Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=45936:ac-6294&amp;catid=1459&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:22:44+00:00

Document:
ATTY. MINIANO B. DELA CRUZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. ALEJANDRO P. ZABALA, Respondent.
In his Letter-Complaint for Disbarment filed before the Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, complainant Atty. Miniano B. Dela Cruz charged respondent, Atty. Alejandro P. Zabala, for violating his oath as a notary public.
The IBP then required the respondent to file his answer to the said allegations.
Thereafter, the parties were ordered to appear before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline on July 31, 2001 and August 21, 2001, and required to submit their position papers.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, in its Report dated September 29, 2003, recommended that respondent be reprimanded for violating Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.9 The allegations with respect to the prayer for disbarment were recommended for dismissal for insufficiency of evidence. The Commissioner held that complainant failed to establish by convincing proof that respondent had to be disbarred because of his notarial negligence. The alleged failures of respondent did not indicate a clear intent to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, according to the Commission's Report.
Noteworthy, however, respondent did not deny that he notarized the cited Deed of Sale under the circumstances alleged by complainant. It appears that there was negligence on respondent's part which, in our view, is quite serious. Thus, we cannot conclude that he did not violate the Notarial Law,10 and our rules regarding Notarial Practice.11 Nor could we agree that, as recommended by the IBP, he should only be reprimanded. At least his commission as Notary Public should be revoked and for two years he should be disqualified from being commissioned as such.
The IBP noted that on its face, the Deed of Sale was not executed by the purported vendee and that only Pedro Sumulong appeared and executed the deed even though the property was co-owned by Pedro Sumulong and Cirila Tapales. In addition, a copy of the title was not attached to the said Deed of Sale when it was presented for notarization. The aforementioned circumstances should have alerted respondent. Given the ease with which community tax certificates are obtained these days, respondent should have been more vigilant in ascertaining the identity of the persons who appeared before him.
The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements.14 By affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, he converted the Deed of Absolute Sale, from a private document into a public document. In doing so, respondent, in effect, proclaimed to the world that (1) all the parties therein personally appeared before him; (2) they are all personally known to him; (3) they were the same persons who executed the instruments; (4) he inquired into the voluntariness of execution of the instrument; and (5) they acknowledged personally before him that they voluntarily and freely executed the same.15 As a lawyer commissioned to be a notary public, respondent is mandated to discharge his sacred duties with faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat.16 Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent upon him, he must now accept the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion. His 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.
WHEREFORE, this Court finds respondent Atty. Alejandro P. Zabala GUILTY of gross negligence in his conduct as a notary public. His notarial commission, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. He is DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this Resolution to the Court within five (5) days from such receipt. Further, he is ordered to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be subject to disciplinary action as a member of the Bar.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to all the courts of the land as well as the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Bar Confidant. Let this Resolution be also made of record in the personal files of the respondent.
10 Sec. 125, Public Act No. 1189. See also Sec. 246, Revised Administrative Code; Sec. 163, Local Government Code of 1991; and Art. 248(a), Rules and Regulations implementing the Local Government Code of 1991.
11 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC.
12 Coronado v. Felongco, Adm. Case No. 2611, 15 November 2000, 344 SCRA 565, 568-569.
13 Villarin v. Sabate, Jr., Adm. Case No. 3324, 9 February 2000, 325 SCRA 123, 128.
14 Cabanilla v. Cristal-Tenorio, Adm. Case No. 6139, 11 November 2003, 415 SCRA 353, 361.
15 Arrieta v. Llosa, Adm. Case No. 4369, 28 November 1997, 282 SCRA 248, 252.
16 Villarin v. Sabate, Jr., supra.

References: v. 
 Art. 248
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.