Case Summary (G.R. No. 114829)
Factual Background
On September 7, 1994, the Supreme Court of the Philippines required Atty. dela Rea to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for certifying a jurat indicating that Gamido had subscribed the verification in his presence, which he did not. Atty. dela Rea acknowledged his failure to comply with the notarial requirements, admitting that the petition was notarized without the actual presence of the petitioner, contrary to the legal obligations imposed on a notary public.
Atty. Dela Rea's Explanation
In his response dated December 23, 1994, received on January 25, 1995, Atty. dela Rea claimed his actions were based on a misunderstanding of the requirements for a jurat, believing it was acceptable due to his knowledge of Gamido and the circumstances of their interactions. He expressed remorse and emphasized his intention to contribute to the orderly administration of justice, asserting that he did not intend to commit any wrongdoing.
Legal Requirements of Notarization
The court highlighted the critical distinctions between a jurat and an acknowledgment. A jurat requires that the affiant be present to sign a document while taking an oath before the notary public, thus ensuring the validity of the sworn statement. By contrast, acknowledgment involves the notary certifying that the affirmant personally appeared and acknowledged execution of the document. Atty. dela Rea's defense that the presence of the petitioner was unnecessary for the jurat was deemed baseless by the court, emphasizing the solemn and essential role of a notary public.
Findings on Misconduct
The Supreme Court determined that Atty. dela Rea, despite his long tenure as a notary public and familiarity with legal processes, committed grave misconduct by notarizing a document without the petitioner's presence. The court underscored that such conduct undermines the integrity of the notarial process, which is founded on public trust and confidence in the legal system. His prior acquaintance with Ga
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 114829)
Case Background
- The case is centered on the actions of Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea, a notary public, regarding the jurat of a petition filed by Maximino Gamido.
- The Supreme Court required Atty. dela Rea to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for notarizing a document without the presence of the petitioner, Gamido.
- The alleged notarization took place on April 19, 1994, when in reality, Gamido was not present during the signing and swearing of the document.
Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea's Explanation
- Atty. dela Rea admitted in his explanation that he notarized the document without Gamido’s presence.
- He argued that his actions were based on his belief that since it was a jurat, it was acceptable to notarize without the affiant being present.
- He claimed familiarity with Gamido due to previous interactions and legal cases involving prisoners, which he believed justified his actions.
- Dela Rea expressed remorse and assured the court that there was no malice or intent to commit illegal acts, emphasizing