Case Summary (A.C. No. 5281)
Petitioner
Manuel L. Lee — alleged son of the decedent who filed a letter-complaint accusing respondent of notarizing a spurious will and of facilitating forged signatures and improper acknowledgments.
Respondent
Atty. Regino B. Tambago — lawyer and notary public accused of violating the old Notarial Law and professional ethics by notarizing a will that allegedly did not comply with statutory formalities and contained forged signatures.
Key Dates
Letter-complaint: April 10, 2000. Purported execution/acknowledgment of will: June 30, 1965. Residence certificate of testator cited in acknowledgment: January 5, 1962. IBP Board of Governors resolution: May 26, 2006. Supreme Court resolution: February 12, 2008.
Applicable Law and Standards
1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable given the decision date). Civil Code provisions on wills (notably Articles 783, 804, 806). Old Notarial Law in the Revised Administrative Code: requirements for notation of residence certificates (Sec. 251), required entries in the notarial register (Sec. 246), and grounds for revocation of commission (Sec. 249). Residence Tax Act (Commonwealth Act No. 465). Rules of Court governing attorney duties (Rule 138, Sec. 20). Code of Professional Responsibility: Canon 1 and Rule 1.01. Rules on evidence concerning secondary evidence (Rule 130, Sec. 5).
Procedural History
Complainant filed a complaint before the Court (letter-complaint). Respondent filed a comment denying falsity and claiming corroborating affidavits. The case was referred to the IBP for investigation; the IBP investigating commissioner recommended a three-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report with modification, suspending respondent for one year and revoking his notarial commission for two years. The Supreme Court reviewed and issued the resolution now summarized.
Factual Allegations Relevant to the Notarization
Complainant alleged the testator never executed the will, that the signatures of the testator and the two witnesses were forged or inconsistent with genuine signatures (including disagreement with a deed of donation alleged to bear the testator’s true signature), that the will was attested by only two witnesses, that the residence certificate noted for the testator in the acknowledgment was dated earlier than the will’s date, and that no copy of the will was found in the NCCA archives. Respondent admitted no copy was filed in the archives, denied the will was spurious, offered affidavits allegedly corroborating execution, and argued the complaint was harassment.
Issue Presented
Whether respondent committed professional misconduct and breached notarial formalities and ethical obligations by notarizing the contested will despite defects in statutory requirements (insufficient number of witnesses, improper acknowledgment and cedula notation, failure to make required notarial register entries), and what disciplinary sanctions are appropriate.
Legal Analysis — Formalities of a Notarial Will
The Court reiterated that a will is effective only if statutory formalities are observed. A notarial will must be subscribed by the testator and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and one another (Civil Code Article 804). Failure to meet mandatory formalities renders the will void (Civil Code Article 5, principle that acts against mandatory prohibitory laws are void). Because the instrument in question was attested by only two witnesses (Noynay and Grajo), the will failed a fundamental statutory requirement and must be considered void on that ground alone.
Legal Analysis — Acknowledgment and Cedula/Residence Certificate Requirements
The acknowledgment of instruments before a notary under the old Notarial Law required notation that parties presented proper residence certificates (cedulas) with entry of the number, place of issue, and date (Revised Administrative Code Sec. 251). The Residence Tax Act reinforced the duty to require exhibition of current residence certificates. The Court found that respondent accepted an expired residence certificate for the testator and failed to demand and note the cedulas of the two witnesses; such omissions constituted noncompliance with mandatory notarial formalities. The acknowledgment’s defects undermined the protective function of notarization — to guard against fraud and to ensure the authenticity of testamentary acts.
Legal Analysis — Requirement to File a Copy with Archives
Article 806 of the Civil Code provides that the notary public is not required to retain or file a copy of a will in the clerk of court’s office. Accordingly, respondent’s failure to file a copy with the archives division did not, by itself, constitute a disciplinary offense. The Court nonetheless noted that respondent’s other failures were independently sufficient.
Legal Analysis — Notarial Register and Admissibility of Evidence
The old Notarial Law required chronological entries in the notarial register detailing the nature of instruments, parties, witnesses, dates, fees, and a brief description (Revised Administrative Code Sec. 246). Respondent produced photocopies of his notarial register and a photocopied certification; the Court treated these as secondary evidence. Under the Rules of Court (Rule 130, Sec. 5), secondary evidence is admissible only when the original is shown to be unavailable and the proponent proves execution or existence of the original and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith. Respondent failed to establish the unavailability of originals; thus the photocopies were inadmissible to prove that the will had been entered properly in the register. The absence of admissible proof of proper register entries and cedula notations supported a finding of dereliction.
Ethical and Disciplinary Analysis
A lawyer and notary bears heightened obligations: to uphold the Constitution and laws, to act with honesty and fidelity, and to model respect for the law (Lawyer’s Oath; Canon 1; Rule 1.01 CPR; Rule 138, Sec. 20). The Court emphasized that notaries must observe with utmost care elementary requirements because notarized documents carry high evidentiary weight. Respondent’s failures — accepting an expired cedula, omitting cedula notations, failing to make proper register entries, and notarizing a testamentary instrument lacking mandatory witness formalities — were violations of the old Notarial Law and professional ethics. These failures compromised the validity of the will, especially where principal actors were deceased and thus unable to clarify the instrument.
Grounds for Revocation and Sanctioning Authority
The Revised Administrative Code enumerates notarial derelictions that may justify revocation of
Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 5281)
Case Caption, Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported at 568 Phil. 363, First Division, A.C. No. 5281, decision dated February 12, 2008.
- Complainant: Manuel L. Lee.
- Respondent: Atty. Regino B. Tambago.
- Nature of proceedings: Administrative disciplinary proceedings for alleged violations of the old Notarial Law and the ethics of the legal profession in connection with the notarization of a contested Last Will and Testament of the late Vicente Lee, Sr.
- Referral: The Supreme Court, by resolution dated October 17, 2001, referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. The IBP investigating commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation (Annex “A”) dated February 27, 2006; the IBP Board of Governors adopted and modified the recommendation by Resolution No. XVII-2006-285 dated May 26, 2006. The Supreme Court rendered its final Resolution (affirming with modification) on February 12, 2008.
Facts as Alleged by Complainant
- The contested instrument is a purported Last Will and Testament of Vicente Lee, Sr., allegedly executed and acknowledged before respondent on June 30, 1965. [1]
- Complainant alleged that his father never executed the contested will and that the document was spurious.
- The will purportedly bequeathed the decedent’s entire estate to his wife Lim Hock Lee, except for one parcel devised to Vicente Lee, Jr. and Elena Lee (half-siblings of complainant).
- Complainant pointed out an inconsistency: the residence certificate of the testator noted in the acknowledgment of the will bore the date January 5, 1962, while the acknowledgment was dated June 30, 1965. [2][3]
- Complainant asserted that the signature of the testator in the contested will did not match his signature as donor in a deed of donation (which contained the purported genuine signature). He described the two signatures as entirely and diametrically opposed. [4][5]
- Complainant alleged forgery of the signatures of the two purported witnesses, Cayetano Noynay and Loreto Grajo, asserting that their signatures were copied from their voters’ affidavits and questioning the absence of notation of their residence certificates in the acknowledgment.
- Complainant also stated that no copy of the purported will was on file in the archives division of the Records Management and Archives Office of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA). The chief of the archives division certified on September 19, 1999 that Doc. 14, Page No. 4, Book No. 1, Series of 1965 refers to an Affidavit executed by Bartolome Ramirez on June 30, 1965 and is available in their files, but did not indicate a copy of the will. [6]
Respondent’s Answer and Defenses
- Respondent filed a comment dated July 6, 2001 denying alleged falsehoods in the complaint and asserting that:
- Complainant was not a legitimate son of Vicente Lee, Sr., and therefore lacked standing to impugn the will. (Respondent thus disputed complainant’s status as a son of the decedent.)
- The Last Will and Testament was validly executed and actually notarized by respondent; respondent relied on the affidavit of Gloria Nebato (dated July 11, 2001), the common-law wife of Vicente Lee, Sr., and a joint affidavit (dated July 11, 2001) of Elena N. Lee and Vicente N. Lee, Jr. as corroboration. [7][8]
- The complaint was filed to harass respondent because a prior criminal case filed by complainant against respondent in the Office of the Ombudsman did not prosper. [9]
- Respondent did not dispute the absence of a copy of the will in the archives division of the NCCA; he explained that no copy was filed there.
- Respondent contended that complainant had no valid cause of action against him because complainant had not first filed an action for declaration of nullity of the will and demanded his share in the inheritance.
Investigation, IBP Findings and Recommendation
- The IBP investigating commissioner found respondent guilty of violating pertinent provisions of the old Notarial Law (Revised Administrative Code) and of ethical duties under Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. [11][12][13]
- The investigating commissioner recommended suspension of respondent from the practice of law for three months. (Report and Recommendation by Commissioner Elpidio G. Soriano III, dated February 27, 2006.) [13]
- The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution No. XVII-2006-285 dated May 26, 2006, adopted and approved the investigating commissioner’s report with modification, and resolved to suspend Atty. Regino B. Tambago from the practice of law for one year, revoke his notarial commission and disqualify him from reappointment as Notary Public for two (2) years. [14]
Legal Framework and Statutory Provisions Considered
- Definition and nature of wills:
- Civil Code, Art. 783: A will is an act permitting a person, with formalities prescribed by law, to control disposition of his estate to take effect after death. [15]
- Types of wills: notarial and holographic. [16]
- Formalities for notarial wills:
- Civil Code, Art. 804: A notarial will must be subscribed at the end by the testator and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. [17]
- Civil Code, Art. 806: Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witness; it also states that the notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of the will or file another with the Clerk of Court. [19][27]
- General principle: acts executed against mandatory or prohibitory laws are void (Civil Code, Art. 5). [18]
- Notarial Law (Revised Administrative Code) and requirements:
- Section 251: notation of payment of residence tax (cedula) — the notary must certify that parties have presented proper residence certificates (cedulas) or are exempt, and must enter number, place of issue and date. [25]
- Section 246: matters required to be entered in the notarial register, in chronological order — nature of each instrument, person executing, witnesses, date of execution/acknowledgment, fees collected, consecutive entry number, and brief description when instrument is a contract. [27]
- Section 249: grounds for revocation of commission — includes failure to make proper entries in notarial register (b) and failure to make proper notation regarding cedula certificates (f). [35][36]
- Residence Tax statute:
- Commonwealth Act No. 465, Section 6: requires exhibition