Case Summary (A.C. No. 9514)
Applicable Law
The governing rules in this case are derived from the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically Section 3(c), which stipulates disqualifications for notaries public, particularly if they are related to the principal within the fourth civil degree. The case also references Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court concerning grounds for disbarment, including deceit, malpractice, or gross misconduct.
Allegations Against Atty. Revilla, Jr.
Jandoquile's complaint asserted two primary allegations against Atty. Revilla, Jr.: (1) his disqualification from notarizing the complaint-affidavit due to familial relations and (2) his failure to require valid identification from the affiants. Atty. Revilla, Jr. admitted to the allegations but contended that his actions did not constitute grounds for disbarment, arguing he acted more as a counsel than as a notary public.
Court's Findings on Notarial Disqualification
The Court confirmed that Atty. Revilla, Jr. was indeed disqualified from performing the notarial act given his relationship to the affiants as their notarial act falls under the fourth civil degree of affinity. It was emphasized that he should have exercised greater prudence in refusing to notarize the document. The argument presented by Atty. Revilla, Jr. that he acted as a counsel rather than a notary public was dismissed as the notarial certificate clearly indicated his capacity as a notary.
Identification Requirement Analysis
Regarding the second charge, the Court agreed that Atty. Revilla, Jr. could not be held liable for failing to require the affiants to present valid identification cards, as he personally knew them. This is supported by Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which allows for personal knowledge to substitute the need for identification. However, the Court noted the absence of any notation in the notarial act indicating that he knew the affiants personally, which could have clarified his position.
Conclusion on Punishment
The Court conc
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 9514)
Introduction
- This case involves a disbarment complaint filed by Bernard N. Jandoquile against Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr.
- The complaint centers around alleged violations of notarial practice rules, specifically concerning notarization of documents involving relatives.
Background of the Case
- The facts of the case are undisputed, highlighting a straightforward issue regarding notarial conduct.
- Atty. Revilla, Jr. notarized a complaint-affidavit signed by three individuals: Heneraline L. Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa, and Elmer L. Alvarado.
- Heneraline Brosas is identified as the sister of Atty. Revilla, Jr.'s wife, creating a familial connection that is central to the complaint.
Allegations Against Atty. Revilla, Jr.
- Jandoquile alleges:
- Atty. Revilla, Jr. is disqualified from performing the notarial act due to the familial relationship under Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
- The failure to require valid identification cards from the affiants during notarization.
Respondent's Position
- In his comment on the disbarment complaint, Atty. Revilla, Jr. admitted to the material allegations presented by Jandoquile.
- He contended that:
- His act of notarization should not be considered a violation warranting disbarment.
- He acted primarily as counsel to the affiants rather than as a notary public.
- His personal knowledge of the affiants negated the need for identification ca