Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DOMINADOR L. CABANILLA v. ATTY. ANA LUZ B. CRISTAL-TENORIO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	AC. No. 6470 2014-07-08	MERCEDITA DE JESUS v. ATTY. JUVY MELL SANCHEZ-MALIT SERENO, C.J.
A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same ones who executed it and who personally appeared before the said notary public to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.[27] Thus, in acknowledging that the parties personally came and appeared before her, respondent also violated Rule 10.01[28] of the Code of Professional Responsibility and her oath as a lawyer that she shall do no falsehood.[29]
	AC. No. 6634 2007-08-23	TAN TIONG BIO v. ATTY. RENATO L. GONZALES GARCIA, J.
To be sure, respondent cannot plausibly seek refuge in the complainant's alleged delay in filing the instant complaint for disbarment. He cannot, as a means to defeat the present charge, invoke the complainant's ill-motive in filing said complaint. We have, time and again, held that the Court's disciplinary authority cannot be defeated or frustrated by a mere delay in filing the complaint, or by the complainant's motivation to do so. The practice of law is so delicately affected by public interest that it is both a right and a duty of the State to control and regulate it in order to protect and promote public welfare.[16] Indeed, we have held that an administrative complaint against a member of the bar does not prescribe.[17]
	AC. NO. 6649 2005-06-21	MARINA C. GONZALES v. ATTY. CALIXTO B. RAMOS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
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 the said notary public to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The presence of the parties to the deed making the acknowledgment will enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the affiant. A notary public is enjoined from notarizing a fictitious or spurious document. The function of a notary public, is among others, to guard against any illegal deed.[14]
	AM NO. MTJ-04-1524 2005-02-11	ELEMAR G. BOTE v. JUDGE GEMINIANO A. EDUARDO QUISUMBING, J.
The finding by the OCA that respondent was negligent in the notarization of the deed of sale is borne by the records.[18] The deed was, without doubt, prepared in 1985. This is what appears on the deed several times. The date September 16, 1985, the date of issuance of the vendor's residence certificate, was also typewritten on the deed. Presumably, respondent checked the vendor's residence certificate and ascertained its veracity because respondent specifically referred to this residence certificate and certified that it was correct. After all, the law requires every contract, deed, or other document acknowledged before a notary public to have a certification that the parties have presented their respective residence certificates and for the notary public to enter, as a part of such certification, the number, place of issue and date of each residence certificate.[19]
	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.