SANTUYO V HIDALGO

CORONA; January 17, 2005

NATURE

Administrative case in SC for Serious Misconduct and Dishonesty

FACTS

- Petitioners Benjamin Santuyo and Editha Santuyo accused respondent Atty. Edwin Hidalgo of serious misconduct and dishonesty
for breach of his lawyer’s oath and notarial law
- In Dec 1991, couple purchased parcel of land covered by deed of sale

- It was allegedly notarized by Hidalgo and entered in his notarial register

- Six years later, couple had dispute with Danilo German over ownership of said land; German presented an affidavit executed by
Hidalgo denying authenticity of his signature on deed of sale

Petitioners' Claim

- Hidalgo overlooked the fact that deed of sale contained ALL the legal formalities of a duly notarized document (including
impression of his notarial dry seal)

- Santuyos could not have forged the signature, not being learned in technicalities surrounding notarial act

- They had no access to his notarial seal and notarial register, and they could not have made any imprint of his seal or signature.

Respondents' Comments
- He denied having notarized any deed of sale for disputed property.

- He once worked as junior lawyer at Carpio General and Jacob Law Office; and admitted that he notarized several documents in
that office.

- As a matter of procedure, documents were scrutinized by senior lawyers, and only with their approval could notarization be done.

- In some occasions, secretaries (by themselves) would affix dry seal of junior associates on documents relating to cases handled
by the law firm.

- He normally required parties to exhibit community tax certificates and to personally acknowledge documents before him as notary
public.

- He knew Editha, but only met Benjamin in Nov 1997 (Meeting was arranged by Editha so as to personally acknowledge another
document)

- His alleged signature on deed of sale was forged (strokes of a lady)

- At time it was supposedly notarized, he was on vacation.

ISSUES

1. WON the signature of respondent on the deed of sale was forged

2. WON respondent is guilty of negligence

 HELD

1. Yes.

Ratio The alleged forged signature was different from Hidalgo’s signatures in other documents submitted during the investigation.

Reasoning Santuyos did not state that they personally appeared before respondent. They were also not sure if he signed the
document; only that his signature appeared on it. They had no personal knowledge as to who actually affixed the signature.

2. Yes.

Ratio He was negligent for having wholly entrusted the preparation and other mechanics of the document for notarization to the
office secretaries, including safekeeping of dry seal and making entries in notarial register.

Reasoning Responsibility attached to a notary public is sensitive, and respondent should have been more discreet and cautious.

Disposition Atty. Hidalgo is suspended from his commission as notary public for two (2) years for negligence in the performance
of duties as notary public.

13 SICAT v ARIOLA

Facts:
 Arturo Sicat, Board Member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Rizal charged Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola of committing fraud, deceit,
and falsehood in notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA).
 Said SPA was purportedly executed by Juanito Benitez, of the JC Benitez Architect and Technical Management. Said company had a
contract with the Municipality of Cainta for the construction of low cost houses.
 What is fraudulent about it is the fact that the SPA was notarized more than 2 months after the death of Benitez, the person who
supposedly executed it.
 P3,700T was paid to JC Benitez Architect and Technical Management for services not rendered (as consultants).
 Ariola claims that the document he notarized was superfluous and unnecessary, and prejudiced no one, and therefore he should be
exonerated – the document was cancelled the same day he notarized it, hence legally there was no public document that existed.

Issue:
 W/N Ariola can be held liable.

Held:
 Yes.
 Notaries public should not authenticate documents unless the persons who signed them are the very same persons who executed
them an personally appeared before the, to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.
 His assertion of falsehood in a public document contravened one of the most cherished tenets of the legal profession and potentially
cast suspicion on the truthfulness of every notarial act.
 Ariola is disbarred, and not merely suspended for a year.

Without the fraudulent SPA, the erring parties in the construction project could not have encashed
the check amounting to P3,700,000 and could not have foisted on the public a spurious contract ―
all to the extreme prejudice of the very Municipality of which he was the Administrator. According to
the COA Special Task Force:

Almost all acts of falsification of public documents as enumerated in Article 171 in relation to
Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code were evident in the transactions of the Municipality of
Cainta with J.C. Benitez & Architects Technical Management for the consultancy services in
the conduct of Detailed Feasibility Study and Detailed Engineering Design of the Proposed
Construction of Cainta Municipal Medium Rise Low Cost Housing, in the contract amount
of P11,000,000. The agent resorted to misrepresentation, manufacture or fabrication of
fictitious document, untruthful narration of facts, misrepresentation, and counterfeiting or
imitating signature for the purpose of creating a fraudulent contract. All these were tainted
 with deceit perpetrated against the government resulting to undue injury. The first and partial
payment, in the amount of P3,700,000.00 was made in the absence of the required outputs

A.C. 5907, July 21, 2006

ELSA MONDEJAR vs. ATTY. VIVIAN RUBIA

The document clearly appears to have been ante-dated in an attempt to exculpate Marilyn from the Anti-Dummy charge against
her in 2002.

The document was allegedly notarized on January 9, 2001 but a new revised/amended document was made in 2002 bearing the
original date of execution/acknowledgment. If that were so, how could an error have been committed regarding the other year
2001 original entries in the notarial register, when the purported new document was to retain the original January 9, 2001 date as
it would merely input additional conditions thereto? The above-quoted discussion by the Investigating IBP Commissioner of why
he discredited respondent’s explanation behind the conflicting dates appearing in the document is thus well-taken.