Facts:

The case involves a complaint for disbarment filed by Reuben M. Protacio against Atty. Roberto M. Mendoza. Protacio alleged that Mendoza notarized a Board Resolution and a Deed of Assignment, both of which purportedly had Protacio's signature, when in fact Protacio did not sign those documents. Protacio also pointed out that the Notarial Section of the Regional Trial Court of Manila did not have file copies of those documents. Mendoza, in his defense, insisted that the signatures on the documents were authentic and were signed by the parties in his presence.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

The court ruled that it is necessary for a party to any document notarized by a notary public to appear in person before the notary public and affirm the contents and truth of the document. The acknowledgment of a document is not an empty act, as it converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Therefore, it is the duty of every notary public to ensure that this requirement is observed and that formalities for the acknowledgment of documents are complied with.

In this case, it was established that one of the signatories to the documents allegedly notarized by Mendoza could not have signed them on the date indicated, as he was out of the country at that time. Mendoza's explanation that the documents were actually signed on a different date was not accepted by the court. The court emphasized that documents must speak the truth to preserve their integrity.

Furthermore, Mendoza's failure to comply with the duty to file a copy of the resolution wi...(Unlock)

Ratio:

The court based its decision on the fact that Atty. Mendoza failed to comply wi...continue reading