A.C. No. 10185 DIZON v. CABUCANA, JR.

FACTS:
Complainant, Licerio Dizon, alleged that he was one of the “would be” buyers of a parcel of land owned by Callangan in
a Civil Case filed before the MTC. On that case, a compromise agreement was executed by the parties before respondent,
Atty. Mercelino Cabucana, Jr.

At the hearing, the signatories regarding the compromise agreement therein testified that they signed the instrument in
the court room of MTCC but not in the presence of Atty. Cabucana as Notary Public; hence, there was delay in the
decision of the case which caused damage and injury to the complainant. They also alleged that Atty. Cabucana violated
the Notarial Law by notarizing in the absence of most of the signatories and uttered grave threats against him after the
hearing of the said case.

In his answer, he averred that the complaint was intended to harass him for he was the private prosecutor on a criminal
case against Dizon and lack of cause of action for he was only a “would be” buyer.

ISSUE: Whether or not he violated a rule in the CPR through his conduct

RULING:
Yes.
Section 1, 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
acknowledgments 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 requirement of affiant's personal appearance was further emphasized in Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the Rules on
Notarial Practice of 2004 which 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

As a notary public, Atty. Cabucana should not notarize a document unless the person who signs it is the same person
executing it and personally appearing before him to attest to the truth of its contents. This is to enable him 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.

Hence, the Court finds respondent Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon l of the CPR and
suspends him from the practice of law for three (3) months, and prohibits him from being commissioned as a notary
public for two (2) years with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more
severely
A.C. No. 9514 BERNARD N. JANDOQUILE vs. ATTY. QUIRINO P. REVILLA, JR., Respondent

FACTS:

Before us is a complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Bernard N. Jandoquile against respondent Atty. Quirino P.
Revilla, Jr.

Atty. Revilla, Jr. notarized a complaint-affidavit signed by Heneraline L. Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa and Elmer L.
Alvarado. Heneraline Brosas is a sister of Heizel Wynda Brosas Revilla, Atty. Revilla, Jr.'s wife. Jandoquile complains that
Atty. Revilla, Jr. is disqualified to perform the notarial act per Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
which reads as follows:

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.

Jandoquile also complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not require the three affiants in the complaint-affidavit to show their
valid identification cards.

ISSUE: Whether or not his violation is grounds for disbarment.

Ruling:

Indeed, Atty. Revilla, Jr. violated the disqualification rule under Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice. We agree with him, however, that his violation is not a sufficient ground for disbarment.

Atty. Revilla, Jr.’s violation of the aforesaid disqualification rule is beyond dispute. Atty. Revilla, Jr. readily admitted that
he notarized the complaint-affidavit signed by his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. Section 3(c), Rule IV
of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly disqualifies him from notarizing the complaint-affidavit, from performing
the notarial act, since two of the affiants or principals are his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. Given the
clear provision of the disqualification rule, it behooved upon Atty. Revilla, Jr. to act with prudence and refuse notarizing
the document. We cannot agree with his proposition that we consider him to have acted more as counsel of the affiants,
not as notary public, when he notarized the complaint-affidavit. The notarial certificate at the bottom of the complaint-
affidavit shows his signature as a notary public, with a notarial commission valid until December 31, 2012.
He cannot therefore claim that he signed it as counsel of the three affiants.

On the second charge, we agree with Atty. Revilla, Jr. that he cannot be held liable. If the notary public knows the affiants
personally, he need not require them to show their valid identification cards. This rule is supported by the definition of a
"jurat" under Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

As we said, Atty. Revilla, Jr.’s violation of the disqualification rule under Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice is not a sufficient ground to disbar him. To our mind, Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not commit any deceit,
malpractice, gross misconduct or gross immoral conduct, or any other serious ground for disbarment under Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.