EN BANC

A.C. No. 7036

June 29, 2009

JUDGE LILY LYDIA A. LAQUINDANUM, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. NESTOR Q. QUINTANA, Respondent.
DECISION
PUNO, CJ.:
This administrative case against Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana (Atty.
Quintana) stemmed from a letter1 addressed to the Court filed
by Executive Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum (Judge
Laquindanum) of the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Cotabato
requesting that proper disciplinary action be imposed on him for
performing notarial functions in Midsayap, Cotabato, which is
beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court
that issued his notarial commission, and for allowing his wife to
do notarial acts in his absence.
In her letter, Judge Laquindanum alleged that pursuant to A.M.
No. 03-8-02-SC, executive judges are required to closely monitor
the activities of notaries public within the territorial bounds of
their jurisdiction and to see to it that notaries public shall not
extend notarial functions beyond the limits of their authority.
Hence, she wrote a letter2 to Atty. Quintana directing him to
stop notarizing documents within the territorial jurisdiction of
the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Cotabato (which is outside
the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued
his notarial commission for Cotabato City and the Province of
Maguindanao) since certain documents 3 notarized by him had
been reaching her office.
However, despite such directive, respondent continuously
performed notarial functions in Midsayap, Cotabato as
evidenced by: (1) the Affidavit of Loss of ATM Card 4 executed by
Kristine C. Guro; and (2) the Affidavit of Loss of Drivers License 5
executed by Elenita D. Ballentes.
Under Sec. 11, Rule III6 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,
Atty. Quintana could not extend his notarial acts beyond
Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao because
Midsayap, Cotabato is not part of Cotabato City or the Province
of Maguindanao. Midsayap is part of the Province of Cotabato.
The City within the province of Cotabato is Kidapawan City, and
not Cotabato City.
Judge Laquindanum also alleged that, upon further investigation
of the matter, it was discovered that it was Atty. Quintanas wife
who performed notarial acts whenever he was out of the office
as attested to by the Joint Affidavit7 executed by Kristine C. Guro
and Elenita D. Ballentes.
In a Resolution dated February 14, 2006, 8 we required Atty.
Quintana to comment on the letter of Judge Laquindanum.
In his Response,9 Atty. Quintana alleged that he filed a petition
for notarial commission before Branch 18, Regional Trial Court,
Midsayap, Cotabato. However, the same was not acted upon by
Judge Laquindanum for three weeks. He alleged that the reason
for Judge Laquindanums inaction was that she questioned his
affiliation with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Cotabato City Chapter, and required him to be a member of IBP
Kidapawan City Chapter and to obtain a Certification of
Payments from the latter chapter. Because of this, he opted to
withdraw his petition. After he withdrew his petition, he claimed
that Judge Laquindanum sent a clerk from her office to ask him
to return his petition, but he did not oblige because at that time
he already had a Commission for Notary Public10 issued by
Executive Judge Reno E. Concha of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 14, Cotabato City.
Atty. Quintana lamented that he was singled out by Judge
Laquindanum, because the latter immediately issued notarial
commissions to other lawyers without asking for so many
requirements. However, when it came to him, Judge
Laquindanum even tracked down all his pleadings;
communicated with his clients; and disseminated information
through letters, pronouncements, and directives to court clerks
and other lawyers to humiliate him and be ostracized by fellow
lawyers.
Atty. Quintana argued that he subscribed documents in his
office at Midsayap, Cotabato; and Midsayap is part of the
Province of Cotabato. He contended that he did not violate any
provision of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, because he was
equipped with a notarial commission. He maintained that he did
not act outside the province of Cotabato since Midsayap,

Cotabato, where he practices his legal profession and

subscribes documents, is part of the province of Cotabato. He
claimed that as a lawyer of good moral standing, he could
practice his legal profession in the entire Philippines.
Atty. Quintana further argued that Judge Laquindanum had no
authority to issue such directive, because only Executive Judge
Reno E. Concha, who issued his notarial commission, and the
Supreme Court could prohibit him from notarizing in the
Province of Cotabato.
In a Resolution dated March 21, 2006,11 we referred this case to
the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for investigation, report
and recommendation.
In the February 28, 2007 Hearing12 before the OBC presided by
Atty. Ma. Crisitina B. Layusa (Hearing Officer), Judge
Laquindanum presented a Deed of Donation,13 which was
notarized by Atty. Quintana in 2004.14 Honorata Rosil appears as
one of the signatories of the document as the donors wife.
However, Honorata Rosil died on March 12, 2003, as shown by
the Certificate of Death15 issued by the Civil Registrar of Ibohon,
Cotabato.
Judge Laquindanum testified that Atty. Quintana continued to
notarize documents in the years 2006 to 2007 despite the fact
that his commission as notary public for and in the Province of
Maguindanao and Cotabato City had already expired on
December 31, 2005, and he had not renewed the same. 16 To
support her claim, Judge Laquindanum presented the following:
(1) Affidavit of Loss [of] Title17 executed by Betty G. Granada
with subscription dated April 8, 2006 at Cotabato City; (2)
Certificate of Candidacy18 of Mr. Elias Diosanta Arabis with
subscription dated July 18, 2006; (3) Affidavit of Loss [of]
Drivers License19 executed by Anecito C. Bernabe with
subscription dated February 20, 2007 at Midsayap, Cotabato;
and (4) Affidavit of Loss20 executed by Santos V. Magbanua with
subscription dated February 22, 2007 at Midsayap, Cotabato.
For his part, Atty. Quintana admitted that all the signatures
appearing in the documents marked as exhibits of Judge
Laquindanum were his except for the following: (1) Affidavit of
Loss of ATM Card21 executed by Kristine C. Guro; and (2)
Affidavit of Loss of Drivers License 22 executed by Elenita D.
Ballentes; and (3) Affidavit of Loss 23 executed by Santos V.
Magbanua. He explained that those documents were signed by
his wife and were the result of an entrapment operation of Judge
Laquindanum: to let somebody bring and have them notarized
by his wife, when they knew that his wife is not a lawyer. He
also denied the he authorized his wife to notarize documents.
According to him, he slapped his wife and told her to stop doing
it as it would ruin his profession.
Atty. Quintana also claimed that Judge Laquindanum did not act
on his petition, because he did not comply with her
requirements for him to transfer his membership to the
Kidapawan Chapter, wherein her sister, Atty. Aglepa, is the IBP
President.
On the one hand, Judge Laquindanum explained that she was
only performing her responsibility and had nothing against Atty.
Quintana. The reason why she did not act on his petition was
that he had not paid his IBP dues,24 which is a requirement
before a notarial commission may be granted. She told his wife
to secure a certification of payment from the IBP, but she did
not return.
This was denied by Atty. Quintana, who claimed that he
enclosed in his Response the certification of good standing and
payments of his IBP dues. However, when the same was
examined, there were no documents attached thereto. Due to
oversight, Atty. Quintana prayed that he be given time to send
them later which was granted by the Hearing Officer.
Finally, Atty. Quintana asked for forgiveness for what he had
done and promised not to repeat the same. He also asked that
he be given another chance and not be divested of his privilege
to notarize, as it was the only bread and butter of his family.
On March 5, 2007, Atty. Quintana submitted to the OBC the
documents25 issued by the IBP Cotabato City Chapter to prove
that he had paid his IBP dues.
In a Manifestation 26 dated March 9, 2007, Judge Laquindanum
submitted a Certification 27 and its entries show that Atty.
Quintana paid his IBP dues for the year 2005 only on January 9,
2006 per Official Receipt (O.R.) No. 610381. Likewise, the
arrears of his IBP dues for the years 1993, 1995, 1996, and
1998 to 2003 were also paid only on January 9, 2006 per O.R.

Legal Forms | 1st set full text | 1

No. 610387. Hence, when he filed his petition for notarial

commission in 2004, he had not yet completely paid his IBP
dues.
In its Report and Recommendation,28 the OBC recommended
that Atty. Quintana be disqualified from being appointed as a
notary public for two (2) years; and that if his notarial
commission still exists, the same should be revoked for two (2)
years. The OBC found the defenses and arguments raised by
Atty. Quintana to be without merit, viz:
Apparently, respondent has extended his notarial acts in
Midsayap and Kabacan, Cotabato, which is already outside his
territorial jurisdiction to perform as Notary Public.
Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides, thus:
"Jurisdiction and Term A person commissioned as notary public
may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2)
years commencing the first day of January of the year in which
the commissioning court is made, unless earlier revoked [or] the
notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of
Court.
Under the rule[,] respondent may perform his notarial acts
within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning Executive
Judge Concha, which is in Cotabato City and the [P]rovince of
Maguindanao only. But definitely he cannot extend his
commission as notary public in Midsayap or Kabacan and in any
place of the province of Cotabato as he is not commissioned
thereat to do such act. Midsayap and Kabacan are not part of
either Cotabato City or [P]rovince of Maguindanao but part of
the province of North Cotabato. Thus, the claim of respondent
that he can exercise his notarial commission in Midsayap,
Cotabato because Cotabato City is part of the province of
Cotabato is absolutely devoid of merit.
xxxx
Further, evidence on record also shows that there are several
documents which the respondents wife has herself notarized.
Respondent justifies that he cannot be blamed for the act of his
wife as he did not authorize the latter to notarize documents in
his absence. According to him[,] he even scolded and told his
wife not to do it anymore as it would affect his profession.
In the case of Lingan v. Calubaquib et al., Adm. Case No. 5377,
June 15, 2006 the Court held, thus:
"A notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his
notarial register; He cannot relieve himself of this responsibility
by passing the buck to their (sic) secretaries"
A person who is commissioned as a notary public takes full
responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register.
Respondent cannot take refuge claiming that it was his wifes
act and that he did not authorize his wife to notarize
documents. He is personally accountable for the activities in his
office as well as the acts of his personnel including his wife, who
acts as his secretary.
Likewise, evidence reveals that respondent notarized in 2004 a
Deed of Donation (Rollo, p. 79) wherein, (sic) Honorata Rosel
(Honorata Rosil) one of the affiants therein, was already dead at
the time of notarization as shown in a Certificate of Death
(Rollo, p.80) issued by the Civil Registrar General of Libungan,
Cotabato.
Sec. 2, (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
provides, thus[:]
"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 through
competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules."
Clearly, in notarizing a Deed of Donation without even
determining the presence or qualifications of affiants therein,
respondent only shows his gross negligence and ignorance of
the provisions of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
xxxx
Furthermore, respondent claims that he, being a lawyer in good
standing, has the right to practice his profession including
notarial acts in the entire Philippines. This statement is barren
of merit.

While it is true that lawyers in good standing are allowed to

engage in the practice of law in the Philippines.(sic) However,
not every lawyer even in good standing can perform notarial
functions without having been commissioned as notary public
as specifically provided for under the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice. He must have submitted himself to the commissioning
court by filing his petition for issuance of his notarial (sic)
Notarial Practice. The commissioning court may or may not
grant the said petition if in his sound discretion the petitioner
does not meet the required qualifications for [a] Notary Public.
Since respondent herein did not submit himself to the
procedural rules for the issuance of the notarial commission, he
has no reason at all to claim that he can perform notarial act[s]
in the entire country for lack of authority to do so.
Likewise, contrary to the belief of respondent, complainant
being the commissioning court in Midsayap, Cotabato has the
authority under Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice to
monitor the duties and responsibilities including liabilities, if
any, of a notary public commissioned or those performing
notarial acts without authority in her territorial jurisdiction. 29
xxxx
We adopt the findings of the OBC. However, we find the penalty
of suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months and
revocation and suspension of Atty. Quintana's notarial
commission for two (2) years more appropriate considering the
gravity and number of his offenses.
After a careful review of the records and evidence, there is no
doubt that Atty. Quintana violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he
committed the following acts: (1) he notarized documents
outside the area of his commission as a notary public; (2) he
performed notarial acts with an expired commission; (3) he let
his wife notarize documents in his absence; and (4) he notarized
a document where one of the signatories therein was already
dead at that time.
The act of notarizing documents outside ones area of
commission is not to be taken lightly. Aside from being a
violation of Sec. 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, it
also partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. 30 Notarizing
documents with an expired commission is a violation of the
lawyers oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice. Since the public is deceived into
believing that he has been duly commissioned, it also amounts
to indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath
proscribes.31 Notarizing documents without the presence of the
signatory to the document is a violation of Sec. 2(b)(1), Rule IV
of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, 32 Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and the lawyers oath which
unconditionally requires lawyers not to do or declare any
falsehood. Finally, Atty. Quintana is personally accountable for
the documents that he admitted were signed by his wife. He
cannot relieve himself of liability by passing the blame to his
wife. He is, thus, guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers not to
directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
All told, Atty. Quintana fell miserably short of his obligation
under Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession.
That Atty. Quintana relies on his notarial commission as the sole
source of income for his family will not serve to lessen the
penalty that should be imposed on him. On the contrary, we feel
that he should be reminded that a notarial commission should
not be treated as a money-making venture. It is a privilege
granted only to those who are qualified to perform duties
imbued with public interest. As we have declared on several
occasions, 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 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. 33
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the notarial commission of Atty. Nestor Q.
Quintana, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED, and he is
DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as notary public for a
period of two (2) years. He is also SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for six (6) months effective immediately, with a WARNING

Legal Forms | 1st set full text | 2

that the repetition of a similar violation will be dealt with even

more severely. He is DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt
of this Decision to enable this Court to determine when his
suspension shall take effect.1avvphi1
Let a copy of this decision be entered in the personal records of
respondent as a member of the Bar, and copies furnished the
Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the
Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.
SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 6689

August 24, 2011

RIZALINA L. GEMINA, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. ISIDRO S. MADAMBA, Respondent.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
We review Resolution No. XVIII-2008-101 dated March 6, 2008 of
the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), dismissing the complaint filed by Rizalina L. Gemina
(complainant). The complaint charged Atty. Isidro S. Madamba
(respondent) with deceit, malpractice and gross negligence, and
prayed for his suspension/disbarment.1
The complainant alleged that she is an heir of the registered
owner of several parcels of land located in Laoag City. 2 These
parcels of land were unlawfully sold by Francisco Eugenio in
connivance with the respondent. The documents pertaining to
the transactions over these lands were notarized by the
respondent either without the presence of the affiants or with
their forged signatures. The documents the complainant
referred to were:
1. Waiver of Rights & Interest
2. Affidavit of Buyer/Transferee
3. Deed of Adjudication3 & Sale
4. Affidavit of Non-Tenancy
5. Deed of Absolute Sale
The complainant alleged that the Waiver of Rights and Interests
was submitted by Eugenio to the Department of Agrarian
Reform. This document shows that it was entered in the
respondents Notarial Register as Doc. No. 2283, Page No. 252,
Book No. VIII, Series of 2003. However, when she went to the
Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC), Regional Trial Court, Isabela,
to request for a copy, she found out that Doc. No. 2283, Page
No. 252, Book No. VIII, Series of 2003 was an Affidavit of
Buyer/Transferee allegedly executed by the Spouses Efren
Alonzo and Imelda Alonzo on September 29, 2003. In the
column "REMARKS" of Document No. 2283, the word cancelled
was written, but no reason was given for the cancellation, nor
was a copy of the alleged cancelled document in the records.
The same Affidavit of Buyer/Transferee was also entered in the
respondents Notarial Register as Doc. No. 2285, Page No. 253,
Book No. VIII, Series of 2003. The complainant submitted a
Certification dated May 3, 2004 issued by Clerk of Court Artemio
H. Quidilla, Jr., that a certified true copy of Doc. No. 2283, Page
No. 252, Book No. VIII, Series of 2003 cannot be issued because
the respondent did not submit notarial reports for the years
2003 and 2004, although he was commissioned as a Notary
Public for these years.4
The complainant also asked for a certified true copy of a Deed
of Adjudication and Sale allegedly executed by Eugenio and the
other heirs, and notarized by the respondent on July 22, 2003.
The instrument shows that this document was entered in the
respondents Notarial Register as Doc. No. 2263, Page No. 248,
Book No. VIII, Series of 2003, but no copy was submitted to the
OCC. In the column "REMARKS," the words "without copy"
appeared, without stating the reason for the absence of a copy.
Clerk of Court Quidilla issued a Certification dated June 21, 2004
that indeed, no copy was submitted.5
In another unlawful sale of a parcel of land, an Affidavit of NonTenancy was notarized by the respondent. It was entered in his
Notarial Register as Doc. No. 2448, Page No. 276, Book No. VIII,
Series of 2004. The affidavit referred to a Deed of Sale involving
a 2,500-square meter property. The Deed of Sale was notarized
by the respondent on November 14, 2002 and entered in his

Notarial Register as Doc. No. 2212, Page No. 239, Book No. VIII,
Series of 2002. To verify the authenticity of the Deed of Sale,
the complainant tried to secure a copy but she discovered that
no such Deed of Sale existed. In fact, a different document
corresponds to Doc. No. 2212, Page No. 239, Book No. VIII,
Series of 2002. It refers to an Affidavit of Discrepancy, instead of
a Deed of Sale. On the column "REMARKS," the word "cancelled"
appeared without indicating the reason for the cancellation. This
was confirmed by Clerk of Court Quidilla in his 1st Indorsement
dated July 16, 2004, stating that "Doc. No. 2212, Series of 2002
pertains to an Affidavit of Discrepancy executed by Joseph Lim
Clemente on November 15, 2002."6
In his Comments and Compliance dated August 29, 2006, 7 the
respondent admitted the complainants allegations on the
notarization of the subject documents, but denied any
participation in the sale and transfer of the lands covered by the
documents. He claimed that it was his secretary who prepared
and drafted the documents. He claimed that his only
participation was to affix his signature on the documents; he
was already 82 years old and insulin dependent, so he had no
more time to prepare documents and enter documents in his
notarial register. He begged for leniency and consideration from
the Court, and asked for forgiveness for his inadvertent acts. He
apologized and committed himself not to repeat these
misdeeds.
In a resolution dated November 29, 2006, we referred the
complaint to the IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation.8
In the position paper she submitted to the IBP, the complainant
reiterated her charges against the respondent, further stating
that as a member of the Philippine Bar, the respondent allowed
himself to be used as a Notary Public to illegally enable third
parties to claim rights over properties to which the complainant
has hereditary rights. By notarizing documents through false
representations, without the signatories personally present
before him as required under the Notarial Law, the respondent
should be held guilty of dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of
a member of the Philippine Bar.9
The respondent likewise reiterated in his position paper 10 his
explanations contained in his comment submitted to this Court Respondent does not deny having affix[ed] his signatures in the
subject documents but he was never a participant in the alleged
unlawful sale. His participation is limited to the affixing [of] his
signature in the subject documents. The alleged manipulation
was committed by her [sic] clerk[-]secretary who enjoyed his
trust and confidence having been in said position for almost two
decades. Said clerk-secretary is responsible for the preparation
and entry of the documents in the Notarial Book. As such, he
has all the chance to do [the] things he wanted to do, which of
course respondent has no least suspicion to suspect him to do
illegal and unlawful acts to his Notarial Register.
When respondent was still strong, he personally prepare [sic]
document and personally do [sic] the entry of his Notarial
Documents in his Notarial Book, but in the early [year] of 1999,
his sickness was aggravated and he became insulin dependent.
This necessarily weakens his body and eyesight. And so he has
no choice except to trust said secretary-clerk for the preparation
and entry of notarial documents in his notarial register.
On February 12, 2008, Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala
submitted to the IBP Board of Governors her Report and
Recommendation,11 recommending the dismissal of the
complaint for lack of merit, finding that:
In her Complaint, complainant alleged that she is an heir of a
registered owner of some parcels of land in Laoag City.
However, no documentary evidence was presented to support
the same. She insisted that respondent notarized documents
without the appearance before him of the persons who
executed the same, but no clear and sufficient evidence was
also presented.
Rule 130, Section 14 of the Rules of Court provides that "Entries
in official records made in the performance of his duty by a
public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the
performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated." In the herein case,
although complainant made it appear that she has evidence to
prove that there was anomaly in the notarization of the subject
documents, she failed to present the same.
An attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of
the charges preferred against him until the contrary is proved

Legal Forms | 1st set full text | 3

and that as an officer of the court he has performed his duties in

accordance with his oath (Acosta v. Serrano, 75 SCRA 254;
Atienza v. Evangelista, 80 SCRA 338). The burden of proof rests
upon the complainant to overcome the presumption and
establish his charges by a clear preponderance of evidence
(Baldoman v. Luspo, 64 SCRA 74; In re De Guzman, 55 SCRA
139).
The IBP Board of Governors, in its Resolution No. XVIII-2008-101
dated March 6, 2008 adopted and approved Commissioner
Maalas Report and Recommendation, and dismissed the
complaint against the respondent for lack of merit. 12
We totally disagree with the findings of Commissioner Maala for
the following reasons: First, the IBP cannot inquire into whether
the complainant is an heir of the registered owner of the land. It
is not within its authority to determine whether the complainant
has a legal right to the properties involved in the transactions
and to require her to submit proof to that effect. Its function is
limited to disciplining lawyers, and it cannot determine issues of
law and facts regarding the parties legal rights to a dispute.
Second, from the respondents own admissions, it cannot be
doubted that he is guilty of the charges against him. His
admissions show that he had notarized documents without
reading them and without ascertaining what the documents
purported to be. He had completely entrusted to his secretary
the keeping and the maintenance of his Notarial Register. This
eventually resulted in inaccuracies in the entry of the notarial
acts in his Notarial Register.
The excerpts from the transcript of stenographic notes taken
during the hearing held on November 12, 2007, presided by IBP
Commissioner Oliver L. Pantaleon,13 show:
MR. GEMINA:
Your Honor, itong Affidavit of Discrepancy is not an Affidavit of
Discrepancy. Minamanipulate niya yong ano This is a Deed of
Sale. Pinalitan niya yong ano, eh, document number. This is a
Deed of Sale pertaining to the property Noong sinita na namin
siya pinalitan naniya, the same number pero iba na ang
pangalan. Affidavit of Discrepancy na ang pinalabas. The same
document number, page 3, number 8. And we were able to get
a copy of these documents.
COMM. PANTALEON:
You can submit that also.
ATTY. MADAMBA:
That is really true, Your Honor, because I have said I am not the
one anymore preparing my reports on notarial. I relied on my
secretary. So everything there will present to me and I sign it
believing that all are clear.
COMM. PANTALEON:
So you admit that particular allegation.
ATTY. MADAMBA:
Yes, that I have notarized that two documents.
MR. GEMINA:
Not only that, Your Honor, there are several documents we can
prove.
ATTY. MADAMBA:
Well, I have already submitted.
The Court is likewise convinced that the respondent notarized
the Waiver of Rights and Interests executed by one Juanito
Peniera without asking for proof of identity, relying merely on
assurances and his belief that the person before him was a
"wise man."14 It was shown during the hearing on November 12,
2007 that the document was a forgery. The transcript of
stenographic notes of what transpired during the hearing on
November 12, 200715 shows:
COMM. PANTALEON:
Right now, what is your evidence to show that this person did
not personally appear before the respondent?
MR. GEMINA:
Can I talk, your Honor?

What is your name?

MR. GEMINA:
I am Candido Gemina, Jr., husband of the complainant. The
signature of Juanito Peniera was a forgery. In fact, we also filed a
case against Francisco Eugenio and he was sentenced to jail on
that matter.
COMM. PANTALEON:
On this document?
MR. GEMINA:
Yes, on that document.
COMM. PANTALEON:
Why do you say that the signature of Juanito Peniera in this case
was forged?
MR. GEMINA:
He testified in court in Laoag City that he did not sign.
COMM. PANTALEON:
Juanito Peniera testified in court?
MR. GEMINA:
Yes, sir.
The IBP resolution, based wholly on Commissioner Maalas
Report and Recommendation, totally missed and disregarded
the submitted evidence and the respondents testimony during
the hearing of the complaint. The IBP apparently had treated
the respondent with exceptional leniency. In our view, the
respondents age and sickness cannot be cited as reasons to
disregard the serious lapses he committed in the performance
of his duties as a lawyer and as a notary public. The
inaccuracies in his Notarial Register entries and his failure to
enter the documents that he admittedly notarized constitute
dereliction of duty as a notary public. He cannot escape liability
by putting the blame on his secretary. The lawyer himself, not
merely his secretary, should be held accountable for these
misdeeds.16
A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial
acts, most common of which are the acknowledgement and
affirmation of documents or instruments. In the performance of
these notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the
significance of the notarial seal affixed on documents. The
notarial seal converts a document from a private to a public
instrument, after which it may be presented as evidence
without need for proof of its genuineness and due execution.
Thus, notarization should not be treated as an empty,
meaningless or routinary act. A notary public exercises duties
calling for carefulness and faithfulness. Notaries must inform
themselves of the facts they certify to; most importantly, they
should not take part or allow themselves to be part of illegal
transactions.17
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires
every lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the
land, and promote respect for the law and legal processes. The
Notarial Law and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, moreover,
require a duly commissioned notary public to make the proper
entries in his Notarial Register and to refrain from committing
any dereliction or any act which may serve as cause for the
revocation of his commission or the imposition of administrative
sanctions.18
Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the respondents
failure to make the proper entry or entries in his Notarial
Register of his notarial acts, his failure to require the presence
of a principal at the time of the notarial acts, and his failure to
identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge by
competent evidence are grounds for the revocation of a
lawyers commission as a notary public.19
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Isidro S.
Madamba GUILTY of violating the Notarial Law, the 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility,
and hereby orders the REVOCATION of his notarial commission,
if still existing. He is further SUSPENDED indefinitely from
reappointment as a Notary Public. Considering the seriousness
of his violations, he deserves disbarment from the practice of
law but taking into account his old age and sickness, the Court,

COMM. PANTALEON:

Legal Forms | 1st set full text | 4

for humanitarian reasons, hereby orders his SUSPENSION from

the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.1avvphi1

Series of 1997, was not among the documents submitted by

said office (Annex "A" of the Complain).

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines, and all courts in the country for their information
and guidance. Let also a copy of this decision be appended to
Atty. Isidro S. Madambas personal record as a member of the
Bar.

The certified true copy of the notarial register of respondent

disclosed that there is no entry regarding the names of the
witnesses to the documents neither were the respective
Community Tax Certificates of the parties indicated in the
notarial register of respondent (Annex "B" of Complaint).

SO ORDERED.

The respondent failed to furnish the complainant a copy of the

alleged Deed of Sale despite the fact that respondent admitted
having retained a copy of the document for their office file.

THIRD DIVISION
A.C. No. 6648. September 21, 2005
JOSEFINA P. SORIANO, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. HUMBERTO B. BASCO, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
GARCIA, J.:
Atty. Humberto B. Basco is charged by Josefina P. Soriano in a
complaint1 for disbarment dated May 5, 2003, filed with the
Committee on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines
("IBP"), with violation of Sections 245 and 246 of the Revised
Administrative Code, Title IV, Chapter II, known as the Notarial
Law.

Respondent delegated to his secretary the clerical entry to his

records, evidently he failed to check the sufficiency of the
notarial entries which explains the absence of the names of the
witnesses and other pertinent data.
Notably, the allegations of the complainant remain
uncontroverted by the respondent. It is very evident that
respondent in discharging the duties as notary public failed to
exercise diligence in his performance of his responsibilities as
such. Thus, it is recommended that respondents notarial
commission be revoked and the respondent be reprimanded
and warned that a breach of his professional duties shall be
dealt with more severely.3
The IBP Board of Governors Resolution No. XVI-2004-402, now
before the Court for final action, is well-taken.

In her Report, IBP Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San

Juan summarized the allegations of complainant as well as the
answer of respondent in the following wise:

The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of a

notary public. Sections 245 and 246 of the Revised
Administrative Code respectively provide:

In her verified complaint, complainant made the following

allegations: That on June 30, 2000, respondent Atty. Humberto
B. Basco, Notary Public of Manila testified before the Regional
Trial Court of Manila, Branch 35, stating among others, that he
allegedly notarized a Deed of Sale allegedly executed by
complainant Josefina P. Soriano. He further testified that Josefina
Soriano personally appeared before him when he notarized the
Deed of Sale. Since complainant had never appeared before
Notary Public Humberto B. Basco, had not seen much less
received copy of the alleged contract, complainant requested
for a copy of the alleged contract from the Office of the Clerk of
Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, Regional Trial Court of Manila
concerning the aforementioned Deed of Sale. Clerk of Court VII
Jennifer H. Dela Cruz-Buendia, issued a Certification dated
February 11, 2003 certifying that the alleged Deed of Sale
involving Josefina P. Soriano as vendor alleged to have been
acknowledged before Notary Public Humberto B. Basco was not
among the document submitted to said office (Annex "A" of
Complaint). Complainant also received a certified true copy of
the notarial register of Notary Public Basco which disclosed his
failure to indicate the names of the witnesses, fees charged, the
respective residence certificates of the parties to the documents
which he notarized (Annex "B" of Complaint). Although Atty.
Basco was duty bound to furnish to complainant a certified true
copy of the alleged deed, he failed to do so despite demand
therefor.

Sec. 245. Notarial Register. Every notary public shall keep a

register to be known as the notarial register, wherein record
shall be made of all his official acts as notary; and he shall
supply a certified copy of such record, or any part thereof, to
any person applying for it and paying the legal fees therefor.

Respondent filed his Answer on June 10, 2003. In his defense,

respondent declared that on January 17, 1997, herein
complainant together with her son, Marcial P. Soriano went to
his office located at 234 City Hall Bldg. both carrying with them
a duly pre-drafted deed of sale, contents whereof signified that
complainant did convey to the son valuable property.
Respondent further stated that he instructed his staff secretary,
Ms. Elizabeth Roque-Sanchez, to effect the clerical entry of
notarial particulars of the original and copies of the said
mutually executed deed of sale. Respondent claim that his staff
secretary of course, retained a copy for our file and advised
complainant and her son to immediately return or call the office
to furnish their respective Community Tax Certificate.
On October 7, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors passed CBD
Resolution No. XVI-2004-4022, adopting the report of the
Investigating Commissioner and approving the latter's
recommendation that respondent's notarial commission be
revoked and respondent be reprimanded and warned that a
breach of his professional duties shall be dealt with more
severely. Says the said report:
The issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the
respondent is guilty of dereliction of duty as a notary public.
The certification issued by the Clerk of Court, Jennifer H. Dela
Cruz-Buendia clearly show that the questioned document
purportedly acknowledged before the respondent on 17 January
1997 and entered as Doc. No. 424 Page No. 21, Book No. 67,

Such register shall be kept in books to be furnished by the

Attorney-General (Solicitor General) to any notary public upon
request and upon payment of the actual cost thereof, but
officers exercising the functions of notaries public ex-officio
shall be supplied with the register at Government expense. The
register shall be duly paged, and on the first page, the AttorneyGeneral (Solicitor General) shall certify the number of pages of
which the book consists.
Sec. 246. Matters to be entered therein. The notary public
shall enter in such register, in chronological order, the nature of
each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before
him, the person executing, swearing to or acknowledging the
instrument, the witnesses, if any, to the signature, the date of
the execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the instrument, the
fees collected by him for his services as notary in connection
therewith, and, when the instrument is a contract, he shall keep
a correct copy thereof as part of his records, and shall likewise
enter in said records a brief description of the substance thereof
and shall give to each entry a consecutive number, beginning
with number one in each calendar year. The notary shall give to
each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before
him a number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall
also state on the instrument the page or pages of his register on
which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between
entries.
xxx xxx xxx
At the end of each week the notary shall certify in his register
the number of instruments executed, sworn to, acknowledged
or protested before him; or if none such, the certificate shall
show this fact.
A certified copy of each months entries as described in this
section and a certified copy of any instrument acknowledged
before them shall within the first ten days of the month next
following be forwarded by the notaries public to the clerk of the
Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of the province
and shall be filed under the responsibility of such officer:
Provided, That if there is no entry to certify for the month, the
notary shall forward a statement to this effect in lieu of the
certified copies herein required.
Here, Atty. Basco violated the Notarial Law by failing to provide
all the necessary information regarding the questioned Deed of
Sale entered in his notarial register. He even notarized said
instrument even without the notation of the residence
certificate of the party to the document. As a notary public,
respondent is required by the Notarial Law to certify that the

Legal Forms | 1st set full text | 5

party to the instrument acknowledged before him has presented

the proper residence certificate (or exemption from the
residence certificate) and to enter its number, place of issue
and date as part of the certification. Worse, he likewise failed to
send copy of the notarized document to the clerk of court of the
proper RTC and to retain a copy thereof for his own records.
These formalities are mandatory and cannot simply be
neglected. Failure to perform this duty results in the revocation
of a notary's commission.4 In Vda. de Rosales vs. Ramos,5 we
held:
X x x. The notarial registry is a record of the notary publics
official acts. Acknowledged documents and instruments
recorded in it are considered public documents. If the document
or instrument does not appear in the notarial records and there
is no copy of it therein, doubt is engendered that the document
or instrument was not really notarized, so that it is not a public
document and cannot bolster any claim made based on this
document. Considering the evidentiary value given to notarized
documents, the failure of the notary public to record the
document in his notarial registry is tantamount to falsely
making it appear that the document was notarized when in fact
it was not. xxx. This is a clear violation of the Notarial Law for
which he must be disciplined.
We have 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 notary public.
Notarization of a private document converts it into a public
instrument 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 utmost care the basic requirements in
the performance of their duties, lest, the confidence of the
public in the integrity of the document will be undermined. 6
As a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, respondent is
mandated to discharge with fidelity the sacred duties
appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public
policy and impressed with public interest. Faithful observance
and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an
acknowledgment are sacrosanct. He cannot simply disregard
the requirements and solemnities of the Notarial Law.
In Protacio vs. Mendoza,7 this Court suspended respondents
commission as a notary public for one (1) year for his failure to
send to the Clerk of Court of the proper RTC the entries in his
notarial registry.
WHEREFORE, for breach of the notarial law, the commission of
respondent Atty. Humberto B. Basco as Notary Public, if still
existing, is REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED from being
commissioned as such for a period of one (1) year with a
WARNING that a repetition of the same negligent act charged in
the complaint will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.
EN BANC
January 26, 2016
A.C. No. 8723
[Formerly CBD Case No. 11-2974]
GREGORY FABAY, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. REX A. RESUENA, Respondent.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Before us is a Complaint for Disbarment filed by Gregory Fabay
(Fabay) against respondent Atty. Rex A. Resuena (Atty.
Resuena), docketed as A.C. No. 8723 for Gross Misconduct due
to the unauthorized notarization of documents relative to Civil
Case No. 2001. 1
The facts are as follows:
On October 15, 2003, Virginia Perez, Marcella Perez, Amador
Perez, Gloria Perez, Gracia Perez and Valentino Perez (plaintiffs)
filed a complaint for ejectment/forcible entry against Gregory
Fabay before the Municipal Trial Court of Pili, Camarines Sur with
respondent Atty. Resuena as their counsel.

On the same date, October 15, 2003, Atty. Resuena notarized a

special power of attorney (SPA) with plaintiffs as grantors, in
favor of Apolo D. Perez. However, it appeared that it was only
Remedios Perez who actually signed the SP A in behalf of
Amador Perez, Valentino Perez, Gloria Perez and Gracia Perez.
Said SPA was recorded in Atty. Resuena's notarial book as Doc.
No. 126, Page 26, Book 1, Series of 2003.2
The ejectment case was later on decided in favor of the client of
Atty. Resuena, however, on appeal, the Regional Trial Court of
Pili, Camarines Sur, Branch 32, ordered the case to be
remanded to the court a quo to try the case on the merits.3 In
its Decision4 dated August 4, 2005, the trial court noted that
both Amador Perez and Valentino Perez have already died on
September 7, 1988 and April 26, 1976, respectively.
Complainant Fabay alleged that Atty. Resuena violated the
provisions of the Notarial Law by notarizing a special power of
attorney notwithstanding the fact that two of the principals
therein, Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were already dead
long before the execution of the SPA. Complainant added that
Atty. Resuena likewise notarized a complaint for ejectment in
2003 where Apolo Perez was made to appear as attomey-infact
of Amador Perez and Valentino Perez when again the latter
could not have possibly authorized him as they were already
dead. Further, complainant averred that Atty. Resuena, as
counsel of the plainfiffs, participated in the barangay
conciliations which is prohibited under the law.
Thus, the instant complaint for disbarment for violation of the
notarial law and for Atty. Resuena's misconduct as a lawyer.
On October 18, 2010, the Court resolved to require Atty.
Resuena to file his comment relative to the complaint filed
against him. 5
In compliance, Atty. Resuena submitted his Comment6 dated
December 20, 2010 wherein he denied the allegations in the
complaint and claimed that it was tainted with malice,
considering that it was only filed with the Supreme Court on
August 20, 2010 when in fact it was allegedly prepared last June
18, 2006.
Atty. Resuena explained that although it was just Remedios
Perez who signed the SP A on behalf of Amador Perez, Valentino
Perez, Gloria Perez and Gracia Perez, there was no
misrepresentation since Remedios Perez is the spouse of
Amador Perez and she was likewise previously authorized by the
other co-owners, Gloria Perez and Gracia Perez, to represent
them.7 Atty. Resuena, thus, prayed that the complaint against
him be dismissed for lack of merit.
On January 19, 2011, the Court then resolved to refer the
instant case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
investigation, report and recommendation/decision. 8
On June 16, 2011, a mandatory conference was conducted
where complainant was assisted by his counsel Atty. Crispo
Borja, Jr., while Atty. Resuena appeared for himself.
Atty. Resuena denied that he participated in the barangay
conciliations and presented the certificate issued by the
barangay captain showing that there was no record of his
attendance during the confrontations of the parties before the
barangay. He, however, did not deny that Amador Perez and
Valentino Perez were already deceased at the time of the
execution and notarization of the SP A, albeit, he argued that in
the same SP A, Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were signed
by or represented by Remedios Perez. He further insisted that in
the acknowledgment portion of the SP A, the names of Amador
Perez and Valentino Perez were not included as among the
parties who have personally appeared before him. Thus, Atty.
Resuena insisted that there was no misrepresentation done in
the notarization of the SPA.
In its Report and Recommendation, the IBP-CBD found Atty.
Resuena to have violated the provisions of the notarial law. The
pertinent portion thereof reads as thus:
A close scrutiny of the evidence submitted would show that
respondent notarized a Special Power of Attorney on October
15, 2003 wherein the supposed principals were Virginia Perez,
Marcella Perez, Amador Perez, Gloria Perez, Gracia Perez,
Valent.ino Perez, the purpose of which, was to authorize Apolo
D. Perez to represent them to sue and be sued in any
administrative or judicial tribunal in connection with any suit
that may arise out of any and all transactions in their properties
covered by TCT No. RT-1118 (14380), 38735, 38737. In the
said document, the signatures of Amado Perez, Gloria

Legal Forms | 1st set full text | 6

Perez, Gracia Perez and Valentino Perez were signed as

"BY: REMEDIOS PEREZ". Remedios Perez is the spouse of
Amador Perez and the mother of [Apolo] Perez.
Evaluating the Special Power of Attorney, two of the
parties, namely, Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were
already dead during the execution of the Special Power
of Attorney. Amador Perez died sometime in September
7, 1988, while Valentino Perez died in April 26, 1976.
Despite this fact, respondent allowed them to be
represented by Remedios Perez in the signing of the
Special Power of Attorney without the proper authority
provided for by law.
On the other hand, the other parties in the Special Power of
Attorney, GRACIA PEREZ and GLORIA PEREZ were both residing
in the United States of America. While the respondent
alleged that there was a previous authority to sign the
Special Power of Attorney, no proof was presented by
the respondent to that effect. They also were signed as
"BY REMEDIOS PEREZ".9
The IBP-CBD, thus, recommended that his notarial commission
be revoked and that he be disqualified to be commissioned as
notary public for one (1) year.
In Notice of Resolution No. XX-2013-591 dated May 10, 2013,
the IBP-Board of Governors adopted and approved in toto the
Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD.
On September 9, 2013, complainant moved for reconsideration
of Resolution No. XX-2013-591 and prayed that the same be set
aside and instead the penalty of suspension be imposed against
Atty. Resuena as an erring member of the bar and not merely as
a notary public.
On May 3, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors, in its Resolution
No. XXI-2014-293, 10 denied complainant's motion for
reconsideration, thus affirming Resolution No. XX-2013-591 but
modified the penalty imposed to two (2) years disqualification
from notarial practice.
We concur with the findings of the IBP except as to the penalty.
Time and again, we have held that notarization of a document is
not an empty act or routine. It is invested with substantive
public interest, such that only those who are qualified or
authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a
private document into a public document thus making that
document admissible in evidence without further proof of its
authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith
and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and
the public at large must be able to rely upon the
acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to
a private instrument.11
For this reason, notaries public must observe with 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. Hence, 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 party's free act and deed. 12
Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
stresses the necessity of the affiant's personal appearance
before the notary public:
xxxx
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person
involved as signatory to the instrument or document (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the
time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or
otherwise identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined by these
Rules.
In the instant case, it is undisputed that Atty. Resuena violated
not only the notarial law but also his oath as a lawyer when he
notarized the subject SP A without all the affiant's personal
appearance. As found by the IBP-CBD, the purpose of the SP A
was to authorize a certain Apolo D. Perez to represent the

principals "to sue and be sued in any administrative or judicial

tribunal in connection with any suit that may arise out of their
properties." It is, thus, appalling that Atty. Resuena permitted
Remedios Perez to sign on behalf of Amador Perez and Valentino
Perez knowing fully well that the two were already dead at that
time and more so when he justified that the latter's names were
nevertheless not included in the acknowledgment albeit they
are signatories of the SP A. Equally deplorable is the fact that
Remedios was likewise allowed to sign on behalf of Gracia Perez
and Gloria Perez, who were said to be residing abroad. Worse,
he deliberately allowed the use of the subject SPA in an
ejectment case that was filed in court. In effect, Atty. Resuena,
in notarizing the SPA, contented himself with Remedios'
representation of four of the six principals of the SPA, doing
away with the actual physical appearance of all the parties.
There is no question then that Atty. Resuena ignored the basics
of notarial procedure and actually displayed his clear ignorance
of the importance of the office of a notary public. Not only did
he violate the notarial law, he also did so without thinking of the
possible damage that might result from its non-observance.
We cannot overemphasize that 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. 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 party's free act or deed.
In Agbulos v. Atty. Viray, 13 this Court, citing Dela Cruz-Sillano v.
Pangan, 14 reiterated anew the necessity of personal
appearance of the affiants, to wit:
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
party's free act and deed.
Atty. Resuena's failure to perform his duty as a notary public
resulted not only damage to those directly affected by the
notarized document but also made a mockery of the integrity of
a notary public and degraded the function of notarization.
Moreso, in this case, where Atty. Resuena being the counsel of
the plaintiffs-affiants can be assumed to have known the
circumstances of the subject case, as well as the fact that
affiants Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were already
deceased at the time of the execution of the subject SP A.
Having appeared to have intentionally violated the notarial law,
Atty. Resuena has, in fact, allowed himself to be an instrument
of fraud which this Court will not tolerate.
A graver responsibility is placed upon Atty. Resuena by reason
of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or
consent to the doing of any.1wphi1 The Code of Professional
Responsibility also commands lawyers not to engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and to uphold
at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. 15 It
requires every lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws
of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes.
16 Moreover, the Notarial Law and the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice require a duly-commissioned notary public to make the
proper entries in his Notarial Register and to refrain from
committing any dereliction or act which constitutes good cause
for the revocation of commission or imposition of administrative
sanction. 17 Unfortunately, Atty. Resuena failed in both
respects.
Through his acts, Atty. Resuena committed a serious breach of
the fundamental obligation imposed upon him by the Code of
Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 1. 01 of Canon 1,
which prohibited him from engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. As a lawyer and as an officer of
the court, it was his duty to serve the ends of justice, not to
corrupt it. Oath-bound, he was expected to act at all times in
accordance with law and ethics, and if he did not, he would not

Legal Forms | 1st set full text | 7

only injure himself and the public but also bring reproach upon
an honorable profession. 18 Atty. Resuena must now accept the
consequences of his unwarranted actions.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Rex A. Resuena is found GUILTY of
malpractice as a notary public, and of violating the lawyer's
oath as well as Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, he is DISBARRED from the practice
of law and likewise PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from being
commissioned as a notary public.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant, to be appended to Atty. Resuena's personal record.
Further, let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator,
which is directed to circulate them to all the courts in the
country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.

Legal Forms | 1st set full text | 8