81 Crisostomo v Nazareno (Justin) Rules of Court, and malpractice as a notary public in violation of the

June 10, 2014 | Perlas-Bernabe, J. | Notarial duties — Code of Professional Responsibility.

3. Complainants individually purchased housing units (subject properties)
in Patricia South Villa Subdivision, Anabu-II, Imus, Cavite, from Rudex
Petitioner: EUPROCINA I. CRISOSTOMO, MARILYN L. SOLIS, EVELYN
International Development Corp. (Rudex).
MARQUIZO, ROSEMARIE BALATUCAN, MILDRED BATANG, MARILEN 4. Due to a lot inadequacies and defects, complainants sought the
MINERALES, and MELINDA D. SIOTING rescission of their respective contracts to sell before the Housing and
Respondents: ATTY. PHILIP Z. A. NAZARENO
Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), seeking the refund of the monthly
amortizations they had paid. Several rescission cases were filed by the
SUMMARY: Atty. Nazareno is the counsel of Rudex. Complaints for rescission of
complainants.
contracts to sell were filed. In the cases, Rudex filed certifications against forum 5. In all the foregoing rescission cases, Rudex was represented by herein
shopping, indicating that there is no pending similar action. Rudex likewise filed six respondent Atty. Nazareno.
complaints for rescission of contracts to sell and ejectment. In the certifications 6. Judgments of default were eventually rendered against Rudex in the first
against forum shopping, it was stated that there is no pending similar action. batch of rescission cases.
Crisostomo and the other complainants now filed a disbarment case against Atty. 7. Rudex filed three (3) petitions for review before the HLURB assailing the
Nazareno. They claimed that Atty. Nazareno made false declarations in the same.
certifications against forum shopping since there are pending similar cases and 8. Rudex filed certifications against forum shopping, indicating that there is
that Atty. Nazareno committed malpractice as a notary public since he only no pending similar action
assigned one document number in all the certifications against forum shopping. 9. In the certifications against forum shopping attached to the petitions,
IBP recommended the penalty of suspension of one month. Issue: Whether or not
Rudex, through its President Ruben P. Baes, and legal counsel Atty.
Atty. Nazareno should be held administratively liable – YES. The notary public, Nazareno, stated that it has not commenced or has knowledge of any
who has personal knowledge of a false statement or information contained in the similar action or proceeding involving the same issues pending before
instrument to be notarized and affixed his or her notarial seal on it, violates Canon any court, tribunal or agency.
1 of the CPR and Rule 1.01 of CPR. Since Atty. Nazareno knows the existence of 10. Notwithstanding the fact that Rudex, under the representation of Atty.
the false statement in the Certifications against forum shopping and notarized Nazareno, previously filed an ejectment case on September 9, 2002
such, he violated the Code and is thus permanently disqualified from being against Sioting and her husband, before the Municipal Trial Court of
commissioned as a notary public. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, Imus, Cavite
routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those 11. On February 21, 2005, complainants jointly filed the present
who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Nazareno, claiming
that in the certifications against forum shopping attached to the
DOCTRINE: Where admittedly the notary public has personal knowledge of a
complaints for rescission and ejectment of Rudex filed while Atty.
false statement or information contained in the instrument to be notarized, yet Nazareno was its counsel.
proceeds to affix his or her notarial seal on it, the Court must not hesitate to 12. Nazareno made false declarations that no similar actions have been
discipline the notary public accordingly as the circumstances of the case may commenced by Rudex or remained pending before any other court,
dictate. This is a violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility tribunal or agency when, in fact, similar actions or proceedings for
and Rule 1.01 of the Code. rescission had been filed by complainants before the HLURB against
Rudex and Atty. Nazareno, and an ejectment complaint was filed by
FACTS: Rudex, represented by Atty. Nazareno, against Sps. Sioting.
1. This is an administrative complaint filed by complainants Euprocina I. 13. Complainants asserted that Atty. Nazareno committed malpractice as a
Crisostomo (Crisostomo), Marilyn L. Solis (Solis), Evelyn Marquizo notary public since he only assigned one (1) document in all the
(Marquizo), Rosemarie Balatucan (Balatucan), Mildred Batang (Batang), certifications against forum shopping that were separately attached to
Marilen Minerales (Minerales), and Melinda D. Sioting (Sioting) against the six (6) April 1, 2004 complaints for rescission and ejectment.
respondent Atty. Philip Z. A. Nazareno. 14. IBP Investigating Commissioner: Recommended the suspension of
2. He was charged with making false declarations in the certifications against Atty. Nazareno for a period of six (6) months for his administrative
forum shopping subject of this c”ase in disregard of Section 5, Rule 7 of the violations.

1
 15. IBP Board of Governors: Adopted and approved the Investigating 11. When a notary public certifies to the due execution and delivery of the
Commissioner's Report and Recommendation, but modified the document under his hand and seal he gives the document the force of
recommended penalty from a suspension of six (6) months to only one (1) evidence.
month. 12. 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
ISSUE/S: falsehood or consent to the doing of any. 

1. Whether or Not Atty. Nazareno should be held administratively liable – YES
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Philip Z. A. Nazareno is found
RATIO: GUILTY of making false declarations in the certifications against forum shopping
On whether Atty. Nazareno should be held administratively liable … - YES subject of this case, as well as malpractice as a notary public. Accordingly, he is
1. In this case, it has been established that Atty. Nazareno made false SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon
declarations in the certifications against forum shopping attached to his receipt of this Decision, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the
Rudex's pleadings, for which he should be held administratively liable. same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Further, he is
2. Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, the submission of false PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public
entries in a certification against forum shopping constitutes indirect or direct and, his notarial commission, if currently existing, is hereby REVOKED.
contempt of court, and subjects the erring counsel to the corresponding Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be
administrative and criminal actions. appended to respondent's personal record as attorney. Likewise, copies shall be
3. Atty. Nazareno is guilty of malpractice as a notary public, considering that furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for
he assigned only one document number (i.e., Doc. No. 1968) to the their information and guidance.
certifications against forum shopping attached to the six (6) April 1, 2004
complaints for rescission and ejectment despite the fact that each of them
should have been treated as a separate notarial act.
4. It is a standing rule that for every notarial act, the notary shall record in the
notarial register at the time of the notarization, among others, the entry and
page number of the document notarized, and that he shall give to each
instrument or document executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a
number corresponding to the one in his register.
5. Evidently, Atty. Nazareno did not comply with the foregoing rule.
6. Atty. Nazareno notarized the certifications against forum shopping attached
to all the aforementioned complaints, fully aware that they identically
asserted a material falsehood.
7. The administrative liability of an erring notary public in this respect was
clearly delineated as a violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code.
8. In Heirs of the Late Spouses Villanueva v. Atty. Beradio, the lawyer who
knowingly notarized a document containing false statements had his
notarial commission revoked and was suspended for a period of one year.
Due to the multiplicity of his infractions, coupled with his willful malfeasance
in discharging the office, the Court deems it proper to revoke his existing
commission and permanently disqualify him from being commissioned as a
notary public.
9. 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.
10. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.