NOTARIAL PRACTICE CASES

Licerio Dizon, Complainant vs Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr.

A.C. No. 10185
March 12, 2014

Facts: Licerio Dizon was one of the would-be-buyers of a parcel of land

owned by the heirs of the late Florentino Callangan, who were the parties in Civil
Case No. 1-689. The parties executed a compromise agreement in the said case and
notarized by Atty. Cabucana. At the hearing conducted regarding the due
execution of the compromise agreement, the signatories therein testified that they
signed the instrument but not in the presence of the respondent. Because of the
irregularity in the due execution of the agreement, there was an undue delay in the
resolution of the Civil Case No. 1-689 which caused injury to complainant. The
complainant prays for the disbarment of the respondent for violating the Notarial
Law.

Issue: Is the respondent guilty in violation of the Notarial Law for notarizing
the documents without the presence of all the parties therein?

Held: Yes. The court agreed that Atty. Cabucana violated the Notarial Law.
The affiant’s personal appearance was established in Section 1, Public Act
No. 2103 and Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004,
that as a Notary Public, the respondent should notarize a document unless the
person who signs it is the same person executing it and personally before him to
attest the truth and its contents.
Thus, the court finds the respondent guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Buenaventura v. New Bilibid Prisons (NBP) Officials

G.R. No. 114829
March 1, 1995

Facts: On September 7, 1994 resolution, the Court required Atty. Icasiano

M. dela Rea to show cause why there should be no caused of action taken against
him for making it appear in the jurat of the petition in the present case that
Gamido, petitioner herein subscribed and swore the verification before him as
notary public, on April 19, 1994, when in truth and in fact the petitioner did not.
In his answer, Atty. dela Rea admitted having executed the jurat without the
presence of Gamido contending that it is in his honest belief that since it is a jurat
and not an acknowledgment, it is alright to do so since he know the petitioner.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. dela Rea is guilty for grave misconduct for
executing the jurat in the absence of the petitioner herein?

Held: Yes. The court finds Atty. dela Rea’s explanation unsatisfactory but his
voluntary admission was considered as mitigation to his liability.
The Court ruled that as a notary public for a long time, Atty. dela Rea
should know the similarities and differences between a jurat and an
acknowledgment. The court provides that both jurat and acknowledgment be made
before the notary public.
The acquaintance and friendship of Atty. dela Rea with Gamido is not an
excuse for non-compliance of his duty as notary public.
Thus, the Court finds Atty. dela Rea guilty for grave misconduct when he
agreed to prepare the jurat in absence of Gamido.

PATROCINIO V. AGBULOS vs. ATTY. ROSELLER A. VIRAY

A.C. No. 7350
February 18, 2013

Facts: Patrocinio V. Agbulos filed a complaint against the respondent Atty.

Roseller A. Viray for allegedly notarizing an Affidavit of Non-Tenancy
purportedly executed by the complainant but denied executing the same. She
further alleged that the signature and the CTC presented was not hers but belongs
to other person. She added that she did not personally appear before the respondent
for the notarization of the document. Likewise, she states that respondent’s client,
Rolando Dollente benefited from the said falsified document.
In his comment, respondent admitted that he prepared and notarized the
document at the request of his client, Dollente who assured him the genuineness of
the facts and documents presented before him.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Viray is guilty of violation of the Notarial Law
for preparing and notarizing the Affidavit of Non-Tenancy without the presence of
the party executing the document?

Held: Yes. The Court ruled that Atty. Viray violated the Notarial Law and
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice emphasizes the
necessity of the affiant’s personal appearance before the notary public. The
respondents admits that he prepare and notarize the affidavit but he notarized it
without the personal appearance of the affiant by contending that he merely rely
upon the assurance of his client Dollente that the documents were executed by the
complainant. It is also proven that the CTC presented belong to other person and
not to the affiant.
The respondent’s failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not
only damage to those directly affected but also undermining the integrity of a
notary public.
Thus, the court finds the respondent guilty of breach of the Notarial Law and
Code of Professional Responsibility.

CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS CASES

Rolando Sulla v. Hon. Rodolfo C. Ramos

A.M No. MTJ-00-1319. September 27, 2000

Facts: Dr. Rolando A. Sulla charging respondent Judge Rodolfo C. Ramos,

presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Jaro, Leyte, with unreasonable
delay or refusal to render a decision in criminal Case No. 8121. The case was
submitted for decision in April 1997. But as of May 21, 1999, date of
complainant’s letter, and despite constant requests for its early resolution,
respondent Judge Ramos has not rendered any decision in the said case.

Issue: Whether or not Judge Ramos violated the Code of Judicial Ethics and may
be held liable

Held: GUILTY. This Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to
decide cases promptly and expeditiously pursuant to Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct and Section 15(1) and (2), Article VIII of the
Constitution. Judges are presumed to be aware of Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct which calls for a judge to be faithful to the law and maintain professional
competence. Rule 3.05 admonishes all judges to dispose of the court’s business
promptly and decide cases within the period fixed by law.

Carlito D. Lazo v. Judge Antonio V. Tiong (300 SCRA 214)

Facts: Judge Tiong was accused of failing to inhibit himself in a criminal case
because he was related within the fourth degree of affinity to the accused. The
judge claims he did so in the hopes that his presence would allow the parties to
settle amicably.

Issue: Whether or not Judge Tiong violated any of the provisions under CJE?

Held: Yes. A judge should take no part in a proceeding where his impartiality
might reasonably be questioned. Also, Rule 137, Rules of Court, provides that no
judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, inter alia, is related to
either party within the sixth degree pf consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel
within the fourth degree computed according to the rules of the civil law. Under
this provision, the Presiding Judge is mandated to disqualify himself from sitting in
a case. He cannot exercise his discretion whether to inhibit himself or not.

Benalfre J. Galang v. Judge Abelardo H. Santos (307 SCRA 582)

Facts: Santos was a judge and the publisher/columnist for a tabloid; he was also a
writer for another paper. Galang charges him with using his columns to ventilate
his views. He has repeatedly used insulting and inflammatory language against the
governor and the provincial prosecutor and legal adviser.

Issue: Whether or not Judge Santos is guilty of violating CJE

Held: Yes. While S has the right to free speech, his writing of vicious editorials
compromise his duties as judge in the impartial administration of justice. They
reflect both on his office and on the officers he ridicules. The personal behavior of
a judge in his professional and everyday life should be free from the appearance of
impropriety. Improper conduct erodes the public confidence in the judiciary.