1.

Knowledge Statement

An affidavit is "an oath in writing" which certifies a specific and

detailed statement. The deponent that is completing the statement puts the
knowledge statement at the beginning of the affidavit. The knowledge
statement must name the parties involved in the case or transaction. It must
also contain factual information within the scope of personal knowledge of
the person certifying, or signing, the affidavit. The statement should be clear,
concise, detailed and written in the first person voice. It must include dates,
times and any other items of relevance to the case.

Certification
o

By signing an affidavit, the deponent certifies the statement is

true in its entirety. It is a sworn oath made in front of a viable witness, such
as an authorized court official, lawyer or notary public, who can also attest to
the deponent's identity. This part includes the deponent's signature, his
name, address, phone number and any other relevant information for
identification purposes, such as social security number, driver's license
identification number and place of employment.

Acknowledgement
o

The commissioner taking the affidavit signs the document at the

end in the Acknowledgement section. He signs in the presence of the
deponent and verifies the deponent's identity. This portion includes the date
of execution, notary's name, signature, notary company address, telephone
number and seal. It also contains identification information for the notary
such as address, identification numbers and commission expiration date

2. Affidavit
3. A written statement of facts voluntarily made by an affiant under an oath or affirmation administere
dby a person authorized to do so by law.

4. Distinctions
5. An affidavit is voluntarily made without any cross-examination of the affiant and, therefore, is notth
e same as a deposition, a record of an examination of a witness or a party made either voluntarily
or pursuant to a subpoena, as if the party were testifying in court under cross-examination. Apleadi
nga request to a court to exercise its judicial power in favor of a party that containsallegations or
conclusions of facts that are not necessarily verifieddiffers from an affidavit, whichstates facts un
der oath.

6. Basis

7. An affidavit is based upon either the personal knowledge of the affiant or his or her information and
belief. Personal knowledge is the recognition of particular facts by either direct observation orexpe
rience. Information and belief is what the affiant feels he or she can state as true, although notbas
ed on firsthand knowledge.

8. The Affiant
9. Any person having the intellectual capacity to take an oath or make an affirmation and who haskno
wledge of the facts that are in dispute may make an affidavit. There is no age requirement foran aff
iant. As long as a person is old enough to understand the facts and the significance of theoath or a
ffirmation he or she makes, the affidavit is valid. A criminal conviction does not make aperson inca
pable of making an affidavit, but an adjudication of Incompetency does.
10. Someone familiar with the matters in question may make an affidavit on behalf of another, but that
person's authority to do so must be clear. A guardian may make an affidavit for a minor or insanep
erson incapable of doing so. An attorney may make an affidavit for a client if it is impossible forthe
client to do so. When necessary to the performance of duties, a Personal
Representative,agent, or corporate officer or partner may execute an affidavit that indicates the c
apacity in whichthe affiant acts.
11. A court cannot force a person to make an affidavit, since, by definition, an affidavit is a voluntaryst
atement.

12. The Taker of the Affidavit

13. Any public officer authorized by law to administer oaths and affirmationssuch as city recorders,c
ourt clerks, notaries, county clerks, commissioners of deeds, and court commissionersmay
take affidavits. Justices of the peace and magistrates are sometimes authorized to take affidavits.
Unless restricted by state law, judges may take affidavits involving controversies before them.
14. An officer cannot take affidavits outside of the particular jurisdiction in which he or she exercisesau
thority. The source of this authority must appear at the bottom of the affidavit. A notary, forexample
, would indicate the county in which he or she is commissioned and the expiration date ofthe com
mission.
15. An official seal is not essential to the validity of the affidavit but may be placed on it by the properof
ficial.

16. The Oath or Affirmation

17. Unless otherwise provided by statute, an oath is essential to an affidavit. The statement of theaffia
nt does not become an affidavit unless the proper official administers the oath.
18. When religious convictions prevent the affiant from taking an oath, he or she may affirm that thesta
tements in the affidavit are true.

19. Contents

20. There is no standard form or language to be used in an affidavit as long as the facts containedwithi
n it are stated clearly and definitely. Unnecessary language or legal arguments should notappear.
Clerical and grammatical errors, while to be avoided, are inconsequential.
21. The affidavit usually must contain the address of the affiant and the date that the statement wasma
de, in addition to the affiant's signature or mark. Where the affidavit has been made is alsonoted.
When an affidavit is based on the affiant's information and belief, it must state the source ofthe affi
ant's information and the grounds for the affiant's belief in the accuracy of such information.This pe
rmits the court to draw its own conclusions about the information in the affidavit.
22. An affiant is strictly responsible for the truth and accuracy of the contents of the affidavit. If falsesta
tements are made, the affiant can be prosecuted for perjury.

23. Functions
24. Affidavits are used in business and in judicial and administrative proceedings.
25. Business Generally affidavits are used in business whenever an official statement that othersmigh
t rely upon is needed. Statements of the financial stability of a corporation, the pedigree ofanimals,
and the financial conditions of a person applying for credit are examples of affidavits usedin the co
mmercial world.
26. Judicial Proceedings Affidavits serve as evidence in civil actions and criminal prosecutions incert
ain instances. They are considered a very weak type of evidence because they are not taken inco
urt, and the affiant is not subject to cross-examination. Their use is usually restricted to timeswhen
no better evidence can be offered. If a witness who has made an affidavit is not available totestify
at a trial, his or her affidavit may be admitted as evidence. If the witness is present, his orher affida
vit is inadmissible except when used to impeach the witness's testimony, or to help thewitness with
past recollection of facts.
27. Affidavits are also used as evidence in ex parte proceedings such as a hearing for the issuance of
a Temporary Restraining
Order or an order to show cause. The expeditious nature of suchproceedings is considered to sub
stantially outweigh the weak Probative value of the affidavits. Inaddition, there is normally a subse
quent opportunity in the course of litigation for the opposing partyto refute the affidavits or crossexamine the affiants.
28. An affidavit based on the knowledge of the affiant is accorded more weight than one based oninfor
mation and belief. When admissible, affidavits are not conclusive evidence of the facts statedtherei
n.
29. Administrative Proceedings Affidavits are frequently used in administrative and QuasiJudicialproceedings as evidence when no objection is made to their admission and there is an op
portunityfor cross-examination.

30. West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group,
Inc. All rights

G.R. No. 114829 March 1, 1995

MAXIMINO GAMIDO Y BUENAVENTURA, petitioner,
vs.
NEW BILIBID PRISONS (NBP) OFFICIALS, respondents.
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
In the Resolution of 7 September 1994, we required Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea of No. 42 National
Road corner Bruger Subdivision, Putatan, Muntinglupa, Metro Manila, to show cause why no
disciplinary action should be taken against him for making it appear in the jurat of the petition in this
case that the petitioner subscribed the verification and swore to before him, as notary public, on 19
April 1994, when in truth and in fact the petitioner did not.
In his Explanation of 23 December 1994 which was received by this Court on 25 January 1995, Atty.
Icasiano M. dela Rea admitted having executed the jurat without the presence of petitioner Gamido.
He alleges:
Firstly, I must honestly admit that I notarized it not in his presence. I did it in the
honest belief that since it is jurat and not an acknowledgement, it would be alrights
[sic] to do so considering that prior to April 19, 1994 and thereafter, I know Mr.
Gamido since I have been in and out of New Bilibid Prisons, not only because my
office is here only across the Municipal Building of Muntinlupa, Metro Manila but
because I handled a number of cases involving prisoners and guards of NBP as well
as some of its personnels [sic]. That in fact, I attempted to have the document
personally signed by him but considering that I have to strictly observe rules and
regulations of the NBP, particularly on visit, I did not pursue anymore my intention to
have it notarized before me.

Secondly, that in notarizing the document, I honestly feel and by heart and in good
faith, that as a notary public and as a practicing lawyer, I could modestly contribute in
the orderly administration of justice. The Gamido family use to come in the office and
in fact hiring the legal services of the undersigned but I refused to handle since I am
already pre-occupied in other cases of similar importance. That on December 13,
1994 I receive a letter from Mr. Gamido, last paragraph of which is read as follows:
Sanay po Atty. ay maawa kayo sa akin na nagdudusa nang walang
kasalanan. Alang alang po sa kaawa awa kong familiya, kailangan
ang aking kalinga. Ang tulong ninyo ang siyang daan upang ako ay
makaalis sa pagpapahirap nang mga taong walang puso at kaluluwa,
walang awa sa kapwa, at sa sambayanang Pilipino.
Then he apologizes to the Court and assures it that henceforth he would be more careful and
circumspect:
That I am praying for an apology to the Hon. Supreme Court if what I did was wrong
and the Hon. Supreme Court is assured that perhaps what transpired was a wrong
judgment or honest mistake. That the Hon. Chairman and its Hon. Members are
assured that when I signed the petition not in Gamido's presence it is never intended
to do a wrong, to commit illegal or criminal acts but merely in the honest and sincere
belief that it is valid and legal. The Hon. Supreme Court is assured that it is never
intended for malice or for money.
This Hon. Chairman and its Hon. Members are further assured that from hereon, I
am more careful and circumspect in the exercise of this noble and grand profession
and that no amount or consideration will sway or change this conviction. This is my
life. This is the life of my family.
Atty. dela Rea's explanation is unsatisfactory; however, his spontaneous voluntary admission may be
considered in mitigation of his liability.
As a notary public for a long time, as evidenced by the fact that his questioned jurat is indicated to
have been entered in Book 45 of his notarial register, he should know the similarities and differences
between a jurat and an acknowledgement.
A jurat which is, normally in this form:
Subscribed and sworn to before me in _______________, this ____ day of
____________, affiant having exhibited to me his Community (before, Residence)
Tax Certificate No. ____________ issued at ______________ on ____________.
"is that part of an affidavit in which the officer certifies that the instrument was sworn to before him
(Theobald vs. Chicago Ry. Co., 75 Ill. App. 208). It is not a part of a pleading but merely evidences
the fact that the affidavit was properly made (Young vs. Wooden, 265 SW 24, 204 Ky. 694)."
(LORENZO M. TAADA and FRANCISCO A. RODRIGO, Modern Legal Forms, vol. I, sixth ed.,
1985 printing, 31). The jurat in the petition in the case also begins with the words "subscribed and
sworn to me."
To subscribe literally means to write underneath, as one's name; to sign at the end of a document
(Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth ed., 1279). To swear means to put on oath; to declare on oath the truth

of a pleading, etc. (Id., 1298). Accordingly, in a jurat, the affiant must sign the document in the
presence of and take his oath before a notary public or any other person authorized to administer
oaths.
As to acknowledgment, Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 provides:
(a) The acknowledgement shall be made 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, and
acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made
under his official seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate
shall so state. (See Lorenzo M. Taada and Francisco A. Rodrigo, Modern Philippine
Legal Forms, vol. II, 1964 Fifth ed., 735).
It is obvious that the party acknowledging must likewise appear before the notary public or any other
person authorized to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents.
The claim or belief of Atty. dela Rea that the presence of petitioner Gamido was not necessary for
the juratbecause it is not an acknowledgment is patently baseless. If this had been his belief since
he was first commissioned as a notary public, then he has been making a mockery of the legal
solemnity of an oath in a jurat. Notaries public and others authorized by law to administer oaths or to
take acknowledgments should not take for granted the solemn duties appertaining to their offices.
Such duties are dictated by public policy and are impressed with public interest.
His prior acquaintance and friendship with petitioner Gamido provides no excuse for non-compliance
with his duty. If Atty. dela Rea were faithful to his duty as a notary public and if he wanted to
accommodate a friend who was inside a prison, he could have gone to the latter's cell since he
openly admitted that he has "been in and out of New Bilibid Prisons, not only because [his] office is
here only across the Municipal Building of Muntinlupa, Metro Manila but because [he] handled a
number of cases involving prisoners and guards of NBP as well as some of its personnels [sic]."
Administratively, as a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea committed
grave misconduct when he agreed to prepare the jurat in the petition in this case in the absence of
petitioner Gamido, thereby making it appear that the latter personally signed the certification of the
petition and took his oath before him when in truth and in fact the said petitioner did not.
WHEREFORE, for grave misconduct, ATTY. ICASIANO I. DELA REA is hereby FINED in the sum of
FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00), without prejudice to criminal prosecution as may be
warranted under the circumstances. He is WARNED that the commission of the same or similar acts
in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Bellosillo, Quiason and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

ROSALINDA BERNARDO VDA DE ROSALES, complainant, vs. ATTY. MARIO G.

RAMOS, respondent.
A.C. No. 5645
July 2, 2002
BELLOSILLO, J.:
This complaint for disbarment was filed in behalf of complainant Rosalinda Bernardo Vda. de
Rosales by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) against respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos for
violation of Act No. 2711 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, Title IV, Ch. 11, otherwise
know as the Notarial Law, particularly Secs. 245 and 246 thereof.
In September 1990 Manuel A. Bernardo, brother of complainant Rosalinda Bernardo Vda. de
Rosales, borrowed from Rosalinda the Original Transfer Certificate of Title No. 194464 covering Lot
No. 1-B-4-H in her name. The lot measures 112 square meters and is located at the back of
Manuel's house on Fabie Street, Paco, Metro Manila. On 25 November 1990 Rosalinda sold this lot
to one Alfredo P. Castro. When she asked her brother Manuel to return her title he refused.
On 22 October 1990 Rosalinda executed an Affidavit of Loss of her title and presented the affidavit
to the Register of Deeds of Manila.
On 3 September 1991 the Register of Deeds informed Rosalinda that her title to the property was
already transferred to Manuel by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale she purportedly executed in favor
of Manuel on 5 September 1990. The document was notarized by respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos
on 1 October 1990 and entered in his Notarial Register as Doc. No. 388, Page No. 718, Book No.
10, Series of 1990. Rosalinda however denied having signed any deed of sale over her property in
favor of Manuel.
On 3 September 1991 Rosalinda filed with the NBI a complaint for falsification of public document
against her brother Manuel. The NBI invited respondent Atty. Ramos for questioning. The complaint
alleged among others that on 12 September 1991 Atty. Mario G. Ramos executed an affidavit before
the NBI admitting that when Manuel presented the purported Deed of Absolute Sale to him for
notarization, he (Atty. Ramos) found some defects in the document and that complainant Rosalinda
was not around. The NBI Questioned Documents Division also compared Rosalinda's signature
appearing in the Deed of Absolute Sale with samples of her genuine signature, and found that the
signature in the purported Deed of Absolute Sale and her genuine signatures were not written by
one and the same person.

On 5 October 1992 the NBI transmitted its findings to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila with
the recommendation that Manuel and Atty. Ramos be prosecuted for Falsification of Public
Document under Art. 172 in relation to Art. 171 of The Revised Penal Code, and that Atty. Ramos be
additionally charged with violation of the Notarial Law.
The NBI also transmitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline
(CBD) photocopies of the NBI investigation report and its annexes, and a verified complaint 1 for
disbarment signed by Rosalinda. The CBD received the records on 5 October 1992. On the same
date, the CBD through Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez directed respondent to submit an answer
to the complaint within fifteen (15) days from notice.
Respondent admitted in his Answer2 that he had affixed his signature on the purported Deed of
Absolute Sale but failed to enter the document in his Notarial Registry Book. He also admitted
executing before the NBI on 12 September 1991 an affidavit regarding the matter. Respondent
prayed for the dismissal of the complaint since according to him he only inadvertently signed the
purported Deed of Absolute Sale and/or that his signature was procured through mistake, fraud,
undue influence or excusable negligence, claiming that he simply relied on the assurances of
Manuel that the document would not be used for purposes other than a loan between brother and
sister, and that he affixed his signature thereon with utmost good faith and without intending to
obtain personal gain or to cause damage or injury to another.
The CBD set the case for hearing on 3 March 2000, 28 April 2000, 16 June 2000 and 5 October
2000. Complainant never appeared. The records show that the notices sent to her address at 1497
Fabie Street, Paco, Manila, were returned unclaimed.3
On 26 January 2002 the IBP Board of Governors approved the report and recommendation of the
CBD through Commissioner Fernandez that the case against respondent be dismissed in view of
complainant's failure to prosecute and for lack of evidence on record to substantiate the
complaint.4 The Investigating Commissioner found that the notices sent to complainant were
returned unclaimed with the annotation "moved out," and that she did not leave any forwarding
address, and neither did she come to the CBD to inquire about the status of her case. From these
actuations, he concluded that complainant had lost interest in the further prosecution of this
case,5 and so recommended its dismissal.
We cannot wholly agree with the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. It
is clear from the pleadings before us that respondent violated the Notarial Law in failing to register in
his notarial book the deed of absolute sale he notarized, which fact respondent readily admitted.
The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of a notary public. It requires him to keep a
notarial register where he shall record all his official acts as notary,6 and specifies what information
with regard to the notarized document should be entered therein.7 Failure to perform this duty results
in the revocation of his commission as notary public.8
The importance attached to the act of notarization cannot be overemphasized. 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.9 Notarization converts a private document
into a public document thus making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its
authenticity.10 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.12 Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of
conveyance would be undermined.13 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. 14 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. 15
The notary public is further enjoined to record in his notarial registry the necessary information
regarding the document or instrument notarized and retain a copy of the document presented to him
for acknowledgment and certification especially when it is a contract.16 The notarial registry is a
record of the notary public's 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.
We take note of respondent's admission in his Answer that he had affixed his signature in the
purported Deed of Absolute Sale but he did not enter it in his notarial registry. This is clearly in
violation of the Notarial Law for which he must be disciplined.
Respondent alleges that he merely signed the Deed of Absolute Sale inadvertently and that his
signature was procured through mistake, fraud, undue influence or excusable negligence as he
relied on the assurances of Manuel A. Bernardo, a kababayan from Pampanga, that the document
would not be used for any illegal purpose.
We cannot honor, much less give credit to this allegation. That respondent notarized the document
out of sympathy for his kababayan is not a legitimate excuse. It is appalling that respondent did
away with the basics of notarial procedure in order to accommodate the alleged need of a friend and
client. In doing so, he displayed a decided lack of respect for the solemnity of an oath in a notarial
document. He also exhibited 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.
The principal function of a notary public is to authenticate documents. When a notary public certifies
to the due execution and delivery of the document under his hand and seal he gives the document
the force of evidence. Indeed, one of the purposes of requiring documents to be acknowledged
before a notary public, in addition to the solemnity which should surround the execution and delivery
of documents, is to authorize such documents to be given without further proof of their execution and
delivery.17 Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed upon him by reason
of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any.18 Failing
in this, he must accept the consequences of his unwarranted actions.
From his admissions we find that Atty. Mario G. Ramos failed to exercise the due diligence required
of him in the performance of the duties of notary public. We do not agree however that his
negligence should merit disbarment, which is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction.
Disbarment should never be imposed unless it is evidently clear that the lawyer, by his serious
misconduct, should no longer remain a member of the bar. Removal from the bar should not really
be decreed when any punishment less severe - reprimand, temporary suspension or fine - would

accomplish the end desired.19 Under the circumstances, imposing sanctions decreed under the
Notarial Law and suspension from the practice of law would suffice.
WHEREFORE, for lack of diligence in the observance of the Notarial Law, the commission of
respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos as Notary Public, if still existing, is REVOKED and thereafter Atty.
Ramos should beDISQUALIFIED from reappointment to the office of Notary Public.
Respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos is also SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six
(6) months effective immediately. He is DIRECTED to report to this Court his receipt of this Decision
to enable it to determine when his suspension shall have taken effect.
The Clerk of Court of this Court is DIRECTED to immediately circularize this Decision for the proper
guidance of all concerned.

SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 3324 - February 9, 2000
PASTOR EDWIN VILLARIN, PACIANO DE VEYRA, SR., and BARTOLOME EVAROLO,
SR., complainants, v. ATTY. RESTITUTO SABATE, JR., Respondent.
RESOLUTION
BUENA, J.:
Complainants prays that administrative sanctions be imposed on respondent Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr.
for not having observed honesty and utmost care in the performance of his duties as notary public.
Complainants ALLEGED THAT Atty. Restituto Sabate Jr. prepared and notarize a Motion to Dismiss
With anwer to Villarins Et. Al. , and supposed that the signature of Paterno Diaz in the said document
was not his, but that of a certain Lilian Diaz; that with regard to the signatures of Levi Pagunsan and
Alejandro Bofetiado, it was Atty. Sabate, Jr. who signed for them; and that herein respondent Sabate,
Jr. made it appear that said persons participated in the said act when in fact they did not do so.
In his Answer,4 respondent alleged that Paterno Diaz, Levi Pagunsan and Alejandro Bofetiado swore to
the correctness of the allegations in the motion to dismiss/pleading for the SEC through their
authorized representatives known by their names as Lilian C. Diaz, wife of Paterno Diaz, and Atty.
Restituto B. Sabate, Jr. manifested by the word "By" which preceded every signature of said
representatives. Respondent allegedly signed for and in the interest of his client backed-up by their
authorization5; and Lilian Diaz was authorized to sign for and in behalf of her husband as evidenced by
a written authority.6 Respondent alleged that on the strength of the said authorizations he notarized
the said document.

Respondent also alleged that in signing for and in behalf of his client Pagunsan and Bofetiado, his
signature was preceded by the word "By" which suggests that he did not in any manner make it
appear that those persons signed in his presence; aside from the fact that his clients authorized him
to sign for and in their behalf, considering the distance of their place of residence to that of the
respondent and the reglementary period in filing said pleadings he had to reckon with. Respondent
further alleged that the complaint is malicious and anchored only on evil motives and not a sensible
way to vindicate complainants' court losses, for respondent is only a lawyer defending a client and
prayed that the case be dismissed with further award for damages to vindicate his honor and mental
anguish as a consequence thereof.
The designated Investigating Commissioner of Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended that
respondent Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr. be suspended from his Commission as Notary Public for a period
of six (6) months. The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted the said
recommendation and resolved to suspend the respondent's Commission for six (6) months for failure
to exercise due diligence in upholding his duty as a notary public.
From the facts obtaining, it is apparent that respondent Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr. notarized the Motion
to Dismiss With Answer prepared by him which pleading he signed for and in behalf of Levi Pagunsan
and Alejandro Bofetiado (while Lilian Diaz signed for her husband Pastor Diaz), three of the
respondents in the SEC case, with the word "By" before their signatures, because he was their counsel
in said case and also because he was an officer of the religious sect and corporation represented by
the respondents-Pastors.
But while it would appear that in doing so, he acted in good faith, the fact remains that the same
cannot be condoned. He failed to state in the preliminary statements of said motion/answer that the
three respondents were represented by their designated attorneys-in-fact. Besides, having signed the
Verification of the pleading, he cannot swear that he appeared before himself as Notary Public.
The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral
arrangements.7 That function would be defeated if the notary public were one of the signatories to the
instrument. For then, he would be interested in sustaining the validity thereof as it directly involves
himself and the validity of his own act. It would place him in an inconsistent position, and the very
purpose of the acknowledgment, which is to minimize fraud, would be thwarted. 8
Sec. 1 of Public Act No. 2103 provides:
(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of
the country to take acknowledgment 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, and
acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under his official
seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state. 9
A member of the bar who performs an act as 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 said notary public to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The acts of
affiants cannot be delegated to anyone for what are stated therein are facts they have personal
knowledge of and swore to the same personally and not through any representative. Otherwise, their
representative's names should appear in the said documents as the ones who executed the same and
that is only the time they can affix their signatures and personally appear before the notary public for
notarization of said document.
As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent is mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties
pertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy impressed with public interest.
Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or

jurat is sacrosanct. Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent upon and failing therein, he must now
accept the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion. 10
That respondent acted the way he did because he was confronted with an alleged urgent situation is
no excuse at all. As an individual, and even more so as a member of the legal profession, he is
required to obey the laws of the land at all times.11For notarizing the Verification of the Motion to
Dismiss With Answer when three of the affiants thereof were not before him and for notarizing the
same instrument of which he was one of the signatories, he failed to exercise due diligence in
upholding his duty as a notary public.
WHEREFORE, for lack of diligence in the observance of the Notarial Law, respondent Atty. Restituto
Sabate, Jr. is SUSPENDED from his Commission as Notary Public for a period of one (1) year.

FIDEL D. AQUINO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. OSCAR MANESE, Respondent.

CARPIO MORALES, J.:
In a sworn letter-complaint1 (in Tagalog) dated September 7, 1998 addressed to the Office of the
President which forwarded it to the Office of the Court Administrator, Fidel D. Aquino (complainant) of
Pinasling, Gerona, Tarlac charged Atty. Oscar Manese (respondent) with falsification of public
document for preparing and notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale 2dated September 15, 1994 which
could not have been executed and sworn to by Lilia D. Cardona, one of the therein three vendorssignatories, she having died on November 25, 19903 or four (4) years earlier.
Complainant alleges that, inter alia, he has since 1960 been tilling the land subject of the Deed of
Absolute Sale as tenant of the now deceased owner thereof, Luis M. Cardona; in 1975, the spouses
Antonio and Fe Perez unlawfully took possession of the land, thus spawning the filing of a case that
reached the Court of Appeals which recognized him to be the lawful tenant; 4 and on September 15,
1994, without his knowledge, the Deed of Absolute Sale was purportedly executed on even date by
the three heirs of Luis Cardona, including the already deceased Lilia Cardona, in favor of Ma. Cita C.
Perez, daughter of the spouses Perez, and was notarized by respondent.
Attached to the letter-complaint are the following documents:
(1) Investigation Report of the Department of Agrarian Reform dated August 20, 1996; (2)
Memorandum of Regional Director Eugenio Bernardo to the DAR Secretary dated 4 June 1996; (3) May
20, 1996 letter of OIC-PARO Teofilo Inocencio to Atty. Epifanio Devero, Chief Regional Legal Division,
DAR (4) Questioned Documents Report No. 517-696 of the National Bureau of Investigation; (5) Death
Certificate of Lilia Cardona; (6) Deed of Absolute Sale; (7) Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
August 30, 1988 in CA-G.R. SP No. 12847-CAR; (8) Special Power of Attorney dated 27 December
1989 executed by Jose D. Cardona in favor of Fidel D. Aquino; (9) General Power of Attorney executed
by Luis Cardona in favor of Fidel D. Aquino; and (10) Certification dated October 27, 1977 of the
Department of Agrarian Reform.

By his Comment of January 4, 1999, 5 respondent asserted that complainant has no personality to
complain as he has neither a legal right or claim over the land nor any personality to challenge the
sale; even assuming that Lilia Cardona was already dead at the time of the execution of the Deed of
Absolute Sale, no interested party had complained about it; as a Notary Public, he is not expected to
personally know every person who goes to him for notarization of documents; and when he notarized
the Deed of Absolute Sale on September 15, 1994, he was only performing his duty as a notary
public.
By Resolution of February 24, 1999,6 this Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. Despite notice, respondent failed to
appear at any of the hearings scheduled by the IBP, he pleading ill health and/or unavailability of
counsel.
On June 29, 2002, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XV-2002-220 7 adopting the
Investigating Commissioner's Report that "respondent was gravely remiss in his obligation as notary
public." The IBP Board of Governors, however, modified the recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner that "respondent's commission as Notary Public be revoked and that [he] be suspended
from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years" by recommending that "[r]espondent's
commission as Notary Public be SUSPENDED with disqualification for appointment as Notary Public for
a period of two (2) years."
The IBP Board of Governor's Resolution, which is before this Court for final action pursuant to Sec. 12
par. (b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, is well-taken.
Respondent's assertion that complainant lacks the personality to institute the present complaint does
not lie. Complainant being a tenant at the land subject of the sale, his rights as such have been
disturbed by the transfer of ownership of the land.
In any event, proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may, under Section 1
of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, motu proprio be taken by this Court or the IBP upon the verified
complaint of any person.
On the merits of the complaint.
The death on November 25, 1990 of Lilia Cardona is documented. 8 Her Death Certificate shows so.
The National Bureau of Investigation, which made a comparative examination of her specimen
signatures and that appearing in the Deed of Absolute Sale, found that the signature on the latter and
the specimen signatures were not written by one and the same person. 9
In the Acknowledgment in the deed, respondent affirmed that before him "personally appeared said
vendors [including the late Lilia Cardona] whos (sic) personal circumstances are shown above below
their names and signatures, all known to [him] and to [him] known to be the same individual (sic)
who executed th[e] instrument and acknowledged to [him] that the same is their free act and
voluntary deed."
The said acknowledgment notwithstanding, respondent asseverated in his Comment to the lettercomplaint that he is not expected to personally know every person who goes to him for notarization of
documents. Such jaunty indifference betrays his deplorable failure to heed the importance of the
notarial act and observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties as a
notary public which include the ascertainment that the persons who signed the document are the very
same persons who executed and personally appeared before him.
The importance attached to the act of notarization cannot be overemphasized. 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. 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.
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. 10 (Italics and
emphasis supplied.)
By respondent's reckless act of notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale without ascertaining that the
vendors-signatories thereto were the very same persons who executed it and personally
appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what were stated therein, he has
undermined the confidence of the public on notarial documents and he thereby breached Canon I of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the
laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes, and Rule 1.01 thereof which
proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
WHEREFORE, for violation of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent
Atty. Oscar Manese's notarial commission, if extant, is REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED from
reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two (2) years.
Respondent is SUSPENDED from the practice of law also for a period of two (2) years, effective
immediately. He is DIRECTED to report to this Court his receipt of this Decision to enable it to
determine when his suspension shall have taken effect.
Let copies of this Decision he furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines.

A.C. No. 7350 : February 18, 2013

PATROCINIO V. AGBULOS, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROSELLER A. VIRAY, Respondent.
PERALTA, J.:
The case stemmed from a Complaint 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-Tenancy 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. 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.
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. 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
?r?l1

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
?r?l1

On April 15, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XVIII-2008-166 which reads:

cralawlibrary

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
?r?l1

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:

cralawlibrary

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
RespondentsSUSPENSION from the practice of law for one (1) month, Atty. Roseller A. Viray is
herebySUSPENDED 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
?r?l1

xxx
(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
?r?l1

As aptly observed by the Court in Dela Cruz-Sillano v. Pangan:18

?r?l1

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
?r?l1

A.C. No. 7350 : February 18, 2013

PATROCINIO V. AGBULOS, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROSELLER A. VIRAY, Respondent.
PERALTA, J.:
Facts:

The case stemmed from a Complaint 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-Tenancy 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. 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.
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. 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
?r?l1

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
?r?l1

Issue: Whether or Not Atty. Viray violated the rules on Notarial Pratice?
Ruling: Yes.

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 SUSPENDShim from the
practice of law for one (1) year; REVOKES his incumbent commission, if any; andPROHIBITS 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.