Bernard Jandoquile, complainant

Atty Quirino Revilla Jr, respondent

Facts:
The facts of the case are not disputed. Atty Revilla Jr notarized a complaint-affidavit
signed by Heneraline Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa and Elmer Alvarado. Heneraline
Brosas is a sister of Heizel Wynda Brosas Revilla, Atyy Revilla Jrs wife. Jandoquile
complains that Atyy Revilla Jr is disqualified to perform the notarial act per Section 3 (c),
Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Complainant also complains that
respondent did not require the three affiants in the complaint-affidavit to show their valid
identification cards.Atty Revilla did not deny but admitted complainants material
allegations.
Issue: Whether or not the single act of notarizing the complaint-affidavit of relatives
within the fourth civil degree of affinity and, at the same time, not requiring them to
present valid identification cards is a ground for disbarment.
Rulings:
No. Since the facts are not contested, the court deems it more prudent to resolve the
case. Indeed, Atty Revilla, Jr. violated the disqualification rule under Section 3 , Rule IV
of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The court agree with him, that respondents
violation is not sufficient ground for disbarment. Given the clear provision of the
disqualification rule, it behooved upon Atty. Revilla, Jr. to act with prudence and refuse
notarizing the document.
On the second charge, Atty Revilla, Jr. 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 Sec 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice. A Jurat refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instruments or
documents; (b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public
through competent evidence of identity; (c) signs the instrument or document in the
presence of the notary; (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to
such instrument or document. In this case, Heneraline Brosas is a sister-in-law of Atty
Revilla, Jrs wife; Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa is his wifes sister-in-law; and Elmer Alvarado
is the live-in house boy of the Brosas family. Respondent knows the three affiants
personally, thus he was justified in no longer requiring them to show valid identification
cards. But respondent is not without fault for failing to indicate such fact in the jurat of
the complaint-affidavit. While he has a valid defense as to the second charge, it does not
exempt him from liability for violating the disqualification rule.
Considering the attendant circumstances and the single violation committed by Atty.
Revilla, Jr., we are in agreement that a punishment less severe than disbarment would
suffice.

[A.C. No. 8254 (Formerly CBD Case No. 04-1310) : February 15, 2012]
NESA ISENHARDT, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LEONARDO M. REAL, RESPONDENT.

Facts:
Allegedly, on 14 September 2000 respondent notarized a SPA supposedly executed by
complainant but the latter never appeared to the former as she was in Germany at that
time. The SPA authorizes complainants brother to mortgage her real property located in
Antipolo City.Complainant presented a certified true copy of her German passport ] and a
Certification from the BID indicating that she arrived in the Philippines on 22 June 2000
and left the country on 4 August 2000. The passport further indicated that she arrived
again in the Philippines only on 1 July 2001.Complainant submitted that because of
respondents act, the property subject of the SPA was mortgaged and later foreclosed by
the
Rural
Bank
of
Antipolo
City.
In his answer, respondent denied the allegations in the complaint and claimed that she
met the complainant through her brother Wilfredo Gusi and sister-in-law Lorena Gusi who
seek advice for a computer business which will be financed by the complianant.
Respondent also claimed that Sps Gusi and the complainant appeared onSeptember 14,
2000 in his office to have the SPA notarized. The parties signed and presented TCTs and
the original Transfer Certificate of the property subject of fhte SPA.
He further averred that his services was engaged by the Gusi in a civil case but it was
discontinued because of non-payment of his services. Furthermore, he claimed that the
claims of the complainant has already prescribed and the SPA was never used to
prejudice third person and did not cause grave injury to the complainant. The IBP Board
of Governors issued a resolution adopting the report and recommendationand of the
Investigating Commissioner. After due proceeding, found respondent guilty of gross
negligence as a notary public and recommended that he be suspended from the practice
of law for one year and disqualified from reappointment as notary public for two (2)
years.
Feel aggrieved, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforesaid
Resolution. This was, however, denied by the IBP Board of Governors in a Resolution
dated 11 December 2009.
Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross negligence as a notary public.
Ruling:
The SC sustained the findings and recommendation of the IBP. The SC held that the
findings of the Investigating Commissioner are supported by evidence on record, as well
as applicable laws and rules. Respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and the Code of
Professional Responsibility when he made it appear that complainant personally
appeared before him and subscribed an SPA authorizing her brother to mortgage her
property.
A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signs it is the
same person who executed it, personally appearing before him to attest to the contents
and the truth of what are stated therein. This 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. Such provision is embodied in Section 1, Public Act No.

2103, otherwise known as the Notarial Law and which further was further emphasized in
Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004.
Respondents claim of prescription of the offense pursuant to Section 1, Rule VIII of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline, the rule should be construed to
mean two years from the date of discovery of the professional misconduct. To rule
otherwise would cause injustice to parties who may have discovered the wrong
committed to them only at a much later date. In this case, the complaint was filed more
than three years after the commission of the act because it was only after the property
was
foreclosed
that
complainant
discovered
the
SPA.
The duties of a notary public is dictated by public policy and impressed with public
interest It is not a meaningless ministerial act of acknowledging documents executed by
parties who are willing to pay the fees for notarization. It is of no moment that the
subject SPA was not utilized by the grantee for the purpose it was intended because the
property was allegedly transferred from complainant to her brother by virtue of a deed of
sale consummated between them. What is being penalized is respondents act of
notarizing a document despite the absence of one of the parties. By notarizing the
questioned document, he engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.A
notarized document is by law entitled to full credit upon its face and it is for this reason
that notaries public must observe the basic requirements in notarizing documents.
Otherwise, the confidence of the public in notarized documents will be undermined.
Administrative cases against lawyers; prescriptive period . The two-year prescriptive period for
initiating a complaint against a lawyer for disbarment or suspension provided under Section 1,
Rule VIII of the Rules of Procedure of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline should be construed
to mean two years from the date of discovery of the professional misconduct. Nesa Isenhardt vs.
Atty. Leonardo M. Real, A.C. No. 8254, February 15, 2012.

Attorney; disqualification as notary public. A notary public should not notarize a

document unless the person who signs it is the same person who executed it, personally
appearing before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein.
This 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. The
duties of a notary public is dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. It
is not a meaningless ministerial act of acknowledging documents executed by parties
who are willing to pay the fees for notarization. It is of no moment that the subject SPA
was not utilized by the grantee for the purpose it was intended because the property was
allegedly transferred from complainant to her brother by virtue of a deed of sale
consummated between them. What is being penalized is respondents act of notarizing a
document despite the absence of one of the parties. A notarized document is by law
entitled to full credit upon its face and it is for this reason that notaries public must
observe the basic requirements in notarizing documents. Otherwise, the confidence of
the public in notarized documents will be undermined. Nesa Isenhardt vs. Atty.
Leonardo M. Real, A.C. No. 8254, February 15, 2012.

Pacita Caalim-Verzonilla v. Atty. Victoriano G. Pascua. A.C. No. 6655. October 11, 2011.

Attorney; misconduct. With his admission that he drafted and notarized another
instrument that did not state the true consideration of the sale so as to reduce
the capital gains and other taxes due on the transaction, respondent cannot escape
liability for making an untruthful statement in a public document for an unlawful
purpose. As the second deed indicated an amount much lower than the actual price paid
for the property sold, respondent abetted in depriving the Government of the right to
collect the correct taxes due. Not only did respondent assist the contracting parties in an
activity aimed at defiance of the law, he likewise displayed lack of respect for and made
a mockery of the solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment. By notarizing such illegal
and fraudulent document, he is entitling it full faith and credit upon its face, which it
obviously does not deserve considering its nature and purpose. Respondents actions
violated not only Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Responsibility, but pertinent sections
of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice as well. Thus, respondent is meted the penalty of
revocation of notarialcommission and suspension from the practice of law for a period of
two years. Pacita Caalim-Verzonilla v. Atty. Victoriano G. Pascua. A.C. No. 6655.
October 11, 2011.