full text cases 1

7/24/2019 Full Text Cases 1

1/16

A.C. No. 3232 September 27, 1994

ROSITA C. NADAYAG, complainant,

vs.

ATTY JOSE A. GRAGEDA, respondent.

MELO,J.:

In a letter-complaint dated April 15, 1988, Rosita C. Nadayag charged respondent Atty. A. Grageda, a practicing

attorney and notary p!lic in Iligan City, "ith condct n!ecoming o# a la"yer in connection "ith a $Pacto de Retro$

transaction "herein complainant "as the vendee. Complainant%s a##idavit, "hich accompanied her letter-complaint,

alleged that respondent&

. . . prepared and notari'ed a PACTO DE RETRO sale "ith me as the Vendee-a-Retrolast (anary

)1, 198* in this City sing +riginal Certi#icate o# and itle stolen #rom the +##ice o# the Register o#

eeds herein in Iligan as a reslt o# "hich I "as s"indled in +ne hndred eight thosand pesos

/018,.2 !ecase the said land sold to me !y Pacto de Retro "as already sold ahead o# time

to another party, sing the o"ner%s dplicate copy o# the title. hat dring orpacto de retrosale, as

I "as sspicios already o# the appearance o# the +riginal Certi#icate o# itle, having manyannotations and old patches thereo#, "hen I !roght the matter to the attention o# Atty. (ose A.

Grageda, notari'ing the same, he simply ans"ered me that the title "as all right and that he told me

#rther not to "orry as he is an attorney and !esides he 3ne" very "ell the Vendor-a- Retro "hose

!siness transactions especially notarial matter has !een and in #act al"ays handled !y him

/Attorney (ose A. Grageda2.

hat said stolen +riginal Certi#icate o# and itle "as con#iscated !y Iligan City Register o# eeds,

Attorney Reynaldo 4agio on the occasion "hen I applied #or registration o# my Pacto de Retro.

indings sho"ed that many other cased o# stolen original certi#icates o# land titles have ta3en place

in the said o##ice !t the said Attorney as the Register o# eeds did not prosecte the thieves

thereo#.

I #iled 6sta#a case against the Vendor-a-Retro together "ith her accomplices to inclde said Attorney

(ose A. Grageda, corsing it throgh the local 4arangay Captain last 7ay 198* yet, then #or"arded

to the City iscal throgh the 0olice tation Commander in (ne 198* !t that and ntil the time o#

this Report "as not tried in Cort yet !t that the In#ormation did not inclde said Atty. (ose A.

Grageda, hence this report.

/p. ), ol. I, Record.2

Respondent #iled his conter-a##idavit dated 7arch )9, 1989, pertinently alleging&

:. hat they sho"ed me a copy o# the title "hich I e;amined and #ond ot the title "as clear andthere "as no annotation or entry so I told them that as #ar as the title "as concern there "as no

encm!rances or annotation and can !e the s!


2/16

8. hat I told them to sign the docment a!ove their type"ritten name "hich they did and "itnessed

!y the other person "ith them "ho "ere present, so a#ter their signatre in good #aith !ased pon

their docments I notari'ed the same.

/p. 1, ol. II, Record.2

0rsant to Rle 1>9-4 o# the Rles o# Cort and the resoltion o# the Cort En Banco# April 1), 1988, the case

"as re#erred to the Commission on 4ar iscipline o# the Integrated 4ar o# the 0hilippine /I402 #or investigation,

report, and recommendation.

he I40 Commission on 4ar iscipline schedled hearings #or reception o# evidence !t complainant mani#ested

that she cannot proceed to 7anila and attend to her case de to #inancial constraints. ?pon the other hand,

respondent cold no longer !e located, having moved "ithot leaving any #or"arding address.

Nonetheless, said Commission, on the !asis o# the complaint and the spporting a##idavit, as "ell as the conter-

a##idavit o# respondent, #ond that $there is reason #or disciplining the respondent$ premised pon the #ollo"ing

o!servations&

Respondent #irst admits that he "as conslted !y the vendor-a-retroand the complainant /vendee-a-

retro2 on the matter o# the title "hen he "as as3ed to notari'e the Deed of Sale a Retro. @e admits

that he rendered an opinion !ased on the title that "as presented to him. It trns ot that the titlepresented to him is the +riginal Certi#icate o# itle "hich only the Register o# eeds has cstody o#

and he shold have sensed #ol-play or irreglarity. As a la"yer and o##icer o# the cort, he shold

have !een alerted and shold have reported the irreglarity o# an +riginal Certi#icate o# itle, "hich

shold !e in the e;clsive sa#e3eeping o# the Register o# eeds, in the possession o# nathori'ed

persons. 6ven i# it "ere the photostat copy o# said +riginal Certi#icate o# itle that "as presented to

him, the same did not !ear any certi#ication !y the Register o# eeds "hich cold have alerted him

o# the irreglarity. he testimony that the +riginal "as sho"n to him has not !een controverted. he

endee "as in #act in possession o# the +riginal !ecase it "as testi#ied that "hen the Register o#

eeds #ond that respondent "as in possession, the original certi#icate "as con#iscated !y the

Register o# eeds.

he Commission ta3es special note o# a notary p!lic acting more than a notary p!lic and goes!eyond mere certi#ication o# the presence o# the signatories, their having signed, and having

contracted. 4y transcending these !onds, sch notary p!lic has entered the realm o# giving $legal

advice$ ths $acting also as consel aside #rom notary p!lic$ to the parties to the contract.

reated as consels #or the vendee, he had the legal dty to advice him properly o# the irreglarities

and the dangers o# holding the +riginal Certi#icate "hich shold have !een in the cstody o# the

Register o# eeds. Respondent had acted rec3lessly at the least, in his advise o# the vendee. @e

rendered an opinion that "as irresponsi!le that his client relied pon "hich rec3lessness is

censra!le.

/pp. >-B, Commissioner%s Report= ##. p. )), ol. Record.2

A la"yer shall at all times phold the integrity and dignity o# the legal pro#ession. he trst and con#idence

necessarily reposed !y clients reire in the attorney a high standard and appreciation o# his dty to his clients, his

pro#ession, the corts and the p!lic. he !ar shold maintain a high standard o# legal pro#iciency as "ell as o#

honesty and #air dealing. Generally spea3ing, a la"yer can do honor to the legal pro#ession !y #aith#lly per#orming

his dties to society, to the !ar, to the corts, and to his clients. o this end, nothing shold !e done !y any mem!er

o# the legal #raternity "hich might tend to lessen in any degree the con#idence o# the p!lic in the #idelity, honesty,

and integrity o# the pro#ession. /7arcelo vs. (avier, r., )1B CRA 1 D199)E2.


3/16

Generally, a la"yer may !e dis!arred or sspended #or any miscondct, "hether in his pro#essional or private

capacity, "hich sho"s him to !e "anting in moral character, in honesty, pro!ity, and good demeanor or n"orthy to

contine as an o##icer o# the cort. /7arcelo vs. (avier, r., supra2.

In the case at !ar, respondent shold have !een conscientios in seeing to it that


4/16

*eries of +667&

+. -eed of *ale with ssumptionof Mortgage etween Maria P.Ponce and Mari'a 8. #no9on

-oc. /o. 0&:,Page /o. 5523oo4 /o. 5&,*eries of +6670

&. -eed of *ale with ssumptionof Mortgage etween Mari'a8. #no9on and Crescenciano M.Pitogo

-oc. /o. +&;2Page /o. 5;23oo4 /o. 5&2*eries of +667;

Pitogo otained a copy of the three (&) documents from the


5/16

to do this. It made him aware of the need review his procedure to avoid these mista4es. !espondent however finds thesanction against him is much too e=cessive and respectfully invo4es the following, to wit

. "his is the first infraction lodged against him in his $; years of practice.

3. "he respondent is not in ad faith and has no dishonest or selfish motive.

C. "here is no actual or potential inury caused to any private party2+1

*uello also apologi'ed for his oversight

+. "hat sustantial ustice has not een done. "he respondent completely understands that this matter only pertains to himand his liaility and not aout anyody or anything else. His indignation distracted him to the mista4en elief that the

complainant%s duious motives would not merit his complaint attention ecause he did not come with clean hands. ftereing properly reminded, the respondent reali'es his mista4e and respectfully apologi'es for his oversight to this HonoraleCommission. "he respondent finds it however grossly unust that he is imposed with such sanction for resisting toaccommodate and e a part of the unscrupulous underta4ing sought to e accomplished motivating the complaint which is

much igger wrong.+:

#n May &, +6$0, the Integrated 3ar of the Philippines 3oard of 8overnors issued the !esolution partially granting *uello%sMotion for !econsideration, thus

RESOLVED to DE- Respondents /otion !or Re"onsideration, there bein$ no "o$ent reason to reverse the !indin$s o! theCommission and the resolution sub0e"t o! the motion, it bein$ a mere reiteration o! the matters hi"h had already been

threshed out and ta1en into "onsideration under Resolution -o. 22%3*)4%5)6 dated April )7, 3*)4. 8oever the 9oardDEE/ED it 0udi"ious to redu"e the penalty imposed on Atty. +oselito Troy Suello !rom D#S:;AL#


6/16

/otarial acts give private documents a adge of authenticity that the pulic relies on when they encounter written documents

and engage in written transactions. Hence, all notaries pulic are duty9ound to protect the integrity of notarial acts yensuring that they perform their duties with utmost care. "his court e=plained in 9ote v. +ud$e Eduardo&$

notarial register isprima !a"ieevidence of the facts there stated. It has the presumption of regularity and to contradict theveracity of the entry, evidence must e clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant. . . .

. . . .

. . . /otari'ation is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with such sustantial pulic interest that onlythose who are @ualified or authori'ed may act as notaries pulic. /otari'ation converts a private document into a pulicdocument, ma4ing that document admissile in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Aor this reason, notaries

must oserve with utmost care the asic re@uirements in the performance of their duties. #therwise, the confidence of thepulic in the integrity of this form of conveyance would e undermined.&+

Hence, when respondent negligently failed to enter the details of the three (&) documents on his notarial register, he cast

dout on the authenticity of complainant%s documents. He also cast dout on the crediility of the notarial register and thenotarial process. He violated not only the /otarial !ules ut also the Code of Professional !esponsiility, which re@uireslawyers to promote respect for law and legal processes.&&

!espondent also appears to have committed a falsehood in the pleadings he sumitted. In his nswer to complainant%sffidavit9Complaint, respondent claimed that he certified complainant%s documents as true copies. &0


7/16

IR III+N

A.C. No. 914 Apr!" 1#, 2#13

$ERNARD N. JANDO%&ILE, Complainant,

vs.

ATTY. %&IRINO '. RE(ILLA, JR., Respondent.

R 6 + ? I + N

(ILLARAMA, JR., J.:

4e#ore s is a complaint1#or dis!arment #iled !y complainant 4ernard N. (andoile against respondent Atty. irino

0. Revilla, (r.

he acts o# the case are not dispted.

Atty. Revilla, (r. notari'ed a complaint-a##idavit)signed !y @eneraline . 4rosas, @eri'alyn 4rosas 0edrosa and

6lmer . Alvarado. @eneraline 4rosas is a sister o# @ei'el Hynda 4rosas Revilla, Atty. Revilla, (r.%s "i#e. (andoilecomplains that Atty. Revilla, (r. is disali#ied to per#orm the notarial act >per ection >/ c2, Rle I o# the )B Rles

on Notarial 0ractice "hich reads as #ollo"s&

6C. >. isali#ications. A notary p!lic is disali#ied #rom per#orming a notarial act i# he&

; ; ; ;

/c2 is a spose, common-la" partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative !y a##inity or consanginity o# the

principalB"ithin the #orth civil degree.

(andoile also complains that Atty. Revilla, (r. did not reire the three a##iants in the complaint-a##idavit to sho"

their valid identi#ication cards.

In his comment5to the dis!arment complaint, Atty. Revilla, (r. did not deny !t admitted (andoileJs material

allegations. he isse, according to Atty. Revilla, (r., is "hether the single act o# notari'ing the complaint-a##idavit o#

relatives "ithin the #orth civil degree o# a##inity and, at the same time, not reiring them to present valid

identi#ication cards is a grond #or dis!arment. Atty. Revilla, (r. s!mits that his act is not a grond #or dis!arment.

@e also says that he acts as consel o# the three a##iants= ths, he shold !e considered more as consel than as a

notary p!lic "hen he notari'ed their complaint-a##idavit. @e did not reire the a##iants to present valid identi#ication

cards since he 3no"s them personally. @eneraline 4rosas and @eri'alyn 4rosas 0edrosa are sisters-in-la" "hile

6lmer Alvarado is the live-in hose!oy o# the 4rosas #amily.

ince the #acts are not contested, the Cort deems it more prdent to resolve the case instead o# re#erring it to theIntegrated 4ar o# the 0hilippines #or investigation.

Indeed, Atty. Revilla, (r. violated the disali#ication rle nder ection >/c2, Rle I o# the )B Rles on Notarial

0ractice. He agree "ith him, ho"ever, that his violation is not a s##icient grond #or dis!arment.

Atty. Revilla, (r.Js violation o# the a#oresaid disali#ication rle is !eyond dispte. Atty. Revilla, (r. readily admitted

that he notari'ed the complaint-a##idavit signed !y his relatives "ithin the #orth civil degree o# a##inity. ection >/c2,

Rle I o# the )B Rles on Notarial 0ractice clearly disali#ies him #rom notari'ing the complaint-a##idavit, #rom

per#orming the notarial act, since t"o o# the a##iants or principals are his relatives "ithin the #orth civil degree o#

a##inity. Given the clear provision o# the disali#ication rle, it !ehooved pon Atty. Revilla, (r. to act "ith prdence
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt1


8/16

and re#se notari'ing the docment. He cannot agree "ith his proposition that "e consider him to have acted more

as consel o# the a##iants, not as notary p!lic, "hen he notari'ed the complaint-a##idavit. he notarial certi#icate:at

the !ottom o# the complaint-a##idavit sho"s his signatre as a notary p!lic, "ith a notarial commission valid ntil

ecem!er >1, )1).

@e cannot there#ore claim that he signed it as consel o# the three a##iants.

+n the second charge, "e agree "ith Atty. Revilla, (r. that he cannot !e held lia!le. I# the notary p!lic 3no"s the

a##iants personally, he need not reire them to sho" their valid identi#ication cards. his rle is spported !y thede#inition o# a $2 months. Atty. Revilla, (r. is #rther IR6C6 to IN+R7 the Cort, throgh an

a##idavit, once the period o# his disali#ication has lapsed.

+ +R6R6.

@IR III+N

A.C. No. 1#1) M*r+ 12, 2#14
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt9


9/16

LICERIO DI-ON,Complainant,

vs.

ATTY. MARCELINO CA$&CANA, JR.,Respondent.

R 6 + ? I + N

MENDO-A, J.:

+n 7ay 1B, )B, complainant icerio i'on /complainant2 #iled a petition against Atty. 7arcelino Ca!cana, (r./Atty. Ca!cana2, !e#ore the Integrated 4ar o# the 0hilippines /I402, praying #or the dis!arment o# the latter #or

#alsi#ication o# p!lic docment.

In his petition, complainant alleged that he "as one o# the "old-!e-!yers o# a parcel o# land o"ned !y the heirs o#

the late lorentino Callangan, namely, sana, (n and Angeleta, all srnamed Callangan "ho "ere parties in Civil

Case No. 1-:89 #iled !e#ore the 7nicipal rial Cort in Cities, 4ranch I, antiago City /7CC2= that on Novem!er :,

)>, a compromise agreement "as e;ected !y the parties in the said case and notari'ed !e#ore Atty. Ca!cana

on the same date it "as signed at the 7CC= that at the hearing condcted on ecem!er 11, )> regarding the

de e;ection and the veracity o# the compromise agreement, the signatories therein testi#ied that they signed the

instrment in the cort room o# 7CC !t not in the presence o# Atty. Ca!cana as Notary 0!lic= that !ecase o#

the irreglarity in the de e;ection o# the Compromise Agreement, there "as nde delay in the resoltionKdecision

o# Civil Case No. 1-:89 "hich cased damage and in8, ection )* o# the Rles o# Code and Code o# 0ro#essional Responsi!ility. Complainant

#rther alleged that Atty. Ca!cana ttered grave threats against him on (ly ), )B a#ter the hearing o# the said

case in 7CC.

In his Ans"er, Atty. Ca!cana averred that the complaint "as intended to harass him !ecase he "as the private

prosector in a criminal case #iled against complainant !e#ore the 7CC= that complainant had no case o# action

as his right "as not violated !ecase he "as modi#ied its earlier resoltion and

sspended Atty. Ca!cana #rom the practice o# la" #or one /12 month and disali#ied him #rom re-appointment as

notary p!lic #or one /12 year.

he Cort agrees "ith the recommendation o# the I40 4oard o# Governors e;cept as to the penalty.

ection 1, 0!lic Act No. )1>, other"ise 3no"n as the Notarial a" states&

he ac3no"ledgment shall !e !e#ore a notary p!lic or an o##icer dly athori'ed !y la" o# the contry to ta3e

ac3no"ledgments o# instrments or docments in the place "here the act is done. he notary p!lic or the o##icer

ta3ing the ac3no"ledgment shall certi#y that the person ac3no"ledging the instrment or docment is 3no"n to him

and that he is the same person "ho e;ected it, ac3no"ledged that the same is his #ree act and deed. he
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/ac_10185_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/ac_10185_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/ac_10185_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/ac_10185_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/ac_10185_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/ac_10185_2014.html#fnt3


10/16

certi#icate shall !e made nder the o##icial seal, i# he is reired !y la" to 3eep a seal, and i# not, his certi#icate shall

so state.

he reirement o# a##iant%s personal appearance "as #rther emphasi'ed in ection ) /!2 o# Rle I o# the Rles on

Notarial 0ractice o# )B "hich provides that&

A person shall not per#orm a notarial act i# the person involved as signatory to the instrment or docment

/12 is not in the notary%s presence personally at the time o# the notari'ation= and

/)2 is not personally 3no"n to the notary p!lic or other"ise identi#ied !y the notary p!lic throgh

competent evidence o# identity as de#ined !y these Rles.

As a notary p!lic, Atty. Ca!cana shold not notari'e a docment nless the person "ho signs it is the same

person e;ecting it and personally appearing !e#ore him to attest to the trth o# its contents. his is to ena!le him to

veri#y the genineness o# the signatre o# the ac3no"ledging party and to ascertain that the docment is the party%s

#ree and volntary act and deed.

H@6R6+R6, the Cort #inds respondent Atty. 7arcelino Ca!cana, (r. G?IF o# violating Rle 1.1, Canon l o#

the Code o# 0ro#essional Responsi!ility.1wph1Accordingly, the Cort ?06N him #rom the practice o# la" #or three

/>2 months, R6+L6 his incm!ent notarial commission, i# any, and 0R+@I4I him #rom !eing commissioned asa notary p!lic #or t"o /)2 years, e##ective immediately, "ith a stern HARNING that a repetition o# the same or

similar o##ense shall !e dealt "ith more severely.

et copies o# this resoltion !e #rnished the 4ar Con#idant to !e inclded in the records o# the respondent= the

Integrated 4ar o# the 0hilippines #or distri!tion to all its chapters= and the +##ice o# the Cort Administrator #or

dissemination to all co1is throghot the contry.

+ +R6R6.

A.C. No. #1# A/0/t 2), 2##

ST. LO&IS &NI(ERSITY LA$ORATORY IG SCOOL SL&LS5 6AC&LTY *8 STA66,Complainant,

vs.

ATTY. ROLANDO C. DELA CR&-, Respondent.

6 C I I + N

CICONA-ARIO,J.:

his is a dis!arment case #iled !y the aclty mem!ers and ta## o# the aint ois ?niversity-a!oratory @igh

chool /?-@2 against Atty. Rolando C. ela Cr', principal o# ?-@, predicated on the #ollo"ing gronds&

12 Gross 7iscondct&

rom the records o# the case, it appears that there is a pending criminal case #or child a!se allegedly committed !y

him against a high school stdent #iled !e#ore the 0rosectorJs +##ice o# 4agio City= a pending administrative case

#iled !y the eachers, ta##, tdents and 0arents !e#ore an Investigating 4oard created !y ? #or his alleged

npro#essional and nethical acts o# misappropriating money spposedly #or the teachers= and the pending la!or

case #iled !y ?-@ aclty !e#ore the NRC, Cordillera Administrative Region, on alleged illegal dedction o#

salary !y respondent.

)2 Grossly Immoral Condct&


11/16

In contracting a second marriage despite the e;istence o# his #irst marriage= and

>2 7alpractice&

In notari'ing docments despite the e;piration o# his commission.

According to complainant, respondent "as legally married to eresita Rivera on >1 7ay 198) at !a, 4enget,

!e#ore the then @onora!le (dge omas H. 7acaranas. @e therea#ter contracted a s!seent marriage "ith one

7ary (ane 0asca, !e#ore the @onora!le (dge Gillermo 0rganan. +n B +cto!er 199B, said second marriage"as s!seently annlled #or !eing !igamos.

+n the charge o# malpractice, complainant alleged that respondent deli!erately s!scri!ed and notari'ed certain

legal docments on di##erent dates #rom 1988 to 199*, despite e;piration o# respondentJs notarial commission on >1

ecem!er 198*. A Certi#ication1dated )5 7ay 1999 "as issed !y the Cler3 o# Cort o# Regional rial Cort /RC2,

4agio City, to the e##ect that respondent had not applied #or commission as Notary 0!lic #or and in the City o#

4agio #or the period 1988 to 199*. Respondent per#ormed acts o# notari'ation, as evidenced !y the #ollo"ing

docments&

1. A##idavit o# +"nership)dated 8 7arch 1991, e;ected !y ernando . Acosta, s!scri!ed and s"orn to !e#ore

Rolando ela Cr'=

). A##idavit>dated ): eptem!er 199), e;ected !y 7aria Corte' Atos, s!scri!ed and s"orn to !e#ore Rolando

ela Cr'=

>. A##idavitBdated 1B (anary 199), e;ected !y anole; (ames A. 7enos, s!scri!ed and s"orn to !e#ore Rolando

ela Cr'=

B. A##idavit5dated )> ecem!er 199>, e;ected !y 0onciano . A!alos, s!scri!ed and s"orn to !e#ore Rolando

ela Cr'=

5. A!solte ate o# ale:dated )> (ne 199>, e;ected !y anilo Gon'ales in #avor o# enecio C. 7ar'an,

notari'ed !y Rolando ela Cr'=

:. (oint A##idavit 4y "o isinherited 0arties*dated 5 7arch 199B, e;ected !y 6velyn C. Canllas and 0astora C.

acadena, s!scri!ed and s"orn to !e#ore Rolando ela Cr'=

*. "orn tatement8dated >1 7ay 199B, e;ected !y elimon 4. Rimorin, s!scri!ed and s"orn to !e#ore Rolando

ela Cr'=

8. eed o# ale9dated 1* Agst 199B, e;ected !y Hoodro" Aprado in #avor o# (acinto 4atara, notari'ed !y

Rolando ela Cr'=

9. (oint A##idavit !y "o isinterested 0arties1dated 1 (ne 199B, e;ected !y 0onciano . A!alos and Arsenio C.

i!ayan, s!scri!ed and s"orn to !e#ore Rolando ela Cr'=

1. A!solte eed o# ale11dated )> 7arch 1995, e;ected !y 6leanor .7eridor in #avor o# eonardo N. 4enter,


11. eed o# A!solte ale1)dated ) ecem!er 199:, e;ected !y 7andapat in #avor o# 7ario R. 7a!alot,


1). (oint A##idavit 4y "o isinterested 0arties1>dated 1* April 199:, e;ected !y illiam C. Am!ong and Romeo .

iming, s!scri!ed and s"orn to !e#ore Rolando ela Cr'=
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt13


12/16

1>. Conditional eed o# ale1Bdated )* e!rary 199*, e;ected !y Arelia emot Cados in #avor o# (ose 7a. A.

0angilinan, notari'ed !y Rolando ela Cr'=

1B. 7emorandm o# Agreement15dated 19 (ly 199:, e;ected !y (ARC+ represented !y 7r. (ohnny eope and

AM6C Constrction represented !y 7r. George Cham, notari'ed !y Rolando ela Cr'.

ite remar3a!ly, respondent, in his comment, denied the charges o# child a!se, illegal dedction o# salary and

others "hich are still pending !e#ore the t. ois ?niversity /?2, National a!or Relations Commission /NRC2

and the 0rosectorJs +##ice. @e did not discss anything a!ot the allegations o# immorality in contracting a secondmarriage and malpractice in notari'ing docments despite the e;piration o# his commission.

A#ter the #iling o# comment, He re#erred1:the case to the Integrated 4ar o# the 0hilippines /I402, #or investigation,

report and recommendation.

he I40 condcted the mandatory preliminary con#erence.

he complainants, therea#ter, s!mitted their position paper "hich is


13/16

7em!ership in the !ar is a privilege !rdened "ith conditions. A la"yer has the privilege and right to practice la"

only dring good !ehavior, and he can !e deprived o# it #or miscondct ascertained and declared !y 8 o#

the Rles o# Cort, all o# these !eing !road enogh to cover practically any miscondct o# a la"yer in his

pro#essional or private capacity.

6ally "orthy o# remar3 is that the la" pro#ession does not prescri!e a dichotomy o# standards among its

mem!ers. here is no distinction as to "hether the transgression is committed in the la"yerJs pro#essional capacity

or in his private li#e. his is !ecase a la"yer may not divide his personality so as to !e an attorney at one time and

a mere citi'en at another.)

hs, not only his pro#essional activities !t even his private li#e, inso#ar as the latter mayre#lect n#avora!ly pon the good name and prestige o# the pro#ession and the corts, may at any time !e the

s!1 7ay 198)

!e#ore (dge omas H. 7acaranas. In less than a year, they parted "ays o"ing to their irreconcila!le di##erences

"ithot see3ing


14/16

he Cort has laid do"n "ith a common de#inition o# "hat constittes immoral condct, vis--vis, grossly immoral

condct. Immoral condct is $that condct "hich is "ill#l, #lagrant, or shameless, and "hich sho"s a moral

indi##erence to the opinion o# the good and respecta!le mem!ers o# the commnity$ and "hat is $grossly immoral,$

that is, it mst !e so corrpt and #alse as to constitte a criminal act or so nprincipled as to !e reprehensi!le to a

high degree.$)B

?ndo!tedly, respondentJs act constittes immoral condct. 4t is it so gross as to "arrant his dis!armentO Indeed,

he e;hi!ited a deplora!le lac3 o# that degree o# morality reired o# him as a mem!er o# the 4ar. In particlar, he

made a moc3ery o# marriage "hich is a sacred instittion demanding respect and dignity. @is act o# contracting a

second marriage "hile the #irst marriage "as still in place, is contrary to honesty,


15/16

decreed "here any lesser penalty cold accomplish the end desired.)9In line "ith this philosophy, "e #ind that a

penalty o# t"o years sspension is more appropriate. he penalty o# one /12 year sspension recommended !y the

I40 is too light and not commensrate to the act committed !y respondent.

As to the charge o# miscondct #or having notari'ed several docments dring the years 1988-199* a#ter his

commission as notary p!lic had e;pired, respondent hm!ly admitted having notari'ed certain docments despite

his 3no"ledge that he no longer had athority to do so. @e, ho"ever, alleged that he received no payment in

notari'ing said docments.

It has !een emphatically stressed that notari'ation is not an empty, meaningless, rotinary act. +n the contrary, it is

invested "ith s!stantive p!lic interest, sch that only those "ho are ali#ied or athori'ed may act as notaries

p!lic. Notari'ation o# a private docment converts the docment into a p!lic one ma3ing it admissi!le in cort

"ithot #rther proo# o# its athenticity. A notarial docment is !y la" entitled to #ll #aith and credit pon its #ace and,

#or this reason, notaries p!lic mst o!serve "ith the tmost care the !asic reirements in the per#ormance o# their

dties. +ther"ise, the con#idence o# the p!lic in the integrity o# this #orm o# conveyance "old !e ndermined.>

he reirements #or the issance o# a commission as notary p!lic mst not !e treated as a mere casal #ormality.

he Cort has characteri'ed a la"yerJs act o# notari'ing docments "ithot the reisite commission to do so as

$reprehensi!le, constitting as it does not only malpractice !t also ; ; ; the crime o# #alsi#ication o# p!lic

docments.$>1

he Cort had occasion to state that "here the notari'ation o# a docment is done !y a mem!er o# the 0hilippine

4ar at a time "hen he has no athori'ation or commission to do so, the o##ender may !e s!)a la"yer "as sspended #or one year "hen he notari'ed #ive docments

a#ter his commission as Notary 0!lic had e;pired, to "it& a complaint #or e


16/16

full text cases 1

Documents