Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MA. CORAZON D. FULGENCIO v. ATTY. BIENVENIDO G. MARTIN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 162886 2008-08-11	HEIRS OF DECEASED SPS. VICENTE S. ARCILLA AND JOSEFA ASUNCION ARCILLA v. MA. LOURDES A. TEODORO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In any event, the law does not require that parties to a document notarized by a notary public should be residents of the place where the said document is acknowledged or that they affix their signature in the presence of the notary public. What is necessary is that the persons who signed a notarized document are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before the notary public in order to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.[44]
	AC. No. 4370 2004-05-25	DOUGLAS G. ZABALLERO v. ATTY. MARIO J. MONTALVAN TINGA, J,
As culled from the evidence, Eulalio Zaballero died on May 31, 1992. However, respondent notarized the document in question which purportedly contains the signature of Eulalio Zaballero on June 9, 1992, or a little more than a week after his death. Part of the document is a notarial acknowledgment where respondent declared that Eulalio Zaballero appeared before him and acknowledged that the instrument was his free and voluntary act, but the fact was that he was already dead at that time. Clearly, respondent "made an untruthful statement, thus violating Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer, which unconditionally requires him not to do or declare any falsehood."[5]
	AC. No. 4370 2004-05-25	DOUGLAS G. ZABALLERO v. ATTY. MARIO J. MONTALVAN TINGA, J,
Notaries public, therefore, should not authenticate documents unless the persons who signed thereon are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before them to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.[8] Notaries public must observe with utmost fidelity the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of notarized deeds would be undermined.
	AC. No. 5480 2003-09-29	LEILANI OCAMPO-INGCOCO v. ATTY. ALEJANDRO G. YRREVERRE CALLEJO, SR., J.
When the respondent notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale without ascertaining that the vendors-signatories thereto were the very same persons who executed it and personally appeared before him to attest to the truth of what were stated therein, he undermined the confidence of the public on notarial documents and thereby breached Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes, and Rule 1.01 thereof which proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.[25] In acknowledging that the parties personally came and appeared before him, the respondent also made an untruthful statement, thus violating Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer that he shall do no falsehood.[26] Moreover, he opens himself to prosecution for falsification of a public document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.