Lawyer and the Notary Public (1-9)

Disbarment
Case Title Canon/s Violated & Other Violations (if Brief Description of the Violation (how State Other Sanctions Imposed (if any)
any) the canon/s was violated)

Suspension State the Number of Months or Years

Imposed and Other Sanctions (if any)

Heirs of Pedro Alilano vs. Atty. Roberto Lawyer’s Oath, Canons 1, 10 and 19; It appears that Spouses Alilano executed Suspended for two in the practice of law.
Examen Rules 1.01, 1.02 and 19.01 of the CPR an Absolute DOS in favor of one Robert
AC No. 10132 Examen whose residence certificate Notarial Commission revoked and
appearing therein was not his but that of disqualified from reappointment as
Florentina Examen; thus, the same was notary public for a period of two years.
notarized by Atty. Examen and likewise
introduced into evidence.

There was no violation insofar as the

notarial law applicable was the Revised
Administrative Code, which did not
provide for any prohibition on
notarization made by a lawyer on
documents belonging to relatives.
However, he failed to perform his duty as
notary public when he failed to comply
with the requirements of Section 251 and
249 on the failure of the notary to make
the proper notation regarding cedula
certificates.
Rodolfo Espinosa and Maximo Glindo vs. Omaña violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of Atty. Omaña executed and notarized a SUSPEND Atty. Julieta A. Omaña from
Atty. Julieta Omaña the CPR “Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay” contract the practice of law for ONE YEAR.
AC No. 9081 for spouses Espinosa and Elena. We REVOKE Atty. Omaña’s notarial
commission, if still existing,
This Court has ruled that the extrajudicial and SUSPEND her as a notary public for
dissolution of the conjugal partnership TWO YEARS.
without judicial approval is void.2 The
Court has also ruled that a notary public
should not facilitate the disintegration of
a marriage and the family by encouraging
the separation of the spouses and
extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal
partnership,3 which is exactly what
Omaña did in this case.
Efigenia Tenoso vs. Atty. Anselmo
Echanez
AC No. 8384
Jimmy Anudon and Juanita Anudon vs.
Atty. Arturo Cefra
Carlito Ang vs. Atty. James Joseph
Gupana AC No. 4545
Reprimand
Bernard Jandoquile vs. Atty. Quirino
Revilla
OTHER SANCTIONS (e.g. probation,
restitution, assessment of cost,
limitation upon practice, warning,
taking of additional MCLEs, etc.)
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company
vs. Servando Arguelles, et.al GR No.
176984
Marilou Trinidad, et.al. vs. Servando
Arguelles GR No. 179131
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez guilty of
engaging in notarial practice without a
notarial commission. He notarized
documents absent notarial commission
as per the ten documents presented and
also No Commission certification issued
by the court.
Notarial Law and Canon 1 of CPR Notarized a falsified document where the
signature of the vendors is forged and
notwithstanding that the said parties
where in the US at the date of
notarization.
Rule 9.01, Canon 9 He failed to require the personal
Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on presence of Candelaria Magpayo when
Notarial Practice he notarized the Affidavit of Loss which
Candelaria allegedly executed on April
29, 1994.
Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarizing a complaint-affidavit when the
Notarial Practice party involved is the sister of his wife.
No violation committed. Both the RTC and the CA held that the
presumption of regularity of a public
document5 did not attach to the subject
deed of sale, given that the notary public,
Atty. Saulog, Jr. failed to establish the
authenticity of the signatures on it. He
could not remember if the Arguelleses,
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
two (2) years and DISQUALIFY him from
being commissioned as a notary public
for two (2) years.
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
two (2) years, REVOKES his incumbent
notarial commission PERPETUALLY
DISQUALIFIES him from being
commissioned as a notary public.
Respondent is also STERNLY WARNED
that more severe penalties will be
imposed for any further breach of the
Canons in the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
one year. Further, his notarial
commission is REVOKED and he is
disqualified from reappointment as
Notary Public for a period of two years,
with a stem warning that repetition of
the same or similar conduct in the future
will be dealt with more severely.
REPRIMANDED and DISQUALIFIED from
being commissioned as a notary public,
or from performing any notarial act for a
period of three (3) months

Wilberto Talisic vs Atty. Primo Rinen Section 2. Rule II of the 2004 Rules on
AC No. 8761 Notarial Practice
Melanio Salita vs. Atty. Reynaldo Salve Section 2. Rule II of the 2004 Rules on
AC No. 8101 Notarial Practice
SUSPENSION CASES 1-3
Case Title Canon/s Violated and other
Violations (If any)
Heirs of Pedro Alilano vs. Atty. violation of the provisions
Examen of Notarial Law (duty under
Sec.251, Chapter 11 of the
Revised Administrative
Code); and violation of
Canon 1 and Rule 1.02, CPR
present in court as he testified, were the
same persons who appeared and
acknowledged the document before him.
But it is too much to expect a notary
public who had but a brief time with the
Arguelleses during the notarial ceremony
to remember their faces 12 years later.
What matters is Atty. Saulog, Jr.’s
testimony respecting the ritual of
notarization that he invariably followed.
He gave unbending assurance that he
ascertained the identities of the parties
to documents who appeared before him,
including the Arguelleses, by requiring
them to show documentary proofs of the
same6 and to sign the documents in his
presence.
Atty. Rinen was negligent in not requiring DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned
from the parties to the deed their as a notary public for one year. He is
presentation of documents as proof of WARNED that a repetition of the same or
identity. similar act in the future shall merit a
more severe sanction.
Salita discovered that the Deed of notarial commission, if still existing, is
Absolute Sale had already been hereby REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED
notarized13 by Atty. Salve and his from being commissioned as a notary
Community Tax Certificate Numbers public for a period of two (2) years.
were allegedly falsified.
Brief Description of the Violation (how canon/s was violated) State # of
months/years imposed
and other sanctions
imposed (if any)
Atty. Examen failed to diligently perform functions to personally check 2 years; revocation of
the correctness of the residence certificate number of affiant Ramon notarial commission,
Examen; by his negligent act of not checking work of secretary and disqualification as
merely perfunctorily notarizing documents (Canon 1); and he notary public for 2
undermine functions of diligent lawyer not promoting confidence in years
the legal system(Rule 1.02)
 Espinosa, et al. vs.Osmana preparation and Atty. Osmana prepared and notarized a Kasunduan ng Paghihiwalay 1 year; revocation of
notarization of a void knowing fully well that it has no legal effect and is against public pulicy; notarial commission;
document; violation of Rule and thus engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and suspension as
1.01, Canon 1, CPR violating Rule 1.01 notary public for 2
years

OTHER SANCTIONS
Metropolitan Bank, et al. vs. NONE NONE Petition GRANTED
Arguelles, et al.

SUSPENSION CASES 16-18 SUSPENSION

Case Title Canon/s Violated & Other
Violations (if any)
SUSAN BASIYO vs. Atty.JOSELITO CANON 16 , Rule 16.01,
ALISUAG 16.03, CANON 17, CANON
18, Rule 18.03, and 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice.
JEAN MARIE BOERS vs. ATTY. RULE II, SECTION 1 of the
ROMEO CALUBAQUIB 2004 Rules of Notarial
Practice
Brief Description of the Violation
(how the canon/s was violated)
Atty. Alisuag failed to file the
suit against Ganzon and secured
the required environmental
permits, and when he refused to
account for the amounts given
to him by complainants. As to
the notarial rules he failed to
uphold the same when he
notarized two deeds of sale, one
representing the agreed price
and one with a lesser amount
which he presented before the
BIR for tax purposes.
Calubaquib violated the rule
when he notarized the Deed of
Sale even without the
complainant's personal
appearance before him.
State the Number of Months or Case Title
Years Imposed and Other
Sanctions (if any)
Atty. Alisuag is suspended from SUSAN
the practice of law for 2 years, BASIYO vs.
his notarial commission shall be Atty.JOSELITO
ALISUAG
revoked and he is perpetually
disqualified from being
commissioned as a notary
public. He is also ordered to
render the necessary
accounting in relation to the
purchase of the property and
he is also oredered to return
the remaining unutilized
amount within 60 days.
Atty. Calubaquib is suspended JEAN MARIE
from the practice of law for 2 BOERS vs.
years, his notarial commision is ATTY.
ROMEO
further revoked and is CALUBAQUIB
perpetually disqualified from
being commissioned as a
notary public. He is also sternly
warned that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be
dealt with more severly.
 No violation Atty. KINTANAR did not violate the case was dismissed
any rules in notarizing his wife's
affidavit of loss in 2002, since ROBERTO
there is no prohibition imposed MABINI vs.
ROBERTO MABINI vs. ATTY. VITTO A. upon him under the Revised ATTY. VITTO A.
KINTANAR Administrative Code of 1997. KINTANAR