Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	AC. No. 7297 2009-09-29	IMELDA BIDES-ULASO v. ATTY. EDITA NOE-LACSAMANA BERSAMIN, J.
Specifically, the notarial certification contained in the jurat of the amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping - "SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, on this 18th day of June 2003, affiant IRENE BIDES, showing to me her CTC Nos. 11833475 issued on November 21, 2002, in Manila"[25] - indicated both the necessity for the physical presence of Bides as the affiant and the fact that the signing was done in the presence of the respondent as the notary. The physical presence of Bides was required in order to have her as the affiant swear before the respondent that she was that person and in order to enable the respondent as the notary to ascertain whether Bides had voluntarily and freely executed the affidavit.[26] Thus, the respondent, by signing as notary even before Bides herself could appear before her, failed to give due observance and respect to the solemnity.
	AC. No. 6737 2008-09-23	FLOCERFIDA S. LANUZO v. ATTY. JESUS B. BONGON QUISUMBING, J.
That a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein bears reiterating, the purpose being to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signatures of the acknowledging parties and to ascertain that the document is the parties' free act. [7]