JULIETA BORROMEO SAMONTE, complainant, vs. ATTY.

ROLANDO R. GATDULA, Branch Clerk of Court, respondent.

Facts:
Julieta Borromeo Samonte filed a complaint against Rolando R. Gatdula, RTC, Branch
220, Quezon City charging him with grave misconduct consisting in the alleged
engaging in the private practice of law which is in conflict with his official functions
as Branch Clerk of Court.
Complainant alleges that she is the authorized representative of her sister Flor
Borromeo de Leon, the plaintiff in a Civil Case filed with the MTC of QC, Branch 37.
A typographical error was committed in the complaint which stated that the address
of defendant is No. 63-C instead of 63-B, P. Tuazon Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City. The
mistake was rectified by the filing of an amended complaint which was admitted by
the Court. A decision was rendered in favor of the plaintiff who subsequently filed a
motion for execution.
Complainant however, was surprised to receive a temporary restraining order
signed by Judge Prudencio Castillo of Branch 220, RTC, Quezon City, where Atty.
Rolando Gatdula is the Branch Clerk of Court, enjoining the execution of the decision
of the Metropolitan Trial Court. Complainant alleges that the issuance of the
temporary restraining order was hasty and irregular as she was never notified of the
application for preliminary injunction.
Complainant further alleges that when she went to Branch 220, RTC, Quezon City, to
inquire about the reason for the issuance of the temporary restraining order,
respondent Atty. Rolando Gatdula, blamed her lawyer for writing the wrong address
in the complaint for ejectment and told her that if she wanted the execution to
proceed, she should change her lawyer and retain the law office of respondent at
the same time giving his calling card.
To her consternation, the RTC Branch 220 issued an order granting the preliminary
injunction as threatened by respondent despite the fact that the MTC, Branch 37
had issued an Order directing the execution of the MTCs Decision.
Respondents version is that sometime before the hearing of the motion for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order, complainant Samonte went to court "very
mad" because of the issuance of the order stopping the execution of the decision in
the ejectment case. Respondent tried to calm her down, and assured her that the
restraining order was only temporary and that the application for preliminary
injunction would still be heard. Later the Regional Trial Court granted the application
for a writ of preliminary injunction. The complainant went back to court "fuming
mad" because of the alleged unreasonableness of the court in issuing the
injunction.

Respondent Gatdula claims that thereafter complainant returned to his office, and
informed him that she wanted to change counsel and that a friend of hers
recommended the Law Firm of "Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera," at
the same time showing a calling card, and asking if he could handle her case.
Respondent refused as he was not connected with the law firm, although he was
invited to join but he chose to remain in the judiciary. Complainant returned to court
a few days later and told him that if he cannot convince the judge to recall the writ
of preliminary injunction, she will file an administrative case against respondent and
the judge.
Complainant and her counsel failed to appear at the hearing for the administrative
matter.
Issue: Whether or not Respondent Atty. Gatdula was guilty of conflict in legal
practice
Held: YES.
While respondent denied having assumed any position in said law firm, the fact
remains that his name is included therein which may therefore tend to show that he
has dealings with said office. Thus, while he may not be actually and directly
employed with the firm, the fact that his name appears on the calling card as a
partner in the Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig & Celera Law Offices give the
impression that he is connected therein and may constitute an act of solicitation
and private practice which is declared unlawful under Republic Act No. 6713,
otherwise known as "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees" which declares it unlawful for a public official or employee to, among
others:
"(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the
Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict
with official functions."
Time and again this Court has said that the conduct and behavior of everyone
connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding
judge to the lowliest clerk should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of
responsibility. His conduct, at all times must not only be characterized by propriety
and decorum but above all else must be above suspicion.

NOTARIAL LAW VIOLATIONS

TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE ALIPIO ABADA, BELINDA

CAPONONG-NOBLE, petitioner, vs. ALIPIO ABAJA and NOEL
ABELLAR, respondents.
Facts:
Abada died sometime in May 1940. His widow Paula Toray (Toray) died sometime in
September 1943. Both died without legitimate children.
On 13 September 1968, Alipio C. Abaja (Alipio) filed with the then Court of First
Instance of Negros Occidental a petition for the probate of the last will and
testament of Abada. Abada allegedly named as his testamentary heirs his natural
children Eulogio Abaja (Eulogio) and Rosario Cordova. Alipio is the son of Eulogio.
Nicanor Caponong opposed the petition on the ground that Abada left no will when
he died in 1940. Caponong further alleged that the will, if Abada really executed it,
should be disallowed for the following reasons: (1) it was not executed and attested
as required by law; (2) it was not intended as the last will of the testator; and (3) it
was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the
beneficiaries. Citing the same grounds invoked by Caponong, the alleged intestate
heirs of Abada also opposed the petition. The oppositors are the nephews, nieces
and grandchildren of Abada and Toray.
On 13 September 1968, Alipio filed another petition before the RTC-Kabankalan
(same court, formerly CFI) for the probate of the last will and testament of Toray.
Caponong, Joel Abada, et al., and Levi Tronco, et al. opposed the petition on the
same grounds cited.
In an Order dated 14 August 1981, the RTC-Kabankalan admitted to probate the will
of Toray. Since the oppositors did not file any motion for reconsideration, the order
allowing the probate of Torays will became final and executor.
In an order dated 23 November 1990, the RTC-Kabankalan designated Belinda
Caponong-Noble (Caponong-Noble) Special Administratrix of the estate of Abada
and Toray. Caponong-Noble moved for the dismissal of the petition for probate of
the will of Abada. The RTC-Kabankalan denied the motion.
The RTC-Kabankalan ruled on the only issue raised by the oppositors in their
motions to dismiss the petition for probate, that is, whether the will of Abada has an
attestation clause as required by law. It ruled in the affirmative and the appellate
court found that the RTC-Kabankalan properly admitted to probate the will of Abada.
ISSUE: Whether the will of Abada was valid
HELD: YES.

Abada executed his will on 4 June 1932. The laws in force at that time are the Civil
Code of 1889 or the Old Civil Code, and Act No. 190 or the Code of Civil Procedure
which governed the execution of wills before the enactment of the New Civil Code.
Article 806 of the New Civil Code are new provisions.
Art. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the
testator and the witnesses.
The Code of Civil Procedure repealed Article 685 of the Old Civil Code, which
contained the notarial requirement. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, the
intervention of a notary is not necessary in the execution of any will. Therefore,
Abadas will does not require acknowledgment before a notary public.

MANUEL L. LEE vs. ATTY. REGINO B. TAMBAGO,

A.C. No. 5281
Facts:
In a letter-complaint dated April 10, 2000, complainant Manuel L. Lee charged
respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago with violation of the Notarial Law and the ethics
of the legal profession for notarizing a spurious last will and testament.
In his complaint, complainant averred that his father, the decedent Vicente Lee, Sr.,
never executed the contested will. Furthermore, the spurious will contained the
forged signatures of Cayetano Noynay and Loreto Grajo, the purported witnesses to
its execution.
In the said will, the decedent supposedly bequeathed his entire estate to his wife
Lim Hock Lee, save for a parcel of land which he devised to Vicente Lee, Jr. and
Elena Lee, half-siblings of complainant.
The will was purportedly executed and acknowledged before respondent on June 30,
1965. Complainant, however, pointed out that the residence certificate of the
testator noted in the acknowledgment of the will was dated January 5, 1962.
Furthermore, the signature of the testator was not the same as his signature as
donor in a deed of donation (containing his purported genuine signature).
Complainant averred that the signatures of his deceased father in the will and in the
deed of donation were in any way entirely and diametrically opposed from one
another in all angles.

Complainant further asserted that no copy of such purported will was on file in the
archives division of the Records Management and Archives Office of the National
Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA).
Respondent in his comment dated July 6, 2001 claimed that the complaint against
him contained false allegations: (1) that complainant was a son of the decedent
Vicente Lee, Sr. and (2) that the will in question was fake and spurious. He alleged
that complainant was not a legitimate son of Vicente Lee, Sr. and the last will and
testament was validly executed and actually notarized by respondent per affidavit
of Gloria Nebato, common-law wife of Vicente Lee, Sr. and corroborated by the joint
affidavit of the children of Vicente Lee, Sr., namely Elena N. Lee and Vicente N. Lee,
Jr.
In a resolution dated October 17, 2001, the Court referred the case to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. The
investigating commissioner found respondent guilty of violation of pertinent
provisions of the old Notarial Law as found in the Revised Administrative Code. The
violation constituted an infringement of legal ethics, particularly Canon 1 and Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Issue: Whether or not there was a violation of the Notarial Law
Held: YES.
The law provides for certain formalities that must be followed in the execution of
wills. The object of solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door
on bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to
guarantee their truth and authenticity.
A notarial will, as the contested will in this case, is required by law to be subscribed
at the end thereof by the testator himself. In addition, it should be attested and
subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and
of one another. The will in question was attested by only two witnesses, Noynay and
Grajo. On this circumstance alone, the will must be considered void.
An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before
some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. It involves an
extra step undertaken whereby the signatory actually declares to the notary public
that the same is his or her own free act and deed. A cursory examination of the
acknowledgment of the will in question shows that this particular requirement was
neither strictly nor substantially complied with. For one, there was the conspicuous
absence of a notation of the residence certificates of the notarial witnesses Noynay
and Grajo in the acknowledgment.

HORST FRANZ ELLERT, complainant, vs. JUDGE VICTORIO GALAPON

JR., Municipal Trial Court, Dulag, Leyte, respondent.

Facts:
Horst Franz Ellert, filed a letter-complaint and an affidavit-complaint charging Judge Victorio L.
Galapon, Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court at Dulag, Leyte with grave misconduct, abuse of judicial
authority, ignorance of the law, unlawful notarization, perjury, and false testimony. This case
originated from 2 cases.
First case: Complainant alleged that in the "Answer" filed by Marina Roca and Odeth Roca with
the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), the signature of Judge
Victorio L. Galapon, Jr., herein respondent, was affixed in the jurat.
In his complaint, Horst Franz Ellert avers that "a Municipal Trial Court judge is only authorized to
administer oaths, or sign jurats to documents only for submission before his court, in cases
pending before his court, such as complaints for filing with his court, sworn statements of
witnesses in cases pending or to be filed with his court, affidavits of all kinds, provided that they
are for filing/submission to his court, but definitely, not all other documents. Even as an ExOfficio Notary Public, he is authorized to notarize (sign acknowledgments) documents,
conveyances of very limited nature.
Despite the fact that Judge Galapon is not duly authorized even by the Notarial Law to sign a
document such as the aforementioned Answer, respondent knowingly, wilfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously subscribed to, and administered the oaths of Marina Roca and Odeth Roca by
signing the jurat at the bottom of the Verification of the Answer.
Second case: Complainant Ellert made a number of allegations and rationalizes why it is his
opinion that respondent judge gave a false testimony as well as perjured himself.
In his Comment dated February 7, 2000, Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. reveals that the present
complaint is perhaps the tenth in a series of continuous and relentless harassment cases filed
against him by Horst Franz Ellert.
He avers that the reason why complainant Ellert unceasingly vilifies and harasses him is
because of the criminal case he has filed against the latterfor Light Threats, wherein Ellert was
duly convicted and sentenced by the court to suffer imprisonment ranging from five (5) months
and eleven (11) days as minimum, to six (6) months as maximum of Arresto Mayor, and to pay
the cost.
As to the charge that respondent judge administered the oath in the Verification portion of the
Answer of respondents Marina Roca and Odeth Roca in the DARAB Case, respondent judge
candidly admits it. He believes that there was nothing wrong nor was there any abuse of
authority in administering such oath. There never was any malice or bad faith attending such

act. He honestly believes that merely administering an oath in the jurat is not actionable by any
administrative sanction.
Issue: Whether or not Respondent Judge is guilty of the misconduct alleged
Held: YES.
The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of the charge against him, that he engaged in
unauthorized notarial work. MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries public ex officio in the
notarization of documents connected only with the exercise of their official functions and duties.
They may not, as notaries public ex officio, undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of
private documents, contracts and other acts of conveyances which bear no direct relation to the
performance of their functions as judges.
Undoubtedly, the Answer filed with the DARAB that was notarized by respondent judge is a
perfect example of a document which bears no relation to the performance of Judge Galapons
functions as a judge. Since respondent's actuation of notarizing the aforestated pleading is not
in connection with the exercise of his official duties, consequently, he acted beyond the scope of
his authority as notary public ex-officio.

AVELINO O. ANGELES, LAURO O. ANGELES, MARIA O.

ANGELES, ROSALINA O. ANGELES, and CONNIE M.
ANGELES,
vs.
ATTY. AMADO O. IBAEZ
Facts:
The lengthy and confusing narrative of what appears to be a bitter land dispute
notwithstanding, it can be gleaned from the Complaint and Position Paper, and the
personal clarification by the complainants themselves, that the present
administrative case is limited to an Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale which
respondent Atty. Amado Ibaez allegedly notarized in the City of Manila on 18
February 1979.
The complainants denied that they executed the said document or that they ever
appeared before respondent Atty. Ibaez for this purpose. They alleged that
respondent Atty. Ibaez did not even have the authority to notarize the Extrajudicial

Partition with Absolute Sale as he did not have a commission as a notary public at
that time.
The complainants alleged that the respondent and his relatives are presently using
the said document in judicial proceedings pending before the Regional Trial Court of
Naic, Cavite to their damage and prejudice.
The complainants contend that respondent Atty. Ibaezs act of notarizing the
Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale without requiring the presence of the
parties thereto, and despite his alleged lack of a notarial commission, constitutes
professional misconduct for which reason he should be disbarred.
In his Motion to Dismiss and Position Paper, respondent Atty. Ibaez contended that
the complainants are guilty of forum-shopping inasmuch as they had previously
filed the same complaint, docketed as Administrative Case No. 3581, which was
eventually dismissed by then IBP CBD Comm. Victor Fernandez.
The respondent admitted that he notarized the Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute
Sale but clarified that he did so as Notary Public of the Province of Cavite, with a
notarial commission issued by the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 1, Trece
Martires City. He explained that the designation of Manila as the place of execution
of the said document was a mistake of his former legal secretary, who failed to
correct the same through oversight.
Respondent Atty. Ibaez alleged that he notarized the Extrajudicial Partition with
Absolute Sale in his capacity as the official Notary Public of Puerto Azul, and the
same was actually prepared and typewritten by complainant Rosalina Angeles.
Respondent Atty. Ibaez alleged that a defect in the notarization of a document of
sale does not invalidate the transaction, and he stated that his failure to require the
presence of the parties to the Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale is wholly
justified because of the assurance of complainant Rosalina Angeles that the
signatures appearing in the said document were indeed those of her co-heirs.
The IBP findings are as follows:
As it is, no less than the respondent himself categorically admitted that he notarized
the Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale in the absence of the parties thereto.
To make matters worse, the certifications submitted by the complainants clearly
indicate that respondent Atty. Amado Ibaez did not have any notarial commission
whether for Manila or Cavite, in 18 February 1979 when he notarized the subject
document. The respondent, for his part, has been completely unable to proffer any
kind of proof of his claim that he had a commission as a notary public for and in the
Province of Cavite in 1979, or of his submission of notarial reports and notarial
register during the said period. It is therefore respectfully recommended that
respondent Atty. Amado Ibaez:

1.
Be barred from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of
two (2) years, and in the event that he is presently commissioned as a notary
public, that his commission be immediately revoked and suspended for such period;
and
2.

Be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Ibaez violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
Held: YES.
Respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility
when he notarized the Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale in the absence of
the affiants.
Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 reads:
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.