Equipo de protección contra incendios

JIMMY ANUDON and JUANITA ANUDON v. ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA A.C. No. 5482, February 10, 2015, LEONEN, J.

Whoever acts as Notary Public must ensure that the parties executing the document be present. Otherwise, their participation with respect to the document cannot be acknowledged. Notarization of a document in the absence of the parties is a breach of duty.

Facts:

Complainants Jimmy Anudon (Jimmy) and Juanita Anudon (Juanita) are brother- and sister- in-law. Respondent Atty. Arturo B. Cefra (Atty. Cefra) is a distant relative of Jimmy and Juanita. Atty. Cefra notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale over the subject land. The names of Johnny Anudon (Johnny), Alfonso Anudon (Alfonso), Benita Anudon-Esguerra (Benita), and complainants Jimmy and Juanita appeared as vendors, while the name of Celino Paran, Jr. (Paran) appeared as the vendee. Complainants now assailed that the deed of sale was falsified alleging that they did not sign the Deed of Absolute Sale and also they did not sign such document before respondent. They also alleged that it was impossible for Johnny, Alfonso, and Benita, to sign the document for they were in the US on the day the deed was executed. Thus, complainants initiated a disciplinary action against respondent.

Issue:

Whether or not Respondent is still fit to practice law.

Ruling:

No. Atty. Arturo B. Cefra violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility in notarizing a document without requiring the presence of the affiants. The 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. Atty. Cefra claims that Jimmy and Juanita wanted to sell their land. Even if this is true, Jimmy and Juanita, as vendors, were not able to review the document given for notarization. The Deed of Absolute Sale was brought to Atty. Cefra by Paran’s representatives, who merely informed Atty. Cefra that the vendors signed the document. Atty. Cefra should have exercised vigilance and not just relied on the representations of the vendee.

ATTY. BENIGNO BARTOLOME v. ATTY. CHRISTOPHER BASILIO A.C. No. 10783, October 14, 2015, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein.

38 | P a g e

In this administrative complaint, Atty. Benigno Bartolome alleged that Atty. Christopher Basilio notarized a document entitled “Joint Affidavit of Non-Tenancy and Aggregate Landholdings” which was purportedly subscribed and sworn to before him, among others, by Loreto Tanedo on January 15, 2006, despite the fact that the latter has already passed away on December 1, 2003. The IBP Investigating Commissioner has found him guilty of gross negligence and of violating the Notarial Rules. The recommendation of his one (1) year suspension from the Notarial commission and his six (6) months of suspension from the practice of law were adopted by the IBP Board of Governors.

Issue:

Whether or not Basilio is liable for the violation of the Notarial Rules.

Ruling:

Yes. In the present case, Basilio, as duly found by the IBP, failed to faithfully comply with his duties as a notary public, specifically Section 5(b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules. As the records bear out, Basilio affixed his official signature and seal on the notarial certificate of the Joint Affidavit without properly identifying the person/s who signed the same. His claim that he verified the identities of the affiants through their respective SSS identification cards and driver's licenses cannot be given any credence considering the ostensible lack of their details on the face of the certificate. Neither was he able to provide the fact of identification in any way. On the other hand, it has been established that one of the named signatories to the Joint Affidavit was already dead when he notarized the aforesaid document. Hence, it is sufficiently clear that Basilio had indeed affixed his official signature and seal on an incomplete, if not false, Notarial certificate.

Moreover, by the same account, Basilio violated Section 2 (b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules which prohibits the notarization of a document if the person involved is not personally known to the notary public or has not identified himself through competent evidence of identity. To add, Basilio himself admitted that he failed to record his notarial act on the Joint Affidavit in his notarial register, contrary to Section 2 (a), Rule VI of the Notarial Rules. Since the notarial register is a record of the notary public's official acts, he is charged with recording therein the necessary information regarding the document or instrument notarized. If the document or instrument does not appear in the notarial records, doubt as to its nature arises so that the alleged notarized document cannot be considered a public document.

It should be clarified, however, that while Basilio had also failed to submit a copy of the Joint Affidavit to the Clerk of Court of the RTC, and to retain a copy thereof for his own records, the requirement therefor, as stated under Section 2 (h), 19 Rule VI of the Notarial Rules, applies only to instruments acknowledged before the notary public. Documents like the Joint Affidavit which contain a jurat and not an acknowledgment are not required to be forwarded to the Clerk of Court. Hence, there should be no administrative infraction on this score. Nevertheless, Basilio's afore-discussed violations of the Notarial Rules are grave enough to warrant sanctions from the Court. By failing in this regard, the notary public permits a falsehood which does not only transgress the Notarial Rules but also Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

FIRE OFFICER I DARWIN S. SAPPAYANI v. ATTY. RENATO G. GASMEN A.C. No. 7073, September 1, 2015, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

When acknowledging a document, it is required that the person who signed or executed the same, appears in person before the notary public and represents to the latter that the signature on the document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the document, declaring the same as his free and voluntary act and deed.

39 | P a g e

Facts:

Fire Officer I Darwin S. Sappayani (Sappayani) filed an administrative case against Atty. Renato G. Gasmen (Atty. Gasmen) alleging that Atty. Gasmen notarized a SPA in favor of one Newtrade Goodwill Corporation (NGC) through Romeo N. Maravillas (Maravillas) and an Application for Loan and Promissory Note (loan application) with Air Materiel Wing Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (AMWSLAI). Thus, by virtue of said notarized documents, AMWSLAI released to Maravillas a loan amounting to P157, 301.43. Sappayani denied executing said documents, claiming that his signature found on the SPA was forged as he did not know Maravillas. Sappayani added that it was physically impossible for him to personally appear before Atty. Gasmen and execute the documents at the AMWSLAI office in QC, as he was then training as a new recruit at the Bureau of Fire Protection at General Santos City. Atty. Gasmen claimed that the notarization of the SPA and loan application was done only after the release of the proceeds of the loan to Maravillas and he asserted that prior to notarization, Sappayani's signature on the SPA was compared with his signature specimen cards with AMWSLAI, of which he was an honorary member.

IBP Commissioner Atty. Albert P. Sordan, EnP (Commissioner Sordan) found Atty. Gasmen guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the CPR. He recommended that Atty. Gasmen be suspended from the practice of law and be disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of 1 year. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the IBP Commissioner's Report and Recommendation.

Issue:

Whether or not the IBP correctly found Atty. Gasmen liable for violation of the Notarial Rules and the CPR.

Ruling:

Yes. The Court notes that both the SPA and the loan application subject of this case were notarized in 2000, during which Act No. 2711 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, Title IV, Chapter 11, otherwise known as the "Notarial Law," in addition to Act No. 2103, governed the rules on notaries public.

One of the obligations of a notary public is to authenticate documents acknowledged before him, certifying the truth thereof under his seal of office.

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. It is impressed with substantial public interest, and only those who are qualified or authorized may act as such. It is not a purposeless ministerial act of acknowledging documents executed by parties who are willing to pay fees for notarization. Moreover, notarization of a private document, such as an SPA in this case, converts the document into a public one which, on its face, is given full faith and credit. Thus, the failure of Atty. Gasmen to observe the utmost care in the performance of his duties caused not only damage to those directly affected by the notarized document, but also undermined the integrity of a notary public and tainted the function of notarization.

Further, as a lawyer, Atty. Gasmen is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission which might erode the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of the legal profession. By notarizing the subject documents, he engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct which makes him liable as well for violation of the Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR.

40 | P a g e

JOY A. GIMENO v. ATTY. PAUL CENTILLAS ZAIDE A.C. No. 10303, April 22, 2015, BRION J.

Since a notarial commission is personal to each lawyer, the notary public must also personally administer the notarial acts that the law authorizes him to execute. This important duty is vested with public interest. Thus, no other person, other than the notary public, should perform it.

Facts:

Complainant Joy Gimeno alleged that even before Atty. Zaide’s admission to the Bar and receipt of his notarial commission, Atty. Zaide had notarized a partial extrajudicial partition with deed of absolute sale and that Atty. Zaide made false and irregular entries in his notarial registers. Also, Gimeno engaged the services of Atty. Zaide’s lawfirm in an annulment of a title which involves her husband and her parents-in-law. Despite their pervious lawyer-client relationship, Atty. Zaide appeared against her in an estafa case and violation of RA 3019. On the said cases against Gimeno, she alleged that Atty. Zade called him extortionist and also imputed malicious remarks on her counsel. On the other hand, Atty. Zaide denied all the accusations against him by Gimeno and claimed that it is his former law firm that handles the case of Gimeno personally and not him. The IBP Commissioner found Atty. Zaide administratively liable for violating the Notarial Practice Rule representing conflicting interests, and using abusive and insulting language in his pleadings which recommendation was affirmed by the IBP Board of Governors but with modification on the penalty. Hence, this petition.

Issues:

(1) Whether or not Atty. Zaide violated the Notarial Practice Rules by notarizing a document before he was admitted to the bar.

(2) Whether or not he violated the Notarial Practice rule by maintaining different notarial registers in separate notarial office.

Ruling:

(1) Yes. The Court noted that at the time the document was purportedly notarized, Atty. Zaide's details as a lawyer and as a notary public had not yet existed. He was admitted to the Bar only on May 2, 2002; thus, he could not have obtained and used the exact figures pertaining to his roll number, PTR number, IBP number and the expiration date of his notarial commission, prior to this date, particularly on March 29, 2002. This circumstance, coupled with the absence of any evidence supporting Gimeno's claim such as a witness to the alleged fictitious notarization, lead the Court to the conclusion that Atty. Zaide could not have notarized the document before his Bar admission and receipt of his notarial commission.

(2) Yes. Section 1(a), Rule VI of the Notarial Practice Rules provides that "a notary public shall keep, maintain, protect and provide for lawful inspection as provided in these Rules, a chronological official notarial register of notarial acts consisting of a permanently bound book with numbered pages." The same section further provides that "a notary public shall keep only one active notarial register at any given time." On this basis, Atty. Zaide's act of simultaneously keeping several active notarial registers is a blatant violation of Section 1, Rule VI. Since a notarial commission is personal to each lawyer, the notary public must also personally administer the notarial acts that the law authorizes him to execute. This important duty is vested with public interest. Thus, no other person, other than the notary public, should perform it.

MELANIO S. SALITA v. ATTY. REYNALDO T. SALVE A.C. No. 8101, February 4, 2015, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

41 | P a g e

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 the truth of what are stated therein.

Facts:

Melanio Salita obtained a loan from Jocelyn Rodriguez secured by two real estate mortgage agreements and a pre-formed deed of absolute sale as collateral. Salita was able to pay his loan in full as evidenced by a Release of Real Estate Mortgage executed by Rodriguez before a notary public which was later duly entered in the Register of Deeds. Notwithstanding such full payment, Rodriguez instituted an ejectment complaint against Salita presenting the pre-formed Deed of Absolute Sale and the two REM instruments signed by the latter. Salita found that the Deed of Absolute Sale had already been notarized by Atty. Salve and his Community Tax Certificate Numbers were allegedly falsified. He then filed a criminal case for falsification of public documents against Rodriguez and Atty. Salve and likewise filed the instant administrative case against Atty. Salve. However, the IBP Investigating Commissioner, in his report and recommendation, dismissed Salita’s complaint for lack of merit. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the said report and recommendation.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Salve should be held administratively liable.

Ruling:

Yes, Atty. Salve is administratively liable for gross negligence in his conduct as a notary public. 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 the truth of what are stated therein. These acts of the affiants cannot be delegated because what are stated therein are facts they have personal knowledge of and are personally sworn to. Otherwise, their representative’s names should appear in the said documents as the ones who executed the same. Atty. Salve's act of certifying under oath an irregular Deed of Absolute Sale without requiring the personal appearance of the persons executing the same constitutes gross negligence in the performance of duty as a notary public. It must be remembered that Salita had already fully paid the loan as evidenced by the notarized release of real estate mortgage executed by Rodriguez herself. Considering the circumstances, it is simply unfathomable for Salita to appear before Atty. Salve to have the said document notarized, as it will be detrimental to his own interests. Hence, the Court found that Atty. Salve notarized the pre-formed Deed of Absolute Sale without Salita’s presence before him.

JUDICIAL ETHICS A. SOURCES

JOSEFINA M. ONGCUANGCO TRADING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY JOSEFINA M. ONGCUANGCO v. JUDGE RENATO D. PINLAC, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 57, SAN

CARLOS CITY, PANGASINAN

A.M. No. RTJ-14-2402, 15 April 2015, Third Division, REYES, J.

The proscription against borrowing money or property from lawyers and litigants in a case pending before the court is imposed on Judges to avoid the impression that the Judge would rule in favor of a litigant because the former is indebted to the latter. In order for the said proscription to operate, it

42 | P a g e

should first be established that the Judge knows that the person or entity from whom he or she is borrowing money or property is actually a lawyer or litigant in a case pending before his or her sala.

Facts:

Judge Pinlac purchased on credit animal feeds from JMOTC, issuing eight post-dated checks. Upon Judge Pinlac’s request, JMOTC did not deposit the said checks due to lack of funds, but the judge assured JMOTC that he obtained a loan which he will use to pay the debt. However the loan has not been approved. Judge Pinlac executed an acknowledgment for his unpaid obligations, but he failed to fulfill his undertakings. JMOTC averred that Judge Pinlac should be discharged from the service for taking advantage of his position, by availing of credit purchases from a litigant who has cases pending before his sala and his deliberate failure to pay his debts despite repeated demands.

Issue:

Whether Judge Pinlac should be held administratively liable for violation of Section 8, paragraphs (6) and (7) of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court and Sections 8 and 13, Canon 4 of the New Code of Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary

Ruling:

The proscription against borrowing money or property from lawyers and litigants in a case pending before the court is imposed on Judges to avoid the impression that the Judge would rule in favor of a litigant because the former is indebted to the latter. In order for the said proscription to operate, it should first be established that the Judge knows that the person or entity from whom he or she is borrowing money or property is actually a lawyer or litigant in a case pending before his or her sala. It would be unjust to administratively penalize Judge Pinlac for obtaining a loan from JMOTC notwithstanding that the latter is not a litigant in any pending case in his sala. Moreover, JMOTC failed to adduce substantial evidence that would establish that Judge Pinlac knew that Ongcuangco, who is a litigant in several criminal cases then pending before his sala, is the majority shareholder of either Legend Feeds or JMOTC. Judge Pinlac is however guilty of impropriety for failure to pay his debt to JMOTC. Judge Pinlac does not deny having obtained a loan from JMOTC on his purchases of animal feeds and that the same has yet to be fully satisfied. Thus, there being no evidence that would establish that Judge Pinlac’s failure to pay his debt was intentional, he could only be held liable for impropriety.

DR. CORAZON D. PADERANGA, DULCE P. GUIBELONDO, PATRIA P. DIAZ, CARMENCITA P.