LEGAL FORMS 2018-2019
PRO-BONO LEGAL AID SERVICES Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr., is REPRIMANDED and DISQUALIFIED
JANDOQUILE vs. REVILLA, JR
FACTS: The complaint is for disbarment against respondent.
Per complaint, Atty. Revilla Jr. notarized a complaint-affidavit signed by
Heneraline L. Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa and Elmer L.
Alvarado. Heneraline Brosas is a sister of Heizel Wynda Brosas Revilla,
Atty. Revilla, Jr.'s wife. Jandoquile complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. is
disqualified to perform the notarial act.
Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not deny but admitted Jandoquile's material
allegations. The issue, according to Atty. Revilla, Jr., is whether the
single act of notarizing the complaint-affidavit of relatives within the
fourth civil degree of affinity and, at the same time, not requiring them
to present valid identification cards is a ground for disbarment. Atty.
Revilla, Jr. submits that his act is not a ground for disbarment. He also
says that he acts as counsel of the three affiants; thus, he should be
considered more as counsel than as a notary public when he notarized
their complaint-affidavit.
ISSUES: 1. W/N Atty. Revilla, Jr. was disqualified to perform the
notarial act.
2. W/N such act warrants his disbarment.
RULING: 1. Yes.
Atty. Revilla, Jr.'s violation of the aforesaid disqualification rule is
beyond dispute. Atty. Revilla, Jr. readily admitted that he notarized the
complaint-affidavit signed by his relatives within the fourth civil degree
of affinity. Section 3 (c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
clearly disqualifies him from notarizing the complaint-affidavit, from
performing the notarial act, since two of the affiants or principals are his
relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. Given the clear
provision of the disqualification rule, it behooved upon Atty. Revilla, Jr.
to act with prudence and refuse notarizing the document. We cannot
agree with his proposition that we consider him to have acted more as
counsel of the affiants, not as notary public, when he notarized the
complaint-affidavit. The notarial certificate at the bottom of the
complaint-affidavit shows his signature as a notary public, with a
notarial commission valid until December 31, 2012. He cannot
therefore claim that he signed it as counsel of the three affiants.
2.No. Atty. Revilla, Jr.'s violation of the disqualification rule under
Section 3 (c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice is not a
sufficient ground to disbar him. To our mind, Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not
commit any deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct or gross immoral
conduct, or any other serious ground for disbarment under Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Considering the attendant circumstances and the single violation
committed by Atty. Revilla, Jr., we are in agreement that a punishment
less severe than disbarment would suffice.
Shay (EH403) notes, updated by Hya
from being commissioned as a notary public, or from performing any
notarial act if he is presently commissioned as a notary public, for a
period of three (3) months.
WILLIAM GO QUE CONSTRUCTION vs. CA
FACTS: Private respondents filed an illegal dismissal case against the
petitioner.
LA: In favor of private respondents.
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the NLRC arguing, among others,
that Andales (one of the private respondents) should not have been
included as party litigant, considering the apparent falsification of his
signature in the complaint and Verification attached to their Position
Paper, and the fact that he could not be contacted.
NLRC: Reversed.
CA: Granted private respondents' motion but noted that the Affidavit of
Service and the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping
contained a defective jurat. Thus, private respondents were directed to
cure the defects within five (5) days from notice.
Private respondents submitted their Manifestation and Compliance
wherein they admitted that Andales could not be located as he was
purportedly on vacation in Samar, but they attached (a) a verification
bearing their signatures including Andales's; (b) a photocopy of private
subdivision IDs of Singson, Pasaqui, and Lominiqui; and (c) a
photocopy of the driver's license of the affiant in the Affidavit of Service.
In a Resolution, the CA required private respondents anew to submit a
Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping with a properly
accomplished jurat indicating competent evidence of their identities.
Private respondents submitted a Manifestation and Compliance and
Submission of Joint Affidavit wherein Singson, Pasaqui, and Lominiqui
stated that: (a) they personally knew Andales who used to be their
co-worker and one of the original complainants in the illegal dismissal
case; (b) Andales is in the province and is not in a position to submit his
ID; (c) despite Andales's absence and failure to submit his ID, he
should be maintained as a petitioner before the CA; and (d) they had
already submitted their IDs.
CA: Held that the photocopies of the IDs submitted by Singson,
Pasaqui, and Lominiqui, as well as their Joint-Affidavit attesting to the
identity of Andales who was unable to submit his ID, served as
competent evidence of private respondents' identities and cured the
defect.
ISSUE: W/N the private respondents substantially complied with the
requirements of a valid verification and certification against forum
shopping.
Page 1 of 14
 LEGAL FORMS 2018-2019

RULING: No.

Similarly covered are the reports submitted to the courts and transcripts
of stenographic notes.
In this case, it is undisputed that the Verification/Certification against
Forum Shopping attached to the petition for certiorari in the CA was not

accompanied with a valid affidavit/properly certified under oath. This RULES TO FOLLOW ON FORMAT, STYLE AND MARGINS
was because the jurat thereof was defective in that it did not indicate
the pertinent details regarding the affiants' (i.e., private respondents)
competent evidence of identities.
The parties shall maintain the following margins on all court-bound
papers:

Evidently, not being documents of identification issued by an official

agency, the photocopies of the IDs of private respondents Singson,
Pasaqui, and Lominiqui from La Vista Association, Inc., R.O. Barra Left hand margin: 1.5 inches from the edge;
Builders & Electrical Services, and St. Charbel Executive Village,
Upper margin: 1.2 inches from the edge;
respectively, do not constitute competent evidence of their identities
under Section 12 (a), Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. In Right hand margin: 1.0 inch from the edge;
the same vein, their Joint-Affidavit identifying Andales and assuring the
CA that he was a party-litigant is not competent evidence of Andales's Lower margin: 1.0 inch from the edge
identity under Section 12 (b), Rule II of the same rules, considering that
they (i.e., Singson, Pasaqui, and Lominiqui) themselves are privy to the
instrument, i.e., the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping,
in which Andales's participation is sought to be proven. To note, it FILING WITH SC OF SOFT COPIES AND ANNEXES
cannot be presumed that an affiant is personally known to the notary
public, the jurat must contain a statement to that effect. Tellingly, the
notarial certificate of the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum (1) Soft copies of all SC-bound papers and their annexes must be
Shopping attached to private respondents' petition before the CA did submitted:
not state whether they presented competent evidence of their identities,
or that they were personally known to the notary public, and, thus, runs

afoul of the requirements of verification and certification against forum If by compact disc (CD): simultaneously with the hard copy;
shopping under Section 1, Rule 65, in relation to Section 3, Rule 46, of
the Rules of Court. If by e-mail: within 24 hours from the filing of the hard copy

EFFICIENT USE OF PAPER RULE It must be understood, however, that the paper shall be deemed to
have been filed on the date and time of filing of the hard copy and not
the soft copy.

APPLICABILITY

(2) The soft copy must be in PDF and individually saved, as well as
individually attached to the e-mail, if applicable. The filename of the soft
This rule shall apply to all courts and quasi-judicial bodies under the copy must be the same as the document title.
administrative supervision of the Supreme Court.

Examples:
FORMAT AND STYLE
Petition for Review should have a file name “Petition for Review.pdf”

Annex A should have a file name “Annex A.pdf”

All pleadings, motions, and similar papers intended for the court and
quasi-judicial body’s consideration and action (court-bound papers)
shall be written:
(3) Soft copies submitted by e-mail must be addressed to the
appropriate docketing office

In single-space

With a one-and-a-half space between paragraphs (4) The e-mail shall use the following format:

Using an easily readable font style of the party’s choice

Of 14-size font To: [e-mail address of the appropriate docketing office]

On a 13-inch by 8.5-inch white bond paper From: [filer’s e-mail address]

Subject: GR No. 123456 (John Doe vs. Juan Dela Cruz)

All decisions, resolutions and orders issued by courts and by Attachments: Petition for review.pdf Annex A.pdf Annex B.pdf
quasi-judicial bodies under the administrative supervision of Supreme
Court shall comply with these requirements.

Shay (EH403) notes, updated by Hya Page 2 of 14

 LEGAL FORMS 2018-2019

(5) A CD or an e-mail shall contain only electronic documents only. In case the total size of the PDF files exceeds the capacity of the
pertaining to one case. In the same manner, all soft copies of CD, the excess may be saved in another CD, provided, that the CD be
SC-bound papers and their annexes pertaining to the same case shall appropriately marked and follows the aforementioned format.
be saved in one CD or attached to one e-mail.

(d) Any discrepancy in the paper-based document and the electronic

In case the total size of the electronic documents exceeds the
maximum size of the CD or the maximum size allowed for uploading by
the e-mail service being used by the filer, the electronic documents
may be saved in different CDs or e-mailed in batches, but must be
clearly marked and/or follow the format prescribed above.
copy in the CD shall be a ground for dismissal of the petition for review.
In the case of comments, other responsive pleadings and motions, the
foregoing shall likewise be required, otherwise, the same shall be
deemed not filed.

(6) The filer shall also attach to the CD or the e-mail a verified
declaration that the pleading and annexes submitted electronically are
complete and true copies of the printed documents and annexes filed
with the SC.
SERVICE OF ANNEXES
Section 3. Paper-based filing. — In order to be responsible to the
environment and to save on paper, the petitioner shall file only the
original of the Petition for Review with its required attachments, and the
respondent shall file only the original of his or her comment thereon. No
copy of any document, pleading or motion other than the original shall
be received.

A party required by the rules to serve a copy of his court-bound paper
on the adverse party need not enclose copies of those annexes that
based on the record of the court such party has in his possession/
In the event a party requests a set of the annexes actually filed with the
court, the party who filed the paper shall comply with the request within
5 days from receipt.
DOJ DEPT. CIRCULAR NO. 018
Petitions for Review and other documents filed in relation thereto shall
be deemed to have filed on the time and date of filing the paper-based
document. All paper-based documents shall be submitted in a long
folder, secured with fasteners, and chronologically paginated from
bottom page upwards.
Non-compliance with this provision shall constitute a ground for the
dismissal of the petition for review. In the case of comments, other
responsive pleadings and motions, the same shall be deemed not filed.

Section 4. Declaration of Completeness. — A verified declaration

RULE ON ELECTRIC FILING OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW (March that the pleadings or motions and its annexes submitted electronically
08, 2017) are complete and faithful electronic reproductions of the paper-based
documents and annexes shall be attached with the Petition for Review.
The declaration shall follow the foregoing format:
Section 1. Scope. — This Rule shall apply to Petitions for Review filed
before the Office of the Secretary and the Offices of Regional
Prosecutors, as well as comments thereon, other documents filed
therefor, and any pleadings or motions thereafter.

Section 2. Electronic copies. — (a) All Petitions for Review filed

pursuant to Section 1 hereof shall have, in addition to its attachments, a
compact disc (CD) containing a PDF file of the Petition for Review and
all its attachments. No petition shall be docketed and deemed filed
without the accompanying CD.

(b) The Petition for Review and each of its attachments shall be
individually saved in PDF format, text-based whenever possible. The
filename of each shall be the same as the document title, viz:

i. Petition for Review should bear the filename "Petition for

Review.pdf" The declaration shall likewise be saved in the CD in PDF format.
ii. Annex A — Resolution dated January 10, 2017 should bear the
filename "Annex A — Resolution dated January 10, 2017.pdf"
etc. Non-compliance with this provision shall constitute a ground for the
dismissal of the petition for review. In the case of comments, other
responsive pleadings and motions, the same shall be deemed not filed.
(c) The CD shall contain only the electronic documents pertaining to
the Petition for Review concerned. In the same manner, all electronic
copies of the Petition and its attachments shall be saved in one CD
Shay (EH403) notes, updated by Hya Page 3 of 14
 LEGAL FORMS 2018-2019
Section 5. Dismissal for non-compliance with this Rule.— All
requirements abovementioned are MANDATORY and the
non-compliance with any provision shall constitute a ground for the
dismissal of the petition for review. In the case of comments, other
responsive pleadings and motions, the same shall be deemed not filed.
RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE
JUDGES AS NOTARIES PUBLIC EX OFFICIO
CIRCULAR NO. 1-90, February 26, 1990
Municipal trial court (MTC) and municipal circuit trial court (MCTC)
judges are empowered to perform the function of notaries public ex
officio under Section 76 of Republic Act No. 296, as amended
(otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948) and Section 242 of the
Revised Administrative Code.
But the Court hereby lays down the following qualifications on the
scope of this power:
MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries public ex officio in the
notarization of documents connected only with the exercise of their
official functions and duties.
They may not, as notaries public ex officio, undertake the preparation
and acknowledgment of private documents, contracts and other acts of
conveyances which bear no direct relation to the performance of their
functions as judges.
The 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct not only enjoins judges to regulate
their extra-judicial activities in order to minimize the risk of conflict with
their judicial duties, but also prohibits them from engaging in the private
practice of law (Canon 5 and Rule 5.07).
However, the Court, taking judicial notice of the fact that there are still
municipalities which have neither lawyers nor notaries public, rules that
MTC and MCTC judges assigned to municipalities or circuits with no
lawyers or notaries public may, in the capacity as notaries public ex
officio, perform any act within the competency of a regular notary public,
provided that:
(1) All notarial fees charged be for the account of the Government and
turned over to the municipal treasurer; and
(2) Certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the
lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality or circuit.
FUENTES vs. BUNO
FACTS: Geronimo Fuentes filed a complaint wherein he alleged that he
is one of the nine heirs of Bernardo Fuentes, their father, who owned
an agricultural land located at San Jose, Talibon, Bohol.
Shay (EH403) notes, updated by Hya
He also alleged that respondent judge prepared and notarized an
"Extra-Judicial Partition with Simultaneous Absolute Deed of Sale" of
the said agricultural land, executed by complainant’s mother Eulalia
Credo Vda. de Fuentes, widow of Bernardo Fuentes, and Alejandro
Fuentes, on his own behalf and on behalf of his brothers and sisters,
including Geronimo Fuentes, as heirs/vendors and one Ma. Indira A.
Auxtero, as vendee.
In the aforesaid document, the aforementioned agricultural land was
sold, transferred and conveyed by the heirs/vendors to the vendee
despite the fact that in his Special Power of Attorney (SPA), he merely
appointed his brother, Alejandro Fuentes to mortgage said agricultural
land but not to partition, much more to sell the same.
According to complainant Geronimo Fuentes respondent judge
notarized said document as ex-officio Notary Public, thereby abusing
his discretion and authority as well as committing graft and corruption.
In defense, respondent judge contended that he could not be charged
of graft and corruption, since in a municipality where a notary public is
unavailable, a municipal judge is allowed to notarize documents or
deeds as ex-officio notary public.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent judge has authority to notarize
the documents.
RULING: NO. While Section 76 of Republic Act No. 296, as amended,
and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code authorize MTC
and MCTC judges to perform the functions of notaries public ex officio,
the Court laid down the scope of said authority.
SC Circular No. 1-90 prohibits judges from undertaking the preparation
and acknowledgment of private documents, contracts and other deeds
of conveyances which have no direct relation to the discharge of their
official functions. In this case, respondent judge admitted that he
prepared both the document itself, entitled "Extra-judicial Partition with
Simultaneous Absolute Deed of Sale" and the acknowledgment of the
said document, which had no relation at all to the performance of his
function as a judge. These acts of respondent judge are clearly
proscribed by the aforesaid Circular.
While it may be true that no notary public was available or residing
within respondent judge’s territorial jurisdiction, as shown by the
certifications issued by the RTC Clerk of Court and the Municipal Mayor
of Talibon, Bohol, SC Circular No. 1-90 specifically requires that a
certification attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in the
said municipality or circuit be made in the notarized document. Here,
no such certification was made in the Extra-Judicial Partition with
Simultaneous Deed of Sale. Respondent judge also failed to indicate in
his answer as to whether or not any notarial fee was charged for that
transaction, and if so, whether the same was turned over to the
Municipal Treasurer of Talibon, Bohol. Clearly, then, respondent judge,
who was the sitting judge of the MCTC, Talibon-Getafe, Bohol, failed to
comply with the aforesaid conditions prescribed by SC Circular No.
1-90, even if he could have acted as notary public ex-officio in the
absence of any lawyer or notary public in the municipality or circuit to
which he was assigned.
TUPAL vs. ROJO
Page 4 of 14
 LEGAL FORMS 2018-2019

the parties' marriage. As a solemnizing officer, the judge's only duty

FACTS: Tupal filed with the Office of the Court Administrator a
complaint against Judge Rojo for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct
and for gross ignorance of the law.
Judge Rojo of MTCC Branch 5 of Bacolod City 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.
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. Thus, affidavits of
cohabitation are documents not connected with the judge's official
function and duty to solemnize marriages.
Moreover, the affidavit of cohabitation, even if it serves a "public
purpose," remains a private document until notarized. Thus, when
Judge Rojo notarized the affidavits of cohabitation, he notarized private
documents which is prohibited under the circular.

For notarizing affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage he

solemnized, Judge Rojo allegedly violated Circular No. 1-90. 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 judge's official functions and duties as solemnizing
officer.
Also, Judge Rojo allegedly violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
when he 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.
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. That the parties appeared before Judge Rojo and that he
interviewed them do not make the parties personally known to him. The
parties are supposed to appear in person to subscribe to their affidavits.
To personally know the parties, the notary public must at least be
acquainted with them. Interviewing the contracting parties does not
make the parties personally known to the notary public.
For violating Circular No. 1-90 and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
nine times, Judge Rojo is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.

Judge Rojo’s arguments:

2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE
1. That Tupal was just harassing him since Tupal’s daughter has a
pending case before his court.

2. That the Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by the PURPOSES

Members of the Judiciary does not prohibit judges from notarizing
affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage they will solemnize.
Thus, he did not violate Circular No. 1-90.
These Rules shall be applied and construed to advance the following
3. That he did not violate the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He is a purposes:
judge, not a notary public. Thus, he was not required to affix a notarial
seal on the affidavits he notarized.

4. That he need not notarize the affidavits with the parties presenting (a) To promote, serve, and protect public interest;
their competent pieces of evidence of identity. Since he interviewed the
parties as to the contents of their affidavits, he personally knew them to
be the same persons who executed the affidavit. The parties' identities
(b) To simplify, clarify, and modernize the rules governing notaries
are "unquestionable."
public; and

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Rojo is guilty of violating the New Code
(c) To foster ethical conduct among notaries public.
of Judicial Conduct and of gross ignorance of the law.

WHO IS A “PRINCIPAL”
RULING: Yes. Judge Rojo violated Circular No. 1-90 and the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice.

“Principal” refers to a person appearing before the notary public whose

act is the subject of notarization.
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 court's Sir’s discussion:
territorial jurisdiction. Thus, Judge Rojo violated Circular No. 1-90.
It depends on the circumstances –

a) Whether married or not

Based on law and the Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by
the Members of the Judiciary, the person who notarizes the contracting
parties' affidavit of cohabitation cannot be the judge who will solemnize
b) Whether it’s a corporation
Shay (EH403) notes, updated by Hya Page 5 of 14
 LEGAL FORMS 2018-2019

(Wala ko’y sure ani) POWERS

COMPETENT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY 1. A notary public is empowered to perform the following notarial acts:

The phrase "competent evidence of identity" refers to the identification a) Acknowledgments;

of an individual based on at least one current identification document
issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of b) Oaths and affirmations;
the individual such as but not limited to:
c) Jurats;

d) Signature witnessings;
 Passport
e) Copy certifications; and
 Driver's license
f) Any other act authorized by these Rules.
 Professional Regulations Commission ID

 National Bureau of Investigation clearance

2. A notary public is authorized to certify the affixing of a signature by
 Police clearance thumb or other mark on an instrument or document presented for
notarization if:
 Postal ID

 Voter's ID
a) The thumb or other mark is affixed in the presence of the
 Barangay certification notary public and of two (2) disinterested and unaffected
witnesses to the instrument or document;
 Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) e-card

 Social Security System (SSS) card

b) Both witnesses sign their own names in addition to the thumb
 Philhealth card, senior citizen card or other mark;

 Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID

 OFW ID c) The notary public writes below the thumb or other mark:
"Thumb or Other Mark affixed by (name of signatory by mark) in
 Seaman's book the presence of (names and addresses of witnesses) and
undersigned notary public"; and
 Alien certificate of registration/immigrant certificate of registration

 Government office ID
d) The notary public notarizes the signature by thumb or other
 Certificate from the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled
mark through an acknowledgment, jurat, or signature witnessing.
Persons (NCWDP)

 Department of Social Welfare and Development certification

(Section 12 of Rule II, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as 3. A notary public is authorized to sign on behalf of a person who is
amended by A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC dated February 19, 2008); or physically unable to sign or make a mark on an instrument or document
if:
 The oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the
instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to
the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of
two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, a) The notary public is directed by the person unable to sign or
document or transaction who each personally knows the make a mark to sign on his behalf;
individual and shows to the notary public documentary
identification.

b) The signature of the notary public is affixed in the presence of

two disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or
NOTARIAL CERTIFICATES document;

“Notarial Certificate” refers to the part of, or attachment to, a notarized c) Both witnesses sign their own names;
instrument or document that is completed by the notary public, bears
the notary's signature and seal, and states the facts attested to by the
notary public in a particular notarization as provided for by these Rules.
d) The notary public writes below his signature: “Signature affixed
by notary in presence of (names and addresses of person and
two [2] witnesses)”; and
POWERS AND LIMITATIONS OF NOTARIES PUBLIC

Shay (EH403) notes, updated by Hya Page 6 of 14

 LEGAL FORMS 2018-2019
e) The notary public notarizes his signature by acknowledgment
or jurat.
PROHIBITIONS
1. A notary public shall not perform a notarial act outside his regular
place of work or business; provided, however, that on certain
exceptional occasions or situations, a notarial act may be performed at
the request of the parties in the following sites located within his
territorial jurisdiction:
a) Public offices, convention halls, and similar places where
oaths of office may be administered;
b) Public function areas in hotels and similar places for the
signing of instruments or documents requiring notarization;
c) Hospitals and other medical institutions where a party to an
instrument or document is confined for treatment; and
d) Any place where a party to an instrument or document
requiring notarization is under detention.
2. A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as
signatory to the instrument or document –
a) Is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the
notarization; and
b) 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.
DISQUALIFICATIONS
Notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he:
a) Is a party to the instrument or document that is to be notarized;
b) Will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any commission, fee,
advantage, right, title, interest, cash, property, or other
consideration, except as provided by these Rules and by law; or
c) Is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or
relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the
fourth civil degree
Shay (EH403) notes, updated by Hya
REFUSAL TO NOTARIZE: A notary public shall not perform any
notarial act described in these Rules for any person requesting such an
act even if he tenders the appropriate fee specified by these Rules if:
a) The notary knows or has good reason to believe that the
notarial act or transaction is unlawful or immoral;
b) The signatory shows a demeanor which engenders in the mind
of the notary public reasonable doubt as to the former's
knowledge of the consequences of the transaction requiring a
notarial act; and
c) In the notary's judgment, the signatory is not acting of his or
her own free will.
FALSE OR INCOMPLETE CERTIFICATE: A notary public shall not:
a) Execute a certificate containing information known or believed
by the notary to be false;
b) Affix an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is
incomplete.
IMPROPER INSTRUMENTS OR DOCUMENTS: A notary public shall
not notarize:
a) A blank or incomplete instrument or document;
b) An instrument or document without appropriate notarial
certification.
CASES
MARIA vs. CORTEZ
Secretaries’ assurance not given credence by the SC; no personal
appearance
FACTS: Spouses William and Ermita Maria bought a land from
Emmanuel and Ethel Biteng, who presented an SPA allegedly signed
by Gundaway and Namnama, appointing him as their attorney-in-fact in
all transactions pertaining to the subject properties. The SPA was
notarized by respondent Atty. Cortez.
The complainant, however, doubted the authenticity of the document
as it appeared to be a mere photocopy. He also learned that both
Gundaway and Namnama were living abroad, who allegedly never
came home to execute an SPA in favor of Emmanuel.
Page 7 of 14
 LEGAL FORMS 2018-2019
Spouses Biteng, however, promised to send Spouses Maria a duly
signed SPA notarized in the USA. Relying on their word, Ernita affixed
her signature on the Deed of Sale. When Spouses Maria were back in
Australia, they received a communication from the Philippines together
with a General Power of Attorney (GPA) signed by Gundaway and
Namnama executed in Daly City, California, USA; but said document
was allegedly not authenticated by the Philippine Embassy. The
document is also notarized by the respondent. The complainant got in
touch with Gundaway and Namnama in the USA who told them that
they did not execute any SPA in favor of Emmanuel.
ISSUE: WON Respondent Atty. Cortez is administratively liable for
notarizing a document in the absence of the affiants.
RULING: The Supreme Court reprimanded and disqualified Atty.
Cortez as Notary Public for 6 months.
In the respondent's defense, he asserted that he had no active
participation in the sale nor did he exert any influence over the parties
into agreeing to said sale; that his two well-trusted secretaries carefully
scrutinized every document, specifically the identities of the parties
involved and the authenticity of their signatures, before they were
brought to him for his notarial signature. The respondent also averred
that the SPA he notarized was not the one used in the registration of
the subject properties.
SC in its ruling said that, it should be noted that a notary public's
function should not be trivialized and a notary public must discharge his
powers and duties which are impressed with public interest, with
accuracy and fidelity. A notary public exercises duties calling for
carefulness and faithfulness. Notaries must inform themselves of the
facts they certify to; most importantly, they should not take part or allow
themselves to be part of illegal transactions.
ISENHARDT vs. REAL
Complainant was not in the personal presence of respondent at the
time of notarization (Evidence is German passport)
FACTS: Respondent notarized a Special Power Attorney (SPA)
supposedly executed by her. The SPA authorizes complainant's
brother to mortgage her real property located in Antipolo City.
Complainant averred that she never appeared before respondent. She
maintained that it was impossible for her to subscribe to the questioned
document in the presence of respondent on 14 September 2000 since
she was in Germany at that time.
To support her contention, complainant presented a certified true copy
of her German passport and a Certification from the Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation (BID) indicating that she arrived in the
Philippines on 22 June 2000 and left the country on 4 August 2000.
The passport further indicated that she arrived again in the Philippines
only on 1 July 2001.
Complainant submitted that because of respondent's act, the property
subject of the SPA was mortgaged and later foreclosed by the Rural
Bank of Antipolo City.
Shay (EH403) notes, updated by Hya
In his answer, respondent denied the allegations in the complaint. He
narrated that sometime in the middle of year 2000, spouses Wilfredo
and Lorena Gusi approached him to seek advice regarding the
computer business they were planning to put up. During one of their
meetings, the spouses allegedly introduced to him a woman by the
name of Nesa G. Isenhardt, sister of Wilfredo, as the financier of their
proposed business.
Respondent further narrated that on 14 September 2000, spouses Gusi,
together with the woman purporting to be the complainant, went to his
office to have the subject SPA notarized. He maintained that the parties
all signed in his presence, exhibiting to him their respective Community
Tax Certificates (CTCs). He added that the complainant even
presented to him the original copy of the Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) of the property subject of the SPA evidencing her ownership of
the property.
ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of gross negligence as a notary
public.
RULING: Respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and the Code of
Professional Responsibility when he made it appear that complainant
personally appeared before him and subscribed an SPA authorizing
her brother to mortgage her property.
It cannot be overemphasized that a notary public should not notarize a
document unless the person who signs it is the same person who
executed it, personally appearing before him to attest to the contents
and the truth of what are stated therein. This is to enable the notary
public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging
party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act.
Respondent insists that complainant appeared before him and
subscribed to the SPA subject of the instant case. His contention,
however, cannot prevail over the documentary evidence presented by
complainant that she was not in the Philippines on 14 September 2000,
the day the SPA was allegedly notarized. Respondent may have
indeed met complainant in person during the period the latter was
allegedly introduced to him by Spouses Gusi but that did not change
the fact established by evidence that complainant was not in the
personal presence of respondent at the time of notarization. It is well
settled that entries in official records made in the performance of a duty
by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance
of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the
facts therein stated.
AMORA vs. COMELEC
A defective notarization is not a ground to disqualify.
FACTS: Petitioner Amora filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor of
Candijay, Bohol. At that time, Amora was the incumbent Mayor of
Candijay and had been twice elected to the post in 2007 and in 2007.
Olandria, one of the candidates for councilor in the same municipality,
filed before the COMELEC a Petition for Disqualification against Amora.
Olandria alleged that Amora’s COC was not properly sworn contrary to
the requirements of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) and the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice. Olandria pointed out that, in executing his
COC, Amora merely presented his Community Tax Certificate (CTC) to
the notary public, Atty. Oriculo Granada (Atty. Granada), instead of
Page 8 of 14
 LEGAL FORMS 2018-2019
presenting competent evidence of his identity. Consequently, Amoras
COC had no force and effect and should be considered as not filed.
ISSUE: Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in
upholding Olandria's claim that an improperly sworn COC is equivalent
to possession of a ground for disqualification.
RULING: YES. In this case, it was grave abuse of discretion to uphold
Olandrias claim that an improperly sworn COC is equivalent to
possession of a ground for disqualification. Not by any stretch of the
imagination can we infer this as an additional ground for disqualification
from the specific wording of the Omnibus Election Code in Section 68.
It is quite obvious that the Olandria's petition is not based on any of the
grounds for disqualification as enumerated in the foregoing statutory
provisions. Nowhere therein does it specify that a defective notarization
is a ground for the disqualification of a candidate. Yet, the COMELEC
would uphold that petition upon the outlandish claim that it is a petition
to disqualify a candidate "for lack of qualifications or possessing some
grounds for disqualification."
Competent evidence of identity is not required in cases where the
affiant is personally known to the Notary Public, which is the case
herein.
In this case, contrary to the declarations of the COMELEC, Amora
complied with the requirement of a sworn COC. He readily explained
that he and Atty. Granada personally knew each other; they were not
just colleagues at the League of Municipal Mayors, Bohol Chapter, but
they consider each other as distant relatives. Thus, the alleged defect
in the oath was not proven by Olandria since the presentation of a CTC
turned out to be sufficient in this instance.
BAYLON vs. ALMO
FACTS: Complainant averred that Pacita Filio, Rodolfo Llantino, Jr.
and his late wife, Rosemarie Baylon, conspired in preparing an SPA
authorizing his wife to mortgage his real property located in Signal
Village, Taguig. He said that he was out of the country when the SPA
was executed on June 17, 1996, and also when it was notarized by the
respondent on June 26, 1996. To support his contention that he was
overseas on those dates, he presented (1) a certification from the
Government of Singapore showing that he was vaccinated in the said
country on June 17, 1996; and (2) a certification from the Philippine
Bureau of Immigration showing that he was out of the country from
March 21, 1995 to January 28, 1997. To prove that his signature on the
SPA was forged, the complainant presented a report from the National
Bureau of Investigation stating to the effect that the questioned
signature on the SPA was not written by him.
The complainant likewise alleged that because of the SPA, his real
property was mortgaged to Lorna Express Credit Corporation and that
it was subsequently foreclosed due to the failure of his wife to settle her
mortgage obligations.
In his answer, the respondent admitted notarizing the SPA, but he
argued that he initially refused to notarize it when the complainant’s
wife first came to his office on June 17, 1996, due to the absence of the
supposed affiant thereof. He said that he only notarized the SPA when
the complainant’s wife came back to his office on June 26, 1996,
Shay (EH403) notes, updated by Hya
together with a person whom she introduced to him as Charles Baylon.
He further contended that he believed in good faith that the person
introduced to him was the complainant because said person presented
to him a Community Tax Certificate bearing the name Charles Baylon.
To corroborate his claims, the respondent attached the affidavit of his
secretary, Leonilita de Silva.
The respondent likewise denied having taken part in any scheme to
commit fraud, deceit or falsehood.
ISSUE: Whether respondent had been negligent in the performance of
his duties as a notary public in this case.
RULING: YES. Mindful of his duties as a notary public and taking into
account the nature of the SPA which in this case authorized the
complainant’s wife to mortgage the subject real property, the
respondent should have exercised utmost diligence in ascertaining the
true identity of the person who represented himself and was
represented to be the complainant.
He should not have relied on the Community Tax Certificate presented
by the said impostor in view of the ease with which community tax
certificates are obtained these days. As a matter of fact, recognizing
the established unreliability of a community tax certificate in proving the
identity of a person who wishes to have his document notarized, we did
not include it in the list of competent evidence of identity that notaries
public should use in ascertaining the identity of persons appearing
before them to have their documents notarized.
REYES vs. GLAUCOMA
FACTS: The instant petition arose from a complaint for illegal dismissal
filed by petitioner against respondents with the NLRC, National Capital
Region, Quezon City.
Petitioner alleged that: on August 1, 2003, he was hired by respondent
corporation as administrator of the latter's Eye Referral Center (ERC);
beginning February 2005, respondent withheld petitioner's salary
without notice but he still continued to report for work; on April 11, 2005,
petitioner wrote a letter to respondent Manuel Agulto (Agulto), who is
the Executive Director of respondent corporation, informing the latter
that he has not been receiving his salaries since February 2005 as well
as his 14th month pay for 2004; petitioner did not receive any response
from Agulto; on April 21, 2005, petitioner was informed by the Assistant
to the Executive Director as well as the Assistant Administrative Officer,
that he is no longer the Administrator of the ERC; subsequently,
petitioner's office was padlocked and closed without notice; he still
continued to report for work but on April 29, 2005 he was no longer
allowed by the security guard on duty to enter the premises of the ERC.
On their part, respondents contended that: upon petitioner's
representation that he is an expert in corporate organizational structure
and management affairs, they engaged his services as a consultant or
adviser in the formulation of an updated organizational set-up and
employees' manual which is compatible with their present condition;
based on his claim that there is a need for an administrator for the ERC,
he later designated himself as such on a trial basis.
Page 9 of 14
 LEGAL FORMS 2018-2019
The LA assigned to the case rendered a Decision dismissing
petitioner's complaint. However, on appeal, the NLRC reversed and set
aside the Decision of the LA. Respondents filed an MR but were denied.
They later on filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA.
Petitioner contends that respondents' petition for certiorari filed with the
CA should have been dismissed on the ground that it was improperly
verified because the jurat portion of the verification states only the
community tax certificate number of the affiant as evidence of her
identity. Petitioner argues that under the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice, as amended by a Resolution of this Court, dated February 19,
2008, a community tax certificate is not among those considered as
competent evidence of identity.
ISSUE: WON the CA erred and abused its discretion in not dismissing
respondents' petition for certiorari on the ground that respondents
submitted a verification that fails to comply with the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice.
RULING: NO. The Court does not agree.
This Court has already ruled that competent evidence of identity is not
required in cases where the affiant is personally known to the notary
public.
Thus, as earlier stated, if the affiant is personally known to the notary
public, the latter need not require the former to show evidence of
identity as required under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as
amended.
Applying the above rule to the instant case, it is undisputed that the
attorney-in-fact of respondents who executed the verification and
certificate against forum shopping, which was attached to respondents'
petition filed with the CA, is personally known to the notary public
before whom the documents were acknowledged. Both attorney-in-fact
and the notary public hold office at respondents' place of business and
the latter is also the legal counsel of respondents.
NEVADA vs. CASUGA
Signing in behalf of another person
FACTS: In 2007, Corazon Nevada, filed a disbarment case against Atty.
Rodolfo Casuga. Nevada alleged the following:
1. That Atty. Casuga acquired several pieces of jewelry from her; the
jewelries include diamond earrings and diamond rings amounting
P300,000.00. and a Rolex gold watch worth $12,000.00; that Casuga
assured her that he will sell them; but despite repeated demands,
Casuga never remitted any money nor did he return said jewelries.
2. That in 2006, Casuga, taking advantage of his close relationship with
Nevada (they belong to the same religious sect), Casuga represented
himself as the hotel administrator of the hotel (Mt. Crest) that Nevada
own; that as such, Casuga was able to enter into a contract of lease
Shay (EH403) notes, updated by Hya
with one Jung Chul; that he negotiated an office space with Chul in said
Hotel for P90,000.00; that Casuga notarized said agreement; that he
forged the signature of Edwin Nevada (husband); that he never
remitted the P90k to Nevada.
In his defense, Casuga said:
1. That Nevada actually pawned said jewelries in a pawnshop; that she
later advised Casuga’s wife to redeem said jewelries using Mrs.
Casuga’s wife; that Casuga can sell said jewelries and reimburse
herself from the proceeds; that he still has possession of said jewelries.
2. That he never received the P90,000.00; that it was received by a
certain Pastor Oh; that he was authorized as an agent by Edwin
Nevada to enter into said contract of lease.
ISSUE: Whether Casuga had been negligent in his performance as a
notary public.
RULING: YES. He signed a document (contract of lease) in behalf of
another person without authorization. His forgery made him an actual
party to the contract. In effect he was notarizing a document in which
he is party in violation of the notarial rules (Secs. 1 and 3, Rule IV).
COQUIA vs. LAFORTEZA
FACTS: Atty. Laforteza was a former Clerk of the RTC, Branch 68,
Lingayen, Pangasinan, having assumed office in November 17, 2004
until January 31, 2011.
On February 6, 2012, this Flordeliza E. Coquia filed a petition for
disbarment against Atty. Laforteza, for Conduct Unbecoming of a
Lawyer due to the unauthorized notarization of documents.
Coquia asserted that under the law, Atty. Laforteza is not authorized to
administer oath on documents not related to his functions and duties as
Clerk of Court of RTC. Thus, the instant complaint for disbarment for
conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.
On January 12, 2012, the Office of the Bar Confidant referred the
complaint to Atty. Cristina B. Layusa, Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar
Confidant, Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court, for appropriate
action.
On March 19, 2012, the Court resolved to require Atty. Laforteza to
comment on the complaint against him. In compliance, Atty. Laforteza
submitted his Comment where he denied the allegations in the
complaint. Atty. Laforteza recalled that on January 7, 2009, while
attending to his work, fellow court employee, Luzviminda Solis, wife of
Clemente, with other persons, came to him. He claimed that
Luzviminda introduced said persons to him as the same parties to the
subject documents.
Page 10 of 14
 LEGAL FORMS 2018-2019

Luzviminda requested him to subscribe the subject documents as proof commissioned notaries public. However, this Court can no longer
of their transaction considering that they are blood relatives. Atty. acquire administrative jurisdiction over Atty. Laforteza for the purpose
Laforteza claimed that he hesitated at first and even directed them to of imposing disciplinary sanctions over erring court employees since
seek the services of a notary public but they insisted for his assistance the instant complaint against him was filed after he has ceased to be a
and accommodation. Thus, in response to the exigency of the situation court employee.
and thinking in all good faith that it would also serve the parties' interest
having arrived at a settlement, Atty. Laforteza opted to perform the
subscription of the jurat. He, however, insisted that at that time of
GAMIDO vs. NEW BILIBID PRISON
subscription, after propounding some questions, he was actually
convinced that the persons who came to him are the same parties to
the said subject documents.
FACTS: The Supreme court required Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea to
show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for
Atty. Laforteza likewise denied that there was conspiracy or making it appear in the jurat of the petition in this case that petitioner
connivance between him and the Solis. He pointed out that other than Gambino subscribed the verification when in truth and in fact the
the subject documents and Coquia's bare allegation of conspiracy, no petitioner did not.
evidence was presented to substantiate the same. Atty. Laforteza
lamented that he was also a victim of the circumstances with his
reliance to the representations made before him. In his explanation, Atty. dela Rea admitted having executed the jurat
without the presence of petitioner, who was imprisoned in the New
Bilibid Prisons at the time of notarization.
In a Joint-Affidavit of Clemente and Luzviminda, both denied to have
connived or conspired with Atty. Laforteza in the preparation and
execution of the subject documents. He said he did it in the honest belief that since it is jurat and not an
acknowledgement, it would be alright to notarize without the petitioner’s
presence since he knew the latter.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Laforteza acted in abuse of his authority in
committing an unauthorized notarial act.
ISSUE: Whether executing a jurat without the presence of the person
swearing is proper.
RULING: In the instant case, we find that Coquia failed to present clear
and preponderant evidence to show that Atty. Laforteza had direct and
instrumental participation, or was in connivance with the Solis' in the RULING: NO.
preparation of the subject documents. The Court does not thus give
credence to charges based on mere suspicion and speculation.

Consequently, the empowerment of ex officio notaries public to perform
acts within the competency of regular notaries public under the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice is now more of an exception rather than a
general rule.
A jurat is that part of an affidavit in which the officer certifies that the
instrument was subscribed and sworn to before him.
Accordingly, in a jurat, the affiant must sign the document in the
presence of and take his oath before a notary public or any other
person authorized to administer oaths.

In the instant case, it is undisputed that Atty. Laforteza notarized and

administered oaths in documents that had no relation to his official
function. The subject documents are both private documents which are An acknowledgment, on the other hand, shall be made before a notary
unrelated to Atty. Laforteza's official functions. The civil case from public in which the notary public shall certify that the person
where the subject documents originated is not even raffled in Branch acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he
68 where Atty. Laforteza was assigned. While Atty. Laforteza serve as is the same person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same
notary public ex officio and, thus, may notarize documents or is his free act and deed.
administer oaths, he should not in his ex officio capacity take part in the
execution of private documents bearing no relation at all to his official
functions.
It is obvious that the party acknowledging must likewise appear before
the notary public or any other person authorized to take
acknowledgments of instruments or documents.
It is undisputed that Atty. Laforteza failed to comply with the rules of
notarial law.
The claim or belief of Atty. dela Rea that the presence of petitioner was
not necessary for the jurat because it is not an acknowledgment is
Hence, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the patently baseless.
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.
His prior acquaintance and friendship with petitioner provides no
excuse for non-compliance with his duty. If Atty. dela Rea were faithful
to his duty as a notary public and if he wanted to accommodate a friend
While Atty. Laforteza was merely an ex-officio notary public by virtue of who was inside a prison, he could have gone to the latter's cell.
his position as clerk of court then, it did not relieve him of compliance
with the same standards and obligations imposed upon other
Shay (EH403) notes, updated by Hya Page 11 of 14
 LEGAL FORMS 2018-2019

Thus, Atty. dela Rea committed grave misconduct when he agreed to
prepare the jurat in the petition in this case in the absence of petitioner,
making it appear that the latter personally signed the certification of the
petition and took his oath before him when in truth and in fact the said
petitioner did not.
APOLINAR-PETILO vs. MARAMOT
Respondent notarized a deed of donation even if the donees were
minors and did not appear before him.
SC: There is no question that a donation can be accepted in a separate
instrument. However, the deed of donation in question was also the
same instrument that apparently contained the acceptance. The names
of Princess Anne and Mommayda as the donees, even if still minors,
should have been included in the notarial acknowledgment of the deed
itself; and, in view of their minority, the names of their respective
parents (or legal guardians) assisting them should have also been
indicated thereon. This requirement was not complied with. Moreover,
Princess Anne and Mommayda should have also signed the deed of
donation themselves along with their assisting parents or legal
guardians.
The omission indicated that the deed of donation was not complete.
Hence, the notarial acknowledgment of the deed of donation was
improper.
Aquinos in turn agreed to grant to Bustria the right to repurchase the
same property after the lapse of seven (7) years.
Bustria died and he was substituted by his daughter, the petitioner,
Zenaida B. Tigno. Tigno attempted to repurchase the property by filing
a Motion for Consignation. The Aquinos filed an opposition, arguing
that the right to repurchase was not yet demandable and that Tigno had
failed to make a tender of payment. The Motion for Consignation was
denied.
Tigno filed an action for revival of judgement. The spouses in their
answer alleged that Bustria had sold his right to repurchase the
property to them in a deed of sale.
During trial, two witnesses were presented, the instrumental witness to
the deed of sale, and former Judge Franklin Cario (Judge Cario), who
notarized the same. These two witnesses testified as to the occasion of
the execution and signing of the deed of sale by Bustria.
RTC RULING: A Decision was rendered by the RTC in favor of Tigno.
The RTC therein expressed doubts as to the authenticity of the Deed of
Sale, characterizing the testimonies of De Francia and Cario as
conflicting. The RTC likewise observed that nowhere in the alleged
deed of sale was there any statement that it was acknowledged by
Bustria, that it was suspicious that Bustria was not assisted or
represented by his counsel in connection with the preparation and
execution of the deed of sale.

HEIR OF UNITE vs. GUZMAN

Respondent notarized a Deed of Self Adjudication with Sale with the
affiant showing only his CTC as CEI.
SC: Jurisprudence provides that a community tax certificate or cedula
is no longer considered as a valid and competent evidence of identity
not only because it is not included in the list of competent evidence of
identity under the Rules; more importantly, it does not bear the
photograph and signature of the person appearing before notaries
public which the Rules deem as the more appropriate and competent
means by which they can ascertain the person's identity.
CA’S RULING: Reversed RTC Ruling. The absence of the
acknowledgment and substitution instead of a jurat did not render the
instrument invalid; and that the non-assistance or representation of
Bustria by counsel did not render the document null and ineffective. It
was noted that a notarized document carried in its favor the
presumption of regularity with respect to its due execution, and that
there must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant
evidence to contradict the same.
ISSUE: Whether former Judge Cario has the capacity to notarize the
alleged document in this present case.

RULING: The notarial certification of the Deed of Sale reads as follows:

TIGNO vs. SPS. AQUINO

FACTS: The controversy in the present petition hinges on the

admissibility of a single document, a deed of sale involving interest
over real property, notarized by a person of questionable capacity.

Spouses Aquino filed a complaint for enforcement of contract and

damages against Isidro Bustria. The complaint sought to enforce an
alleged sale by Bustria to the Aquinos of a fishpond. The property was
not registered.
There are palpable errors in this certification. Most glaringly, the
document is certified by way of a jurat instead of an acknowledgment.

The conveyance was covered by a Deed of Sale dated 2 September

1978. Bustria and the Aquinos entered into a compromise agreement,
whereby Bustria agreed to recognize the validity of the sale, and the A jurat is a distinct creature from an acknowledgment. An
acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going

Shay (EH403) notes, updated by Hya Page 12 of 14

 LEGAL FORMS 2018-2019
before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or
deed; while a jurat is that part of an affidavit where the officer certifies
that the same was sworn before him. Under Section 127 of the Land
Registration Act, which has been replicated in Section 112 of
Presidential Decree No. 1529, the Deed of Sale should have been
acknowledged before a notary public.
As to the authority of the former judge:
It is undisputed that Franklin Cario at the time of the notarization of the
Deed of Sale, was a sitting judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Alaminos. Petitioners point out, citing Tabao v. Asis, that municipal
judges may not undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of
private documents, contracts, and other acts of conveyance which bear
no relation to the performance of their functions as judges. In response,
respondents claim that the prohibition imposed on municipal court
judges from notarizing documents took effect only in December of 1989,
or four years after the Deed of Sale was notarized by Cario.
Respondents’ contention is erroneous. Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and
Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) judges are empowered to perform
the functions of notaries public ex officio under Section 76 of Republic
Act No. 296, as amended (otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of
1948) and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code. However,
as far back as 1980 in Borre v. Moya, the Court explicitly declared that
municipal court judges such as Cario may notarize only documents
connected with the exercise of their official duties. The Deed of Sale
was not connected with any official duties of Judge Cario, and there
was no reason for him to notarize it.
There are possible grounds for leniency in connection with this matter,
as Supreme Court Circular No. I-90 permits notaries public ex officio to
perform any act within the competency of a regular notary public
provided that certification be made in the notarized documents
attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality
or circuit. Indeed, it is only when there are no lawyers or notaries public
that the exception applies.
The facts of this case do not warrant a relaxed attitude towards Judge
Carios improper notarial activity. There was no such certification in the
Deed of Sale. Even if one was produced, we would be hard put to
accept the veracity of its contents, considering that Alaminos,
Pangasinan, now a city, was even then not an isolated backwater town
and had its fair share of practicing lawyers.
DIMAYUGA vs. RUBIA
Respondent prepared and notarized a deed of sale, covering a parcel
of land, which was evidently prohibited to be sold, transferred, or
conveyed under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657 (Land was covered by
CLOA so it should not be sold within 10 years.)
SC: In preparing and notarizing a deed of sale within the prohibited
period to sell the subject property under the law, respondent assisted, if
not led, the contracting parties, who relied on her knowledge of the law
being their lawyer, to an act constitutive of a blatant disregard for or
defiance of the law.
Shay (EH403) notes, updated by Hya
Moreover, respondent likewise displayed lack of respect and made a
mockery of the solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment as her act
of notarizing such illegal document entitled it full faith and credit upon
its face, when it obviously does not deserve such entitlement,
considering its illegality due to the prohibition above-cited. Respondent
should not have notarized the deed by virtue of Rule IV, Sec. 4 of the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice:
“SEC. 4. Refusal to Notarize. — A notary public shall not perform any
notarial act described in these Rules for any person requesting such an
act even if he tenders the appropriate fee specified by these Rules if:
(a) the notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act
or transaction is unlawful or immoral; xxx”
OASIS PARK HOTEL vs. NAVALUNA
The Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping and Affidavit of
Service attached to the Petition were accompanied by a duly
accomplished jurat indicating the respective affiants' competent
evidence of identity, particularly, their Social Security System Card and
Voter's ID, respectively. The Court already pointed out in Heirs of
Amada Zaulda v. Isaac Zaulda, that dismissal by the Court of Appeals
of the petition for lack of competent evidence on the affiant's identity on
the attached verification and certification against forum shopping was
without clear basis. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice does not
require the attachment of a photocopy of the identification card in the
document. Even A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, amending Section 12 thereof, is
silent on it.
TRIOL vs. AGCAOILI
It is settled that "notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act,
but one invested with substantive public interest. Notarization converts
a private document into a public document, making it admissible in
evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, a notarized
document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for
this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost care the
basic requirements in the performance of his notarial duties; otherwise,
the public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would
be undermined."
In this light, Section 2 (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Notarial Rules requires a
duly commissioned notary public to perform a notarial act only if the
person involved as signatory to the instrument or document is: (a) in
the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and (b)
personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the
notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by
these Rules. In other words, a notary public is not allowed to 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. The purpose of this
requirement is to enable theto ascertain that the document is the
party's free act and deed.
Page 13 of 14
 LEGAL FORMS 2018-2019

Parenthetically, in the realm of legal ethics, a breach of the aforesaid

provision of the 2004 Notarial Rules would also constitute a violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), considering that an
erring lawyer who is found to be remiss in his functions as a notary
public is considered to have violated his oath as a lawyer as well.

In this case, records show that respondent indeed violated the 2004
Notarial Rules when he notarized the subject deed without complainant
and Grace personally appearing before him, much more without the
requisite notarial commission in 2011. Significantly, it was established
that both complainant and Grace could not have personally appeared
before respondent, since Grace was already residing at the U.S. at the
time of the supposed notarization. Furthermore, complainant presented
a Certification issued by the Clerk of Court of the RTC showing that
respondent was also not a commissioned notary public for and within
Quezon City in 2012. On the other hand, respondent, apart from his
bare denials and unsubstantiated defense of forgery, failed to rebut
complainant's allegations and evidence. While respondent provided his
specimen signature in his Answer to support his defense of forgery, the
same nonetheless remained insufficient. As aptly observed by CIBD
Dir. Esguerra, respondent did not even submit a copy of his signature
appearing in the records of the Office of the Clerk of Court or any other
official document containing the same specimen signature to prove its
genuineness and authenticity. Case law states that where a party
resorts to bare denials and allegations and fails to submit evidence in
support of his defense, the determination that he committed the
violation is sustained. Hence, no reasonable conclusion can be had
other than the fact that respondent notarized the subject deed in
violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules.

In the same breath, respondent also violated the provisions of the CPR,
particularly Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 thereof. By
misrepresenting himself as a commissioned notary public at the time of
the alleged notarization, he did not only cause damage to those directly
affected by it, but he likewise undermined the integrity of the office of a
notary public and degraded the function of notarization. In so doing, his
conduct falls miserably short of the high standards of morality, honesty,
integrity and fair dealing required from lawyers, and it is only but proper
that he be sanctioned.

Shay (EH403) notes, updated by Hya Page 14 of 14