Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ATTY. MINIANO B. DELA CRUZ v. ATTY. ALEJANDRO P. ZABALA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AC. No. 7591 2012-03-20	CORAZON T. NEVADA v. ATTY. RODOLFO D. CASUGA VELASCO JR., J.
In Dela Cruz v. Zabala,[15] the Court adjudged the respondent notary public guilty of gross negligence for failing to require the parties to be physically present before him. In revoking the erring notary's commission, the Court, in Dela Cruz, stressed the significance of notarization and proceeded to define the heavy burden that goes when a lawyer is commissioned as a notary public. The Court wrote: x x x [N]otarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest. It must be underscored that x x x notarization x x x converts a private document into a public document making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity thereof. A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. For this reason, a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of x x x duties; otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined.
	ADM CASE NO. 7091 2008-10-15	JOFEL P. LEGASPI v. ATTYS. RAMON LANDRITO TINGA, J.
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 the truth of what are stated therein.[12]
	AC. No. 6962 2008-06-25	CHARLES B. BAYLON v. ATTY. JOSE A. ALMO QUISUMBING, J.
Mindful of his duties as a notary public and taking into account the nature of the SPA which in this case authorized the complainant's wife to mortgage the subject real property, the respondent should have exercised utmost diligence in ascertaining the true identity of the person who represented himself and was represented to be the complainant.[12] He should not have relied on the Community Tax Certificate presented by the said impostor in view of the ease with which community tax certificates are obtained these days.[13] As a matter of fact, recognizing the established unreliability of a community tax certificate in proving the identity of a person who wishes to have his document notarized, we did not include it in the list of competent evidence of identity that notaries public should use in ascertaining the identity of persons appearing before them to have their documents notarized.[14]