This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-10-11 |
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] | |||||
|
2008-02-12 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Notaries public must observe with utmost care[32] and utmost fidelity the basic requirements in the performance of their duties, otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of notarized deeds will be undermined.[33] | |||||
|
2006-02-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Respondent was also remiss in his duty when he allowed Pronebo to sign in behalf of Basilia. A member of the bar who performs an act as 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. The acts of the affiants cannot be delegated to anyone for what are stated therein are facts of which they have personal knowledge. They should swear to the document personally and not through any representative. Otherwise, their representative's name should appear in the said documents as the one who executed the same. That is the only time the representative can affix his signature and personally appear before the notary public for notarization of the said document. Simply put, the party or parties who executed the instrument must be the ones to personally appear before the notary public to acknowledge the document.[15] | |||||
|
2005-06-21 |
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] | |||||