Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FIDEL D. AQUINO v. ATTY. OSCAR MANESE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AM No. RTJ-01-1657 2004-02-23	HEINZ R. HECK v. JUDGE ANTHONY E. SANTOS CALLEJO, SR., J.
Time and again, we have stressed the settled principle that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A high sense of morality, honesty, and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar.[52] By his actuations, the respondent failed to live up to such standards;[53] 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. The respondent also violated Rule 1.01 thereof which proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.[54] In representing that he was possessed of the requisite notarial commission when he was, in fact, not so authorized, the respondent also violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer that he shall do no falsehood.
	AC. No. 5602 2004-02-03	HILDA D. TABAS v. ATTY. BONIFACIO B. MANGIBIN QUISUMBING, J.
For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of public instruments would be undermined. A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of matters stated in the document. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act and deed.[21]
	AC. No. 6139 2003-11-11	DOMINADOR L. CABANILLA v. ATTY. ANA LUZ B. CRISTAL-TENORIO CALLEJO, SR., J.
The respondent 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, when she notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale which was patently defective. She also violated Rule 1.01 thereof, which proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.[50] In acknowledging that the parties personally came and appeared before her, the respondent also made an untruthful statement, thus violating Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and her oath as a lawyer that she shall do no falsehood.[51]
	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.