This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-07-08 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Where the notary public admittedly has personal knowledge of a false statement or information contained in the instrument to be notarized, yet proceeds to affix the notarial seal on it, the Court must not hesitate to discipline the notary public accordingly as the circumstances of the case may dictate. Otherwise, the integrity and sanctity of the notarization process may be undermined, and public confidence in notarial documents diminished. [21] In this case, respondent fully knew that complainant was not the owner of the mortgaged market stall. That complainant comprehended the provisions of the real estate mortgage contract does not make respondent any less guilty. If at all, it only heightens the latter's liability for tolerating a wrongful act. Clearly, respondent's conduct amounted to a breach of Canon 1[22] and Rules 1.01[23] and 1.02[24] of the Code of Professional Responsibility. | |||||
|
2012-04-11 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| It should be noted that a notary public's function should not be trivialized and a notary public must discharge his powers and duties which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity.[15] A notary public exercises duties calling for carefulness and faithfulness. Notaries must inform themselves of the facts they certify to; most importantly, they should not take part or allow themselves to be part of illegal transactions.[16] | |||||