A.M. No.

12-8-8-SC

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE

Section 1. Scope. - (a) This Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring the
reception of evidence before:

(1) The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts,
the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and the Shari' a Circuit Courts but shall not apply to small claims
cases under A.M. 08-8-7-SC;

(2) The Regional Trial Courts and the Shari'a District Courts;

(3) The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court of Appeals, and the Shari'a Appellate
Courts;

(4) The investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive evidence,
including the Integrated Bar of the Philippine (IBP); and

(5) The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of procedure are subject to disapproval
of the Supreme Court, insofar as their existing rules of procedure contravene the provisions of this
Rule.1

(b) For the purpose of brevity, the above courts, quasi-judicial bodies, or investigating officers shall
be uniformly referred to here as the "court."

Section 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in lieu of direct testimonies. - (a) The parties
shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier service, not
later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect
to motions and incidents, the following:

(1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the place of such witnesses' direct
testimonies; and

(2) The parties' docun1entary or object evidence, if any, which shall be attached to the judicial
affidavits and marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in the case of the complainant or the plaintiff,
and as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on in the case of the respondent or the defendant.

(b) Should a party or a witness desire to keep the original document or object evidence in his
possession, he may, after the same has been identified, marked as exhibit, and authenticated,
warrant in his judicial affidavit that the copy or reproduction attached to such affidavit is a faithful
copy or reproduction of that original. In addition, the party or witness shall bring the original
document or object evidence for comparison during the preliminary conference with the attached
copy, reproduction, or pictures, failing which the latter shall not be admitted.

This is without prejudice to the introduction of secondary evidence in place of the original when
allowed by existing rules.
Section 3. Contents of judicial Affidavit. - A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language
known to the witness and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in English or
Filipino, and shall contain the following:

(a) The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness;

(b) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness
and the place where the examination is being held;

(c) A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious that he
does so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;

(d) Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered, that:

(1) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he testifies;

(2) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents; and

(3) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their authenticity in
accordance with the Rules of Court;

(e) The signature of the witness over his printed name; and

(f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer who is
authorized by law to administer the same.

Section 4. Sworn attestation of the lawyer. - (a) The judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn attestation
at the end, executed by the lawyer who conducted or supervised the examination of the witness, to
the effect that:

(1) He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked and the corresponding
answers that the witness gave; and

(2) Neither he nor any other person then present or assisting him coached the witness regarding the
latter's answers.

(b) A false attestation shall subject the lawyer mentioned to disciplinary action, including
disbarment.

Section 5. Subpoena. - If the government employee or official, or the requested witness, who is
neither the witness of the adverse party nor a hostile witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a
judicial affidavit or refuses without just cause to make the relevant books, documents, or other
things under his control available for copying, authentication, and eventual production in court, the
requesting party may avail himself of the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum
under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. The rules governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness
in this case shall be the same as when taking his deposition except that the taking of a judicial
affidavit shal1 be understood to be ex parte.
Section 6. Offer of and objections to testimony in judicial affidavit. - The party presenting the judicial
affidavit of his witness in place of direct testimony shall state the purpose of such testimony at the
start of the presentation of the witness. The adverse party may move to disqualify the witness or to
strike out his affidavit or any of the answers found in it on ground of inadmissibility. The court shall
promptly rule on the motion and, if granted, shall cause the marking of any excluded answer by
placing it in brackets under the initials of an authorized court personnel, without prejudice to a
tender of excluded evidence under Section 40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

Section 7. Examination of the witness on his judicial affidavit. - The adverse party shall have the
right to cross-examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same.
The party who presents the witness may also examine him as on re-direct. In every case, the court
shall take active part in examining the witness to determine his credibility as well as the truth of his
testimony and to elicit the answers that it needs for resolving the issues.

Section 8. Oral offer of and objections to exhibits. - (a) Upon the termination of the testimony of his
last witness, a party shall immediately make an oral offer of evidence of his documentary or object
exhibits, piece by piece, in their chronological order, stating the purpose or purposes for which he
offers the particular exhibit.

(b) After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall state the legal ground for his
objection, if any, to its admission, and the court shall immediately make its ruling respecting that
exhibit.

(c) Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of the judicial affidavits that describe and
authenticate them, it is sufficient that such exhibits are simply cited by their markings during the
offers, the objections, and the rulings, dispensing with the description of each exhibit.

Section 9. Application of rule to criminal actions. - (a) This rule shall apply to all criminal actions:

(1) Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years;

(2) Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved; or

(3) With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are.

(b) The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later than five days before
the pre-trial, serving copies if the same upon the accused. The complainant or public prosecutor
shall attach to the affidavits such documentary or object evidence as he may have, marking them as
Exhibits A, B, C, and so on. No further judicial affidavit, documentary, or object evidence shall be
admitted at the trial.

(c) If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the judicial affidavits of the
prosecution, he shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit as well as those of his witnesses
to the court within ten days from receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of each on the public
and private prosecutor, including his documentary and object evidence previously marked as
Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on. These affidavits shall serve as direct testimonies of the accused and his
witnesses when they appear before the court to testify.

Section 10. Effect of non-compliance with the judicial Affidavit Rule. - (a) A party who fails to
submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed to have waived their
submission. The court may, however, allow only once the late submission of the same provided, the
delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party
pays a fine of not less than P 1,000.00 nor more than P 5,000.00 at the discretion of the court.

(b) The court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who fails to appear at the scheduled
hearing of the case as required. Counsel who fails to appear without valid cause despite notice shall
be deemed to have waived his client's right to confront by cross-examination the witnesses there
present.

(c) The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do not conform to the content
requirements of Section 3 and the attestation requirement of Section 4 above. The court may,
however, allow only once the subsequent submission of the compliant replacement affidavits before
the hearing or trial provided the delay is for a valid reason and would not unduly prejudice the
opposing party and provided further, that public or private counsel responsible for their preparation
and submission pays a fine of not less than P 1,000.00 nor more than P 5,000.00, at the discretion of
the court.

Section 11. Repeal or modification of inconsistent rules. - The provisions of the Rules of Court and
the rules of procedure governing investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court
to receive evidence are repealed or modified insofar as these are inconsistent with the provisions of
this Rule.1âwphi1

The rules of procedure governing quasi-judicial bodies inconsistent herewith are hereby
disapproved.

Section 12. Effectivity. - This rule shall take effect on January 1, 2013 following its publication in two
newspapers of general circulation not later than September 15, 2012. It shall also apply to existing
cases.

Manila, September 4, 2012.

A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC

EFFICIENT USE OF PAPER RULE

Sec. 1. Title of the Rule– This rule shall be known and cited as the Efficient Use of Paper Rule.
Sec. 2. Applicability. – This rule shall apply to all courts and quasi-judicial bodies under the
administrative supervision of the Supreme Court.

Sec. 3. Format and Style. – a) All pleadings, motions and similar papers intended for the court and
quasi-judicial body’s consideration and action (court-bound papers) shall written in single space
with one-and-a –half space between paragraphs, using an easily readable font style of the party’s
choice, of 14-size font, and on a 13 –inch by 8.5- inch white bond paper; and

b) All decisions, resolutions and orders issued by courts and quasi-judicial bodies under the
administrative supervision of the Supreme Court shall comply with these requirements. Similarly
covered are the reports submitted to the courts and transcripts of stenographic notes.

Sec. 4. Margins and Prints .— The parties shall maintain the following margins on all court-bound
papers: a left hand margin of 1.5 inches from the edge; an upper margin of 1.2 inches from the edge;
a right hand margin of 1.0 inch from the edge; and a lower margin of 1.0 inch from the edge. Every
page must be consecutively numbered.

Sec. 5. Copies to be filed. – Unless otherwise directed by the court, the number of court- bound
papers that a party is required or desires to file shall be as follows:

a. In the Supreme Court, one original (properly marked) and four copies, unless the case is referred
to the Court En Banc, in which event, the parties shall file ten additional copies. For the En Banc, the
parties need to submit only two sets of annexes, one attached to the original and an extra copy. For
the Division, the parties need to submit also two sets of annexes, one attached to the original and an
extra copy. All members of the Court shall share the extra copies of annexes in the interest of
economy of paper.

Parties to cases before the Supreme Court are further required, on voluntary basis for the first six
months following the effectivity of this Rule and compulsorily afterwards unless the period is
extended, to submit, simultaneously with their court-bound papers, soft copies of the same and their
annexes (the latter in PDF format) either by email to the Court’s e-mail address or by compact disc
(CD). This requirement is in preparation for the eventual establishment of an e-filing paperless
system in the judiciary.

b. In the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, one original (properly marked) and two copies
with their annexes;

c. In the Court of Tax Appeals, one original (properly marked) and two copies with annexes. On
appeal to the En Banc, one Original (properly marked) and eight copies with annexes; and

d. In other courts, one original (properly marked) with the stated annexes attached to it.

Sec. 6. Annexes Served on Adverse Party. – A party required by the rules to serve a copy of his
court-bound on the adverse party need not enclose copies of those annexes that based on the record
of the court such party already has in his possession. In the event a party requests a set of the
annexes actually filed with the court, the part who filed the paper shall comply with the request
within five days from receipt.

Sec. 7. Date of Effectivity. – This rule shall take effect on January 1, 2013 after publication in two
newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.

Manila, November 13, 2012.

JURATS
A jurat is used when the signer is swearing to the content of the document. The notary must
administer an oath or affirmation to the signer in order to complete the jurat. A jurat also requires
that the signer signs in the presence of the notary. It is possible to glean this information from the
jurat certificate its self. The wording states “Subscribed and sworn to before me…” – subscribed
meaning “signed” and sworn meaning that an oral oath or affirmation was given. “Before me”
means that both were done in the presence of the notary public.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
An acknowledgement is used to verify the identity of the signer and to confirm that they signed the
document. They are not swearing to the truthfulness or validity of the document, they are simply
acknowledging that they signed the document. For an acknowledgement in the state of California, a
signer is not required to sign the document in the presence of the notary public, but they are
required to personally appear in front of the notary to confirm their signature.
While it is important for a notary to understand the difference between the two, California notaries
public are not allowed to determine which type of certificate a signer uses. To do so would be
considered practicing law without a license. A Notary can only ask the signer which form they
prefer; if they don't know, the notary will refer them to the originator of the document for an
answer.
JURATS

A jurat is used when the signer is swearing to the content of the document. The notary must
administer an oath or affirmation to the signer in order to complete the jurat. A jurat also requires
that the signer signs in the presence of the notary. It is possible to glean this information from the
jurat certificate its self. The wording states “Subscribed and sworn to before me…” – subscribed
meaning “signed” and sworn meaning that an oral oath or affirmation was given. “Before me”
means that both were done in the presence of the notary public.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

An acknowledgement is used to verify the identity of the signer and to confirm that they signed the
document. They are not swearing to the truthfulness or validity of the document, they are simply
acknowledging that they signed the document. For an acknowledgement in the state of California, a
signer is not required to sign the document in the presence of the notary public, but they are
required to personally appear in front of the notary to confirm their signature.

While it is important for a notary to understand the difference between the two, California notaries
public are not allowed to determine which type of certificate a signer uses. To do so would be
considered practicing law without a license. A Notary can only ask the signer which form they
prefer; if they don't know, the notary will refer them to the originator of the document for an
answer.

EN BANC

[ A.C. No. 6655, October 11, 2011 ]

PACITA CAALIM-VERZONILLA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VICTORIANO G. PASCUA,

RESPONDENT.

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before the Court is the verified affidavit-complaint[1] of Pacita Caalim-Verzonilla seeking the
disbarment of respondent Atty. Victoriano G. Pascua for allegedly falsifying a public document and
evading the payment of correct taxes through the use of falsified documents.

Complainant alleges that on September 15, 2001, respondent prepared and notarized two Deeds of
Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Deceased Lope Caalim with Sale. The first deed[2] was for a
consideration of P250,000 and appears to have been executed and signed by Lope's surviving
spouse, Caridad Tabarrejos, and her children (complainant, Virginia Caalim-Inong and Marivinia
Caalim) in favor of spouses Madki and Shirley Mipanga. The second deed[3]was for a consideration
of P1,000,000 and appears to have been executed by and for the benefit of the same parties as the
first deed. The two deeds have identical registration numbers, page numbers and book numbers in
the notarial portion.

Complainant avers that both deeds are spurious because all the heirs' signatures were falsified. She
contends that her sister Marivinia does not know how to sign her name and was confined at the
Cagayan Valley Medical Center, Tuguegarao City, at the time the deeds were allegedly signed by
her, as shown by a certification[4]from said hospital. The certification, dated February 6, 2004 and
signed by Dr. Alice Anghad, Medical Officer IV, attested that Marivinia has been confined at the
Psychiatry Ward of the Cagayan Valley Medical Center since May 3, 1999 after being diagnosed of
"Substance Induced Psychosis" and "Schizophrenia, Undifferentiated Type."

Complainant further alleges that the two deeds were not presented to any of them and they came to
know of their existence only recently. She further claims that the Community Tax Certificates[5]
(CTCs) in her name and in the names of her mother and her sister Marivinia were procured only by
the vendee Shirley and not by them. Complainant submits the affidavit[6] executed by Edwin
Gawayon, Barangay Treasurer of C-8, Claveria, Cagayan, on August 3, 2002, attesting that the CTCs
were procured at the instance of Shirley and were paid without the complainant and her co-heirs
personally appearing before him. Gawayon stated that the signatures and thumbmarks appearing
on the CTCs are not genuine and authentic because it can be seen with the naked eyes that the
signatures are similar in all three CTCs.
Lastly, complainant alleges that the two deeds were used by respondent and Shirley to annul a
previously simulated deed of sale[7] dated June 20, 1979 purportedly executed by Lope in favor of
the spouses Madki and Shirley Mipanga. Said deed was likewise a complete nullity because at that
time Shirley Mipanga was only sixteen years old and still single.

In his comment,[8] respondent admits having prepared and notarized the two disputed Deeds of
Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate with Sale (subject deeds), but denies any irregularity in their
execution. He claims that the preparation and notarization of the subject deeds were made under
the following circumstances:

In the morning of September 15, 2001, complainant, Caridad, Virginia and Shirley Mipanga went to
his house and requested him to prepare a deed of sale of a residential lot located in Claveria,
Cagayan. He was informed by the parties that the agreed purchase price is P1,000,000 and was
presented the certificate of title to the property. Upon finding that the registered owner is "Lope
Caalim, married to Caridad Tabarrejos" and knowing that Lope already died sometime in the 1980s,
he asked for, and was given, the names and personal circumstances of Lope's surviving children. He
asked where Marivinia was, but Caridad told him that Marivinia remained home as she was not
feeling well. As Caridad assured him that they will fetch Marivinia after the deed of conveyance is
prepared, he proceeded to ask the parties to present their CTCs. Caridad and Pacita, however, told
him that they have not secured their CTCs while Virginia forgot to bring hers. So he instructed them
to get CTCs from Claveria.

An hour later, Caridad and Shirley came back with the CTCs of Caridad, Virginia, complainant and
Marivinia. After he finished typing the deed and the details of the CTCs, Caridad said that she will
bring the deed with her to Claveria for her daughters to sign. He then told them that it was
necessary for him to meet them all in one place for them to acknowledge the deed before him as
notary public. It was agreed upon that they will all meet at the house of the Mipangas between 11:00
a.m. and 12:00 noon on that same day.

Respondent arrived at the Mipanga residence shortly before 12:00 noon. There he saw Shirley,
Caridad, complainant, Pacita and Marivinia with two other persons whom he later learned were the
instrumental witnesses to the execution of the document. Upon being informed that the parties have
already affixed their signatures on the deed, he examined the document then inquired from the heirs
if the signatures appearing therein were theirs and if they were truly selling the property for
P1,000,000. The heirs answered in the affirmative, thereby ratifying and acknowledging the
instrument and its contents as their own free and voluntary act and deed. Thus, he notarized the
document and then gave the original and two carbon copies to Shirley while leaving two in his
possession.

Respondent adds that Shirley thereafter asked him what steps were needed to effect registration of
the deed and transfer of the title in her and her husband's name. He replied that all the unpaid land
taxes should be paid including the capital gains tax, documentary stamp taxes and estate tax to the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) which will then issue the necessary clearance for registration.
When asked how much taxes are payable, he replied that it depends on the assessment of the BIR
examiner which will be based on the zonal value or selling price stated in the deed of sale. He added
that the estate taxes due, with interests and surcharges, would also have to be paid. Since the
consideration for the sale is P1,000,000, the taxes payable was quite enormous. Shirley asked him
who between the vendor and the vendee should pay the taxes, and he replied that under the law, it
is the obligation of the vendors to pay said taxes but it still depends upon the agreement of the
parties. He asked if there was already an agreement on the matter, but the parties replied in the
negative.

Shirley then told the vendors that they should shoulder the payment of taxes. Caridad and her co-
vendors, however, refused and said that a big portion of the P1,000,000 paid to them was already
used by them to pay and settle their other obligations. Shirley then offered to pay one-half of
whatever amount the BIR will assess, but Caridad insisted that another document be prepared
stating a reduced selling price of only P250,000 so that they need not contribute to the payment of
taxes since Shirley was anyway already willing to pay one-half of the taxes based on the selling price
stated in the first deed. This resulted in a heated discussion between the parties, which was,
however, later resolved by an agreement to execute a second deed. The prospect of preparing an
additional deed, however, irritated respondent as it meant additional work for him. Thus,
respondent went home.

Later, the parties visited respondent at his house and pleaded with him to prepare the second deed
with the reduced selling price. Moved by his humane and compassionate disposition, respondent
gave in to the parties' plea.

In the presence of all the heirs, the vendees and the instrumental witnesses, respondent prepared
and notarized the second deed providing for the lower consideration of only P250,000. He used the
same document number, page number and book number in the notarial portion as the first deed
because according to him, the second deed was intended by the parties to supplant the first.

Respondent denies complainant's assertions that the two deeds are simulated and falsified, averring
that as stated above, all the parties acknowledged the same before him. Likewise, he and his clients,
the spouses Madki and Shirley Mipanga, presented the subject deeds as exhibits in Civil Case No.
2761-S also pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, of Sanchez Mira, Cagayan.

As to the allegation that Marivinia did not appear before him as she was allegedly under
confinement at the Cagayan Valley Medical Center on September 15, 2001, respondent cites a
medical certificate[9] stating that Marivinia was confined in said hospital from May 3, 1999 to
August 10, 1999. He also points out that Marivinia is one of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 2836-S
pending before the RTC, Branch 12, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, for the annulment of the subject deeds,
and nothing in the complaint states that she is mentally or physically incapacitated. Otherwise, her
co-plaintiffs would have asked the appointment of a guardian for her.
By Resolution[10] dated August 10, 2005, this Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.

In a Report and Recommendation[11] dated May 3, 2007, Commissioner Jose Roderick F. Fernando
found respondent administratively liable on account of his indispensable participation in an act
designed to defraud the government. He recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for three months and that his notarial commission, if still existing, be revoked and
that respondent be prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.

According to Commissioner Fernando, respondent did not offer any tenable defense to justify his
actions. As a notary, it was his responsibility to ensure that the solemnities of the act of notarization
were followed. As a lawyer, it was likewise incumbent upon him that the document he drafted and
subsequently notarized was neither unlawful nor fraudulent. Commissioner Fernando ruled that
respondent failed on both counts since he drafted a document that reflected an untruthful
consideration that served to reduce unlawfully the tax due to the government. Then he completed
the act by likewise notarizing and thus converting the document into a public document.

On June 26, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved Commissioner Fernando's
report and recommendation but imposed a higher penalty on respondent. Its Resolution No. XVII-
2007-285 reads:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of
this Resolution as Annex "A;" and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on
record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering Respondent's violation of Notarial Law
and for his participation to a transaction that effectively defrauded the government, Atty. Victoriano
G. Pascua is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years and SUSPENSION of his
Notarial Commission for two (2) years with Warning that a similar violation in the future will be
dealt with severely.[12]

The above resolution is well taken.

By respondent's own account of the circumstances surrounding the execution and notarization of
the subject deeds of sale, there is a clear basis for disciplining him as a member of the bar and as
notary public.

Respondent did not deny preparing and notarizing the subject deeds. He avers that the true
consideration for the transaction is P1,000,000 as allegedly agreed upon by the parties when they
appeared before him for the preparation of the first document as well as the notarization thereof. He
then claimed to have been "moved by his humane and compassionate disposition" when he acceded
to the parties' plea that he prepare and notarize the second deed with a lower consideration of
P250,000 in order to reduce the corresponding tax liability. However, as noted by Commissioner
Fernando, the two deeds were used by respondent and his client as evidence in a judicial proceeding
(Civil Case No. 2671-S), which only meant that both documents still subsist and hence contrary to
respondent's contention that the second deed reflecting a lower consideration was intended to
supersede the first deed.

As to the charge of falsification, the Court finds that the documents annexed to the present
complaint are insufficient for us to conclude that the subject deeds were indeed falsified and
absolutely simulated. We have previously ruled that a deed of sale that allegedly states a price lower
than the true consideration is nonetheless binding between the parties and their successors in
interest.[13] Complainant, however, firmly maintains that she and her co-heirs had no participation
whatsoever in the execution of the subject deeds. In any event, the issues of forgery, simulation and
fraud raised by the complainant in this proceeding apparently are still to be resolved in the pending
suit filed by the complainant and her co-heirs for annulment of the said documents (Civil Case No.
2836-S).

With his admission that he drafted and notarized another instrument that did not state the true
consideration of the sale so as to reduce the capital gains and other taxes due on the transaction,
respondent cannot escape liability for making an untruthful statement in a public document for an
unlawful purpose. As the second deed indicated an amount much lower than the actual price paid
for the property sold, respondent abetted in depriving the Government of the right to collect the
correct taxes due. His act clearly violated Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which reads:

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Xxxx

Rule 1.02. - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.

Not only did respondent assist the contracting parties in an activity aimed at defiance of the law, he
likewise displayed lack of respect for and made a mockery of the solemnity of the oath in an
Acknowledgment. By notarizing such illegal and fraudulent document, he is entitling it full faith
and credit upon its face, which it obviously does not deserve considering its nature and purpose.

In Gonzales v. Ramos,[14] we elucidated on how important and sacrosanct the notarial act is:

By affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, the respondent converted the Deed of Absolute Sale,
from a private document into a public document. Such act is no empty gesture. The principal
function of a notary public is to authenticate documents. When a notary public certifies to the due
execution and delivery of a document under his hand and seal, he gives the document the force of
evidence. Indeed, one of the purposes of requiring documents to be acknowledged before a notary
public, in addition to the solemnity which should surround the execution and delivery of
documents, is to authorize such documents to be given without further proof of their execution and
delivery. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts,
administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgement
executed before a notary public and appended to a private instrument. Hence, a notary public must
discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy and
fidelity.[15]

Moreover, while respondent's duty as a notary public is principally to ascertain the identity of the
affiant and the voluntariness of the declaration, it is nevertheless incumbent upon him to guard
against any illegal or immoral arrangement or at least refrain from being a party to its
consummation.[16]Rule IV, Section 4 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice in fact proscribes
notaries public from performing any notarial act for transactions similar to the herein document of
sale, to wit:

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;

xxxx

In this case, respondent proceeded to notarize the second deed despite knowledge of its illegal
purpose. His purported desire to accommodate the request of his client will not absolve respondent
who, as a member of the legal profession, should have stood his ground and not yielded to the
importunings of his clients. Respondent should have been more prudent and remained steadfast in
his solemn oath not to commit falsehood nor consent to the doing of any.[17] As a lawyer,
respondent is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public
in the integrity of the legal profession.[18]

Respondent also failed to comply with Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
when he gave the second document the same document number, page number and book number as
the first:

SEC. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. - x x x

xxxx

(e) The notary public shall give to each instrument or document executed, sworn to, or
acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state on
the instrument or document the page/s of his register on which the same is recorded. No blank line
shall be left between entries.

Xxxx

Respondent admitted having given the second deed the same document number, page number and
book number as in the first deed, reasoning that the second deed was intended to supplant and
cancel the first deed. He therefore knowingly violated the above rule, in furtherance of his client's
intention of concealing the actual purchase price so as to avoid paying the taxes rightly due to the
Government.

Even assuming that the second deed was really intended to reflect the true agreement of the parties
and hence superseding the first deed they had executed, respondent remains liable under the afore-
cited Section 2(e) which requires that each instrument or document, executed, sworn to, or
acknowledged before the notary public shall be given a number corresponding to the one in his
register. Said rule is not concerned with the validity or efficacy of the document or instrument
recorded but merely to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the entries in the notarial register.

A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct showing any fault or deficiency in his
moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.[19] Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules
of Court provides:

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds herefore. - A member of
the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason
of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, of for any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as an attorney
for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

Xxxx

In Gonzales, the notary public who notarized the document despite the non-appearance of one of
the signatories was meted the penalties of revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification
from re-appointment for two years. The notary in Gonzales was likewise suspended from the
practice of law for one year. Said penalty was in accord with the cases of Bon v. Ziga,[20]Serzo v.
Flores,[21]Zaballero v. Montalvan[22] and Tabas v. Mangibin.[23] The Court found that by
notarizing the questioned deed, the respondent in Gonzales engaged in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.[24]

In the instant case, we hold that respondent should similarly be meted the penalty of suspension
and revocation of his notarial commission for having violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. In
line withcurrent jurisprudence, and as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, the revocation

of his notarial commission and disqualification from re-appointment as notary public for two years
is in order.

With respect, however, to his suspension from the practice of law, we hold that the one-year
suspension imposed in Gonzales and the other cases is not applicable considering that respondent
not only failed to faithfully comply with the rules on notarial practice, he also violated his oath when
he prepared and notarized the second deed for the purpose of avoiding the payment of correct
amount of taxes, thus abetting an activity aimed at defiance of the law. Under these circumstances,
we find the two-year suspension recommended by the IBP Board of Governors as proper and
commensurate to the infraction committed by respondent.

WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. VICTORIANO G. PASCUA is hereby SUSPENDED from the

practice of law for a period of two (2) years. In addition, his present notarial commission, if any, is
hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary public for a period of
two (2) years. He is further WARNED that any similar act or infraction in the future shall be dealt
with more severely.