the notarized Contract was a public document which needed no further proof of its content and
was entitled to much faith and confidence, absent clear evidence to the contrary.

Lastly, Atty. Gumangan submitted the Affidavit17 dated July 21, 2009 of one Margielyn Narag (Narag),
Carmelo's employee at Emilia's Kitchenette from July 2008 to June 2009. Narag recalled in her Affidavit
that in June 2009, she saw Carmelo practicing his signature on a blank yellow pad paper, while his niece,
Ines Gammad (Gammad) watched. After sometime, Gammad went over Carmelo’s signatures and
said, "kitaem sabalin ti pirmam," which meant, "look[,] your signatures are now different."

In a Resolution18 dated October 11, 2010, the Court referred the administrative case to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline set the case for mandatory conference on June 8, 2011. Only
Carmelo and his counsel appeared for the scheduled mandatory conference. In his Order19 dated June 8,
2011, Commissioner (Com.) Hector B. Almeyda (Almeyda) granted Carmelo's motion and instead of
resetting the mandatory conference, directed the parties to submit their respective position papers
within 40 days, without prejudice to the submission of a comment or reply to the other party's position
paper within 10 days from receipt; and provided that, thereafter, the case would be deemed submitted
for report and recommendation.

Com. Almeyda rendered his Report and Recommendation20 on December 7, 2011 finding that:

The existence and execution of the lease contract between [Carmelo] and his brother Renato appears to
be an established fact. Not only was the agreement between the brothers given recognition by a couple
of courts (MTC of Tabuk City and the Regional Trial Court of Tabuk City), [Carmelo], other than the self-
serving claim that he did not appear at the signing, completely failed to deny that his signature on the
contract of lease was not his or otherwise forged. The validity of the contract of lease, absent clear
evidence of its non-execution in the face of document/affidavits that quite clearly showed the contrary,
established the fact of execution.

There is one other matter [though] that needs some discussion. Sustaining the validity of the contract of
lease notwithstanding, [Atty. Gumangan] must be held responsible for the execution of that document
that is incomplete due to the absence and/or questionable CTC's of the parties. Add to that the
admitted failure of [Atty. Gumangan] to make his notarial report, and even on the assumption that he
filed his notarial report, he failed to include in his notarial report the contract of lease as among those
he notarized. The violation of the notarial law and the liability of [Atty. Gumangan] in this regard is
obvious.

In the end, Com. Almeyda recommended:

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that the complaint for disbarment on the grounds relied
on be dismissed for insufficiency of merit to sustain the plea for disbarment and/or suspension. But
[Atty. Gumangan] is advised to be a bit more circumspect in the performance of his duties as a lawyer so
that he is warned that a repetition of a similar lapse will be dealt with more serious sanctions.

Due to the incompleteness in the preparation of the contract of lease, [Atty. Gumangan's] commission
as notary public is recommended to be revoked upon notice and he is further recommended to be
disqualified to act as notary public for the next two (2) years.21

In its Resolution No. XX-2013-41522 dated April 15, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors unanimously
adopted and approved Com. Almeyda’s Report and Recommendation.

The Court wholly agrees with the findings and recommendations of Com. Almeyda and the IBP Board of
Governors.

The Contract of Lease was executed by Renato and Carmelo on December 30, 2005 and notarized by
Atty. Gumangan on even date. During said time, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice23 still applied.

The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice required the notary public to maintain a notarial register with the
following information:

RULE VI
Notarial Register

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. (Emphasis
supplied.)
Highlighting the importance of the requirement of competent evidence of identity of the parties, the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice explicitly prohibited the notary public, who did not personally know the
parties, from notarizing an instrument or document without the same, thus:

RULE IV
Powers and Limitations of Notaries Public

xxxx

Sec. 2. Prohibitions. - x x x

xxxx

(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or
document -

xxxx

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. (Emphases supplied.)

The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice defined "competent evidence of identity" as follows:

RULE II
Definitions

xxxx

Sec. 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 photograph and
signature of the individual; or

(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction
who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two
credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each
personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification.

Atty. Gumangan herein violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the Contract of Lease
on December 30, 2005 without competent evidence of identity of Renato and Carmelo and, thus,
committing an expressly prohibited act under the Rules.

Atty. Gumangan did not allege that he personally knew Renato and Carmelo when they appeared before
him on December 30, 2005 for the notarization of the Contract of Lease. There was no showing that
Renato and Carmelo presented current identification documents issued by an official agency bearing
their photographs and signatures before Atty. Gumangan notarized their Contract of Lease. Langgaman
and Padua witnessed Renato and Carmelo signing the Contract of Lease in person at Atty. Gumangan's
office, but they did not attest under oath or affirmation that they personally knew Renato and Carmelo,
and neither did they present their own documentary identification.
According to Renato, Atty. Gumangan asked them to present their CTCs, but neither Renato nor Carmelo
had CTCs at that moment. Renato only secured a CTC on January 17, 2006, which he belatedly presented
to Atty. Gumangan for recording.

CTCs no longer qualifies as competent evidence of the parties' identity as defined under Rule II, Section
12 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. In Baylon v. Almo,24 considering the ease with which a CTC
could be obtained these days and recognizing the established unreliability of a CTC in proving the
identity of a person who wishes to have his document notarized, the Court did not include the CTC in
the list of competent evidence of identity that notaries public should use in ascertaining the identity of
persons appearing before them to have their documents notarized.25 Worse, neither Renato nor
Carmelo had CTCs with them on December 30, 2005, yet, Atty. Gumangan still proceeded with
notarizing the Contract of Lease, allowing Renato to belatedly present his CTC weeks later, while
Carmelo did not present any CTC at all.

Moreover, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice also prescribed:

RULE VI
Notarial Register

xxxx

Sec. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. - x xx

xxxx

(d) When the instrument or document is a contract, the notary public shall keep an original copy
thereof as part of his records and 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. He
shall also retain a duplicate original copy for the Clerk of Court.

xxxx

(h) A certified copy of each month's entries and a duplicate original copy of any instrument
acknowledged before the notary public shall, within the first ten (10) days of the month following, be
forwarded to the Clerk of Court and shall be under the responsibility of such officer. If there is no entry
to certify for the month, the notary shall forward a statement to this effect in lieu of certified copies
herein required. (Emphases supplied.)

Per Atty. Andomang's Affidavit dated September 3, 2009, Atty. Gumangan did not submit to the RTC
Clerk of Court his Notarial Report and a duplicate original of the Contract of Lease dated December 30,
2005 between Renato and Carmelo. Atty. Gumangan did not dispute Atty. Andomang's Affidavit nor
provide any explanation for his failure to comply with such requirements.

In Agagon v. Bustamante,26 which involved closely similar administrative infractions by therein

respondent, Atty. Artemio F. Bustamante, the Court stressed the importance of the notary public's
compliance with the formalities for notarization of documents:

There is no doubt that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law
when he failed to include a copy of the Deed of Sale in his Notarial Report and for failing to require the
parties to the deed to exhibit their respective community tax certificates. Doubts were cast as to the
existence and due execution of the subject deed, thus undermining the integrity and sanctity of the
notarization process and diminishing public confidence in notarial documents since the subject deed
was introduced as an annex to the Affidavit of Title/Right of Possession of Third Party Claimant relative
to NLRC Case No. RABCAR- 12-0672-00.

A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most common of which are the
acknowledgment and affirmation of a document or instrument. In the performance of such notarial acts,
the notary public must be mindful of the significance of the notarial seal as affixed on a document. The
notarial seal converts the document from private to public, after which it may be presented as evidence
without need for proof of its genuineness and due execution. Thus, notarization. should not be treated
as an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. As early as Panganiban v. Borromeo, we held that notaries
public must inform themselves of the facts which they intend to certify and to take no part in illegal
transactions. They must guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements.

It cannot be overemphasized that notarization of documents is not an empty, meaningless or routinary

act.1âwphi1 It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or
authorized may act as notaries public. It is through the act of notarization that a private document is
converted into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without need of preliminary proof of
authenticity and due execution. Indeed, a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit
upon its face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with the
elementary formalities in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the
integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined.

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires every lawyer to uphold the Constitution,
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. Moreover, the Notarial
Law and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice require a duly commissioned notary public to make the
proper entries in his Notarial Register and to refrain from committing any dereliction or act which
constitutes good cause for the revocation of commission or imposition of administrative sanction.
Unfortunately, respondent failed in both respects. (Citations omitted.)

A lawyer, who is also commissioned as a notary public, is mandated to discharge with fidelity the sacred
duties appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public
interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an
acknowledgment are sacrosanct. A notary public cannot simply disregard the requirements and
solemnities of the Notarial Law.27

Clearly, herein, Atty. Gumangan - in notarizing the Contract of Lease without competent evidence of the
identity of Renato and Carmelo, and in failing to submit to the RTC Clerk of Court his Notarial Report and
a duplicate original of the Contract of Lease - had been grossly remiss in his duties as a notary public and
as a lawyer, consequently, undermining the faith and confidence of the public in the notarial act and/or
notarized documents.

Therefore, in light of the foregoing, the Court holds Atty. Gumangan administratively liable and imposes
upon him the penalty of suspension of his notarial commission for two years.

As a last note, the Court points out that its judgment in the present case does not touch upon the
execution and existence of the Contract of Lease between Renato. and Carmelo, facts which the MTCC
found sufficiently established in its Decision dated September 24, 2009 in Civil Case No. 518-09, and
affirmed on appeal by the RTC in its Decision dated May 25, 2010. Such factual findings of the MTCC and
RTC were not based solely on the irregularly-notarized Contract of Lease between Renato and Carmelo,
but also on the consistent declarations of Renato, Atty. Gumangan, and the two impartial witnesses,
Langgaman and Padua, that Renato and Carmelo personally appeared and signed said Contract of Lease
at the office and in the presence of Atty. Gumangan on December 30, 2005. Carmelo's self-serving
denial, averments of irregularities in the notarization of the Contract of Lease, and presentation of Atty.
Andomang's Affidavit dated September 3, 2009 were deemed insufficient by the MTCC and the R TC to
refute such factual findings.

It is worthy to mention that any defect in the notarization of the Contract of Lease did not affect its
validity and it continued to be binding between the parties to the same, namely, Renato and Carmelo.
The irregularity in the notarization was not fatal to the validity of the Contract of Lease since the
absence of such formality would not necessarily invalidate the lease, but would merely render the
written contract a private instrument rather than a public one.28 In addition, parties who appear before
a notary public to have their documents notarized should not be expected to follow up on the
submission of the notarial reports. They should not be made to suffer the consequences of the
negligence of the notary public in following the procedures prescribed by the Notarial Law.29

Hence, the ruling of the Court in the present administrative case, essentially addressing the defects in
the notarization of the Contract of Lease dated December 30, 2005 between Renato and Carmelo and
Atty. Gumangan's failings as a notary public, should not affect the judgment rendered against Carmelo
in Civil Case No. 518-09, the unlawful detainer case.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Clayton B. Gumangan is found GUILTY of violating the Notarial Law, the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His incumbent commission
as notary public, if any, is REVOKED, and he is PROHIBITED from being commissioned as a notary public
for two (2) years, effective immediately. 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. He is finally

WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to
respondent Atty. Clayton B. Gumangan’s personal record as member of the Bar. Likewise, copies shall be
furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and
guidance.

SO ORDERED.
April 18, 2017

A.C. No. 9209

NENITA DE GUZMAN FERGUSON, Complainant

vs.
ATTY. SALVADOR P. RAMOS, Respondents

DECISION

Per Curiam,

Before the Court is the Complaint-Affidavit, 1 filed by Nenita De Guzman

Ferguson (complainant), seeking the disbarment of Atty. Salvador P. Ramos (Atty. Ramos) for
falsification, violation of notarial law and engaging in private practice while employed in the government
service.

The Antecedents

Complainant alleged that on November 25, 2007, she purchased a house and lot located in San Rafael,
Bulacan, for the sum of ₱800,000.00; that without her knowledge, the seller obtained a Certificate of
Land Ownership Award (CLOA) mainly to transfer the title of the said property to her name; that the
seller was unaware that the said CLOA was void ab initio as the subject land was not an agricultural land
and there existed a 10-year prohibition to transfer the subject land; that in 2009; complainant instituted
a petition for the cancellation of the CLOA before the DAR Office; that the defendants were represented
by Atty. Ramos, who was the Chief Legal Officer of DAR-Provincial Office in Bulacan; that complainant
withdrew the petition before the DAR and filed the case before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12,
Malolos City (RTC); that upon receipt of the Answer, complainant found out that it was strikingly similar
to the one filed by the defendants in the DAR, which was prepared by Atty. Ramos; that complainant
discovered that the Deed of Sale,2 dated April 24, 2009, which became the basis of the transfer of title
was fraudulently altered as it only covered the sale of the land, not the house and· lot, and the price
indicated was only ₱188,340.00, not the amount of ₱800,000.00 3 that she actually paid; that her
signature and that of her husband, Douglas Ferguson -(Douglas), were forged; that Atty. Ramos
notarized the deed of Sale without their presence;· and that complainant and her husband neither
appeared, executed nor acknowledged any document before Atty. Ramos as they never met him in
person.

In his Comment, 4 Atty. Ramos denied that he represented the defendants in· the case before the DAR
but he admitted that he notarized their Answer. With respect to the charge of falsification of the April
24,

2009 Deed of Sale and the notarization of the aforementioned deed, Atty. Ramos likewise denied any
participation and countered that his signature as a notary public was forged. Atty. · Ramos, nonetheless,
admitted that he notarized the "genuine" Deed of Sale, 5 dated May 12, 2009, executed between vendor
Alfredo Inosanto, and vendees complainant and her spouse, involving the same property for the amount
of ₱300,000.00.6 Atty. Ramos surmised that whoever benefited from such dastardly act could be the
culprit in the falsification of the document as the forged deed of sale which indicated a lesser purchase
price was the one presented in the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan in order to evade payment of a higher
capital gains tax.

In its Resolution, 7 dated February 29, 2012; the Court referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.

The case was then set by the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP for mandatory conference.
Thereafter, parties were required to submit their respective position papers.

In its Report and Recommendation,8 dated November 21, 2014, the CBD found Atty. Ramos guilty of
violating the law on notarial practice and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law
for a period of one (1) year and, in case he held a commission as a notary public; that it be revoked and
that he be disqualified to act as a notary public for a period of two (2) years to be counted after his
suspension. The CBD stated that the defense of forgery, without any corroborative evidence, was not
credible. As to the charge that of engaging in a private practice while employed in the government
service against Atty. Ramos, the CBD'opined that it should be addressed to the Civil Service Commission
for the determination of his appropriate administrative liability.

In its Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2015-458,9 dated June 6, 2015, the IBP-Board of Governors adopted
and approved with modification the report and recommendation of the CBD, as follows:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part· of
this Resolution as Annex "A", finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on
record and applicable laws and Respondent's notarization of a document in the absence of the parties'·
in violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Thus, Respondent Atty. Salvador P. Ramos' notarial
commission, if presently commissioned, is immediately REVOKED. Furthermore, he is DISQUALIFIED
from being commissioned as a Notary Public for two (2) years and is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for six (6) months.

The Court agrees with the findings of the IBP but differs on the imposed penalty.

Section1, Public Act No. 2103, otherwise known as the Notarial Law states:

The acknowledgment shall be before· a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country
to take acknowledgements of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. 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. The certificate shall be made under the official
seal, if he is required by law to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.

The importance of the affiant's personal appearance was further emphasized in Section 2 (b), Rule IV of
the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 which specifically provides that:

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.

The afore-quoted rules clearly mandate that a notary public, before notarizing a document, should
require the presence: of the very person who executed the same. Thus, he certifies that it was the same
person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what
were stated therein. 10 The presence of the parties to the deed is necessary to enable the notary ·public
to verify the genuineness of the signature of the affiant. 11

In the present case, Atty. Ramos denied having notarized the April 24, 2009 deed of sale and claimed
that his signature was forged. He even alluded that the person who benefited from it could be the forger
as the capital gains tax liability was reduced. He, nonetheless, admitted notarizing the "genuine" deed of
sale, dated May 12, 2009.

Regardless of who the culprit was and the motive of such forgery, Atty. Ramos .cannot be exonerated
from liability.

A perusal of the record would reveal that Douglas, one of the parties in the; deed of sale, was not in the
Philippines on May 12, 2009, the day the "genuine" deed of sale was notarized. Complainant presented
a copy of Douglas' passport indicating that he entered the Philippines only on May 26, 2001 and left on
June 12, 2001. This substantially established that indeed Douglas could not have personally appeared
before Atty. Ramos when he notarized the deed.

Moreover, an examination of the April 24, 2009 and May 12, 2009 deeds of sale disclosed that both
documents bore the same document number, page number and book number of the notarial registry of
Atty. Ramos. If, indeed, the April 24, 2009 deed of sale, which was issued earlier was forged, how would
the purported culprit know the details of Atty. Ramos' notarial registry?

It must be emphasized that notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routinary act. It is imbued
with public interest and only those who are qualified and authorized may act as notaries public. 12 In the
case of Gonzales v. Ramos, 13 the Court explained the significance of the act of notarization, thus:

By affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, the respondent converted the Deed of Absolute Sale,
from a private document into a public document. Such act is no empty gesture. The principal function of
a notary public is to authenticate documents. When a notary public certifies to the due execution and
delivery of a document under his hand and ··seal, he gives the document the force of evidence. Indeed,
one of the 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 without further proof of their execution and delivery. A notarial document is by
law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large
must be able to rely upon the acknowledgement executed before a notary public and appended to a
private instrument. Hence, a notary public must discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed
with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity.

Not only did Atty. Ramos fail to comply with the Rule on Notarial Practice when he notarized the deed of
sale without the presence of the parties but he likewise violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which obliges a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for the law and legal processes; and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral and
deceitful conduct. 14

As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, Atty. Ramos was mandated to exercise the function of his
office and must observe with utmost care the basic formalities of his office and requisites in the
performance of his duties. 15 When Atty. Ramos affixed his signature and notarial seal on the deed of
sale, he led us to believe that the parties personally appeared before him and attested to the truth and
veracity of the contents thereof. His conduct was fraught with dangerous possibilities considering the
conclusiveness on the due execution of a document that our courts and the public accord on notarized
documents. 16 Certainly, Atty. Ramos failed to exercise the functions of the office and to comply with the
mandates of the law.

In the case of Santuyo v. Atty. Hidalgo, the respondent lawyer similarly denied having notarized the
subject deed of sale. The Court found him negligent not only in the supposed notarization but in
allowing the office secretaries to make the necessary entries in his notarial registry which was supposed
to be done and kept by him alone. He was suspended from his commission as notary public and was
disqualified from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two years.

In the case of Ocampo-lngcoco v. Atty. Yrreverre, Jr., 18 the respondent lawyer was suspended from the
practice of law for a period of six (6) months for notarizing a document without the appearance of the
parties. The Court held that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who
signed it are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the
truth of the contents therein.

In line with these cases, the Court finds the suspension of Atty. Ramos for six (6) months in
order.1âwphi1

With respect to the allegation that Atty. Ramos was engaged in a private practice while employed in the
government service, the Court agrees with the CBD that the issue should be brought before the Civil
Service Commission for the determination of his appropriate administrative liability, if any.

Finally, this Court cannot ignore the averments of Atty. Ramos that there were two (2) deeds of sale
covering Transfer Certificate of Title No. CLOA-T-15831. One was the April 24, 2009 Deed of Sale which
was presented to the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan, and the other one was the May 12, 2009 Deed of
Sale which was kept on file at the Notarial Section of the RTC. Both deeds were registered in the Notarial
Registry of Atty. Ramos with document number 354, page number 71 and Book VII series of 2009.
Because of this irregularity, the Court deems it proper to refer this matter to the Bureau of Internal
Revenue for the assessment of the correct tax and for, investigation for possible prosecution of the
criminal liability of the culprits under the National Internal Revenue Code.

WHEREFORE, finding Atty. Salvador P. Ramos GUILTY of violating the Rule on Notarial Practice and Rule
1.01 and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court hereby SUSPENDS him from the
practice of law for six (6) months; REVOKES his notarial commission, effective immediately;
and PERMANENTLY BARS him from being commissioned as notary public, with a STERNWARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar conduct will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be attached to the personal
record of Atty. Salvador P. Ramos; the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all lower
courts; and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, for proper guidance and information.

The Civil Service Commission and the Bureau of Internal Revenue should likewise be given copies of this
decision for their appropriate actions.

SO ORDERED.

March 24, 2015

A.C. No. 10132

HEIRS OF PEDRO ALILANO represented by DAVID ALILANO, Complainants,

vs.
ATTY. ROBERTO E. EXAMEN,Respondent .

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before us is a complaint1 for disbarment filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) by the
heirs of Pedro Alilario against Atty. Roberto E. Examen for misconduct and malpractice for falsifying
documents and presenting these as evidence in court thus violating the Lawyer's Oath,2 Canons
1,3 104 and 19,5 and Rules 1.01,6 1.02,7 10.01,8 and 19.019 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR).

Pedro Alilano and his wife, Florentina, were the holders of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-23261
covering a 98,460 sq. m. parcel of land identified as Lot No. 1085 Pls-544-D located in Paitan, Esperanza,
Sultan Kudarat. Pedro and Florentina died on March 6, 1985 and October 11, 1989, respectively.

It appears that on March 31, 1984 and September 12, 1984 Absolute Deeds of Sale10 were executed by
the Spouses Alilano in favor of Ramon Examen and his wife, Edna. Both documents were notarized by
respondent Atty. Roberto Examen, brother of the vendee. Sometime in September 1984, Spouses
Examen obtained possession of the property.

On January 12, 2002, the heirs of Alilano filed a suit for recovery of possession before the Regional Trial
Court of Sultan Kudarat against Edna Examen and Atty. Roberto Examen.11 It was during this proceeding
that Atty. Examen introduced into evidence the March 31, 1984 and September 12, 1984 Absolute
Deeds of Sale.

On November 15, 2003,12 the heirs of Alilano filed this complaint alleging that Atty. Examen, based on
Barretto v. Cabreza,13 violated the notarial law when he notarized the absolute deeds of sale since a
notary public is prohibited from notarizing a document when one of the parties is a relative by
consanguinity within the fourth civil degree or affinity within the second civil degree. It is also alleged
that Atty. Examen notarized the documents knowing that the cedula or residence certificate number
used by Ramon Examen was not actually his but the residence certificate number of Florentina. Atty.
Examen also falsely acknowledged that the two witnesses personally appeared before him when they
did not. Lastly, it is alleged that despite knowing the infirmities of these documents, Atty. Examen
introduced these documents into evidence violating his oath as a lawyer and the CPR.

In his defense, Atty. Examen pointed out that there was no longer any prohibition under the Revised
Administrative Code for a notary public to notarize a document where one of the parties is related to
him by consanguinity and affinity.14 With regard to the use of Florentina’s residence certificate as
Ramon’s, Atty. Examen said that he was in good faith and that it was office practice that the secretary
type details without him personally examining the output.15 In any event, he reasoned that the use of
another’s residence certificate is not a ground for disbarment and is barred by prescription based on IBP
Resolution No. XVI-2004-13 dated January 26, 2004 where it was proposed that the Rules of Procedure
of the Commission on Bar Discipline Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Section 1, Rule VIII, be revised to
include a prescription period for professional misconduct: within two years from the date of the act.16

In its Report and Recommendation,17 the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Examen
liable for breach of the Notarial Law and introducing false Absolute Deeds of Sale before court
proceedings. It stated that there was ample evidence to support the complainants’ contention that the
Spouses Alilano did not voluntarily and knowingly convey their property, i.e. denials under oath by
attesting witnesses and NBI Report by Handwriting Expert Jennifer Dominguez stating that Pedro
Alilano’s signature in the September 1984 Absolute Deed of Sale was significantly different from the
specimen signatures. It also noted that Ramon Examen’s residence certificate number, date and place of
issue were also falsified since the residence certificate actually belonged to Florentina Pueblo. It thus
recommended that the penalty of disbarment be imposed.

The IBP Board of Governors (BOG) in its June 26, 2007 Resolution18 adopted the IBP CBD’s report but
modified the penalty to suspension from the practice of law for a period of two years and a suspension
of Atty. Examen’s Notarial Commission for a period of two years.

Atty. Examen moved for reconsideration. In its Notice of Resolution, the IBP BOG denied the motion for
reconsideration. It also modified the penalty imposed to suspension from the practice of law for a
period of one year and disqualification from re-appointment as Notary Public for a period of two years.19

We agree with the IBP that Atty. Examen is administratively liable and hereby impose a modified
penalty.

In disbarment cases the only issue that is to be decided by the Court is whether the member of the bar
is fit to be allowed the privileges as such or not.20 It is not therefore the proper venue for the
determination of whether there had been a proper conveyance of real property nor is it the proper
proceeding to take up whether witnesses’ signatures were in fact forged.

NO PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS FOR

ACTS OF ERRING MEMBERS OF THE BAR

In Frias v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada,21 the Court En Banc opined that there can be no prescription in bar
discipline cases. It pointed out this has been the policy since 1967 with the Court’s ruling in Calo, Jr. v.
Degamo22 and reiterated in Heck v. Santos23 where we had the chance to state:
If the rule were otherwise, members of the bar would be emboldened to disregard the very oath they
took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private complainant would immediately
come forward, they stand a chance of being completely exonerated from whatever administrative
liability they ought to answer for. It is the duty of this Court to protect the integrity of the practice of law
as well as the administration of justice. No matter how much time has elapsed from the time of the
commission of the act complained of and the time of the institution of the complaint, erring members of
the bench and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court. This categorical pronouncement is
aimed at unscrupulous members of the bench and bar, to deter them from committing acts which
violate the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, or the Lawyer’s Oath. x x x

Thus, even the lapse of considerable time from the commission of the offending act to the institution of
the administrative complaint will not erase the administrative culpability of a lawyer…. (Italics
supplied)24

We therefore ruled in Frias, that Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the IBP CBD was void
and had no legal effect for being ultra vires and thus null and void.25

This ruling was reiterated in the more recent case of Bengco v. Bernardo,26 where the Court stated that
putting a prescriptive period on administrative cases involving members of the bar would only serve to
embolden them to disregard the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long
as no private complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being completely
exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for.

Atty. Examen’s defense of prescription therefore is of no moment and deserves scant consideration.

THE SPANISH NOTARIAL LAW OF 1889 WAS REPEALED BY THE

REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1917

Prior to 1917, governing law for notaries public in the Philippines was the Spanish Notarial Law of 1889.
However, the law governing Notarial Practice is changed with the passage of the January 3, 1916
Revised Administrative Code, which took effect in 1917. In 2004, the Revised Rules on Notarial
Practice27 was passed by the Supreme Court.

In Kapunan, et al. v. Casilan and Court of Appeals,28 the Court had the opportunity to state that
enactment of the Revised Administrative Code repealed the Spanish Notarial Law of 1889. Thus:

It is petitioners’ contention that Notary Public Mateo Canonoy, who was related to the parties in the
donation within the fourth civil degree of affinity, was, under Articles 22 and 28 of the Spanish Notarial
Law, incompetent and disqualified to authenticate the deed of donation executed by the Kapunan
spouses in favor of their daughter Concepcion Kapunan Salcedo. Said deed of donation, according to
petitioners, became a mere private instrument under Article 1223 of the old Civil Code, so that under
the ruling laid down in the case of Barretto vs. Cabreza (33 Phil., 413), the donation was inefficacious.
The appellate court, however, in the decision complained of held that the Spanish Notarial Law has been
repealed with the enactment of Act No. 496. We find this ruling to be correct. In the case of Philippine
Sugar Estate vs. Poizart (48 Phil., 536), cited in Vda. de Estuart vs. Garcia (Adm. Case No. 212, prom.
February 15, 1957), this Court held that "The old Spanish notarial law and system of conveyance was
repealed in the Philippines and another and different notarial law and system became the law of the
land with the enactment of Act No. 496."29 (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, the heirs of Alilano stated that Atty. Examen was prohibited to notarize the absolute deeds
of sale since he was related by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree with the vendee, Ramon. The
prohibition might have still applied had the applicable rule been the Spanish Notarial Law. However,
following the Court’s ruling in Kapunan, the law in force at the time of signing was the Revised
Administrative Code, thus, the prohibition was removed. Atty. Examen was not incompetent to notarize
the document even if one of the parties to the deed was a relative, his brother. As correctly observed by
the IBP CBD:

At the time of notarization, the prevailing law governing notarization was Sections 231-259, Chapter 11
of the Revised Administrative Code and there was no prohibition on a notary public from notarizing a
document when one of the interested parties is related to the notary public within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or second degree of affinity.30

Note must be taken that under 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule IV, Section 3(c), a notary public is
disqualified among others to perform the notarial act if he is related by affinity or consanguinity to a
principal within the fourth civil degree, to wit:

SEC. 3. Disqualifications. – A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he:

xxxx

(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the
principal within the fourth civil degree.

That Atty. Examen was not incompetent to act as a notary public in the present case does not mean that
he can evade administrative liability under the CPR in conjunction with the provisions of the Notarial
Law.

NOTARIES PUBLIC MUST PERFORM

THEIR DUTIES DILIGENTLY AND
WITH UTMOST CARE

In Nunga v. Atty. Viray,31 this Court stated:

…[N]otarization 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 the 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. 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.32 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)

Thus under the prevailing law at the time of notarization it was the duty of the notary public to comply
with the requirements of the Notarial Law.1âwphi1 This includes the duty under Chapter 11, Section 251
of the Revised Administrative Code:
SEC. 251. Requirement as to notation of payment of cedula [residence] tax. – Every contract, deed, or
other document acknowledged before a notary public shall have certified thereon that the parties
thereto have presented their proper cedula [residence] certificates or are exempt from the cedula
[residence] tax, and there shall be entered by the notary public as a part of such certification the
number, place of issue, and date of each cedula [residence] certificate as aforesaid.

Under Chapter 11, Section 249 of the Revised Administrative Code provided a list of the grounds for
disqualification:

SEC. 249. Grounds for revocation of commission. – The following derelictions of duty on the part of a
notary public shall, in the discretion of the proper judge of first instance, be sufficient ground for the
revocation of his commission:

xxxx

(f) The failure of the notary to make the proper notation regarding cedula certificates.

xxxx

In Soriano v. Atty. Basco,33 the Court stated that notaries public are required to follow formalities as
these are mandatory and cannot be simply neglected. Thus, the Notarial Law requires them to certify
that a 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. Failure to perform his duties results in the revocation of a notary’s commission. The
Court said:

As a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, respondent is mandated to discharge with fidelity the
sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with
public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an
acknowledgment are sacrosanct. He cannot simply disregard the requirements and solemnities of the
Notarial Law.34 (Emphasis supplied)

Here, based on the submission of the complainants, it is clear that the residence certificate number used
by Ramon Examen and as notarized by Atty. Examen in both Absolute Deeds of Sale was not in fact the
residence certificate of Ramon but Florentina’s residence certificate number.35 Atty. Examen interposes
that he was in good faith in that it was office practice to have his secretary type up the details of the
documents and requirements without him checking the correctness of same.

A notary public must discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed with public interest, with
accuracy and fidelity.36 Good faith cannot be a mitigating circumstance in situations since the duty to
function as a notary public is personal. We note that the error could have been prevented had Atty.
Examen diligently performed his functions: personally checked the correctness of the documents. To say
that it was his secretary’s fault reflects disregard and unfitness to discharge the functions of a notary
public for it is he who personally acknowledges the document. He was behooved under Section 251,
Chapter 11 of the Revised Administrative Code to check if the proper cedulas were presented and
inspect if the documents to be acknowledged by him reflected the correct details. This Court cannot
stress enough that notarization is not a routinary act. It is imbued with substantive public interest owing
to the public character of his duties37 .
Atty. Examen posits that the failure of a notary to make the proper notation of cedulas can only be a
ground for disqualification and not the proper subject for a disbarment proceeding. We disagree.

In violating the provisions of the Notarial Law, Atty. Examen also transgressed the his oath as a lawyer,
provisions of the CPR and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which provides:

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. – A member of the
bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to
take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or
for corruptly and willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.

By his negligent act of not checking the work of his secretary and merely perfunctorily notarizing
documents, it cannot be said that he upheld legal processes thus violating Canon 1 of the CPR. Neither
can it be said that he promoted confidence in the legal system. If anything, his acts serve to undermine
the functions of a diligent lawyer. He thus ran afoul Rule 1.02 of the CPR. We cannot stress enough that
as a lawyer, respondent is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal

SEC. 241. Powers of notary public. – Every notary public shall have power to administer all oaths and
affirmations provided for by law, in all matters incident to his notarial office, and in the execution of
affidavits, depositions, and other documents requiring an oath, and to receive the proof or
acknowledgment of all writings relating to commerce or navigation, such as bills of sale bottomries,
mortgages, and hypothecations of ships, vessels, or boats, charter parties of affreightments, letters of
attorney, deeds, mortgages, transfers and assignments of land or buildings, or an interest therein, and
such other writings as are commonly proved or acknowledged before notaries; to act as a magistrate, in
the writing of affidavits or depositions, and to make declarations and certify the truth thereof under his
seal of office, concerning all matters done by him by virtue of his office. profession and refrain from any
act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of the
legal profession.38 A lawyer’s mandate includes thoroughly going over documents presented to them
typed or transcribed by their secretaries.39

The Court notes that the case between the parties is not the first that reached this Court. In Edna
Examen and Roberto Examen v. Heirs of Pedro Alilano and Florentina Pueblo,40 Atty. Examen and his
sister-in-law questioned via a petition for certiorari41 the propriety of three Court of Appeals’
Resolutions relating to a case involving Lot No. 1085 Pls-544-D this time with respect to its fruits. There
the Court of Appeals (CA) after giving Atty. Examen 90 days to file his appellant’s brief, denied a second
motion for extension of time merely on the basis of a flimsy reason that he had misplaced some of the
transcript of the witnesses’ testimonies. The CA did not find the reason of misplaced transcript as good
and sufficient cause to grant the extension pursuant to Section 12,42 Rule 44 of the Revised Rules of
Court. It stated that it was a "flimsy and lame excuse to unnecessarily delay the proceedings."43 The CA
was of the opinion that defendant-appellant’s, herein respondent, motion was "a mockery of the
procedural rules."44 This Court denied the petition for various procedural defects.45
With respect to the penalty imposed, given that Atty. Examen not only failed to uphold his duty as a
notary public but also failed to uphold his lawyer’s oath and ran afoul the provisions of the CPR, the
Court deems it proper to suspend Atty. Examen from the practice of law for a period of two years
following this Court’s decision in Caalim-Verzonilla v. Pascua.46

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto E. Examen is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
TWO (2) YEARS. In addition, his present notarial commission, if any, is hereby REVOKED, and he is
DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary public for a period of two (2) years from finality of this
Decision. He is further WARNED that any similar act or infraction in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to
respondent’s personal record as an attorney, the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Department of Justice and all 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

DECISION

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.

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:

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.