Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MELANIO L. ZORETA v. ATTY. HEHERSON ALNOR G. SIMPLICIANO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AC. No. 6505 2008-09-11	JESSICA C. UY v. ATTY. EMMANUEL P. SAÑO NACHURA, J.
To be sure, 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 therefor as reprehensible, constituting as it does, not only malpractice, but also the crime of falsification of public documents. 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.[16]
	AC. NO. 7123 2006-11-20	MARIA DIVINA CRUZ-VILLANUEVA v. ATTY. CARLOS P. RIVERA CARPIO, J.
Notaries public who notarize documents without the requisite commission are penalized with revocation of their notarial commission and are barred from being commissioned as notary public.[26] Thus, respondent Rivera should be barred from being commissioned as notary public for one year and his notarial commission, if any, revoked.
	AC. NO. 6678 2006-10-09	JOCELYN A. SAQUING v. ATTY. NOEL A. MORA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The property was adjudicated to the spouses Mora by the DENR in the Order dated 5 October 2001 which already became final and executory. In a way, the title of spouses of the lot was confirmed and in the process of making it perfect through the approval of the subdivision plan and the appropriate public land application. This was explained by respondent to complainant since he is the lawyer of the spouses in the DENR case.[13] Anent the charge of notarizing a document without a notarial commission, we agree that such an act violates Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which reads: Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. In Nunga v. Viray,[14] the Court held that: 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 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." For such misconduct, the Court has sanctioned erring lawyers with suspension from the practice of law, revocation of the notarial commission and disqualification from acting as such, and even disbarment.[15]