instrument.

It cannot be stressed enough that authority granted by his notarial commission

notaries public should be truthful in carrying partakes of malpractice of law and
Case No. 1 Gokioco vs. Mateo A.C. No. 4179,
out their functions. They must observe with the falsicification.
November 11, 2004
highest degree of care the basic requirements
It cannot be over-emphasized that notarization
Facts: Complainant Alice Gokioco filed an in the performance of their duties in order to
is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act.
affidavit complaint against Atty. Mateo before preserve the confidence of the public in the
Notarization is invested with substantive public
the IBP alleging that during the pre-trial integrity of the notarial system.
interest, such that only those who are qualified
conference in a civil case wherein the
Hence, Atty. Mateo was suspended in the or authorized, may act as notaries public. The
complainant was then one of the defendants
practice of law for 6 months and his notarial requirements for the issuance of a commission
the complaint filed against them was subscribed
commission was revoked for 2 years. as notary public are treated with a formality
and sworn before the herein respondent by
definitely more than casual.
SPS. Eustaquio and See Chua-Gokioco last Nov. Case No. 2 Tan Tiong Bio vs. Gonzales A.C. No.
10, 1992 wherein See Chua-Gokioco was 6634 August 23, 2007 Hence. Respondent is permanently barred from
already dead on October 7, 1992. being commissioned as NOTARY PUBLIC. He is
Facts: Complainant alleged that respondent was
furthermore suspended in the practice of law
Atty. Mateo however admitted that he only employed as corporate counsel in Fil-Estate
for 2 years.
entered the fact of the signing and subscribing Properties Inc., (FEPI) where he bought some
on the date when he filed the civil case before parcel of lands. He further stated that the Deed Case No. 3 Uy vs. Sano A.C. No. 6505
the court and all was in good faith since he also of Sale of second parcel of land he bought was September 11, 2008
met the Sps. somewhere between September notarized by respondent outside his notarial
Facts: Complainant Jessica Uy filed a
and October before See Chue-Gokioco died. practice and not having required his presence
disbarment case against Atty. Sano for allegedly
as vendee and the representative of FEPI as
Moreover according to the respondent he notarizing several documents despite the
vendor.
purposely delay the filing of the civil suit hoping expiration of his commission.
that both parties will reach an amicable Complainant further alleged that he was
The former stated that respondent was the
settlement since they are relatives. construed to file a disbarment case and estafa
counsel of Pablo Burgos in a civil case wherein
against the respondent and representative of
Issue: Whether or not the action of respondent in the course of the trial several documents
FEPI because of their refusal to give the
in ante-dating the notary is valid. were being presented before the court that said
Certificate of Title in the parcel of land he
documents were notarized by the latter in the
Ruling: No. Under the Notarial Law, the notary bought despite being fully paid.
period in which his notarial commission was
public shall enter the register in chronological
Issue: WON the action of the respondent is expired.
order, the nature of each instrument, executed,
violative in the Notarial Law.
sworn to or acknowledging the instrument, the Respondent admitted the act complaint of, but
witnesses, if any to the signature, the date of Ruling: Yes. Respondent’s act of notarizing claimed that all his actions were in good faith
execution, oath or acknowledgment of the documents in a place outside of or beyond the because the third party whom he applied for
1
notarial practice assured him that his The former alleged that the latter made Facts: Complainants Maria Bacatan Williams
application was approved. untruthful statements in the acknowledgment and Orlando Verar Rian Jr filed an
portion of the notarized document stating that administrative case against Atty. Rodrigo Icao
Issue: WON respondent’s contention in
they personally appear before him and that for violation of the Notarial Law and for
notarizing said documents is valid.
they affixed their signatures in the document in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful
Ruling: No. His actuation clearly shows his presence also the community tax certificates conduct unbecoming of an attorney
disregard of the requirements for the issuance indicated in the document were not theirs. She
Complainants alleged in the joint Complaint-
of notarial commission. His reason in shifting further alleged that respondent effectively
Affidavit that respondent notarized a
the responsibility of the office aide does not enabled their sister, Navarro to assume full
Declaration of Heirship and Partition making it
strike the Court as the kind diligence properly ownership to their deceased parent’s property
appear that the parties involved signed on the
required of a member of the bar performing his and sell the same to the DPWH.
said document when in truth they did not.
duties as notary public.
Respondent on the other hand admitted that
Also it should be noted that one who is
However respondent contention was he the document was not executed in his presence
performing a notarial act without such
notarized the said document in good faith but claims that he met the parties before the
commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to
relying on the representation and assurance of execution of the said document.
obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial
Zenaida Navarro being his neighbor for 30
Law. Issue: WON the act of respondent is violative in
years.
accordance to Notarial Law.
Hence, respondent was suspended in the
Issue: WON the act of respondent is a violation
practice of law for 6 months and his present Ruling: Yes. He is guilty for breach of the
of Notarial Law.
notarial commission was revoked and was notarial law. It should be noted that
disqualified from reappointment as a notary Ruling: Yes. It should be noted that lawyers notarization is not an empty, meaningless,
public for a period of 2 years. commission as notaries public mandated to routinary act. It is invested with substantive
discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, public face, notaries public must observe with
Case 4 Dela Cruz vs. Dimaano Jr. A.C. No. 7781
such duties being dictated by the public policy utmost care the basic requirements in the
September 12, 2008
and impressed with public interest. performance of their duties, lest the confidence
Facts: Complainant filed a disbarment case of the public in the integrity of the document
Hence, respondent is suspended in the practice
against respondent alleging that the latter will be undermined.
of law for 1 year and was disqualified from
notarized a document denominated as
being commissioned as notary public for a Hence, respondent was suspended in the
Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate with
period of 2 years. practice of law and from his commission as
Waiver of Rights purportedly executed by her
notary public for 1 year.
ans her siblings together with her sister, Case No. 5
Zenaida V.L. Navarro. Case No. 7

2
Facts: Complainant filed a disciplinary action The former alleged that he owns a parcel of the privilege to practice law and to prove
before the IBP against respondent for his failure land which he entrusted the administration to himself worthy of the privilege to practice law.
to perform his duty as a notary public which the latter together with the corresponding
Hence, respondent was disbarred and his name
resulted in the violation of their rights over their owner’s duplicate title and unknown to his
ordered stricken from the roll of attorneys.
property. knowledge the latter through spurious Special
Facts: Complainant filed an administrative Case No. 8 Nevada vs. Casuga A.C. No. 7591
The former alleged that respondent notarized a
complaint against Atty. Contawi for deceit and March 20, 2012.
deed of donation executed by her late husband
gross misconduct in violation of lawyer’s oath,
in favor of one Alexander David T. Linco, a Facts: Complainant seeks the disbarment of
causing him damage and prejudice.
minor. The notarial acknowledgment thereof Atty. Casuga for alleged violation of his lawyer’s
also stated that her late husband and the Power of Attorney (SPA), mortgaged and oath and the 2004 Notarial Practice.
mother of the done personally appeared before subsequently sold the subject property to one
the latter on July 30, 2003 wherein fact her Roberto Ho. Complainant being the principal stockholder of
husband died a day before the alleged date. Mt. Crest Hotel alleged that respondent
Respondent, however averred that it was his entered into a lease contract to Jung Jong Chul
Issue: WON the action of the respondent is former office assistants, Boy Roque and Diaz for an office space in the said property
violative in accordance to the Notarial Law. who offered the subject property to Ho as representing himself as the administrator of the
collateral for a loan nevertheless he admitted hotel the contract was without the knowledge
Ruling: Yes. Respondent chose to ignore the
having confirmed the spurious SPA in his favour of the former. Also complainant further alleged
basics of notarial procedure in order to
upon the prodding of his office assistants that respondent signed over the printed name
accommodate the alleged need of a colleague.
because he was also in need of money at that of one of the principal stockholders and even
The court repeatedly reminding that notaries time. notarized himself. The latter also received 90k
public of the importance attached to the act of as rental deposit.
Issue: WON respondent’s action can disbarred
notarization. Notarization is not empty,
him. Moreover the complainant stated that she
meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with
delivered pieces of jewelry to the latter worth
substantive public interest, such that only those Ruling: Yes. Respondent acted with deceit
300k and a rolex watch worth 12k for purposes
who are qualified or authorized may act as when, through the use of a falsified document,
of selling them however the latter failed to give
notaries public. he effected the unauthorized mortgage and sale
the proceeds or items despite repeated
of his client’s property for his personal benefit.
Hence, respondent is suspended in the practice demands.
of law for 1 year and his notarial commission Respondent’s established acts exhibited his
Issue: WON respondent’s action is violated the
was revoked with a disqualification from unfitness and plain inability to discharge the
lawyer’s oath and the 2004 Notarial Practice.
reappointment as Notary Public for 2 years. bouden duties of a member of the legal
profession. He failed to prove himself worthy of Ruling: Yes. Respondent is guilty of
Case No. 9 Brennisen vs. Atty. Contawi A.C. No.
misrepresentation when he made it appear that
7481 April 24, 2012
3
he was authorized to enter into a contract of On the other hand respondent contention was
lease in behalf of Nevada when, in fact, he was she notarized the said Deed in good faith that
not. Furthermore, the records reveal that complainant never visited said property for 8
respondent received the rentals by virtue of the years implying that there was approval on her
contract of lease, benefitting from his part.
misrepresentation.
Issue: WON the action of the respondent
Aside from being a violation of the Notarial violated the CPR and Notarial Law.
Rules, Casuga’s aforementioned act partakes of
Ruling: Yes. Respondent failure to submit to the
malpractice of law and misconduct.
RTC Clerk of Court her Notarial Register/Report
Hence, respondent was suspended in the for the month of November 1986 and a copy of
practice of law for 4 years also his notarial the Deed of Sale, which was notarized by her
commission was revoked and he was within that month has far-reaching implications
disqualified from being commissioned as a and grave consequences, as it in effect
Notary Public for 4 years. suppressed evidence on the veracity of the said
Deed of Sale and showed the deceitful conduct
No. 11 A.C. No. 4191 June 10, 2013
of respondent to withhold the truth about its
Pena vs. Paterno authenticity.

Facts: Complainant filed an administrative Hence respondent was disbarred from the
complaint against the respondent for acts practice of law and her notarial commissioned
violative of the Code of the Professional was also revoked.
Responsibility and Notarial Law.

Complainant alleged that she owned a parcel of

land located at Parang, Marikina, Metro Manila
that she gave to the respondent her owner’s
duplicate copy to enable respondent to use the
same as collateral in constructing townhouse
and that the title was in the safekeeping of
respondent for seven years. However the
complainant discovered that a building was
erected on her property that the Deed of Sale
was notarized by the respondent without her
knowledge.
4