Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ZENAIDA GONZALES SERZO v. ATTY. ROMEO M. FLORES

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AC. No. 6655 2011-10-11	PACITA CAALIM-VERZONILLA v. ATTY. VICTORIANO G. PASCUA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Gonzales, the notary public who notarized the document despite the non-appearance of one of the signatories was meted the penalties of revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification from re-appointment for two years. The notary in Gonzales was likewise suspended from the practice of law for one year. Said penalty was in accord with the cases of Bon v. Ziga,[20]Serzo v. Flores,[21]Zaballero v. Montalvan[22] and Tabas v. Mangibin.[23] The Court found that by notarizing the questioned deed, the respondent in Gonzales engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.[24]
	AC. NO. 5426 2007-04-04	CHITA PANTOJA-MUMAR v. ATTY. JANUARIO C. FLORES CALLEJO, SR., J.
It cannot be overemphasized that notarization of documents is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. It is through the act of notarization that a private document is converted into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without need of preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution.[10] Indeed, a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with the elementary formalities in the performance of their duties.[11] Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined. 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.[12] A notary public is duty-bound to require the person executing a document to be personally present, to swear before him that he is that person and ask the latter if he has voluntarily and freely executed the same.[13]
	AC. NO. 6649 2005-06-21	MARINA C. GONZALES v. ATTY. CALIXTO B. RAMOS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As a lawyer, respondent breached the Code of Professional Responsibility. By notarizing the questioned deed, he engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.[17] He also committed falsehood and misled or allowed the Court to be misled by any artifice.[18]
	AC. No. 6249 2004-10-14	SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION v. ATTY. NAPOLEON CORRAL QUISUMBING, J.
By recklessly notarizing the complaints without ascertaining that Hermogenes Bareno, Domingo Panadero, and Catalino de la Cruz were indeed personally appearing before him to attest to the contents and truth of what were stated in the complaints he prepared, respondent undermined the confidence of the public on notarial documents. He breached Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes, and Rule 1.01 thereof, which proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.[18] Serious doubts exist in his fitness to continue as a member of an esteemed and honorable profession.