Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PIKE P. ARRIETA v. ATTY. JOEL A. LLOSA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	AC. No. 8101 2015-02-04	MELANIO S. SALITA v. ATTY. REYNALDO T. SALVE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements. By affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, he converted the Deed of Absolute Sale, from a private document into a public document. In doing so, Atty. Salve,as borne from the records of this case,effectively proclaimed to the world that: (a) all the parties therein personally appeared before him; (b) they are all personally known to him; (c) they were the same persons who executed the instruments; (d) he inquired into the voluntariness of execution of the instrument; and (e) they acknowledged personally before him that they voluntarily and freely executed the same.[32] As a lawyer commissioned to be a notary public, Atty. Salve is mandated to discharge his sacred duties with faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat. Having failed in this regard, he must now accept the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion. His 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.[33]
	AC. No. 5851 2008-11-25	GRACE DELA CRUZ-SILLANO v. ATTY. WILFREDO PAUL D. PANGAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
As a lawyer commissioned to be a notary public, respondent is mandated to discharge his sacred duties which are dictated by public policy and, as such, impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct.[10]
	AC. NO. 5095 2007-11-28	FATHER RANHILIO C. AQUINO v. ATTY. EDWIN PASCUA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The penalty to be imposed for such act of misconduct committed by a lawyer is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court. In Arrieta v. Llosa,[6] wherein Atty. Joel A. Llosa notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale knowing that some of the vendors were already dead, this Court held that such wrongful act "constitutes misconduct" and thus imposed upon him the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six months, this being his first administrative offense. Also, in Vda. de Rosales v. Ramos,[7] we revoked the notarial commission of Atty. Mario G. Ramos and suspended him from the practice of law for six months for violating the Notarial Law in not registering in his notarial book the Deed of Absolute Sale he notarized. In Mondejar v. Rubia,[8] however, a lesser penalty of one month suspension from the practice of law was imposed on Atty. Vivian G. Rubia for making a false declaration in the document she notarized.
	AC. NO. 6010 2006-08-28	ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY LABORATORY HIGH SCHOOL FACULTY v. ATTY. ROLANDO C. DELA CRUZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It has been emphatically stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. On the contrary, it is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization of a private document converts the document into a public one making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face and, for this reason, notaries public must observe with the utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined.[30]
	AC. NO. 6648 2005-09-21	JOSEFINA P. SORIANO v. ATTY. HUMBERTO B. BASCO GARCIA, J.
A certified copy of each month's entries as described in this section and a certified copy of any instrument acknowledged before them shall within the first ten days of the month next following be forwarded by the notaries public to the clerk of the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of the province and shall be filed under the responsibility of such officer: Provided, That if there is no entry to certify for the month, the notary shall forward a statement to this effect in lieu of the certified copies herein required. Here, Atty. Basco violated the Notarial Law by failing to provide all the necessary information regarding the questioned Deed of Sale entered in his notarial register. He even notarized said instrument even without the notation of the residence certificate of the party to the document. As a notary public, respondent is required by the Notarial Law to certify that the party to the instrument acknowledged before him has presented the proper residence certificate (or exemption from the residence certificate) and to enter its number, place of issue and date as part of the certification. Worse, he likewise failed to send copy of the notarized document to the clerk of court of the proper RTC and to retain a copy thereof for his own records. These formalities are mandatory and cannot simply be neglected. Failure to perform this duty results in the revocation of a notary's commission.[4] In Vda. de Rosales vs. Ramos,[5] we held: X x x. The notarial registry is a record of the notary public's official acts. Acknowledged documents and instruments recorded in it are considered public documents. If the document or instrument does not appear in the notarial records and there is no copy of it therein, doubt is engendered that the document or instrument was not really notarized, so that it is not a public document and cannot bolster any claim made based on this document. Considering the evidentiary value given to notarized documents, the failure of the notary public to record the document in his notarial registry is tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when in fact it was not. xxx. This is a clear violation of the Notarial Law for which he must be disciplined. We have emphatically stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. On the contrary, it is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notary public. Notarization of a private document converts it into a public instrument making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face and, for this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties, lest, the confidence of the public in the integrity of the document will be undermined.[6]
	AC. No. 6294 2004-11-17	ATTY. MINIANO B. DELA CRUZ v. ATTY. ALEJANDRO P. ZABALA QUISUMBING, J.
The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements.[14] By affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, he converted the Deed of Absolute Sale, from a private document into a public document. In doing so, respondent, in effect, proclaimed to the world that (1) all the parties therein personally appeared before him; (2) they are all personally known to him; (3) they were the same persons who executed the instruments; (4) he inquired into the voluntariness of execution of the instrument; and (5) they acknowledged personally before him that they voluntarily and freely executed the same.[15] As a lawyer commissioned to be a notary public, respondent is mandated to discharge his sacred duties with faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat.[16] Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent upon him, he must now accept the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion. His act of certifying under oath an irregular Deed of Absolute Sale without ascertaining the identities of the persons executing the same constitutes gross negligence in the performance of duty as a notary public.
	GR No. 142691 2003-08-05	HEIRS OF AMADO CELESTIAL v. VS.HEIRS OF EDITHA G. CELESTIAL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is necessary that a party to any document notarized by a notary public appear in person before the latter and affirm the contents and truth of what are stated in the document. The importance of this requirement cannot be gainsaid. The acknowledgment of a document is converted into a public document, making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. For this reason, it behooves every notary public to see to it that this requirement is observed and that formalities for the acknowledgment of documents are complied with (Emphasis supplied). Likewise, aside from being required to appear before the notary public, "it is similarly incumbent upon the person acknowledging the instrument to declare before the same Notary Public that the execution of the instrument was done by him of his own free will".[28] Accordingly, we find the observation of the appellate court "that the parties appeared before Atty. Laureano Oco for the preparation of the Deed of [Absolute] Sale", to be inaccurate and without evidentiary support in the record.
	Adm. Case No. 5645 2002-07-02	ROSALINDA BERNARDO VDA DE ROSALES v. ATTY. MARIO G. RAMOS BELLOSILLO, J.
For this reason notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.[12] Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined.[13] Hence 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 truth of what are stated therein.[14] The purpose of this requirement is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act and deed.[15]