Notarial Law Violation

3. Horst Franz Ellert vs. Judge Victorio Galapon Jr., Municipal Trial Court of Dulag Leyte
A.M No. MTJ-00-1294
July 31, 2000

FACTS:
The complainant is charging Judge Galapon, Jr. of MTC Dulag, Leyte with grave misconduct,
abuse of judicial authority, ignorance of the law and unlawful notarization regarding the DARAB
Case No. VIII-169-L-91 entitled Lualhati V. Ellert vs. Marina Roca and Odeth Roca. Complainant
alleged that in the Answer filed by Marina Roca and Odeth Roca with the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), the signature of Judge Galapon was affixed in the
Jurat. He avers that a Municipal Trial Court Judge is only authorized to administer oaths, or sign
jurats to documents only for submission before his court or cases pending before his court but
definitely, not all other documents. Even as an Ex-Officio Notary Public, he is authorized to
notarize documents, conveyances of very limited nature. He points out that by unlawfully and
illegally doing so, respondent judge committed grave misconduct, abuse of judicial authority, and
exhibited his ignorance of the law. In his comment, Judge Galapon reveals that the present
complaint is perhaps the tenth in a series of continuous and relentless harassment case filed
against him by Franz Ellert because of the criminal case he has filed against the latter for light
threats where Ellert was duly convicted and sentenced. Judge Galapon candidly admits the
charge that he administered the oath in the verification portion of the answer of respondents
Roca in the DARAB case. However, he believes that there was nothing wrong nor there any abuse
of authority in administering such oath. There never was any malice or bad faith attending such
act. He honestly believes that merely administering and oath in the jurat is not actionable by and
administrative sanction.

ISSUE: Whether or not the act of notarizing a pleading in a case which is not pending before the
sala of Judge Galapon, Jr. constitutes an unlawful practice of law.
HELD:
Yes, respondent is guilty of the charge against him, that he engaged in unauthorized
notarial work. According to Circular No. 1-90, Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts may perform their functions as notaries public ex-officio only in the
notarization of documents connected with the exercise of their official functions. They may not
undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of documents which bear no relation to the
performance of their functions as judges. Circular No. 1-90 clearly provides that it is only when
there are no lawyers or notaries public in the municipality or circuit that an MTC and MCTC judge
may act as a notary public provided that, the notarial fees are turned over to the government
and a certification is made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or
notary public in such municipality or circuit.
In the case at bar, there is no showing that there was no lawyer or notary public in Dulag,
Leyte. Therefore, respondent judges action as a notary public cannot qualify as an exception to
Circular No. 1-90.

The defense interposed by the respondent that he sees nothing wrong with what he has
done, nor that he abused his authority when he notarized the subject pleading, is unmeritorious.
Judge Galapon should know what the duties of a judge acting as an ex-officio notary public are,
and, if he was uncertain of what they are, he should have first verified from the Office of the
Court Administrator the extent of his authority to notarize documents.

4. Angeles, et. al. vs. Atty. Ibaez

A.C. No. 7860
January 15, 2009

FACTS:
This is a complaint filed by Heirs of Angeles in representation of the deceased
Loreto Angeles against Atty. Ibaez for disbarment for allegedly notarizing the Extrajudicial
Partition with absolute Sale without a notarial commission and in the absence of the affiant. The
complainants contended that respondent Atty. Ibaezs act of notarizing the Extrajudicial Partition
with Absolute Sale without requiring the presence of the parties thereto, despite his alleged lack
of notarial commission, constitutes professional misconduct for which reason he should be
disbarred. In his Motion to Dismiss and Position Paper, respondent admitted the he notarized the
Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale but clarified that he did so as Notary Public of the
Province of Cavite, with a notarial commission issued by RTC of Cavite. He explained that the
designation of Manila as the place of execution of the said document was a mistake of his former
legal secretary, who failed to correct the same through oversight. Atty. Ibaez alleged that a
defect in the notarization does not invalidate the transaction, and he stated that his failure to
require the presence of the parties is wholly justified because of the assurance of complainant
Rosalina Angeles that the signatures appearing in the said document was indeed those of her
co-heirs. In the IBPs report and recommendation, the IBP commissioner found that respondent
notarized the Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale in the absence of affiants and without a
notarial commission. It is recommended that Atty. Ibaez be barred from being commissioned as a
notary public for a period of two years and be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report. Respondent then filed a supplemental
position paper before the IBP Board of Governors.
ISSUE: Whether or not a notarized Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale in the absence of the
parties valid.

HELD: The findings of the IBP was sustained and adopts its recommendations with modification.
Respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he
notarized the Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale in the absence of the affiants.
Time and again, we have reminded lawyers commissioned as notaries public that the affiants
must personally appear before them. Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, or the Notarial Law,
provides:

Sec. 1. (a) The acknowledgement shall be before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take
acknowledgements of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking
the acknowledgement shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he
is the same person who executed it, acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made
under the official seal, if he is required by law to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.

Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 reads:

A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document (1) is not in the notarys presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of
identity as defined by these Rules.

The physical presence of the affiants enables the notary public to verify the genuineness
of the signatures of the acknowledging parties and to ascertain that the document is the parties
free act and deed.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, respondents notarial commission should
not only be suspended but respondent must also be suspended from the practice of law.
5. Tupal vs. Judge Rojo
A.M. No. MTI 14- 1842
February 24, 2014

FACTS:
Rex M. Tupal filed with the Office of the Court Administrator a complaint against Judge
Remegio V. Rojo for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and for gross ignorance of the law.
Judge Rojo allegedly solemnized marriages without the required marriage license. He instead
notarized affidavits of cohabitation and issued them to the contracting parties. He notarized
these affidavits on the day of the parties marriage. These "package marriages" are allegedly
common in Bacolod City. Judge Rojo allegedly violated Circular No. 1-90 dated February 26, 1990.
Circular No. 1-90 allows municipal trial court judges to act as notaries public ex officio and
notarize documents only if connected with their official functions and duties. Rex argues that
affidavits of cohabitation are not connected with a judges official functions and duties as
solemnizing officer.Thus, Judge Rojo cannot notarize ex officio affidavits of cohabitation of parties
whose marriage he solemnized. Also, according to Rex, Judge Rojo allegedly violated the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice. Judge Rojo notarized affidavits of cohabitation without affixing his
judicial seal on the affidavits. He also did not require the parties to present their competent
pieces of evidence of identity as required by law. These omissions allegedly constituted gross
ignorance of the law as notarial rules simple and elementary to ignore. Judge Rojo commented
on the complaint. He argued that Rex was only harassing him. Rex is the father of Frialyn Tupal.
Frialyn has a pending perjury case in Branch 5 for allegedly making false statements in her
affidavit of cohabitation. Rex only filed a complaint against Judge Rojo to delay Frialyns case.
Judge Rojo did not deny notarizing the affidavits of cohabitation. He argued that notarizing
affidavits of cohabitation was connected with his official functions and duties as a judge. The
Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by the Members of the Judiciary does not prohibit
judges from notarizing affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage they will
solemnize. Thus, Judge Rojo did not violate Circular No. 1-90. Judge Rojo also argued that he did
not violate the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He is a judge, not a notary public. Thus, he was
not required to affix a notarial seal on the affidavits he notarized
ISSUE: Whether Judge Rojo is guilty of violating the New Code of Judicial Conduct and of gross
ignorance of the law.

HELD:
The Supreme Court held Judge Rojo guilty of violating the New Code of Judicial Conduct
and Circular No. 190, and of gross ignorance of the law. Judge Rojo notarized affidavits of
cohabitation, which were documents not connected with the exercise of his official functions and
duties as solemnizing officer. He also notarized affidavits of cohabitation without certifying that
lawyers or notaries public were lacking in his courts territorial jurisdiction. As a solemnizing
officer, the judges only duty involving the affidavit of cohabitation is to examine whether the
parties have indeed lived together for at least five years without legal impediment to marry. The
Guidelines does not state that the judge can notarize the parties affidavit of cohabitation.
Notarizing affidavits of cohabitation is inconsistent with the duty to examine the parties
requirements for marriage. If the solemnizing officer notarized the affidavit of cohabitation, he
cannot objectively examine and review the affidavits statements before performing the marriage
ceremony. Thus, Judge Rojo was suspended for six months from office.
Judge Rojo also violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Rule IV, Section 2, paragraph
(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice prohibits a notary public from notarizing documents if
the signatory is not personally known to him. Otherwise, the notary public must require the
signatory to present a competent evidence of identity
In all the nine affidavits of cohabitation Judge Rojo notarized, he only stated that the
parties subscribed and swore to their affidavits before him. Judge Rojo did not state that the
parties were personally known to him or that the parties presented their competent pieces of
evidence of identity. Thus, Judge Rojo violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

Tan Tiong Bio (a.k.a. Henry) vs. Atty. Renato L. Gonzales

A.C. No. 6634
August 23, 2007

FACTS:
A complaint for for disbarment was filed by Tan Tiong Bio against Atty. Renato L. Gonzales
for allegedly notarizing a conveying deed outside the territory covered by his notarial
commission and without requiring the personal presence before him of the signatories to the
deed before notarizing the same, inviolation of the Notarial Law and the lawyers oath. As records
reveal, complainant purchased parcels of land at Southwoods in Cavite, owned and controlled by
FEGDI and FEPI, which has an office located in Pasig City. In one of the transactions, complainant
as vendee, was made to sign a deed of sale covering a lot described in and covered by the
vendors TCT. Following payment the TCT in complainants name was delivered to him with the
corresponding completed deed of sale. Respondent Renato Gonzales, employed as corporate
counsel for FEPI and appointed/reappointed from 1196-2001 as notary public for Quezon City,
was the notarizing officer of Deed 1108 on which the name and signature of Alice OdchigueBondoc appear as the vendors authorized representative. At the preliminary conference before
the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (Commission), complainant and respondent entered into
the following stipulation of facts, to wit: The Deed of Absolute Sale No. 1108 was duly executed
by Mr. Henry Tan and Atty. Alice Odchigue-Bondoc as authorized signatory of the seller; that the
subject document was notarized by respondent as document no. 367, page no. 74, book no. 8,
series of 2001 of his notarial register; that respondent admits that his notarial appointment
covers Quezon City and that the subject document was notarized in Pasig City, specifically, at the
Renaissance Tower; and that the parties admit that Atty. Alice Odchigue-Bondoc and Henry Tan
Tan were not present at the same time when the subject document was notarized. After due
hearings, Investigating his REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, which, as approved by the IBP
Director for Bar Discipline, was forwarded to the Court. In the report, the Commission

recommended that respondent be adjudged liable and penalized for violating the rule proscribing
one from acting as a notary outside the area covered by his commission, but recommended the
dismissal of the complaint insofar as it charges the respondent for notarizing a document without
the personal appearance before him of the party-signatories thereto.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent breached the injunction against notarizing a document in
a place outside his commission.
HELD:
As reported by the Investigating Commissioner, respondent acknowledged that from
February 1, 1996 to September 30, 2001, within which period Deed 1108 was notarized, his
notarial commission then issued was for Quezon City.Deed 1108 was, however, notarized in Pasig
City. To compound matters, he admitted having notarized hundreds of documents in Pasig City,
where he used to hold office, during the period that his notarial commission was only for and
within Quezon City. While seemingly appearing to be a harmless incident, respondents act of
notarizing documents in a place outside of or beyond the authority granted by his notarial
commission, partakes of malpractice of law and falsification.
Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time
when he has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to
disciplinary action. For one, performing a notarial [act] without such commission is a violation of
the lawyers oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it
appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes,
indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyers oath similarly proscribes. These violations
fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. (Nunga vs. Viray)
Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are
qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.Hence, the requirements for the issuance of a
commission as notary public are treated with a formality definitely more than casual.