Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NELSON BUENSUCESO v. ATTY. JOELITO T. BARRERA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	AC. No. 6505 2008-09-11	JESSICA C. UY v. ATTY. EMMANUEL P. SAÑO NACHURA, J.
Respondent admitted that he applied for a notarial commission in 1998. Such application, according to him, was facilitated by a representative. In renewing his commission for 2000 until 2002, he again relied on the assistance offered by an office aide. It appears from respondent's Comment that he, in fact, did not personally know the said office aide; yet, he completely relied on his representation that this office aide would facilitate respondent's renewal of his notarial commission. At the very least, respondent should have demanded from the office aide documentary proofs of the approval of his commission. Besides, respondent could have easily verified the aide's representation at the office of the Executive Judge. His actuation clearly shows disregard of the requirements for the issuance of notarial commission. His effort in shifting the responsibility to the office aide does not strike the Court as the kind of diligence properly required of a member of the bar in performing his duties as notary public.[15]
	AC. No. 6505 2008-09-11	JESSICA C. UY v. ATTY. EMMANUEL P. SAÑO NACHURA, J.
Complainant in the instant case presented only one document showing respondent's unauthorized notarization. However, by respondent's own admission, he had been placed in a mistaken belief that his commission was renewed from 2000 to 2002. During this two-year period, it seems entirely possible that he had similarly notarized, without legal authority, other still unidentified documents.[18]
	AC. No. 6505 2008-09-11	JESSICA C. UY v. ATTY. EMMANUEL P. SAÑO NACHURA, J.
In Buensuceso v. Barrera,[19] Atty. Joelito Barrera was administratively sanctioned for committing acts of unauthorized notarization. As in the instant case, Atty. Barrera claimed that he was unaware of said lack of authority, and he shifted the blame to his secretary to whom he had entrusted the task of making sure that his notarial commission would be renewed. Though only five documents were presented to prove his culpability, considering that more than twelve (12) years had lapsed, and it was possible that similar documents had been unlawfully notarized, the Court suspended him from the practice of law for a period of one year.
	AC. NO. 6010 2006-08-28	ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY LABORATORY HIGH SCHOOL FACULTY v. ATTY. ROLANDO C. DELA CRUZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public must not be treated as a mere casual formality. The Court has characterized a lawyer's act of notarizing documents without the requisite commission to do so as "reprehensible, constituting as it does not only malpractice but also x x x the crime of falsification of public documents."[31]
	AC. No. 6492 2004-11-18	MELANIO L. ZORETA v. ATTY. HEHERSON ALNOR G. SIMPLICIANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public must not be treated as a mere casual formality. The Court has characterized a lawyer's act of notarizing documents without the requisite commission therefore as "reprehensible, constituting as it does not only malpractice but also x x x the crime of falsification of public documents."[25] For such reprehensible conduct, the Court has sanctioned erring lawyers by suspension from the practice of law, revocation of the notarial commission and disqualification from acting as such, and even disbarment.[26]