This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission from the court, Atty. Siapno violated not only his oath to obey the laws particularly the Rules on Notarial Practice but also Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes all lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and directs them to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, at all times.[13] | |||||
|
2007-08-23 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| While seemingly appearing to be a harmless incident, respondent's act of notarizing documents in a place outside of or beyond the authority granted by his notarial commission, partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. While perhaps not on all fours because of the slight dissimilarity in the violation involved, what the Court said in Nunga v. Viray [13] is very much apropos:Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action. For one, performing a notarial [act] without such commission is a violation of the lawyer's oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath similarly proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." | |||||
|
2007-07-10 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's claim that Augusto was not empowered to dispose of the subject lot in order to pay off an alleged debt she owed to Rosario, is not worthy of belief. The clear and unmistakable tenor of the Special Power of Attorney reveals that petitioner specifically authorized Augusto to sell the subject lot and to settle her obligations to third persons. The Special Power of Attorney is a duly notarized document and, as such, is entitled, by law, to full faith and credit upon its face.[32] Notarization vests upon the document the presumption of regularity unless it is impugned by strong, complete and conclusive proof.[33] Rather than challenging its validity, petitioner admitted in open court that she signed the Special Power of Attorney with a full appreciation of its contents[34] and without reservation.[35] | |||||
|
2006-11-20 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| A member of the Bar who notarizes a document when he has no authorization or commission to do so may be subjected to disciplinary action. Notarization is not an empty act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity and due execution.[15] | |||||
|
2002-07-02 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| For this reason notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.[12] Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined.[13] Hence a notary public should not 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.[14] The purpose of this requirement 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 and deed.[15] | |||||