ASSIGNED CASES: November 6, 2002 was filed before the Prosecutor's

Office that she (respondent) was reminded of the

1. A.C. Nos. 5907 and 5942. July 21, 2006. - erroneous entries, hence, she had her secretary make
AMBOL the corrections on November 8, 2002. respondent
ELSA L. MONDEJAR, complainant, vs. further claimed that she retained the original January
ATTY. VIVIAN G. RUBIA, respondent. 9, 2001 date of the document since the "documents
which [she] notarized for the year 2001" were not yet
NOTARIAL PRACTICE DOCTRINE : 2004 Rules on submitted as her notarial commission was to expire
Notarial Practice yet on the last day of December, 2002

ISSUE: WON THE REASONS PROFFERED BY ATTY

1. One of the grounds for revocation of RUBIA IS TENABLE.
notarial commission is the failure of
the notary to send a copy of notarized RULING: NO. The document clearly appears to have
documents to the proper clerk of court or been ante-dated in an attempt to exculpate Marilyn
Executive Judge (under the 2004 Rules from the Anti-Dummy charge against her in 2002.
on Notarial Practice) within the first ten
(10) days of the month next following. The document was allegedly notarized on January 9,
2. Notarization by a notary public converts a 2001 but a new revised/amended document was made
private document into a public document, in 2002 bearing the original date of
thus rendering the document admissible execution/acknowledgment. If that were so, how could
in evidence without further proof of its an error have been committed regarding the other year
authenticity. 2001 original entries in the notarial register, when the
3. Lawyers commissioned as notaries public purported new document was to retain the original
are thus mandated to subscribe to the January 9, 2001 date as it would merely input
sacred duties appertaining to their office, additional conditions thereto? The above-quoted
such duties being dictated by public discussion by the Investigating IBP Commissioner of
policy impressed with public interest. A why he discredited respondent's explanation behind
graver responsibility is placed upon them the conflicting dates appearing in the document is
by reason of their solemn oath to obey the thus well-taken.
laws, to do no falsehood or consent to the
doing of any, and to guard against any
As for respondent's submission that corrections could
illegal or immoral arrangement, and other
be subsequently made on the document, she not
duties and responsibilities.
having anyway submitted the documents she
notarized for the year 2001 since her notarial
commission was still to expire in 2002, the same does
FACTS: Elsa L. Mondejar (complainant Mondejar) not lie.
sought the disbarment of Atty. Vivian G. Rubia
(respondent Atty. Rubia) and the cancellation of her One of the grounds for revocation of notarial
notarial commission. commission is the failure of the notary to send a copy
of notarized documents to the proper clerk of court or
In 2002, Complainant charged Marilyn Carido Executive Judge (under the 2004 Rules on Notarial
(Marilyn) and her common law husband Japanese Practice) within the first ten (10) days of the month next
national Yoshimi Nakayama of violation of the Anti- following.
dummy law. When they made it look like Marilyn
Owns a business called Bamiyan when in fact it is 2. A.C. No. 9514. April 10, 2013. - BANGGAT
Nakayama who owns it. To disprove Mondejar’s claim BERNARD N. JANDOQUILE, Complainant,
Marilyn and Nakayama submitted a Joint Venture vs. ATTY. QUIRINO P. REVILLA, JR.,
Agreement executed in 2001 notarized by Atty. Rubia. Respondent.

Complainant charged Respondent of ante dating a Facts: The facts of the case are not disputed.
document in an attempt to exculpate Marilyn Carido
from the Anti-Dummy charge against her in 2002. Atty. Revilla, Jr. notarized a complaint-affidavit[2]
signed by Heneraline L. Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas
Pedrosa and Elmer L. Alvarado. Heneraline Brosas is
Respondent claimed that the document was created on a sister of Heizel Wynda Brosas Revilla, Atty. Revilla,
January 9, 2001 but she made a "new and/or revised Jr.'s wife. Jandoquile complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr.
agreement" in 2002 to incorporate additional is disqualified to perform the notarial act[3] per
conditions thereto, retaining, however, its original date Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
– January 9, 2001; that on noticing that the document Practice which reads as follows:
"mistakenly or erroneously [b]ore the series of 2002 in
[her] notarial register and likewise b[ore] her new . . . SEC. 3. Disqualifications. A notary public is
[PTR] No. and IBP No. for the year 2002," she disqualified from performing a notarial act if he: x x x x
instructed her secretary to make the necessary (c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor,
corrections, but on account of her workload, she forgot descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of
to remind her secretary to comply therewith; and that the principal[4] within the fourth civil degree.
it was only after Marilyn's Counter-Affidavit of
Jandoquile also complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. did instrument or document in the presence of the notary;
not require the three affiants in the complaint-affidavit and (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary
to show their valid identification cards. public as to such instrument or document. In this
case, Heneraline Brosas is a sister of Atty. Revilla, Jr.'s
In his comment to the disbarment complaint, Atty. wife; Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa is his wife's sister-in-
Revilla, Jr. did not deny but admitted Jandoquile's law; and Elmer Alvarado is the live-in houseboy of the
material allegations. The issue, according to Atty. Brosas family. Atty. Revilla, Jr. knows the three
Revilla, Jr., is whether the single act of notarizing the affiants personally. Thus, he was justified in no longer
complaint-affidavit of relatives within the fourth civil requiring them to show valid identification cards. But
degree of affinity and, at the same time, not requiring Atty. Revilla, Jr. is not without fault for failing to
them to present valid identification cards is a ground indicate such fact in the "jurat" of the complaint-
for disbarment. Atty. Revilla, Jr. submits that his act affidavit. No statement was included therein that he
is not a ground for disbarment. He also says that he knows the three affiants personally. Let it be
acts as counsel of the three affiants; thus, he should impressed that Atty. Revilla, Jr. was clearly
be considered more as counsel than as a notary public disqualified to notarize the complaint-affidavit of his
when he notarized their complaint-affidavit. relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity.
While he has a valid defense as to the second charge,
He did not require the affiants to present valid it does not exempt him from liability for violating the
identification cards since he knows them personally. disqualification rule.
Heneraline Brosas and Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa are
sisters-in-law while Elmer Alvarado is the live-in To our mind, Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not commit any
houseboy of the Brosas family. deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct or gross
immoral conduct, or any other serious ground for
Issue: Whether Atty. Revilla, Jr. violated the disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
disqualification rule under Section 3(c), Rule IV of the Court.
2004 Rules on Notarial Practic, thus, a ground for
disbarment. We were convinced that said punishment, which is
less severe than disbarment, would already suffice as
Ruling: Indeed, Atty. Revilla, Jr. violated the sanction for Cortez's violation. In Cortez, we noted the
disqualification rule under Section 3(c), Rule IV of the prohibition in Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. We agree with him, on Notarial Practice that a person shall not perform a
however, that his violation is not a sufficient ground notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the
for disbarment. instrument or document (1) is not in the notary's
presence personally at the time of the notarization and
Atty. Revilla, Jr.'s violation of the aforesaid (2) is not personally known to the notary public or
disqualification rule is beyond dispute. Atty. Revilla, otherwise identified by the notary public through a
Jr. readily admitted that he notarized the complaint- competent evidence of identity.
affidavit signed by his relatives within the fourth civil
degree of affinity. Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Cortez had notarized a special power of attorney
Rules on Notarial Practice clearly disqualifies him from without having the alleged signatories appear before
notarizing the complaint-affidavit, from performing the him. In imposing the less severe punishment, we were
notarial act, since two of the affiants or principals are mindful that removal from the Bar should not really be
his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. decreed when any punishment less severe such as
reprimand, temporary suspension or fine would
Given the clear provision of the disqualification rule, it accomplish the end desired.
behooved upon Atty. Revilla, Jr. to act with prudence
and refuse notarizing the document. We cannot agree 3. G.R. No. 157434. September 19, 2006. -
with his proposition that we consider him to have BUENAFLOR
acted more as counsel of the affiants, not as notary SPOUSES CLARO and NIDA BAUTISTA,
public, when he notarized the complaint-affidavit. The petitioners, vs. BERLINDA F. SILVA,
notarial certificate at the bottom of the complaint- Represented by HERMES J. DORADO, in
affidavit shows his signature as a notary public, with a his capacity as Attorney-In-Fact
notarial commission valid until December 31, 2012.
He cannot therefore claim that he signed it as counsel Facts: The undisputed facts of the case, as found by
of the three affiants. the RTC, are as follows:

On the second charge, we agree with Atty. Revilla, Jr. That Transfer Certificate of Title No. B-37189 of the
that he cannot be held liable. If the notary public Registry of Deeds for xxx Metro Manila District III over
knows the affiants personally, he need not require a parcel of land (Lot 42, Block 10, of the subdivision
them to show their valid identification cards. This rule plan (LRC) Psd-210217, Sheet 2, being a portion of Lot
is supported by the definition of a "jurat" under 903, Malinta Estate, LRC Record No. 5941) situated in
Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial xxx Barrio of Parada, Valenzuela, Metro Manila,
Practice. A "jurat" refers to an act in which an containing an area of 216 square meters, more or less,
individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person was registered in the names of Spouses Berlina F.
before the notary public and presents an instrument Silva and Pedro M. Silva on August 14, 1980;
or document; (b) is personally known to the notary
public or identified by the notary public through That on March 3, 1988, Pedro M. Silva, for himself and
competent evidence of identity; (c) signs the as attorney-in-fact of his wife Berlina F. Silva, thru a
Special Power of Attorney purportedly executed on of the seller as well as into the latter’s capacity to sell;
November 18, 1987 by Berlina F. Silva in his favor, and that in his inquiry, he relied on the notarial
signed and executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the acknowledgment found in the seller’s duly notarized
said parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of special power of attorney. He need not prove anything
Title No. B-37189 in favor of defendants-spouses Claro more for it is already the function of the notarial
Bautista and Nida Bautista; and acknowledgment to establish the appearance of the
parties to the document, its due execution and
That as a consequence, Transfer Certificate of Title No. authenticity.
37189 was cancelled and in lieu thereof, Transfer
Certificate of Title No. V-2765 of the Registry of Deeds A notarial seal is a mark, image or impression on a
for the Valenzuela Branch was issued in the names of document which would indicate that the notary public
Spouses Claro Bautista and Nida Bautista on March 4, has officially signed it.—Said photocopy of the SPA
1988. contains no notarial seal. A notarial seal is a mark,
image or impression on a document which would
Issue: Whether or not there was a valid Special indicate that the notary public has officially signed it.
Power of Attorney? There being no notarial seal, the signature of the
notary public on the notarial certificate was therefore
Ruling: YES incomplete. The notarial certificate being deficient, it
was as if the notarial acknowledgment was unsigned.
To require of a buyer an investigation not only into the The photocopy of the SPA has no notarial
whereabouts of the principal at the time of the acknowledgment to speak of. It was a mere private
execution of the Special Power of Attorney but also document which petitioners cannot foist as a banner
into the genuineness of the signature appearing on it of good faith.
is too stringent that to adopt the same would be to
throw commerce into madness where buyers run 4. A.C. No. 7036. June 29, 2009. - DE GALA
around to probe the circumstances surrounding each JUDGE LILY LYDIA A. LAQUINDANUM,
piece of sales document while sellers scramble to Complainant, vs. ATTY. NESTOR Q.
produce evidence of good order.—The RTC and CA, QUINTANA, Respondent.
however, found such inquiry superficial. They expected
of petitioners an investigation not only into the 5. A.C. No. 7350. February 18, 2013. -
whereabouts of respondent at the time of the DELUTE
execution of the SPA but also into the genuineness of PATROCINIO V. AGBULOS, Complainant,
the signature appearing on it. We find such vs. ATTY. ROSELLER A. VIRAY,
requirements of the RTC and CA too stringent that to Respondent.
adopt them would be to throw commerce into madness
where buyers run around to probe the circumstances Doctrine: To be sure, a notary public should not
surrounding each piece of sales document while sellers notarize a document unless the person who signed the
scramble to produce evidence of its good order. same is the very same person who executed and
Remember that it is not just any scrap of paper that is personally appeared before him to attest to the contents
under scrutiny but a SPA, the execution and and the truth of what are stated therein. Without the
attestation of which a notary public has intervened. appearance of the person who actually executed the
document in question, the notary public would be
Doctrine: unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the
acknowledging party and to ascertain that the
Notarial Law - When the document under scrutiny is a document is the party’s free act or deed.
special power of attorney that is duly notarized, we
know it to be a public document where the notarial Facts: The case stemmed from a Complaint filed
acknowledgment is prima facie evidence of the fact of before the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) by
its due execution. A buyer presented with such a complainant Mrs. Patrocinio V. Agbulos against
document would have no choice between knowing and respondent Atty. Roseller A. Viray of Asingan,
finding out whether a forger lurks beneath the Pangasinan, for allegedly notarizing a document
signature on it. The notarial acknowledgment has denominated as Affidavit of Non-Tenancy in violation
removed that choice from him and replaced it with a of the Notarial Law. The said affidavit was supposedly
presumption sanctioned by law that the affiant executed by complainant, but the latter denies said
appeared before the notary public and acknowledged execution and claims that the signature and the
that he executed the document, understood its import community tax certificate (CTC) she allegedly
and signed it. In reality, he is deprived of such choice presented are not hers. She further claims that the
not because he is incapable of knowing and finding CTC belongs to a certain Christian Anton.
out but because, under our notarial system, he has Complainant added that she did not personally appear
been given the luxury of merely relying on the before respondent for the notarization of the
presumption of regularity of a duly notarized SPA. And document. She, likewise, states that respondent's
he cannot be faulted for that because it is precisely client, Rolando Dollente (Dollente), benefited from the
that fiction of regularity which holds together said falsified affidavit as it contributed to the illegal
commercial transactions across borders and time. In transfer of a property registered in her name to that of
sum, all things being equal, a person dealing with a Dollente.
seller who has possession and title to the property but
whose capacity to sell is restricted, qualifies as a buyer In his Comment, respondent admitted having prepared
in good faith if he proves that he inquired into the title and notarized the document in question at the request
of his client Dollente, who assured him that it was Facts: Sometime in late 2013, Complainants Orlando
personally signed by complainant and that the CTC S. Castelo, Elena C. Cama, Oswaldo Castelo, Jocelyn
appearing therein is owned by her. He, thus, claims Llanillo, and Benjamin Castelo (Castelo heirs) received
good faith in notarizing the subject document. summons from the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch
22, Manila (MeTC) for an ejectment case 2 filed against
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Viray violated the them by Leonida Delen and Spouses Nestor Delen and
Notarial Law. Julibel Delen (the Delens), who alleged that they were
the owners of the house and lot located at 2511 A.
Ruling: YES. Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Sulu Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila (subject property). The
Rules on Notarial Practice emphasizes the subject property was then the residence of the Castelo
necessity of the affiant’s personal appearance heirs,3 and was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
before the notary public: x x x (b) A person shall not (TCT) No. 291223 of the Registry of Deeds for the City
perform a notarial act if the person involved as of Manila (RD) in the name of the Delens. 4
signatory to the instrument or document – (1) is not in
the notary’s presence personally at the time of the Upon verifying the authenticity of TCT No. 291223
notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the with the RD, the Castelo heirs discovered that the
notary public or otherwise identified by the notary previous title covering the subject property, TCT No.
public through competent evidence of identity as 240995, which was in the name of the Castelo heirs'
defined by these Rules. parents, Spouses Benjamin Castelo and Perzidia 5 S.
Castelo (Spouses Castelo), had been cancelled 6 by
Moreover, Section 12, Rule II, of the 2004 Rules on virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 24,
Notarial Practice defines the "competent evidence of 2010 (Deed).7 The Deed was purportedly executed by
identity" referred to above. the Spouses Castelo and the Delens, and was
notarized by Respondent Atty. Ronald Segundino C.
In this case, respondent admits that not only did he Ching (Atty. Ching), despite the fact that Perzidia S.
prepare and notarize the subject affidavit but he Castelo died on May 4, 2009, 8 as shown in her Death
likewise notarized the same without the affiant’s Certificate.9 The Castelo heirs also learned that the
personal appearance. He explained that he did so acknowledgment page of the Deed showed that only
merely upon the assurance of his client Dollente that community tax certificates had been presented to Atty.
the document was executed by the complainant. In Ching, and not valid government issued identification
notarizing the document, respondent contented cards as required by the 2004 Rules on Notarial
himself with the presentation of a CTC despite the Practice.10
Rules’ clear requirement of presentation of competent
evidence of identity such as an identification card with
With this discovery, the Castelo heirs filed on June 2,
photograph and signature. With this indiscretion,
2014 with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
respondent failed to ascertain the genuineness of the
this administrative case against Atty. Ching based on
affiant’s signature which turned out to be a forgery. In
the latter's gross negligence in notarizing the Deed. 11
failing to observe the requirements of the Rules, even
the CTC presented, purportedly owned by the
complainant, turned out to belong to somebody else. Atty. Ching, for his part, denied having notarized the
Deed. He countered that he did not know the Spouses
Respondent’s failure to perform his duty as a notary Castelo and the Delens, and that the Deed presented
public resulted not only damage to those directly by the Castelo heirs had been falsified. Atty. Ching
affected by the notarized document but also in continued that his purported signature in the Deed
undermining the integrity of a notary public and in was forged.12 To prove the alleged forgery, Atty. Ching
degrading the function of notarization. He should, presented specimens of his signatures that he used in
thus, be held liable for such negligence not only as a signing pleadings and notarizing documents. 13
notary public but also as a lawyer.The responsibility to
faithfully observe and respect the legal solemnity of the In the November 13, 2014 resetting of the mandatory
oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is more conference which was the last,19 Atty. Ching's notarial
pronounced when the notary public is a lawyer books were presented. 20 However, Atty. Ching failed to
because of his solemn oath under the Code of attend the said conference and refute the authenticity
Professional Responsibility to obey the laws and to do of the Deed. Upon verification, the IBP concluded that
no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. Lawyers the copy of the Deed presented by the Castelo heirs in
commissioned as notaries public are mandated to their Complaint was indeed a faithful machine copy of
discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, such the original contained in Atty. Ching's notarial books. 21
duties being dictated by public policy and impressed Thereafter, the Castelo heirs submitted their position
with public interest. paper.22 Atty. Ching, however, failed to submit his.

6. A.C. No. 11165, February 06, 2017. - After due proceedings, Commissioner Eduardo R.
DIANA Robles (Commissioner Robles) rendered a Report and
Recommendation23 on December 3, 2014, finding that
ORLANDO S. CASTELO, ELENA C. CAMA, Atty. Ching was grossly negligent in notarizing the
OSWALDO CASTELO, JOCELYN LLANILLO, AND Deed.24 Hence, respondent's notarial commission be
BENJAMIN CASTELO, Complainants, v. ATTY. cancelled immediately, and that he be disqualified
RONALD SEGUNDINO C. CHING, Respondent. from ever being commissioned again as notary
public.25
Issue: Whether or not Atty Chings Notary Public be on the part of the Castelo heirs, which no amount of
revoked. Yes. money could ever match. One can just imagine the
pain and anguish of losing a home to unscrupulous
Gross negligence on the part of a notary public people who were able to transfer title to such property
encompasses the failure to observe any of the and file a case in court in order to eject them - all
requirements of a notarial act under the 2004 Rules because of the negligence of a notary public in keeping
on Notarial Practice which would result in putting the his notarial books and instruments from falling into
rights of a person to his liberty or property in jeopardy. the wrong hands.
This includes, among others, failing to require the
presence of the signatories to a notarial instrument A final note from SC
and ascertaining their identities through competent
evidence thereof,28 and allowing, knowingly or “this case should serve as a reminder for notaries
unknowingly, people, other than the notary public public, as well as for lawyers who are applying for a
himself, to sign notarial documents, affix the notarial commission, that the duty to public service and to
seal therein, and make entries in the notarial the administration of public justice is the primary
register.29 consideration in the practice of law. This duty to
public service is made more important when a
In Spouses Santuyo v. Hidalgo, the court ruled that lawyer is commissioned as a notary public. Like
respondent negligent in performing his notarial the duty to defend a client's cause within the
functions, the IBP reasoned out: x x x x bounds of law, a notary public has the additional
duty to preserve public trust and confidence in his
Considering that the responsibility attached to a office38 by observing extra care and diligence in
notary public is sensitive respondent should have been ensuring the integrity of every document that
more discreet and cautious in the execution of his comes under his notarial seal, and seeing to it that
duties as such and should not have wholly entrusted only documents that he personally inspected and
everything to the secretaries; otherwise he should not whose signatories he personally identified are
have been commissioned as notary public. recorded in his notarial books. In addition, notaries
public should properly secure the equipment they
use in performing notarial acts, in order for them
In this case, Commissioner Robles observed that while
not to fall into the wrong hands, and be used in
Atty. Ching denied having notarized the Deed 32 by
acts that would undermine the public's trust and
showing the discrepancy between his purported
confidence in the office of the notary public.”
signature therein33 and the specimen signatures 34 he
submitted in his Answer, he miserably failed to explain
how the Deed ended up in his notarial books.
Commissioner Robles concluded that while it would
not be fair to conclude that Atty. Ching actually signed
the Deed, he was nonetheless grossly negligent for
failing to give a satisfactory reason why a supposedly
forged Deed was duly recorded in his notarial books. 35

The Court completely agrees with Commissioner

Robles' observation. While there may be reasons to
give Atty. Ching the benefit of the doubt as to who
signed the Deed, the Court does not and cannot lose
sight of the fact that Atty. Ching still failed in ensuring
that only documents which he had personally signed
and sealed with his notarial seal, after satisfying
himself with the completeness of the same and the
identities of the parties who affixed their signatures
therein, would be included in his notarial register. This
also means that Atty. Ching failed to properly store
and secure his notarial equipment in order to prevent
other people from notarizing documents by forging his
signature and affixing his notarial seal, and recording
such documents in his notarial books, without his
knowledge and consent. This is gross negligence.

Such gross negligence on the part of Atty. Ching in

letting another person notarize the Deed had also
unduly put the Castelo heirs in jeopardy of losing their
property. To make matters worse, the real property
subject of the Deed was the residence, nay, the family
home of the Castelo heirs, a property that their
parents had worked hard for in order to provide them
and their children a decent shelter and the primary
place where they could bond together as a family - a
property which had already acquired sentimental value