ROLANDO T. KO v. ATTY. ALMA UY-LAMPASA.
A.C. No. 11584 (Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3604), March 06, 2019
Caguioa, J.
FACTS: Rolando Ko filed a Complaint for Disbarment dated October 2, 2012, against Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa with
the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). He alleged that the respondent
lawyer violated the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers (CPR) and claimed that: (1) respondent
notarized two purported deeds of sale between Jerry Uy and the Sultan siblings (heirs of a certain Pablo Sultan)
over a parcel of land despite knowing that said deeds of sale were spurious; (2) respondent, as counsel for Jerry
(vendee in the abovementioned Deeds of Sale), filed a malicious case of Estafa against his son Jason and the
Sultan siblings, alleging that the Extra-judicial Settlement of Estate with Absolute Sale executed on October 20,
2011, between his son, Jason U. Ko and all ten of the Sultan siblings was not published when in fact, it was
published as evidenced by an Affidavit of Publication; and (3) respondent also committed perjury and has filed
pleadings in court without the necessary Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance number.
The subject Deeds of Sale dated October 12, 2011, and October 19, 2011, were similar with respect to
the vendee, the property covered, and the consideration. However, both differed as regards the name of the
vendors. As to the Deed dated October 12, the vendors named were Juanito, Felix, Leonardo, Crispen, Lilia,
Pablito, Victoriano and Lucita, but only Leonardo, Lilia and Victoriano signed the deed; while the Deed dated
October 19, Victoriano and Lucita were not included in the vendors and among those, and Pablito did not sign the
same. Per the records of the case, the Sultan siblings are: Pablito, Anicieto, Cristita, Juanito, Felix, Leonardo,
Crispen, Lilia, Victoriano and Lucita and only eight of the ten siblings are involved, as Anicieto and Cristita do not
appear in either of the deeds.
The respondent, in her answer dated November 10, 2012, countered that she has not violated any
provision of the CPR and argued, as follows: that the matter of the deeds of sale is now subject of separate cases
pending in court and with the City Prosecutor's Office of Catbalogan City, Western Samar; that the determination
of whether the Estafa case is malicious is within the jurisdiction of the City Prosecutor's Office conducting the
preliminary investigation; and that she was exempted from the MCLE requirements first to third compliance period
because she was a former judge, and that she is in the process of complying with the requirement for the latest
compliance period.
In the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner dated December 18, 2013,
respondent was found guilty of the following acts: notarizing two documents of sale involving the same parties but
containing different dates of notarization, which she never denied; and failing to indicate her MCLE Compliance
Number in various pleadings filed before the courts and the Prosecutors Office of Catbalogan City, Western
Samar, while her MCLE certificate is being processed. It was likewise recommended that her notarial commission
be revoked and she be disqualified for re-appointment as a notary public for two (2) years. The Report and
Recommendation was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors, as such, Atty. Uy-Lampasa was
meted with the modified penalty of immediate revocation of her notarial commission and disqualification for re-
appointment as notary public for two (2) years, as well as suspension from the practice of law for a period of six
(6) months. The respondent lawyer filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) which was denied by the IBP. In her
MR, she argued that the IBP Board failed to cite any specific violation of the Notarial and MCLE Rules, and that
the increased penalty imposed on her had no basis.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not the findings of the Investigating Commissioner as adopted by the IBP Board are proper.
RULING: Yes except as to the issue with non-compliance with the MCLE.
The Court disagreed with the Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board when it ruled that the
respondent was non-compliant with MCLE Requirements as mandated by Bar Matter (BM) No. 850. The records
of the case show that the respondent was exempted rom MCLE compliance for the First, Second, and Third
Compliance Periods, until she resigned as a judge on March 2010. After which, she endeavored to comply with
the Fourth Compliance Period while also in the process of requesting copies of her certificate of exemption. In
finding respondent administratively liable for such, the IBP Board merely stated that she violated B.M. 850.
However, based on B.M. 850, “ an IBP member shall only be declared delinquent for failure to comply
with the education requirements "after the sixty (60) day period for compliance has expired." This 60-day period
shall commence from the time such member received a notice of non-compliance. Without the notice of
compliance, a member who believes that the units he or she had taken already amounts to full compliance may
be declared delinquent without being made aware of such lack of units and with no chance to rectify the same.” In
the instant case, there is no showing that the respondent lawyer had ever been issued a Notice of Non-
Compliance, that she was exempted for the first to third compliance periods for being a member of the judiciary,
and that she was able to complete the requirements for the fourth compliance period. Thus, there is no reason for
her to be held liable and declared delinquent under B.M. 850.
As to the matter of her violation of the Notarial Rules, the Court agrees with the IBP Board. It is clearly
mandated in the Notarial Rules that before notarizing a document, the notary public should require the presence of
the very person who executed the same. The records show that respondent notarized two Deeds of Absolute Sale
which covered the same property and involved substantially the same parties despite the incomplete signature
and identification, which is contrary to the 2004 Notarial Practice which expressly provides that, “[a] notary public
shall not notarize: a blank or incomplete instrument or document. (Section 6(a), Rule IV]. Furthermore, said rule
also provides a prohibition that “[a] person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to
the instrument or document - is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization (Section 2
(a) (1), Rule IV).”
For having violated the Notarial Rules, respondent lawyer also failed to adhere to Canon 1 of the CPR,
which requires every lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for the law
and legal processes; and Rule 1.01 of the CPR which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct.
Based on recent jurisprudence, “ a lawyer commissioned as a notary public who fails to discharge his or
her duties as such is penalized with revocation of his or her notarial commission and disqualification from being
commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. In addition, he or she may also be suspended from
the practice of law for a period of six (6) months for notarizing a document without the appearance of the parties.”
Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months; her notarial
commission was revoked; and she is prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years, with
a warning that repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with severely.
NOTARIZATION OF SPURIOUS DEED OF SALE: NOTARIAL RULES - The Notarial Rules clearly mandate that
before notarizing a document, the notary public should require the presence of the very person who executed the
same. Thus, he or she certifies that it was the same person who executed and personally appeared before him to
attest to the contents and truth of what were stated therein. The presence of the parties to the deed is necessary
to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature.
When respondent affixed her signature and notarial seal on the deeds of sale, she led the public to believe that
the parties personally appeared before her and attested to the truth and veracity of the contents thereof when in
fact, they deny doing so. Respondent's conduct is laden with dangerous possibilities, bearing in mind the
conclusiveness accorded to the due execution of a document. Her conduct did not only jeopardize the rights of the
parties to the instrument; it also undermined the integrity of a notary public and degraded the function of
notarization. Thus, respondent should be liable for such act, not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.
For having violated the Notarial Rules, respondent also failed to adhere to Canon 1 of the CPR, which requires
every lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for the law and legal
processes. She also violated Rule 1.01 of the CPR which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct.
Based on recent jurisprudence, a lawyer commissioned as a notary public who fails to discharge his or her duties
as such is penalized with revocation of his or her notarial commission and disqualification from being
commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. In addition, he or she may also be suspended from
the practice of law for a period of six (6) months for notarizing a document without the appearance of the parties.
Thus, the Court affirms the penalty imposed by the IBP Board.
Josephine R. Ong v. Atty. Salvador M. Bijis
A.C. No. 13054, November 23, 2021
Caguioa, J.
FACTS: Complainant Ong filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Bijis for notarizing 2 Special Powers of
Attorney and a Real estate mortgage documents despite some signatories thereto are dead. In February 2006,
Mary Ann Canlas, Teresita Puntual, and Ma. Salome Dacuycuy came to Ong’s house offering 2 parcels of land in
Toril and Tamayong, Davao City as security for the loan the three are about to acquire. The three presented 2
SPAs: (1) For Puntual to sell, mortgage, or lease the property in Toril OF Catalino Sayon and his wife Donata
Sayon, backed up by a Transfer certificate of title ; (2) For Dacuycuy to sell, mortgage, or lease the Tamayong
property of Simeon Enoch and Felisa Enoch, backed up by Transfer certificate of title.
Convinced by their representations, Ong gave Canla, Puntual, and Dacuycuy 50,000.00 pesos cash and
45,000.00 pesos check. Ong retained the 2 Transfer certificates of title. It was Atty. Bijis who notarized the SPAs
and the Real estate mortgage purportedly executed by Enoch. Canlas, Puntual, Dacuycuy defaulted in their
obligation; so one year after, Ong decided to locate the registered owners in order to demand payments from
them- till, she realized from testimonies of people that Registered owners Sayon and his wife and Enoch were
dead long before the execution of the SPAs and Real estate mortgage documents.
Contention of the lawyer, Atty. Bijis, who notarized the documents: He concluded that the parties who had the
documents notarized before him were the same signatories to the documents. In other words, Atty. Bijis was
fooled by the three into thinking that they were the real owners of the properties in consideration, as evidenced by
the resident certificates and certificates of title they carried with their appearance in the notary office. The
Investigating Commissioner’s decision, adopted by the IBP-Board of Governors, is to revoke the notarial
commission of Atty. Bijis and for 2 years disqualifying him as a Notary public, plus an imposition of 6 months
suspension given by the latter Board.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not this Court affirms the findings and recommendation of the IBP-BOG.
RULING: Yes. Atty. Bijis had clearly been negligent in his duties as a Notray public as laid down in the following
provisions of the Notarial Rules:
Section 1, Rule II, Section 2 (b), Rule IV In reference to Sec.12 Rule II (as amended by A.M No. 02-8-13-SC)
The purported affiants of the SPAs and the Real estate mortgage only presented their community tax certificates.
This is not a competent evidence of identity which means any current identification document issued by an official
agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual.
Also, Atty. Bijis’ argument fails to persuade.
He did not discover that the persons before him were not who they represented to be because he has not been
conscientious enough to ask for their photograph-and-signature bearing documents. This is in relation to the SPAs
notarized.
In relation to the Real estate mortgage, Ong did not personally appear before Atty. Bijis. It is indisputable that
Ong’s signature was pre-signed.
2004 NOTARIAL PRACTICE RULES - The Investigating Commissioner held that the fact that the parties who
appeared before Atty. Bijis were mere impostors is not a defense because it was precisely the reason why
notaries public should be vigilant in their duties. The physical presence of the affiant ensures the proper execution
of the duty of the notary public under the law to determine whether the affiant's signature was voluntarily affixed.
The Notarial Rules demands the submission of competent evidence of identity, such as an identification card with
photograph and signature. This requirement can only be dispensed with if the notary public personally knows the
affiant. Atty. Bijis, in this case, admitted that he does not personally know the parties.
The importance of the affiant' s personal appearance and the notary public's examination of said affiant' s
competent evidence of identity when a document is notarized is underscored by the following relevant provisions
under the Notarial Rules:
[Section 1, Rule II:]
SECTION I. Acknowledgment. -"Acknowledgment" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a)
appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument or document; (b) is
attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and ( c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the
instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the instrument or document,
declares that he has executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts
in a particular representative capacity, that he has the autho1ity to sign in that capacity.
[Section 2(b), Rule IV:]
SECTION 2. Prohibitions. -xx x xxxx (b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as
signatory to the instrument or document is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization;
and (2,) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
Furthermore, prior to the amendment of Section 12, Rule II of the Notarial Rules in 2008, competent evidence of
identity is defined as follows:
SECTION 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. -The phrase "competent evidence of identity" refers to the
identification of an individual based on: (a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency
bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; or · (b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not
privy to the instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who personally
knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither .of whom is privy to the instrument, document or
transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification.
Atty. Bijis had clearly been negligent in his duties as a notary public, as laid down in the above provisions of the
Notarial Rules.
Our jurisprudence is replete with cases emphasizing on the importance attached to the act of notarization. It is not
an empty and meaningless act, or one done by rote. Rather, it is invested with substantive public interest because
it converts a private document into a public document and thus makes that document admissible in evidence
without further proof of its authenticity. The law thereby accords a notarized document full faith and credit upon its
face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment
executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument.
As such, notaries public are enjoined to observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of
their duties; otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be
undermined. It is therefore sacrosanct that 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 or her 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.
OSCAR M. BAYSAC, Complainant, v. ATTY. ELOISA M. ACERON-PAPA, Respondent.
A.C. No. 10231, August 10, 2016
JARDELEZA, J.
FACTS: Complainant Oscar M. Baysac (complainant) owns a property with an area of 322 sq. m. covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-581591 and registered with the Registry of Deeds of Trece Martires City.
The property was mortgaged by complainant to Spouses Emmanuel and Rizalina Cruz (Spouses Cruz) on
December 20, 2000. The Deed of Real Estate Mortgage 3 was notarized by Atty. Renelie B. Mayuga-Donato on
December 20, 2000. In February 2003, complainant went to the Registry of Deeds of Trece Martires City to get a
certified true copy of the certificate of title of the property because the property had a prospective buyer. However,
complainant was surprised to find out that TCT No. T-58159 had already been cancelled, and in lieu thereof, TCT
No. T-67089 was issued in favor of Spouses Cruz.
After further investigation, complainant found out that the property was transferred in the name of Spouses Cruz
pursuant to a Deed of Absolute Sale which was allegedly executed on January 13, 2003 for the consideration of
P100,000.00. The Deed of Absolute Sale which was allegedly signed by complainant, as the owner of the
property, was notarized by respondent on January 13, 2003. Complainant, however, vehemently denied having
ever signed the Deed of Absolute Sale and having ever appeared before a notary public on January 13, 2003 to
acknowledge the same. He claimed that he was in Tanza, Cavite that entire day with Ms. Flocerfida A. Angeles
(Ms. Angeles) searching for a buyer of the property. Complainant further stated that the Deed of Absolute Sale
showed that what he allegedly presented to the notary public when he acknowledged having executed the
document was his Community Tax Certificate (CTC) issued on May 26, 2000 or three years prior to the execution
of the Deed of Absolute Sale. The same CTC was used for the notarization of the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage
on December 20, 2000.
In a Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors dated 13 February 2013, it
adopted and approved with modification the Report and Recommendation of the Commission on Bar Discipline
which found Atty. Eloisa M. Aceron-Papa (respondent) administratively liable for notarizing a fictitious or spurious
document. As a consequence, the IBP Board of Governors revoked her commission as notary public and
disqualified her from being commissioned as notary public for three years with a stern warning to be more
circumspect in her notarial dealings.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not Atty. Aceron-Papa should be held liable for notarizing a fictitious or spurious document.
RULING: Yes. The Court affirms the findings of the IBP. It was noted that the complainant and the IBP Board of
Governors cited Section 1, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice as basis for the complained acts of
respondent. However, the Court finds that Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, otherwise known as the Notarial Law,
to be the applicable law at the time the complained acts took place. Nonetheless, both laws provide for a similar
provision on acknowledgment.
Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 provides: x x x (a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or
an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place
where the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person
acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it, and
acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under his official seal, if he is
by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.
Section 1, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice emphasizes the requirement of affiant's personal
appearance in an acknowledgment:
Section 1. Acknowledgment. - "Acknowledgment" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument or document;
(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and
(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him
for the purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or document
as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the
authority to sign in that capacity.
Based on the foregoing, the party acknowledging the document must appear before the notary public or any other
person authorized to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents. In this case, however, it would have
been physically impossible for complainant to appear before respondent and sign the Deed of Absolute Sale on
January 13, 2003. On that same day, complainant was with Ms. Angeles in Tanza, Cavite the whole day. Ms.
Angeles, in her affidavit, confirmed this fact. Further, the NBI's findings in its Questioned Documents Report show
that the signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale was not signed by complainant. These allegations remain
unrebutted despite the opportunity given to complainant to do so. Therefore, the affidavit of Ms. Angeles, and the
findings of the NBI prove that respondent violated the Notarial Law when she notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale
without the personal appearance of complainant. It was respondent's duty as notary public to require the personal
appearance of the person executing the document to enable the former to verify the genuineness of his signature.
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.
By notarizing a spurious document, respondent has made a mockery of the legal solemnity of the oath in an
acknowledgment.41 Respondent's failure to perform her duty as a notary public resulted not only in the damage to
those directly affected by the notarized document, but also in undermining the integrity of a notary public, and in
degrading the function of notarization.42 Precisely because of respondent's act, complainant was unlawfully
deprived of his property.
Respondent is reminded that as a lawyer commissioned as notary public, she is required to uphold her sacred
duties appertaining to her office, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public
interest. In Ang v. Gupana, this Court held: As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent is mandated
to subscribe to the sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy impressed
with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an
acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent upon respondent and failing
therein, he must now accept the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion .
As the Court has held in Flores v. Chua, “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.”
Since such responsibility is incumbent upon her, she must now accept the commensurate consequences of her
professional indiscretion. Her act of certifying under oath an irregular Deed of Absolute Sale without ascertaining
the identities of the persons executing the same constitutes gross negligence in the performance of duty as a
notary public. More, as a lawyer, respondent breached Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
particularly Canon 1.01. By notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale, she engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.