This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-12-03 |
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] | |||||
|
2014-10-08 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The complainant adduced preponderant evidence that his signature was indeed forged in an affidavit which the respondent notarized and submitted to the COMELEC. Consequently, the respondent should be held administratively liable for his action. "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. The Code of Professional Responsibility also commands him not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession."[29] "It should be noted that a notary public's function should not be trivialized and a notary public must discharge his powers and duties which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity. A notary public exercises duties calling for carefulness and faithfulness. Notaries must inform themselves of the facts they certify to; most importantly, they should not take part or allow themselves to be part of illegal transactions."[30] In fact, the respondent admitted that the affidavit was notarized in his office without the presence of the complainant.[31] | |||||
|
2014-10-08 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In Carlito Ang v. Atty. James Joseph Gupana,[32] the respondent therein was suspended from the practice of law for one year; his notarial commission was revoked and he was also disqualified from reappointment as notary public for a period of two years for notarizing an affidavit of loss without the presence of the party acknowledging the document. | |||||