This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-10-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Respondent failed to exercise utmost diligence in the performance of his duty under Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103,[12] which requires a party to any document notarized by a notary public to personally appear before the latter.[13] Bareno, Panadero, and de la Cruz did not personally appear before respondent. The death certificates presented show that both Bareno and Panadero had long been dead, while de la Cruz's unrebutted affidavit proves he had never been to Bacolod City where he supposedly verified the complaint. It is a mystery, then, how respondent, in notarizing the complaints, could have certified that Bareno, Panadero and de la Cruz personally appeared before him and swore to the truth of the facts stated in the complaints. | |||||
|
2004-08-11 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| When the trial court and the appellate court arrived at divergent factual assessments in their respective decisions and the bases therefor refer to documents made available to the scrutiny of both courts, the well-settled rule that factual findings of trial courts deserve respect and even finality will not apply.[17] In the case at bar, the varying factual assessments pertained to the authenticity of the signature of the late Cesar Morelos on the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale conveying the 105-square meter property in favor of his niece, Laura Bautista. | |||||