Está en la página 1de 8

MARIA FATIMA JAPITANA vs. ATTY. SYLVESTER C. PARADO  She asserted that Atty.

Parado did not require the persons who
appeared before him to present any valid identification.
 On June 22, 2006, Atty. Parado notarized the Real Estate Mortgage
between RC Lending Investors, Inc. (RC Lending), as mortgagee, and
 More importantly, Fatima averred that Atty. Parado had no notarial
Maria Theresa G. Japitana (Theresa) and Ma. Nette Japitana (Nette),
authority, as certified8 by the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court
as mortgagors.
of Cebu (RTC).
 It was supposedly witnessed by Maria Sallie Japitana (Sallie) and
IBP
Maria Lourdes Japitana-Sibi (Lourdes) and her husband Dante Sibi
(Dante), Fatima's sisters and brother-in-law, respectively.
 Commissioner Cachapero opined that there was no evidence to
support that Atty. Parado lied as the court had not set aside his
 The mortgage covered a parcel of land on which the family home of
testimonies. Consequently, he concluded that it was not proven that
the Japitanas was constituted. Atty. Parado forged the assailed documents and notarized the same.
 On the same date, Atty. Parado notarized the Affidavit allegedly  Commissioner Cachapero, however, found that Atty. Parado was
executed by Theresa, Nette, Lourdes, Dante, and Sallie to show their dishonest when he testified that he was issued a notarial commission
conformity to the Real Estate Mortgage over the land where their effective until 2008. His claim was belied by the certification issued by
family home was situated. the Clerk of Court of the RTC stating that Atty. Parado had not been
issued a notarial commission for 2006. As such, he recommended
 On October 23, 2006, RC Lending, through Cristeta G. Cuenco that Atty. Parado be suspended from the practice of law for one (1)
(Cuenco), filed its Petition for ExtraJudicial Foreclosure of Real Estate year.
Mortgage.
IBP-BOG
 Consequently, the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) was issued
under the name of RC Lending.  resolved to revoke Atty. Parado's notarial commission, if presently
commissioned, for testifying that he had a notarial commission valid
 On February 3, 2009, it filed an ex-parte motion for the issuance of a until 2008, contrary to the certification issued by the Clerk of Court of
break-open order, for RC Lending to effectively take the possession of the RTC and for ignoring the notices sent by the Commission on Bar
the subject property as it was gated and nobody would answer in spite Discipline. Likewise, the Board of Governors disqualified Atty.
of the sheriffs repeated knocking. Parado from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2)
years and suspended him from the practice of law for six (6)
 Fatima, however, assailed that the signatures in the Real Estate months.
Mortgage as well as in the Affidavit, both notarized on June 22, 2006,
were forgeries. The Court's Ruling

The Court agrees with the IBP BOG but modifies the penalty imposed.

Atty. Siapno violated not only his oath to obey the laws the practice of law for two (2) years and PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED particularly the Rules on Notarial Practice but also Canons 1 and 7 of the from being commissioned as Notary Public. or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the meaningless and routine act. Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice requires the Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. this Court has stressed that notarization is not an empty. be emphasized that the act of notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document making that document admissible in Atty. Parado's misdeeds run afoul of his duties and responsibilities. It must and shows to the notary public a documentary identification. if the person appearing notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial before the notary public is not personally known by him. He failed to refute the same as he Community Tax Certificate (CTC) before him. faithfully observe the Rules on Notarial Practice when he notarized the Real This is supported by the certification issued by the Clerk of Court of the RTC Estate Mortgage and the Affidavit of Conformity with the persons who stating that based on the Notarial Records.A close perusal of the records reveals that Atty.16 a person commissioned as a presentation of a competent evidence of identity. he was dishonest when he testified in court that he had a notarial commission effective until 2008. Section 2(b). immoral or deceitful conduct and directs them to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. even if Atty. Parado knowingly performed notarial acts in 2006 in spite of the absence of a notarial commission for the said period. individual. neither appeared during the mandatory conference nor filed his position paper. Further. Rule II of jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2) years the same Rules defines competent evidence of identity as: (a) at least one commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the made. Parado had a valid notarial commission. Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes all lawyers from engaging in unlawful. Hence. Sylvester C. document or transaction. and for this reason. Atty. Parado had no existing Moreover. by the notary public. he still failed to notarial commission when he notarized the documents in question in 2006. in truth. dishonest. Atty. notaries because those cannot be considered as competent evidence of identity. . or (b) the oath or affirmation of one the written evidence of authority. Atty. as public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the defined in the Rules. at all times. Parado had not been issued a executed the said documents merely presenting their Residence Certificate or notarial commission for the year 2006.A notarial document is by law said documents. the presentation of their CTCs was insufficient entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. both as a lawyer and a notary public. Parado did not claim to personally know the persons who executed the evidence without further proof of authenticity. Parado is SUSPENDED from court. Commission either means the grant of authority to perform notarial or photograph and signature of the individual. he had none. when. Section 12. respondent Atty.19 By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission from the WHEREFORE. who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the Time and again. Reliance on the CTCs alone is a punishable indiscretion performance of their duties. document or transaction who each personally knows the individual only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.17 credible witness not privy to the instrument. It is invested with substantive public interest that instrument.

for violation of the Notarial Law by performing notarial acts on documents  thus.  In support of her complaint. against respondent Atty. It is invested with substantive public interest that . meaningless and routine act. Petitioner. Echanez's name was not included as duly appointed notary public. Mariano (Mariano) of the Commission by failing to file an answer on the complaint. We concur with the findings and the recommended penalty of the IBP-CBD. ATTY. 2007. to wit:  adopted and approved in toto the Report and Recommendation of the (1) Complaint dated June 18. Mariano maintained that Atty. Echanez). only Mariano appeared. (4) Joint-Affidavit dated May 8.  In her position paper. Echanez be suspended from the without a notarial commission. FACTS  The IBP-CBD further noted that Atty.Board of Gcwemors without a notarial commission. this Court has stressed that notarization is not an empty. Echanez has indeed performed notarial acts IBP. and Time and again. Anselmo Echanez (Atty. The IBP- CBD directed the parties to submit their position papers but again only Mariano submitted her verified position paper. vs. Echanez liable for malpractice for notarizing documents without a notarial commission. Echanez is unauthorized to perform notarial servicesIBP-CBD FLORA C. IBP-CBD  during the mandatory conference. (2) JointAffidavit of Gina Pimentel and Marilyn Cayaban dated May 8. Echanez ignored the processes  Complaint Affidavit for Disbarment by Flora C. ANSELMO ECHANEZ. practice of law for two (2) years and that he be permanently barred from being commissioned as notary public. 2008. Mariano attached several documents to show proof that Atty. (3) Affidavit of Ginalyn Ancheta dated May 8. it recommended that Atty.  found Atty. 2008.  Also attached to the complaint is a document containing the list of those who were issued notarial commissions for the year 2006-2007 signed by Executive Judge Efren Cacatian of the Regional Trial Court of Santiago City where Atty. RULING 2008. MARIANO. IBP-CBD.

it is undisputable that Atty. It must make him administratively liable since he is duty-bound to comply with all the be emphasized that the act of notarization by a notary public converts a lawful directives of the IBP. This transgression also runs afoul of Rule 1. Echanez' conduct in the course of proceedings before the IBP is also a matter of concern. Echanez. Echanez's failure to attend the mandatory conference and to submit his Answer and Position paper without any valid explanation is enough reason to . Atty. Atty. Echanez performed the effective upon his receipt of a copy of this decision unauthorized notarial acts.01. Echanez. A notarial document is by law of the Court. did not even attempt to present any defense on the complaint against him. and for this reason. this conduct runs counter to the precepts of the Code of Professional Responsibility and violates the lawyers oath which imposes upon every member of the Bar the duty to delay no man for money or malice. he further committed a form of falsehood which is undoubtedly anathema to the lawyer's oath. Isabela. not only because he is a member thereof but more private document into a public document making that document admissible in so because IBP is the Court-designated investigator of this case. by the Executive Judges in the territory where Atty. respondent Atty. Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. their duties. Atty. Atty. Anselmo S. In the instant case. immoral or deceitful conduct. Echanez is expected to know that a resolution of this Court entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Echanez is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years and The fact of his lack of notarial commission at the time of the unauthorized notarizations was likewise sufficiently established by the certifications issued BARRED PERMANENTLY from being commissioned as Notary Public. dishonest. despite notices. Echanez performed notarial acts on several documents without a valid notarial commission. Clearly. As an officer evidence without further proof of authenticity.only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public." Likewise. in fact. He ignored the IBP's directive to file his answer and position paper which resulted in the years of delay in the resolution of this case. Atty. for misrepresenting in the said documents that he was a notary public for and in Cordon. This is also true of the orders of the IBP. when it is apparent and. notaries public is not a mere request but anorder which should be complied with promptly and must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of completely. uncontroverted that he was not. He did not even attend the mandatory conference set by the IBP.

complainant was surprised to find out that the Title had already been cancelled. 2003 for the consideration of P100. BAYSAC v ATTY.  After further investigation.  the NBI confirmed that the signature of complainant in the Deed of Facts Absolute Sale and the signatures in other sample documents which he actually signed were not made by one and the same person.  Complainant further stated that the Deed of Absolute Sale showed that what he allegedly presented to the notary public when he acknowledged having executed the document was his Community Tax Certificate (CTC) issued on May 26. . vehemently denied having ever signed the Deed of Absolute Sale and having ever appeared before a notary public on January 13. complainant found out that the property was transferred in the name of Spouses Cruz pursuant to a Deed of Absolute Sale which was allegedly executed on January 13. was notarized by respondent on January 13. Estrella O.  He claimed that he was in Tanza. and Rizalina Cruz (Spouses Cruz).000.  Complainant Oscar M. Renelie B. 2003. Laysa) as counsel for Spouses Cruz.  In February 2003. ACERON-PAPA. Baysac (complainant) owns a property. as the owner of the property. Flocerfida A. ELOISA M. Angeles (Ms.00. a few months after the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale. covered by Transfer Certificate of Title and registered with the and subsequent to the transfer of the title to Spouses Cruz.  The same CTC was used for the notarization of the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage on December 20. sale. Laysa Aceron-Papa Sayarot Law Office. another title was issued in favor of Spouses Cruz. OSCAR M.  The Deed of Absolute Sale which was allegedly signed by complainant. According to complainant. complainant went to the Registry of Deeds of Trece Martires City to get a certified true copy of the certificate of title of the property because the property had a prospective buyer. Atty. Atty.  However. 2000 or three years prior to the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale. 2000. 2000. Angeles) searching for a buyer of the property. Laysa (Atty.  Complainant.  The letter demanded him to vacate the property subject of the alleged  The Deed of Real Estate Mortgage3 was notarized by Atty. Cavite that entire day with Ms. and in lieu thereof. 2003 to acknowledge the same. Registry of Deeds of Trece Martires City. Laysa is respondent's partner in Mayuga-Donato on December 20.  More. allegedly  The property was mortgaged by complainant to Spouses Emmanuel sent a letter to complainant. however.

in its Order 20 dated Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice 28 as basis for the complained August 27. seal. Nevertheless. The certificate shall be made under his official  Despite due notice. his certificate shall so and is therefore deemed to have waived her right to present her state. and acknowledged that the spurious document. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and  found respondent administratively liable for notarizing a fictitious or that he is the same person who executed it. terminated the mandatory conference and directed acts of respondent. as will be seen below. complained acts took place. . 29 the parties to submit their verified position papers so as not to delay otherwise known as the Notarial Law. respondent failed to submit her position paper. we find Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 provides: Findings and Recommendation of the IBP  respondent did not file any answer to the complaint. 2009. but we modify the penalty imposed.) position to the case. Left No Address. Section 1. Section 1 of Public Act No. (a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an  Instead of suspension for two years as notary public. 2009. the IBP integrally complete instrument or document.  Thus. and if not. 2009 directing administratively liable. instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. However. (a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an  During the mandatory conference on August 27." 19 We note that the complainant and the IBP Board of Governors cited Section 1. (Emphasis added. if he is by law required to keep a seal. Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice emphasizes the  recommended that respondent be suspended for two years as requirement of affiant's personal appearance in an acknowledgment: notary public. only the officer duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgments of counsel for complainant was present. respondent to answer was returned to the Commission on Bar Discipline with a notation "Moved Out. Board of Governors recommended the disqualification of (b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or . Despite the Order dated August 27. Ningas. same is his free act and deed. Nonetheless. Acknowledgment."Acknowledgment" refers to an act in which an IBP Board of Governors individual on a single occasion:  adopted the findings of the Investigating Commissioner but modified the recommended penalty. Section 1. 2103. complainant claimed that respondent's act of improperly respondent from being commissioned as notary public for three notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale caused him injustice because he years was ousted from his property The Court's Ruling We affirm the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors finding respondent 17 Records show that The Order dated April 23. to be the applicable law at the time the the early disposition of the case. Return Receipt21 signed by a certain Zyra N. the Commission on Bar Discipline. both laws 2009 being received by respondent as evidenced by the Registry provide for a similar provision on acknowledgment.

Further. Angeles.37 It should likewise be pointed out that the CTC is not included in the list complainant to appear before respondent and sign the Deed of Absolute Sale of competent evidence of identity that notaries public should use in on January 13. 2003. Therefore. Angeles in ascertaining the identity of persons appearing before them to have their Tanza. As a consequence.34 Doing away with the essential requirement of physical presence of the affiant does not take into account the likelihood that the documents may By notarizing a spurious document. the party acknowledging the document must appear conveyance would be undermined. she converted the Deed of Absolute Sale. the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of Based on the foregoing. from a private document into a public document. On the contrary. Notarization of a private document document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the converts the document into a public one making it admissible in court without instrument or document. A notarial document is by law entitled to full or document as his free and voluntary act and deed. Ms. notaries public must observe a particular representative capacity. (4) she inquired into the voluntariness duty as notary public to require the personal appearance of the person of execution of the instrument.) Otherwise. confirmed this fact. respondent has made a mockery of the be spurious or that the affiants may not be who they purport to be. if he acts in faith and credit upon its face and. respondent allowed the presentation of a CTC issued on appearance of the person who actually executed the document in question. (Emphasis added. declares that he has executed the instrument further proof of its authenticity. of the evidence of identity presented to her. routinary act. 39 By affixing her notarial seal on do so. for this reason. Although the Deed of Absolute Sale was notarized on to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules. Angeles. 40chanrobleslaw signature. in her affidavit. she should not have relied on the CTC in view of the ease with which CTCs are obtained these In this case. however. complainant was with Ms. in effect. Without the January 13. To be sure. meaningless. that capacity.38chanrobleslaw Further. May 26. it is invested with substantial public interest. the instrument. and Notarization is not an empty. (2) they are all personally known to her. and the findings of the NBI prove that proclaimed to the world that: (1) all the parties therein personally appeared respondent violated the Notarial Law when she notarized the Deed of Absolute before her. legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment. 2003. 36chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary before the notary public or any other person authorized to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents. respondent. On that same day. and (5) they acknowledged personally before executing the document to enable the former to verify the genuineness of his her that they voluntarily and freely executed the same. a notary public Failing to comply with the Notarial Law. Respondent should have been diligent enough to make sure the notary public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of that the person appearing before her is the same person acknowledging the the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free document to be notarized. 41 Respondent's failure to . 2000. and. documents notarized. the NBI's findings in its Questioned Documents Report show that the signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale was not signed by complainant. the affidavit of Ms. These We have emphasized that among the functions of a notary public is to guard allegations remain unrebutted despite the opportunity given to complainant to against any illegal or immoral arrangements. it would have been physically impossible for days. Cavite the whole day. It was respondent's persons who executed the instrument. respondent was even very lenient and should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the negligent in accepting the outdated CTC of complainant as competent very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest evidence of identity. (3) they were the same Sale without the personal appearance of complainant. Respondent should have checked the authenticity act or deed. that he has the authority to sign in with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. such that only those who are qualified (c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or or authorized may act as notaries public.

Aceron-Papa GUILTY of violating the Notarial Law and the directly affected by the notarized document. Eloisa M. REVOKES her incumbent commission. but also in undermining the Code of Professional Responsibility. complainant was unlawfully deprived of commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. effective immediately.perform her duty as a notary public resulted not only in the damage to those Atty. and in degrading the function of notarization. SUSPENDS her from the practice of law for one (1) year. if any PROHIBITS her from being Precisely because of respondent's act. . integrity of a notary public. and his property.