This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-06-29 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| The act of notarizing documents outside one's area of commission is not to be taken lightly. Aside from being a violation of Sec. 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, it also partakes of malpractice of law and falsification.[30] Notarizing documents with an expired commission is a violation of the lawyer's oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Since the public is deceived into believing that he has been duly commissioned, it also amounts to indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath proscribes.[31] Notarizing documents without the presence of the signatory to the document is a violation of Sec. 2(b)(1), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,[32] Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the lawyer's oath which unconditionally requires lawyers not to do or declare any falsehood. Finally, Atty. Quintana is personally accountable for the documents that he admitted were signed by his wife. He cannot relieve himself of liability by passing the blame to his wife. He is, thus, guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law. | |||||
|
2008-02-12 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Respondent, as notary public, evidently failed in the performance of the elementary duties of his office. Contrary to his claims that he "exercised his duties as Notary Public with due care and with due regard to the provision of existing law and had complied with the elementary formalities in the performance of his duties xxx," we find that he acted very irresponsibly in notarizing the will in question. Such recklessness warrants the less severe punishment of suspension from the practice of law. It is, as well, a sufficient basis for the revocation of his commission[50] and his perpetual disqualification to be commissioned as a notary public.[51] | |||||