ATTY. MINIANO B. DELA CRUZ vs. ATTY. ALEJANDRO P. ZABALA A.C. No.

6294, November 17,

De La Cruz vs. Zabala 442 SCRA 407 (2004)

2. Complainant averred that he was retained by a certain Demetrio C. Marero to finance and
undertake the filing of a Petition for the Issuance of a Second Duplicate Original of the Owners copy OCT
in the names of Sps. Pedro Sumulong and Cirila Tapales. However, complainant was not able to register
the property because the property was already registered in the name of Antipolo Properties, Inc.,

3. Mr. Marero filed a Complaint for Reconveyance of Title of the land, subject of the Deed of Sale
which was notarized by respondent, with damages against the complainant and his wife. The Deed of
Sale was the same document Marero used when he filed a complaint for Estafa thru Falsification of Public
Document and in a disbarment case against complainant.

4. Purportedly, to clear his name, complainant filed this complaint for disbarment against respondent.
According to complainant, respondent notarized an irregular document where one of the parties to the
transaction was already dead, grossly violating his oath as a notary public.

5. Respondent, in his Answer alleged that as a notary, he did not have to go beyond the documents
presented to him for notarization. In notarial law, he explains, the minimum requirements to notarize a
document are the presence of the parties and their presentation of their community tax certificate. As long
as these requirements are met, the documents may be notarized. Furthermore, he adds, when he
notarized the Deed of Sale, he had no way of knowing whether the persons who appeared before him
were the real owners of the land or were merely poseurs.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Zabala was violated the Notarial Law?

RULING: Yes. It appears that there was negligence on respondents part which, in our view, is quite
serious. Thus, we cannot conclude that he did not violate the Notarial Law, and our rules regarding
Notarial Practice. Nor could we agree that, as recommended by the IBP, he should only be reprimanded.
At least his commission as Notary Public should be revoked and for two years he should be disqualified
from being commissioned as such.

The IBP noted that on its face, the Deed of Sale was not executed by the purported vendee and that only
Pedro Sumulong appeared and executed the deed even though the property was co-owned by Pedro
Sumulong and Cirila Tapales. In addition, a copy of the title was not attached to the said Deed of Sale
when it was presented for notarization. The aforementioned circumstances should have alerted
respondent. Given the ease with which community tax certificates are obtained these days, respondent
should have been more vigilant in ascertaining the identity of the persons who appeared before him.
Ma. Corazon D. Fulgencio vs. Atty. Bienvenido G. Martin, A.C. No. 3223, May 29, 2003

A notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties
and must not act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction.

Ma. Corazon D. Fulgencio seeks imposition of disciplinary measures against Atty. Bienvenido G. Martin
for falsifying and notarizing two documents of sale in Isabale, Baslian purportedly executed by Fulgencio’s
late husband Kua Se Beng. Fulgencio contends that the two documents could not have been executed by
Kua because he was confined in the hospital at the date when the documents were notarized. Martin
admits that he prepared and notarized the questioned documents without Kua personally appearing
before him. He asserts, however, that he prepared and notarized the deeds upon the express consent
and instructions of Kua. The complaint was referred to the Intergrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
recommendation. Both IBP Board of Governors and IBP Commissioner submitted their recommendations.
They recommended that Atty. Martin be suspended for acting beyond the limits of his jurisdiction.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Martin followed the basic requirements of the practice of notary public

HELD:

The Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors is well-taken. Admittedly, Kua did not appear before
respondent when he notarized the deeds in Basilan as he was then in Makati. Atty. Martin likewise failed
to observe with utmost care a basic requirement in the performance of his duty as a notary public. 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.

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.

As a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, Atty. Martin is mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties
appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.
Faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat
is sacrosanct and, failing therein, he must bear the commensurate consequences. More, Atty. Martin
breached the injunction of the notarial law not to do any notarial act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction.
FLORDELIZA E. COQUIA, Complainant vs. ATTY. EMMANUEL E. LAFORTEZA, Respondent
A.C. No. 9364 [Formerly CBD Case No.13-3696] February 8, 2017

FACTS:
Atty. Laforteza was a former Clerk of RTC Lingayen, Pangasinan from November 2004 until January
2011 before he was transferred to the Department of Justice.

Coquia here alleged that sometime on 2009, Atty. Laforteza conspired with Clemente Solis (Clemente) to
falsify two documents, to wit: (1) an Agreement between Clemente and Coquia, and the (2) Payment
Agreement executed by the latter, and subsequently notarized the said documents. Coquia further
claimed that the documents were forged to make it appear that on the said date, she subscribed and
sworn to the said documents before Atty. Laforteza when in truth and in fact on the said date and time,
she was attending to her classes at the Centro Escolar University in Manila as evidenced by the certified
true copy of the Centro Escolar University Faculty Daily Time Record.

Consequently, Coquia asserted that under the law, Atty. Laforteza is not authorized to administer oath on
documents not related to his functions and duties as Clerk of Court. Hence, this instant complaint for
disbarment for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Laforteza violated the Notarial Law.

HELD:
The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice stresses the necessity of the affiant's personal appearance
before the notary public Rule II, Section 1.

The Supreme Court held that notarization of documents ensures the authenticity and reliability of
a document. Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders it
admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. 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. Notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a
substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or
authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon the public and the courts and administrative
offices generally.
Here, it is undisputed that Atty. Laforteza failed to comply with the rules of notarial law. He
admitted that he notarized a pre-signed subject document presented to him. He also admitted his failure
to personally verify the identity of all parties who purportedly signed the subject documents Such failure to
verify the identities of the parties was further shown by the fact that the pertinent identification details of
the parties to the subject documents, as proof of their identity, were lacking in the subject documents'
acknowledgment portion. Atty. Laforteza even affixed his signature in an incomplete notarial certificate.
From the foregoing, it can be clearly concluded that there was a failure on the part of Atty. Laforteza to
exercise the due diligence required of him as a notary public ex-officio. Therefore, the SC ruled that Atty.
Laforteza's notarial commission, if there is any, is REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from being
commissioned as a notary public for a period of one year.
GREGORY FABAY, Complainant, vs. ATTY. REX A. RESUENA, Respondent.
A.C. No. 8723 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-2974] January 26, 2016

FACTS:
On October 15, 2003, Virginia Perez, Marcella Perez, Amador Perez, Gloria Perez, Gracia Perez
and Valentino Perez (plaintiffs) filed a complaint for ejectment/forcible entry against Gregory Fabay before
the MTC with respondent Atty. Resuena as their counsel.

On the same date, Atty. Resuena notarized a special power of attorney (SPA) with plaintiffs as grantors,
in favor of Apolo D. Perez. However, it appeared that it was only Remedios Perez who actually signed the
SPA in behalf of Amador, Valentino, Gloria and Gracia. Said SPA was recorded in Atty. Resuena's
notarial book.

Later, the ejectment case was decided in favor of the client of Atty. Resuena, however, on appeal, the
RTC ordered the case to be remanded to the court a quo to try the case on the merits wherein it noted
that both Amador Perez and Valentino Perez have already died.

Complainant Fabay alleged that Atty. Resuena violated the provisions of the Notarial Law by notarizing a
special power of attorney notwithstanding the fact that two of the principals therein, Amador and Valentino
were already dead long before the execution of the SPA. Complainant added that Atty. Resuena likewise
notarized a complaint for ejectment in 2003 where Apolo was made to appear as attomey-in-fact of
Amador and Valentino when again the latter could not have possibly authorized him as they were already
dead. Further, complainant averred that Atty. Resuena, as counsel of the plainfiffs, participated in the
barangay conciliations which is prohibited under the law. Hence, this instant complaint for disbarment for
violation of the notarial law and for Atty. Resuena's misconduct as a lawyer.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a violation on notarial law committed by Atty. Resuena.

HELD:
Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice stresses the necessity of the
affiant's personal appearance before the notary public.

The Supreme Court held that 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.
Here, it is undisputed that Atty. Resuena violated not only the notarial law but also his oath as a
lawyer when he notarized the subject SPA without all the affiant's personal appearance. There is no
question then that Atty. Resuena ignored the basics of notarial procedure and actually displayed 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.