Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PATROCINIO V. AGBULOS v. ATTY. ROSELLER A. VIRAY

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	AC. No. 8723 2016-01-26	GREGORY FABAY v. ATTY. REX A. RESUENA PER CURIAM
In Agbulos v. Atty. Viray,[13] this Court, citing Dela Cruz-Sillano v. Pangan,[14] reiterated anew the necessity of personal appearance of the affiants, to wit: The Court is aware of the practice of not a few lawyers commissioned as notary public to authenticate documents without requiring the physical presence of affiants. However, the adverse consequences of this practice far outweigh whatever convenience is afforded to the absent affiants. Doing away with the essential requirement of physical presence of the affiant does not take into account the likelihood that the documents may be spurious or that the affiants may not be who they purport to be. 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 truth of what are stated therein. 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.
	AC. No. 10859 2016-01-26	MARIA FATIMA JAPITANA v. ATTY. SYLVESTER C. PARADO PER CURIAM
Atty. Parado did not claim to personally know the persons who executed the said documents. Hence, the presentation of their CTCs was insufficient because those cannot be considered as competent evidence of identity, as defined in the Rules. Reliance on the CTCs alone is a punishable indiscretion by the notary public.[19]
	AC. No. 10783 2015-10-14	ATTY. BENIGNO T. BARTOLOME v. ATTY. CHRISTOPHER A. BASILIO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The act of notarization is impressed with public interest.[14] As such, a notary public must observe the highest degree of care in complying with the basic requirements in the performance of his duties in order to preserve the confidence of the public in the integrity of the notarial system.[15]
	AC. No. 7073 2015-09-01	FIRE OFFICER I DARWIN S. SAPPAYANI v. ATTY. RENATO G. GASMEN PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act.[22] It is impressed with substantial public interest, and only those who are qualified or authorized may act as such. It is not a purposeless ministerial act of acknowledging documents executed by parties who are willing to pay fees for notarization.[23] Moreover, notarization of a private document, such as an SPA in this case, converts the document into a public one which, on its face, is given full faith and credit. Thus, the failure of Atty. Gasmen to observe the utmost care in the performance of his duties caused not only damage to those directly affected by the notarized document,[24] but also undermined the integrity of a notary public and tainted the function of notarization.[25]
	AC. No. 8103 2014-12-03	ATTY. AURELIO C. ANGELES v. ATTY. RENATO C. BAGAY MENDOZA, J.
Because of the negligence of respondent, the Court also holds him liable for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). His failure to solemnly perform his duty as a notary public not only damaged those directly affected by the notarized documents but also undermined the integrity of a notary public and degraded the function of notarization. He should, thus, be held liable for such negligence not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.[15] Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any.[16]
	AC. No. 7919 2014-10-08	DOMADO DISOMIMBA SULTAN v. ATTY. CASAN MACABANDING REYES, J.
The same sanctions were imposed against the erring lawyer in Agbulos v. Viray,[33] where the respondent therein admitted "that not only did he prepare and notarize the subject affidavit but he likewise notarized the same without the affiant's personal appearance. He explained that he did so merely upon the assurance of his client Dollente that the document was executed by complainant."[34]