Republic

SUPREME
Manila

of

the

Philippines
COURT

THIRD DIVISION
A.C. No. 7350

February 18, 2013

PATROCINIO
V.
vs.
ATTY. ROSELLER A. VIRAY, Respondent.

AGBULOS, Complainant,

DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
The case stemmed from a Complaint1 filed before the Office of the Bar Confidant
(OBC) by complainant Mrs. Patrocinio V. Agbulos against respondent Atty. Roseller A.
Viray of Asingan, Pangasinan, for allegedly notarizing a document denominated as
Affidavit of Non-Tenancy2 in violation of the Notarial Law. The said affidavit was
supposedly executed by complainant, but the latter denies said execution and
claims that the signature and the community tax certificate (CTC) she allegedly
presented are not hers. She further claims that the CTC belongs to a certain
Christian Anton. 3 Complainant added that she did not personally appear before
respondent for the notarization of the document. She, likewise, states that
respondent's client, Rolando Dollente (Dollente), benefited from the said falsified
affidavit as it contributed to the illegal transfer of a property registered in her name
to that of Dollente.4
In his Comment,5 respondent admitted having prepared and notarized the
document in question at the request of his client Dollente, who assured him that it
was personally signed by complainant and that the CTC appearing therein is owned
by her.6 He, thus, claims good faith in notarizing the subject document.
In a Resolution7 dated April 16, 2007, the OBC referred the case to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation or
decision.
After the mandatory conference and hearing, the parties submitted their respective
Position Papers.8Complainant insists that she was deprived of her property because
of the illegal notarization of the subject document. 9 Respondent, on the other hand,
admits having notarized the document in question and asks for apology and
forgiveness from complainant as a result of his indiscretion. 10

In his report, Commissioner Dennis A. B. Funa (Commissioner Funa) reported that

respondent indeed notarized the subject document in the absence of the alleged
affiant having been brought only to respondent by Dollente. It turned out later that
the document was falsified and the CTC belonged to another person and not to
complainant. He further observed that respondent did not attempt to refute the
accusation against him; rather, he even apologized for the complained
act.11 Commissioner Funa, thus, recommended that respondent be found guilty of
violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice, and that he be meted the penalty of six (6) months suspension as a lawyer
and six (6) months suspension as a Notary Public. 12
On April 15, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XVIII-2008-166
which reads:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with
modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner
of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and,
finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the
applicable laws and rules, and considering Respondents violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Atty. Roseller A.
Viray is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) month.13
Respondent moved for the reconsideration of the above decision, but the same was
denied. The above resolution was further modified in Resolution No. XX-2012-117,
dated March 10, 2012, to read as follows:
RESOLVED to DENY Respondents Motion for Reconsideration, and unanimously
MODIFY as it is hereby MODIFIED Resolution No. XVIII- 2008-166 dated April 15,
2008, in addition to Respondents SUSPENSION from the practice of law for one (1)
month, Atty. Roseller A. Viray is hereby SUSPENDED as Notary Public for six (6)
months. (Emphasis in the original)
The findings of the IBP are well taken.
Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice emphasizes the
necessity of the affiants personal appearance before the notary public: 14
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 notarys 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.

Moreover, Section 12,15 Rule II, of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice defines the
"competent evidence of identity" referred to above.
In this case, respondent admits that not only did he prepare and notarize the
subject affidavit but he likewise notarized the same without the affiants personal
appearance. He explained that he did so merely upon the assurance of his client
Dollente that the document was executed by complainant. In notarizing the
document, respondent contented himself with the presentation of a CTC despite the
Rules clear requirement of presentation of competent evidence of identity such as
an identification card with photograph and signature. With this indiscretion,
respondent failed to ascertain the genuineness of the affiants signature which
turned out to be a forgery. In failing to observe the requirements of the Rules, even
the CTC presented, purportedly owned by complainant, turned out to belong to
somebody else.
To be sure, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who
signed the same is the very same person who executed and personally appeared
before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated
therein.16 Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the
document in question, the notary public would be unable to verify the genuineness
of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is
the partys free act or deed.17
As aptly observed by the Court in Dela Cruz-Sillano v. Pangan:18
The Court is aware of the practice of not a few lawyers commissioned as notary
public to authenticate documents without requiring the physical presence of
affiants. However, the adverse consequences of this practice far outweigh whatever
convenience is afforded to the absent affiants. Doing away with the essential
requirement of physical presence of the affiant does not take into account the
likelihood that the documents may be spurious or that the affiants may not be who
they purport to be. A notary public should not notarize a document unless the
persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and
personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are
stated therein. 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 partys free act and deed. 19
The Court has repeatedly emphasized in a number of cases 20 the important role a
notary public performs, to wit:
x x x [N]otarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but one invested
with substantive public interest. The notarization by a notary public converts a
private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without
further proof of its authenticity. A notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith
and credit upon its face. 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
publics confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined. 21
Respondents failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only
damage to those directly affected by the notarized document but also in
undermining the integrity of a notary public and in degrading the function of
notarization.22 He should, thus, be held liable for such negligence not only as a
notary public but also as a lawyer. 23 The responsibility to faithfully observe and
respect the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is more
pronounced when the notary public is a lawyer because of his solemn oath under
the Code of Professional Responsibility to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or
consent to the doing of any. 24 Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are
mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, such duties being
dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. 251wphi1
As to the proper penalty, the 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.26
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Roseller A. Viray GUILTY of breach
of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one (1)
year; REVOKES his incumbent commission, 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 or similar acts in the future shall be dealt
with more severely.
Let all the courts, through the Office of the Court Administrator, as well as the IBP
and the Office of the Bar Confidant, be notified of this Decision and be it entered
into respondent's personal record.
SO ORDERED

Republic
SUPREME
Manila

of

the

Philippines
COURT

THIRD DIVISION
A.C. No. 10185

March 12, 2014

LICERIO
vs.
ATTY. MARCELINO CABUCANA, JR., Respondent.

DIZON, Complainant,

RESOLUTION
MENDOZA, J.:
On May 14, 2004, complainant Licerio Dizon (complainant) filed a petition against
Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. (Atty. Cabucana), before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), praying for the disbarment of the latter for falsification of public
document.
In his petition, complainant alleged that he was one of the would-be-buyers of a
parcel of land owned by the heirs of the late Florentino Callangan, namely, Susana,
Jun and Angeleta, all surnamed Callangan who were parties in Civil Case No. 1-689
filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch I, Santiago City (MTCC); that
on November 6, 2003, a compromise agreement was executed by the parties in the
said case and notarized before Atty. Cabucana on the same date it was signed at
the MTCC; that at the hearing conducted on December 11, 2003 regarding the due
execution and the veracity of the compromise agreement, the signatories therein

testified that they signed the instrument in the court room of MTCC but not in the
presence of Atty. Cabucana as Notary Public; that because of the irregularity in the
due execution of the Compromise Agreement, there was undue delay in the
resolution/decision of Civil Case No. 1-689 which caused damage and injury to
complainant; that Atty. Cabucana violated the Notarial Law in notarizing the
document in the absence of most of the signatories/affiants; and that he should be
sanctioned in accordance with Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Code and Code
of Professional Responsibility. Complainant further alleged that Atty. Cabucana
uttered grave threats against him on July 20, 2004 after the hearing of the said case
in MTCC.
In his Answer, Atty. Cabucana averred that the complaint was intended to harass
him because he was the private prosecutor in a criminal case filed against
complainant before the MTCC; that complainant had no cause of action as his right
was not violated because he was just a "would be" buyer and not a party to the
compromise agreement; and that complainant would not suffer any damage by the
pendency of the case or by any defects obtaining in the notarization of the
compromise agreement.
In its Report and Recommendation,1 dated January 22, 2007, the Investigating
Commissioner found that Atty. Cabucana violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility when he notarized the compromise agreement without
the presence of all the parties, and recommended that he be suspended as Notary
Public for a period of two (2) years and from the practice of law for six (6) months.
In its Resolution,2 dated May 31, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and
approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner with
modification that Atty. Cabucana be suspended for only six (6) months for violation
of his obligation as Notary Public.
On motion for reconsideration, the IBP Board of Governors, in a
Resolution,3 modified its earlier resolution and suspended Atty. Cabucana from the
practice of law for one (1) month and disqualified him from re-appointment as
notary public for one (1) year.
The Court agrees with the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors except as
to the penalty.
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.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. GUILTY of
violating
Rule
1.01,
Canon
l
of
the
Code
of
Professional
Responsibility.1wphi1 Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of
law for three (3) months, REVOKES his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and
PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years,
effective immediately, with a stern WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar
offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant to be included in the
records of the respondent; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for distribution to all
its chapters; and the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all cou1is
throughout the country.
SO ORDERED.
[Adm.
VICTOR

Case

No.

NUNGA, Complainant,

RESOLUTION

DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:

4758.
v.

ATTY.

April
VENANCIO

30,

1999.]

VIRAY, Respondent.

In his complaint, Victor Nunga seeks the disbarment of respondent Venancio Viray
on the ground of grave misconduct for notarizing documents without a commission
to do so. After issues were joined, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines conducted an
investigation.
The Investigating Commissioner was Atty. Lydia A. Navarro. Her Report dated 4
August
1998
reads
as
follows:chanrob1es
virtual
1aw
library
Victor D. Nunga, president of the Masantol Rural Bank filed a complaint for
disbarment against Atty. Venancio M. Viray on the ground of gross and serious
misconduct for notarizing documents when he was not commissioned to do so at
the
time
the
said
documents
were
executed.
Complainant alleged that in May 1996, he was appointed by the board of directors
of Masantol Rural Bank after his fathers resignation as its president.
A few month[] thereafter, he allegedly discovered that one of the banks assets
consisting of 250 square meters house and lot in Kalookan City was sold without
proper bidding by its manager Jesus B. Manansala to Jesus Carlo Gerard M. Viray, a
minor born February 2, 1969 during the transaction on May 22, 1987. The deed of
absolute sale was notarized by the respondent who is not only the father of the
buyer minor but also a stockholder and legal counsel of the vendor bank and was
not
duly
commissioned
as
notary
public
as
of
that
date.
Complainant further alleged that the said minor vendee wasnt capable to buy the
said property at its value of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00) but
his parents Atty. and Mrs. Venancio Viray, respondent herein [sic]. Being a minor he
must [have been] represented by a guardian in the said transaction. After the title
was allegedly issued in the name of the minor vendee Jesus Carlo [M.] Viray, the
same title was allegedly used by Respondent and his wife in mortgaging the
property to Crown Savings and Loan Association for THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND
PESOS (P300,000.00) on July 15, 1991 both by virtue of Special Powers of Attorney
annotated at the back of the TCT No. 362813 PR 9907. The annotation of the
cancellation of the THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00) loan in . . .
favor of Crown Savings and Loan Association under entry number 1226 was
allegedly entered in the notarial registry of the Respondent for 1991 when he wasnt
commissioned
as
notary
public.
The aforesaid acts of Respondent allegedly constitute not only unprofessional and
unethical misconduct unbecoming of a lawyer but also gross and serious
malpractice
which
justifies
disbarment.

Respondent for his part alleged in his comment that complainant holds no position
at the Masantol Rural Bank Inc. [i]n 1987 and 1997, but is facing criminal charges
for having plundered the said bank of millions of pesos and [for] trespass to
dwelling; while his father is facing a case before the Securities and Exchange
Commission. The sale of the lot by the Masantol Rural Bank Inc. to his son was
allegedly done in good faith all the formalities required by law [were] properly
complied with and the complaint from all indications is a leverage in persuading him
into
a
possible
compromise.
From 1965 to date Respondent alleged that he was always commissioned as notary
public and the fact that Pampanga is under several feet of floodwaters, he could not
annex all the needed documents to support the allegations. According to
Respondent, there was no year in his practice of law that he was not commissioned
as notary public. In fact, in the alleged documents he had PTR for that purpose [,
and] he would not [have obtained] a commission without the PTR.
After going over the records of this case, the Undersigned noted that although both
parties were required to submit their respective memorand[a], only complainant
complied
with
the
order.
Complainant submitted certification and the respective orders of the Clerk of Court
and presiding judges . . .in support of his contention, and previous certification
issued by the Clerk of Court of Pampanga to the effect that Respondent Atty.
Venancio Viray had been commissioned to act as notary public for the said province
on January 2, 1981 to December 31, 1982; January 10, 1983 to December 31, 1984;
and January 8, 1995 to December 31, 1996 and had no record of any notarial
reports. These therefore negate respondents allegation that he [has been]
commissioned
as
notary
public
since
1965
to
the
present.
Complainant likewise submitted a copy of the Resolution which dismissed the cases
filed against the Complainant and his father and the xerox copy of the TCT No.
362813 PR 9907 where the special power of attorney and the annotations for the
cancellation of mortgage showed inscription of the same in the notarial register of
Venancio Viray on June 4, 1991. Nowhere from the records and evidence[]
submitted was there any proof that Respondent was commissioned as notary public
in 1987 and 1991, the years the Absolute Deed of Sale was notarized by
Respondent as appearing to be May 22, 1987 and the inscription for cancellation of
mortgage on the dorsal side of TCT 362813 as June 4, 1991 [sic].
The respondents contention that he had a PTR for all the documents he prepared is
only an indication that the Professional Tax Receipt is a license for him to engage in
the practice of his profession as a lawyer but not a commission for him to act as
notary
public.

Inasmuch as Respondent was not able to counteract the averments of Complainant

which were duly supported with evidence[], it is apparent that Respondent violated
the provisions of the notarial law by having affixed his official signatures to the
aforesaid documents with the intent to impart the appearance of notarial
authenticity thereto when . . . in fact as of those dates 1987 and 1991 he was not
commissioned
as
notary
public.
In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that if Respondent is
presently commissioned as notary public, the same should be revoked, and [he
should] not be granted any commission as notary public up to December 31, 2002.
On 5 November 1998, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar promulgated
Resolution No. XIII-98-196 adopting the Report of the Investigating Commissioner
and recommending that respondents commission as a notary public be revoked
and that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three months.
We concur with the finding of the Investigating Commissioner that respondent Atty.
Venancio Viray did not have a commission as notary public in 1987 and 1991 when
he notarized the assailed documents. Respondent knew that he could not exercise
the powers or perform the duties of a notary public unless he was duly appointed as
such pursuant to the Notarial Law (Chapter 11, Title IV, Book I, Revised
Administrative Code). He tried to impress upon the investigating commissioner that
since "1965 to date" he has always been commissioned as a notary public. Yet, he
was unable to rebut complainants evidence that he was not so commissioned for
the
years
in
question.
We have emphatically stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless,
routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those
who are qualified 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. (Maligsa v. Cabanting, 272 SCRA 408, 413 [1997]; Arrieta v. Llosa, 282 SCRA
248,
252-253
[1997]).
Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at
a time when he has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be
subjected to disciplinary action. For one, performing a notarial without such
commission is a violation of the lawyers oath to obey the laws, more specifically,

the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly commissioned when
he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood,
which the lawyers oath similarly proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the
prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
provides: "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct."cralaw
virtua1aw
library
By such misconduct as a notary public, the lawyer likewise violates Canon 7 of the
same Code, which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession. Elaborating on this, we said in Maligsa v. Cabanting
(supra):chanrob1es
virtual
1aw
library
A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to
society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end a member of the legal
fraternity should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the
confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of
the legal profession. (Citing Marcelo v. Javier, 214 SCRA 1 [1992]).
What aggravated respondents unlawful notarization in 1987 was the fact that the
transaction involved was in favor of his son, who was then only eighteen years old
and, therefore, a minor. Under Article 402 of the Civil Code, which was the
governing law as of 22 May 1987 when the said transaction was made, the age of
majority was twenty-one years. Republic Act No. 6809, which reduced the age of
majority to eighteen years was approved only on 13 December 1989 and became
effective two weeks after publication in two newspapers of general circulation.
Needless to state, respondent cannot escape from disciplinary action in his capacity
as
a
notary
public
and
as
a
member
of
the
Philippine
Bar.
However, the penalty recommended by the Board of Governors of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines is too light. Respondent must be barred from being
commissioned as a notary public for three (3) years, and suspended from the
practice
of
law
for
also
three
(3)
years.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of Investigating
Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro, which the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines adopted and approved, but MODIFIES the penalty recommended
by the said Board of Governors. As modified, respondent ATTY. VENANCIO VIRAY is
hereby BARRED from being commissioned as notary public for THREE (3) years and
his present commission, if any, is revoked, and SUSPENDED from the practice of law
also for THREE (3) years, effective upon receipt of a copy of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED.

EN BANC
[A.C. NO. 6010 : August 28, 2006]
ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY LABORATORY HIGH SCHOOL (SLU-LHS) FACULTY and
STAFF, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROLANDO C. DELA CRUZ, Respondent.
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This is a disbarment case filed by the Faculty members and Staff of the Saint Louis
University-Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) against Atty. Rolando C. Dela Cruz,
principal of SLU-LHS, predicated on the following grounds:
1) Gross Misconduct:
From the records of the case, it appears that there is a pending criminal case for
child abuse allegedly committed by him against a high school student filed before
the Prosecutor's Office of Baguio City; a pending administrative case filed by the
Teachers, Staff, Students and Parents before an Investigating Board created by SLU
for his alleged unprofessional and unethical acts of misappropriating money
supposedly for the teachers; and the pending labor case filed by SLU-LHS Faculty
before the NLRC, Cordillera Administrative Region, on alleged illegal deduction of
salary by respondent.
2) Grossly Immoral Conduct:
In contracting a second marriage despite the existence of his first marriage;
andcralawlibrary
3) Malpractice:
In notarizing documents despite the expiration of his commission.
According to complainant, respondent was legally married to Teresita Rivera on 31
May 1982 at Tuba, Benguet, before the then Honorable Judge Tomas W. Macaranas.
He thereafter contracted a subsequent marriage with one Mary Jane Pascua, before

the Honorable Judge Guillermo Purganan. On 4 October 1994, said second marriage
was subsequently annulled for being bigamous.
On the charge of malpractice, complainant alleged that respondent deliberately
subscribed and notarized certain legal documents on different dates from 1988 to
1997, despite expiration of respondent's notarial commission on 31 December
1987. A Certification1dated 25 May 1999 was issued by the Clerk of Court of
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Baguio City, to the effect that respondent had not applied
for commission as Notary Public for and in the City of Baguio for the period 1988 to
1997. Respondent performed acts of notarization, as evidenced by the following
documents:
1. Affidavit of Ownership2 dated 8 March 1991, executed by Fernando T. Acosta,
subscribed and sworn to before Rolando Dela Cruz;
2. Affidavit3 dated 26 September 1992, executed by Maria Cortez Atos, subscribed
and sworn to before Rolando Dela Cruz;
3. Affidavit4 dated 14 January 1992, executed by Fanolex James A. Menos,
subscribed and sworn to before Rolando Dela Cruz;
4. Affidavit5 dated 23 December 1993, executed by Ponciano V. Abalos, subscribed
and sworn to before Rolando Dela Cruz;
5. Absolute Date of Sale6 dated 23 June 1993, executed by Danilo Gonzales in favor
of Senecio C. Marzan, notarized by Rolando Dela Cruz;
6. Joint Affidavit By Two Disinherited Parties 7 dated 5 March 1994, executed by
Evelyn C. Canullas and Pastora C. Tacadena, subscribed and sworn to before
Rolando Dela Cruz;
7. Sworn Statement8 dated 31 May 1994, executed by Felimon B. Rimorin,
subscribed and sworn to before Rolando Dela Cruz;
8. Deed of Sale9 dated 17 August 1994, executed by Woodrow Apurado in favor of
Jacinto Batara, notarized by Rolando Dela Cruz;
9. Joint Affidavit by Two Disinterested Parties 10 dated 1 June 1994, executed by
Ponciano V. Abalos and Arsenio C. Sibayan, subscribed and sworn to before Rolando
Dela Cruz;
10. Absolute Deed of Sale11 dated 23 March 1995, executed by Eleanor D.Meridor in
favor of Leonardo N. Benter, notarized by Rolando Dela Cruz;
11. Deed of Absolute Sale 12 dated 20 December 1996, executed by Mandapat in
favor of Mario R. Mabalot, notarized by Rolando Dela Cruz;

12. Joint Affidavit By Two Disinterested Parties 13 dated 17 April 1996, executed by
Villiam C. Ambong and Romeo L. Quiming, subscribed and sworn to before Rolando
Dela Cruz;
13. Conditional Deed of Sale14 dated 27 February 1997, executed by Aurelia Demot
Cados in favor of Jose Ma. A. Pangilinan, notarized by Rolando Dela Cruz;
14. Memorandum of Agreement15 dated 19 July 1996, executed by JARCO
represented by Mr. Johnny Teope and AZTEC Construction represented by Mr.
George Cham, notarized by Rolando Dela Cruz.
Quite remarkably, respondent, in his comment, denied the charges of child abuse,
illegal deduction of salary and others which are still pending before the St. Louis
University (SLU), National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Prosecutor's
Office. He did not discuss anything about the allegations of immorality in
contracting a second marriage and malpractice in notarizing documents despite the
expiration of his commission.
After the filing of comment, We referred16 the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), for investigation, report and recommendation.
The IBP conducted the mandatory preliminary conference.
The complainants, thereafter, submitted their position paper which is just a
reiteration of their allegations in their complaint.
Respondent, on his part, expressly admitted his second marriage despite the
existence of his first marriage, and the subsequent nullification of the former. He
also admitted having notarized certain documents during the period when his
notarial commission had already expired. However, he offered some extenuating
defenses such as good faith, lack of malice and noble intentions in doing the
complained acts.
After the submission of their position papers, the case was deemed submitted for
resolution.
On 30 March 2005, Commissioner Acerey C. Pacheco submitted his report and
recommended that:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that respondent
be administratively penalized for the following acts:
A. For contracting a second marriage without taking the appropriate legal steps to
have the first marriage annulled first, he be suspended from the practice of law for
one (1) year, and

b. For notarizing certain legal documents despite full knowledge of the expiration of
his notarial commission, he be suspended from the practice of law for another one
(1) year or for a total of two (2) years. 17
On 17 December 2005, the IBP Board of Governors, approved and adopted the
recommendation of Commissioner Pacheco, thus:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the aboveentitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A" and, finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws
and rules, and considering that Respondent contracted a second marriage without
taking appropriate legal steps to have the first marriage annulled, Atty. Rolando C.
dela Cruz is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and for
notarizing legal documents despite full knowledge of the expiration of his notarial
commission Atty. Rolando C. dela Cruz is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
another one (1) year, for a total of two (2) years Suspension from the practice of
law.18
This Court finds the recommendation of the IBP to fault respondent well taken,
except as to the penalty contained therein.
At the threshold, it is worth stressing that the practice of law is not a right but a
privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess the
qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. Membership in
the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege and right
to practice law only during good behavior, and he can be deprived of it for
misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to
be heard has been afforded him. Without invading any constitutional privilege or
right, an attorney's right to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to
suspend, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to exercise the
duties and responsibilities of an attorney. It must be understood that the purpose of
suspending or disbarring him as an attorney is to remove from the profession a
person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities belonging to an office of attorney and, thus, to protect the public
and those charged with the administration of justice, rather than to punish an
attorney. Elaborating on this, we said on Maligsa v. Atty. Cabanting, 19 that the Bar
should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair
dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his
duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. A member of the legal
fraternity should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the
confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of
the legal profession. Towards this end, an attorney may be disbarred or suspended
for any violation of his oath or of his duties as an attorney and counselor, which
include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,

all of these being broad enough to cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer in
his professional or private capacity.
Equally worthy of remark is that the law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy
of standards among its members. There is no distinction as to whether the
transgression is committed in the lawyer's professional capacity or in his private life.
This is because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at
one time and a mere citizen at another. 20 Thus, not only his professional activities
but even his private life, insofar as the latter may reflect unfavorably upon the good
name and prestige of the profession and the courts, may at any time be the subject
of inquiry on the part of the proper authorities. 21
One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess
good moral character. Possession of such moral character as requirement to the
enjoyment of the privilege of law practice must be continuous. Otherwise,
"membership in the bar may be terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good
moral conduct."22
In the case at bench, there is no dispute that respondent and Teresita Rivera
contracted marriage on 31 May 1982 before Judge Tomas W. Macaranas. In less than
a year, they parted ways owing to their irreconcilable differences without seeking
judicial recourse. The union bore no offspring. After their separation in-fact,
respondent never knew the whereabouts of Teresita Rivera since he had lost all
forms of communication with her. Seven years thereafter, respondent became
attracted to one Mary Jane Pascua, who was also a faculty member of SLU-LHS.
There is also no dispute over the fact that in 1989, respondent married Mary Jane
Pascua in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Baguio City, Branch 68. Respondent
even admitted this fact. When the second marriage was entered into, respondent's
prior marriage with Teresita Rivera was still subsisting, no action having been
initiated before the court to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity or annulment of
respondent's prior marriage to Teresita Rivera or a judicial declaration of
presumptive death of Teresita Rivera.
Respondent was already a member of the Bar when he contracted the bigamous
second marriage in 1989, having been admitted to the Bar in 1985. As such, he
cannot feign ignorance of the mandate of the law that before a second marriage
may be validly contracted, the first and subsisting marriage must first be annulled
by the appropriate court. The second marriage was annulled only on 4 October 1994
before the RTC of Benguet, Branch 9, or about five years after respondent
contracted his second marriage. The annulment of respondent's second marriage
has no bearing to the instant disbarment proceeding. Firstly, as earlier emphasized,
the annulment came after the respondent's second bigamous marriage. Secondly,
as we held in In re: Almacen, a disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely
civil nor purely criminal but is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct
of its officers. Thus, if the acquittal of a lawyer in a criminal action is not

determinative of an administrative case against him, or if an affidavit of withdrawal

of a disbarment case does not affect its course, then neither will the judgment of
annulment of respondent's second marriage also exonerate him from a wrongdoing
actually committed. So long as the quantum of proof - clear preponderance of
evidence - in disciplinary proceedings against members of the Bar is met, then
liability attaches.23
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court cites grossly immoral conduct as a ground
for disbarment.
The Court has laid down with a common definition of what constitutes immoral
conduct, vis - -vis, grossly immoral conduct. Immoral conduct is "that conduct
which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the
opinion of the good and respectable members of the community" and what is
"grossly immoral," that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal
act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree." 24
Undoubtedly, respondent's act constitutes immoral conduct. But is it so gross as to
warrant his disbarment? Indeed, he exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of
morality required of him as a member of the Bar. In particular, he made a mockery
of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of
contracting a second marriage while the first marriage was still in place, is contrary
to honesty, justice, decency and morality.25
However, measured against the definition, we are not prepared to consider
respondent's act as grossly immoral. This finds support in the following
recommendation and observation of the IBP Investigator and IBP Board of
Governors, thus:
The uncontested assertions of the respondent belies any intention to flaunt the law
and the high moral standard of the legal profession, to wit:
A. After his first failed marriage and prior to his second marriage or for a period of
almost seven (7) years, he has not been romantically involved with any woman;
b. His second marriage was a show of his noble intentions and total love for his wife,
whom he described to be very intelligent person;
c. He never absconded from his obligations to support his wife and child;
d. He never disclaimed paternity over the child and husbandry (sic) with relation to
his wife;
e. After the annulment of his second marriage, they have parted ways when the
mother and child went to Australia;
f. Since then up to now, respondent remained celibate. 26

In the case of Terre v. Terre, 27 respondent was disbarred because his moral character
was deeply flawed as shown by the following circumstances, viz: he convinced the
complainant that her prior marriage to Bercenilla was null and void ab initio and
that she was legally single and free to marry him. When complainant and
respondent had contracted their marriage, respondent went through law school
while being supported by complainant, with some assistance from respondent's
parents. After respondent had finished his law course and gotten complainant
pregnant, respondent abandoned the complainant without support and without the
wherewithal for delivering his own child safely to a hospital.
In the case of Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma, 28 respondent was also disbarred for his grossly
immoral acts such as: first, he abandoned his lawful wife and three children;
second, he lured an innocent young woman into marrying him; third, he
mispresented himself as a "bachelor" so he could contract marriage in a foreign
land; and fourth, he availed himself of complainant's resources by securing a plane
ticket from complainant's office in order to marry the latter's daughter. He did this
without complainant's knowledge. Afterwards, he even had the temerity to assure
complainant that "everything is legal."
Such acts are wanting in the case at bar. In fact, no less than the respondent
himself acknowledged and declared his abject apology for his misstep. He was
humble enough to offer no defense save for his love and declaration of his
commitment to his wife and child.
Based on the reasons stated above, we find the imposition of disbarment upon him
to be unduly harsh. The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and
may be imposed only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the
standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court. Disbarment should
never be decreed where any lesser penalty could accomplish the end desired. 29 In
line with this philosophy, we find that a penalty of two years suspension is more
appropriate. The penalty of one (1) year suspension recommended by the IBP is too
light and not commensurate to the act committed by respondent.
As to the charge of misconduct for having notarized several documents during the
years 1988-1997 after his commission as notary public had expired, respondent
humbly admitted having notarized certain documents despite his knowledge that he
no longer had authority to do so. He, however, alleged that he received no payment
in notarizing said documents.
It has been emphatically stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless,
routinary act. On the contrary, it is invested with substantive public interest, such
that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.
Notarization of a private document converts the document into a public one making
it admissible in court without further proof of its 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 the utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity
of this form of conveyance would be undermined. 30
The requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public must not be
treated as a mere casual formality. The Court has characterized a lawyer's act of
notarizing documents without the requisite commission to do so as "reprehensible,
constituting as it does not only malpractice but also x x x the crime of falsification of
public documents."31
The Court had occasion to state that where the notarization of a document is done
by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or
commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action or one,
performing a notarial act without such commission is a violation of the lawyer's oath
to obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear
that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and
purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath similarly
proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon
1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: "A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." By acting as a notary
public without the proper commission to do so, the lawyer likewise violates Canon 7
of the same Code, which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession.
In the case of Buensuceso v. Barera, 32 a lawyer was suspended for one year when
he notarized five documents after his commission as Notary Public had expired, to
wit: a complaint for ejectment, affidavit, supplemental affidavit, a deed of sale, and
a contract to sell. Guided by the pronouncement in said case, we find that a
suspension of two (2) years is justified under the circumstances. Herein respondent
notarized a total of fourteen (14) documents 33 without the requisite notarial
commission.
Other charges constituting respondent's misconduct such as the pending criminal
case for child abuse allegedly committed by him against a high school student filed
before the Prosecutor's Office of Baguio City; the pending administrative case filed
by the Teachers, Staff, Students and Parents before an Investigating Board created
by SLU; and the pending labor case filed by SLU-LHS Faculty before the NLRC,
Cordillera Administrative Region, on alleged illegal deduction of salary by
respondent, need not be discussed, as they are still pending before the proper
forums. At such stages, the presumption of innocence still prevails in favor of the
respondent.
WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Rolando Dela Cruz guilty of immoral conduct,
in disregard of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, and another two (2) years for

notarizing documents despite the expiration of his commission or a total of four (4)
years of suspension.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished all the courts of the land through the Court
Administrator, as well as the IBP, the Office of the Bar Confidant, and recorded in
the personal records of the respondent.
SO ORDERED.

Republic
SUPREME
Manila

of

the

Philippines
COURT

THIRD DIVISION
A.C. No. 7350

February 18, 2013

PATROCINIO
V.
vs.
ATTY. ROSELLER A. VIRAY, Respondent.

AGBULOS, Complainant,

DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
FACTS:
a Complaint1 filed before the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) by complainant against
respondent Atty. Roseller A. Viray of Asingan, Pangasinan, for allegedly notarizing a
document denominated as Affidavit of Non-Tenancy 2 in violation of the Notarial Law. The said
affidavit was supposedly executed by complainant, but the latter denies said execution and
claims that the signature and the community tax certificate (CTC) she allegedly presented
are not hers. She further claims that the CTC belongs to a certain Christian
Anton. 3 Complainant added that she did not personally appear before respondent for the

notarization of the document. She, likewise, states that respondent's client, Rolando Dollente
(Dollente), benefited from the said falsified affidavit as it contributed to the illegal transfer of
a property registered in her name to that of Dollente.4
On April 15, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XVIII-2008-166 which
reads:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with
modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the
above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and
rules, and considering Respondents violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Atty. Roseller A. Viray is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for one (1) month.13
Respondent moved for the reconsideration of the above decision, but the same was denied.
The above resolution was further modified in Resolution No. XX-2012-117, dated March 10,
2012, to read as follows:
RESOLVED to DENY Respondents Motion for Reconsideration, and unanimously MODIFY as it
is hereby MODIFIED Resolution No. XVIII- 2008-166 dated April 15, 2008, in addition to
Respondents SUSPENSION from the practice of law for one (1) month, Atty. Roseller A.
Viray is hereby SUSPENDED as Notary Public for six (6) months. (Emphasis in the original)
The findings of the IBP are well taken.
Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice emphasizes the necessity of
the affiants personal appearance before the notary public:14
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 notarys 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.
Moreover, Section 12,15 Rule II, of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice defines the
"competent evidence of identity" referred to above.
In this case, respondent admits that not only did he prepare and notarize the subject
affidavit but he likewise notarized the same without the affiants personal appearance. He
explained that he did so merely upon the assurance of his client Dollente that the document
was executed by complainant. In notarizing the document, respondent contented himself
with the presentation of a CTC despite the Rules clear requirement of presentation of
competent evidence of identity such as an identification card with photograph and
signature. With this indiscretion, respondent failed to ascertain the genuineness of the
affiants signature which turned out to be a forgery. In failing to observe the requirements of
the Rules, even the CTC presented, purportedly owned by complainant, turned out to belong
to somebody else.
To be sure, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the
same is the very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to
the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. 16 Without the appearance of the
person who actually executed the document in question, the notary public would be unable

to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that
the document is the partys free act or deed. 17
As aptly observed by the Court in Dela Cruz-Sillano v. Pangan:18
The Court is aware of the practice of not a few lawyers commissioned as notary public to
authenticate documents without requiring the physical presence of affiants. However, the
adverse consequences of this practice far outweigh whatever convenience is afforded to the
absent affiants. Doing away with the essential requirement of physical presence of the
affiant does not take into account the likelihood that the documents may be spurious or that
the affiants may not be who they purport to be. A notary public should not notarize a
document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who
executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are
stated therein. 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 partys free act and deed.19
The Court has repeatedly emphasized in a number of cases 20 the important role a notary
public performs, to wit:
x x x [N]otarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but one invested with
substantive public interest. The notarization by a notary public converts a private document
into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its
authenticity. A notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. 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 publics confidence in the integrity of a
notarized document would be undermined.21
Respondents failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only damage to
those directly affected by the notarized document but also in undermining the integrity of a
notary public and in degrading the function of notarization. 22 He should, thus, be held liable
for such negligence not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer. 23 The responsibility to
faithfully observe and respect the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment
or jurat is more pronounced when the notary public is a lawyer because of his solemn oath
under the Code of Professional Responsibility to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or
consent to the doing of any.24 Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to
discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, such duties being dictated by public policy
and impressed with public interest.251wphi1
As to the proper penalty, the 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.26
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Roseller A. Viray GUILTY of breach of the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the
Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one (1) year; REVOKES his incumbent
commission, 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 or similar
acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

Let all the courts, through the Office of the Court Administrator, as well as the IBP and the
Office of the Bar Confidant, be notified of this Decision and be it entered into respondent's
personal record.
SO ORDERED