This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-03-13 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Verily, disciplinary proceedings against attorneys are unlike civil suits where the complainants are the plaintiffs and the respondent attorneys are the defendants. They neither involve private interests nor afford redress for private grievances. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare, for the purpose of preserving the courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice law before them. Every attorney is called to answer for every misconduct he commits as an officer of the Court. The complainant or any other person who has brought the attorney's misconduct to the attention of the Court is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.[24] | |||||
|
2010-04-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It may not be amiss to point out, at this juncture, that the principal function of a notary public is to authenticate documents.[31] 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.[32] 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.[33] 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 acknowledgment executed before a notary public and appended to a private instrument.[34] Hence, a notary public must discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity.[35] 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.[36] | |||||
|
2008-08-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| A member of the bar who performs an act as 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. The acts of the affiants cannot be delegated to anyone for what are stated therein are facts of which they have personal knowledge. They should swear to the document personally and not through any representative. Otherwise, their representative's name should appear in the said documents as the one who executed the same. That is the only time the representative can affix his signature and personally appear before the notary public for notarization of the said document. Simply put, the party or parties who executed the instrument must be the ones to personally appear before the notary public to acknowledge the document.[45] | |||||