Bautista vs. Atty. Bernabe (Digested)

A.C. No.
6963 February 9, 2006
VICTORINA BAUTISTA, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. SERGIO E. BERNABE, Respondent.
FACTS: Victorina Bautista filed a complaint before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for the suspension or disbarment of respondent Atty.
Sergio E. Bernabe for malpractice and unethical conduct in the performance of his duties
as a notary public and a lawyer.
Complainant alleged that on January 3, 1998 respondent prepared and notarized

a Magkasanib na Salaysay3 (document in issue) purportedly executed by Donato
Salonga and complainant’s mother, Basilia de la Cruz. Complainant claimed that her mother
could not have executed the joint affidavit on January 3, 1998 because she has been dead
since January 28, 1961.
In his Answer,6 respondent disclaimed any knowledge about Basilia’s death. He alleged

that before he notarized the document, he requested for Basilia’s presence and in her
absence, he allowed a certain Pronebo, allegedly a son-in-law of Basilia, to sign above
the name of the latter as shown by the word "by" on top of the name of Basilia. He
maintained that there was no forgery since the signature appearing on top of Basilia’s
name was the signature of Pronebo.
Respondent filed a manifestation7 attaching thereto the affidavit of desistance8 of

complainant. Stated therein is her alleged involuntariness to file the complaint against Atty.
Bernabe, that she was misled to sign her “Sinumpaang Salaysay” and that she did not
signed it in the presence of a notary public, finally, that she wants to withdraw her
complaint against Atty. Bernabe.
ISSUE: WON the respondent is liable for the alleged falsification of the document in issue
which constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING: Yes. Respondent’s act of notarizing the Magkasanib na Salaysay in the absence

of one of the affiants is in violation of Rule 1.01,12 Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Notarial Law.13 By affixing his signature and notarial seal on the
instrument, he has led everyone to believe that Basilia personally appeared before him
and attested to the truth and veracity of the contents of the affidavit when in fact it was a
certain Pronebo who signed the document.
Respondent’s conduct is fraught with dangerous possibilities considering the

conclusiveness on the due execution of a document that our courts and the public
accord on notarized documents. Respondent has clearly failed to exercise utmost
diligence in the performance of his function as a notary public and to comply with the
mandates of the law.14
Respondent was also remiss in his duty when he allowed Pronebo to sign in behalf of
Basilia. A member of the bar who performs an act as 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. The acts of the affiants cannot be delegated
to anyone for what are stated therein are facts of which they have personal knowledge.
They should swear to the document personally and not through any representative.
Complainant’s desistance or withdrawal of the complaint does not exonerate respondent
or put an end to the administrative proceedings. A case of suspension or disbarment
may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant. What matters is
whether or not the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been proven. This rule
is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings.
A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not a civil action where the complainant is a
plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no
private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and
prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of
preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in
them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of
the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the
attorney’s alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the
outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.16
WHEREFORE, for breach of the Notarial Law and Code of Professional Responsibility, the
notarial commission of respondent Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe, is REVOKED. He
is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two years. He is
also SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one year, effective immediately.
He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or of similar acts shall be dealt with
more severely. He is DIRECTED to report the date of receipt of this Decision in order to
determine when his suspension shall take effect.
EXCESS:
In a report the Investigating Commissioner9 recommended that: (1) Atty. Bernabe

be suspended from the practice of the legal profession for one (1) month; (2) Any existing
commission of Atty. Bernabe as notary public, be revoked; and (3) Atty. Bernabe be
barred from being granted a notarial commission for a period of one (1) year.10
In a resolution the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved the
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner with modification that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for one year and his notarial commission be revoked and
that he be disqualified for reappointment as notary public for two years.

Bautista vs. Atty. Bernabe (Digested)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bautista vs. Atty. Bernabe (Digested)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bautista vs. Atty. Bernabe (Digested)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.C. No.

6963 February 9, 2006

Complainant alleged that on January 3, 1998 respondent prepared and notarized

In his Answer,6 respondent disclaimed any knowledge about Basilia’s death. He alleged

Respondent filed a manifestation7 attaching thereto the affidavit of desistance8 of

RULING: Yes. Respondent’s act of notarizing the Magkasanib na Salaysay in the absence

Respondent’s conduct is fraught with dangerous possibilities considering the

In a report the Investigating Commissioner9 recommended that: (1) Atty. Bernabe

You might also like