Case Summary (A.C. No. 9514)
Petitioner
Bernard N. Jandoquile filed a complaint seeking disbarment of Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr. based on the respondent’s notarization of a complaint‑affidavit signed by the three individuals identified above.
Respondent
Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr. admitted the material allegations. He explained he acted as counsel for the three affiants and that he knew them personally, which he asserted justified not requiring presentation of identification cards.
Key Dates
Notarial commission of respondent was valid until December 31, 2012 (as reflected in the notarial certificate on the complaint‑affidavit). The decision in this matter postdates 1990; accordingly, the 1987 Philippine Constitution is the governing constitution for purposes of legal framework and authority.
Applicable Law and Rules
- 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, notably: Rule IV, Section 3(c) (disqualifications from performing a notarial act), Rule II, Section 6 (definition of ajurata), Rule II, Section 7 (definition of notarial act/ notarization) and Rule II, Section 10 (definition of principal).
- Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court (grounds for disbarment or suspension).
- Precedent relied upon by the Court: Maria v. Cortez (A.C. No. 7880), where lesser sanctions including reprimand and temporary disqualification from being commissioned as notary public were imposed for notarial violations.
Undisputed Facts
The facts were not controverted: respondent notarized the complaint‑affidavit signed by Heneraline Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa, and Elmer Alvarado. The notarial certificate on the affidavit bears respondent’s signature as a notary public with a commission valid to December 31, 2012. Respondent admitted he notarized the document and that the affiants are persons he knows; he also admitted not requiring their presentation of identification cards.
Issues Presented
- Whether the respondent’s notarization of a complaint‑affidavit signed by relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity (i.e., persons related by affinity to the respondent) constituted a disqualifying act under Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and a ground for disbarment.
- Whether respondent’s failure to require presentation of valid identification cards by the affiants constituted a separate ground for disciplinary sanction.
Applicable Standards and Definitions (as used by the Court)
- Section 3(c), Rule IV (2004 Rules on Notarial Practice) disqualifies a notary public from performing a notarial act if he “is a spouse, common‑law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree.”
- An ajurata (Section 6, Rule II) contemplates that the person appears in person before the notary, is personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity, signs in the notary’s presence, and takes an oath or affirmation. Where a notary personally knows the affiant, presentation of ID is not required but the ajurata should reflect identification or the notary’s personal knowledge.
Court’s Analysis — Disqualification Under Section 3(c)
The Court found that respondent’s notarization of a document signed by relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity was a clear violation of Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Respondent admitted notarizing the complaint‑affidavit signed by his relatives by affinity; the notarial certificate shows he acted in his capacity as a notary public. Given the explicit disqualification in the rule, the Court held respondent was required to refuse to perform the notarial act and could not legitimately claim he acted only as counsel when he signed the notarial certificate as notary.
Court’s Analysis — Identification Requirement and Ajurata
On the second charge (failure to require valid identification), the Court agreed with respondent that a notary who personally knows the affiants need not demand presentation of identification cards. The definition of ajurata under Section 6, Rule II supports this: personal knowledge of the affiant is an alternative to identification through competent evidence. The Court accepted that respondent personally knew the three affiants and therefore was justified in not requiring IDs. However, the Court noted that the ajurata contained no statement that the affiants were personally known to the respondent; the omission of such a statement was a deficiency though not a basis for liability in the circumstances.
Court’s Conclusion on Liability
The Court concluded respondent was indisputably liable for violating the disqualification rule under Section 3(c) because two of the affiants were relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. The failure to require IDs did not, on the facts, constitute an indepe
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 9514)
Case Caption and Citation
- Reported at 708 Phil. 337; 110 OG No. 2, 165 (January 13, 2014).
- Decided by the Supreme Court, First Division, A.C. No. 9514, April 10, 2013.
- Resolution authored by Justice Villarama, Jr.; Chief Justice Sereno (Chairperson), Justices Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Reyes concurred.
Nature of Proceeding and Relief Sought
- This is a disbarment complaint filed by Bernard N. Jandoquile against Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr.
- Complainant sought disbarment of respondent for alleged violation(s) in connection with a notarial act.
Undisputed Facts
- The facts of the case are not disputed by the parties.
- Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr. notarized a complaint-affidavit signed by three affiants: Heneraline L. Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa, and Elmer L. Alvarado.
- Heneraline Brosas is a sister of Heizel Wynda Brosas Revilla, who is the wife of Atty. Revilla, Jr.
- Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa is the sister-in-law of Atty. Revilla, Jr. (his wife’s sister).
- Elmer L. Alvarado is identified as the live-in houseboy of the Brosas family.
- The notarial certificate at the bottom of the complaint-affidavit bears Atty. Revilla, Jr.’s signature as a notary public, with a notarial commission valid until December 31, 2012.
- The complaint-affidavit itself accused Bernard N. Jandoquile of fraudulent enlistment with the Philippine Army; after proceedings, the investigating officer recommended Jandoquile’s discharge from military service, and Jandoquile states he has appealed to the Office of the Provost Marshal, Armed Forces of the Philippines.
Complainant’s Allegations
- Jandoquile alleged that Atty. Revilla, Jr. is disqualified from performing the notarial act under Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice because two of the affiants are relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity.
- Jandoquile also complained that Atty. Revilla, Jr. failed to require the three affiants to present valid identification cards when notarizing the complaint-affidavit.
Respondent’s Admissions and Defenses
- In his comment to the disbarment complaint, Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not deny but admitted the material allegations.
- Atty. Revilla, Jr. contended the single act of notarizing the relatives’ complaint-affidavit and not requiring identification should not be a ground for disbarment.
- He asserted that he acted as counsel of the three affiants and should be considered more as counsel than as a notary public when he notarized their complaint-affidavit.
- He explained he did not require valid identification cards because he knew the affiants personally.
Relevant Provisions of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (as quoted in source)
- Section 3(c), Rule IV (Disqualifications): "A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he: x x x x (c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree."
- Section 6, Rule II (Definition of ajurata): An ajurata refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document; (b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity; (c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document.
- Section 7, Rule II (definition referenced): A notarial act and notarization refer to any act that a notary public is empowered to perform under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
- Section 10, Rule II (definition referenced): A principal refers to a person appearing before the notary public whose act is the subject of notarization.
Applicable Standard for Disbarment (as quoted in source)
- Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court (grounds for disbarment or suspension by the Supreme Court): A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the oath before admission, or willful disobedience appearing as an att