Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NESA ISENHARDT v. ATTY. LEONARDO M. REAL

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	AC. No. 9807 2016-02-02	ERLINDA SISTUAL v. ATTY. ELIORDO OGENA PER CURIAM
By notarizing the aforementioned documents, Atty. Ogena engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.[32] His conduct is fraught with dangerous possibilities considering the conclusiveness on the due execution of a document that our courts and the public accord to notarized documents.[33] His failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only in damaging complainants' rights but also in undermining the integrity of a notary public and in degrading the function of notarization. Thus, Atty. Ogena should be liable for such negligence, not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.
	AC. No. 7073 2015-09-01	FIRE OFFICER I DARWIN S. SAPPAYANI v. ATTY. RENATO G. GASMEN PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act.[22] 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.[23] 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,[24] but also undermined the integrity of a notary public and tainted the function of notarization.[25]
	AC. No. 5482 2015-02-10	JIMMY ANUDON v. ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA LEONEN, J.
In Isenhardt v. Atty. Real,[50] Linco v. Atty. Lacebal,[51] Lanuzo v. Atty. Bongon,[52] and Bautista v. Atty. Bernabe,[53] the respondent notaries were all guilty of notarizing documents without the presence of the parties. In Linco, Lanuzo, and Bautista, the respondents notarized documents even if the persons executing those documents were already dead at the time of notarization. In Bautista, the respondent, like Atty. Cefra, also allowed another individual to sign on behalf of another despite lack of authorization.[54] In these cases, this court imposed the penalty of disqualification as notaries for two (2) years and suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.
	AC. No. 7919 2014-10-08	DOMADO DISOMIMBA SULTAN v. ATTY. CASAN MACABANDING REYES, J.
In Isenhardt v. Real,[35] the respondent therein was subjected to similar penalties when he notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) supposedly executed by the complainant. It was proven by documentary evidence that the complainant was in Germany at that time and therefore could not have appeared before the respondent to have the SPA notarized.
	AC. No. 8637 2014-09-15	IMELDA CATO GADDI v. ATTY. LOPE M. VELASCO CARPIO, ACTING C.J.
In Isenhardt v. Real,[16] a notary public who failed to discharge his duties was meted out the penalty of revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years, and suspension from the practice of law for one year. For notarizing a document without ascertaining the identity and voluntariness of the signatory to the document, for affixing his signature in an incomplete notarial certificate, and for dishonesty in his pleadings, Velasco failed to discharge his duties as notary public and breached Canon 1[17] and Rule 1.01[18] of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Considering these findings and our previous rulings,[19] Velasco should not only be disqualified for two years as a notary public, he must also be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
	AC. No. 7350 2013-02-18	PATROCINIO V. AGBULOS v. ATTY. ROSELLER A. VIRAY PERALTA, J.
As to the proper penalty, the Court finds the need to increase that recommended by the IBP which is one month suspension as a lawyer and six months suspension as notary public, considering that respondent himself prepared the document, and he performed the notarial act without the personal appearance of the affiant and without identifying her with competent evidence of her identity. With his indiscretion, he allowed the use of a CTC by someone who did not own it. Worse, he allowed himself to be an instrument of fraud. Based on existing jurisprudence, when a lawyer commissioned as a notary public fails to discharge his duties as such, he is meted the penalties of revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years, and suspension from the practice of law for one year.[26]