~epublic

of tbe llbilippines

~upreme

<!Court

:. _..: . t".i,,:.
'.-: ~.>:~... . ~ \~- ;,.,.~ :.tf'
-~ T .. ~.::.
.
f.l,f111~1:

;!f-Manila

. : ".\ :~ ~:. ~ I ;.~,;;:;tj4'J

FIRST DIVISION

l ;' : ,_.

. I

.. .,

'

. i

,",:, r:
.. 1~ \
1,.
1-

.:

~:

I , ' \

I' ;!

~ ;; \ :: NOV 26 2015 ~ . :; !
::., \ 1:.--c.~. . . ~ .... J. :i. 1
. ~ .:t.~:r-..J~~~ ~ ~L:/

,~,=

---------

.~t.: .. _ - - - - - - - - - -

ATTY. BENIGNO T. BARTOLOME,

Complainant,

- versus -

A.C. No. 10783

Present:

ATTY. CHRISTOPHER A. BASILIO,

Respondent.

SERENO, CJ., Chairperson,

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
PEREZ, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
Promulgated:

OCT 1 4 2015

-""'

x------------------------------------------------------------------~--------------x
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
This administrative case stems from a complaint 1 filed by complainant
Atty. Benigno T. Bartolome (Bartolome) on May 19, 2009 before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against respondent Atty. Christopher
A. Basilio (Basilio) for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice2
(Notarial Rules).
The Facts
In the complaint, Bartolome alleged that Basilio, a notary public in
Tarlac City, notarized a document entitled "Joint Affidavit of Non-Tenancy
1

Rollo, pp. 2-3.

A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, July 06, 2004.

Decision

A.C. No. 10783

and Aggregate Landholdings3 (Joint Affidavit) purportedly subscribed and

sworn to before him by Loreto M. Taedo (Taedo) and Ramon T. Lim on
January 15, 2006, and supposedly recorded as Doc. No. 375, Page No. 75,
Book No. X, Series of 2007 in his notarial register,4 despite the fact that
Taedo had already passed away as early as December 1, 2003.5
In his Answer/Comment6 dated June 24, 2009, Basilio admitted
having notarized the Joint Affidavit but claimed that, prior to the
notarization, he verified the identities of the persons who appeared before
him through their respective Social Security System (SSS) identification
cards and drivers licenses. He further denied any knowledge that the one
who appeared before him misrepresented himself as Taedo and that the
latter was already dead as of December 1, 2003.7
During the clarificatory hearing, Basilio, who undisputedly notarized
the Joint Affidavit, admitted his failure to: (a) record the subject document in
his notarial book; (b) submit a copy of the same to the Regional Trial Court
of Tarlac City (RTC); and (c) have the notarization revoked or recalled.8
The IBPs Report and Recommendation
In a Report and Recommendation9 dated June 10, 2010 submitted by
IBP Investigating Commissioner Randall C. Tabayoyong (Investigating
Commissioner), Basilio was found to have manifested gross negligence and
a complete disregard of the Notarial Rules. The Investigating Commissioner
pointed out that contrary to Section 8, in relation to Section 6, Rule II of the
Notarial Rules, Basilio failed to indicate in the Joint Affidavit the details of
the SSS identification card and drivers license which were allegedly shown
as competent evidence of identity of the persons who appeared before him.
Thus, his claim that he verified the identities of the persons who subscribed
the Joint Affidavit could not be given credence. Basilio also failed to record
in his notarial register his notarial act on the Joint Affidavit in violation of
Section 2 (a), Rule VI of the Notarial Rules. Lastly, the Investigating
Commissioner found that Basilio failed to submit a copy of the Joint
Affidavit to the Clerk of Court of the RTC, contrary to Section 2 (h), Rule
VI of the Notarial Rules.10 Accordingly, he recommended that Basilios
notarial commission, if still existing, be revoked; he be disqualified from

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Rollo, p. 5.
Id.
See Certificate of Death; id. at 6.
Id. at 8-10.
Id. at 8.
Id. at 69-77.
Id. at 119-123.
See id. at 121-122.

Decision

A.C. No. 10783

obtaining a notarial commission for a period of one (1) year and suspended
from the practice of law for six (6) months.11
In a Resolution12 dated December 29, 2012, the IBP Board of
Governors adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioners Report
and Recommendation. Dissatisfied, Basilio filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution13 dated September 27,
2014.
The Issue Before the Court
The sole issue for the Courts resolution is whether or not the IBP
correctly found Basilio liable for violation of the Notarial Rules.
The Courts Ruling
The act of notarization is impressed with public interest.14 As such, a
notary public must observe the highest degree of care in complying with the
basic requirements in the performance of his duties in order to preserve the
confidence of the public in the integrity of the notarial system.15
In the present case, Basilio, as duly found by the IBP, failed to
faithfully comply with his duties as a notary public.
Section 5 (b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules clearly states that:
SEC. 5. False or Incomplete Certificate. A notary public shall
not:
xxxx
(b) affix an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that
is incomplete. (Emphases supplied)

A notarial certificate, as defined in Section 8, Rule II of the Notarial

Rules, requires a statement of the facts attested to by the notary public in a
particular notarization, viz.:

11
12
13
14
15

Id. at 123.
See Notice of Resolution No. XX-2012-668 signed by National Secretary Nasser A. Marohomsalic; id.
at 118.
See Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-593; id. at 116-117.
Agbulos v. Viray, A.C. No. 7350, February 18, 2013, 691 SCRA 1, 8.
Gokioco v. Mateo, 484 Phil. 626, 632 (2004).

Decision

A.C. No. 10783

SEC. 8. Notarial Certificate. Notarial Certificate refers to the

part of, or attachment to, a notarized instrument or document that is
completed by the notary public, bears the notarys signature and seal, and
states the facts attested to by the notary public in a particular
notarization as provided for by these Rules. (Emphasis supplied)

Meanwhile, a jurat is, among others, an attestation that the person

who presented the instrument or document to be notarized is personally
known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined by the Notarial Rules:16
SEC. 6. Jurat. Jurat 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 as defined by
these Rules;
(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. (Emphasis supplied)

As the records bear out, Basilio affixed his official signature and seal
on the notarial certificate of the Joint Affidavit without properly identifying
the person/s who signed the same. His claim that he verified the identities of
the affiants through their respective SSS identification cards and drivers
licenses cannot be given any credence considering the ostensible lack of
their details on the face of the certificate. Neither was he able to provide the
fact of identification in any way. On the other hand, it has been established
that one of the named signatories to the Joint Affidavit was already dead
when he notarized the aforesaid document. Hence, it is sufficiently clear that
Basilio had indeed affixed his official signature and seal on an incomplete, if
not false, notarial certificate.
16

Section 12, Rule II of the Notarial Rules provides that:

SEC. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. The phrase competent evidence of
identity refers to the identification of an individual based on:
(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency
bearing the photograph and signature of the individual x x x; or
(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument,
document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who
personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to
the instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows the individual and
shows to the notary public documentary identification.

Decision

A.C. No. 10783

Moreover, by the same account, Basilio violated Section 2 (b), Rule

IV of the Notarial Rules which prohibits the notarization of a document if
the person involved is not personally known to the notary public or has not
identified himself through competent evidence of identity:
SEC. 2. Prohibitions. x x x
xxxx
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved
as signatory to the instrument or document
(1) is not in the notarys presence personally at the time of
the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or
otherwise identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules. (Emphasis
supplied)

To add, Basilio himself admitted that he failed to record his notarial

act on the Joint Affidavit in his notarial register, contrary to Section 2 (a),
Rule VI of the Notarial Rules, which states:
SEC. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. (a) For every notarial
act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of
notarization the following:
(1) the entry number and page number;
(2) the date and time of day of the notarial act;
(3) the type of notarial act;
(4) the title or description of the instrument, document or
proceeding;
(5) the name and address of each principal;
(6) the competent evidence of identity as defined by
these Rules if the signatory is not personally known to the
notary;
(7) the name and address of each credible witness swearing
to or affirming the persons identity;
(8) the fee charged for the notarial act;
(9) the address where the notarization was performed if not
in the notarys regular place of work or business; and

Decision

A.C. No. 10783

(10) any other circumstance the notary public may deem of

significance or relevance.
x x x x (Emphases supplied)

Since the notarial register is a record of the notary publics official

acts, he is charged with recording therein the necessary information
regarding the document or instrument notarized. If the document or
instrument does not appear in the notarial records, doubt as to its nature
arises so that the alleged notarized document cannot be considered a public
document.17 Considering the evidentiary value given to the notarized
documents, the failure of the notary public to record the document in his
notarial register is tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document
was notarized when, in fact, it was not,18 as in this case.
It should be clarified, however, that while Basilio had also failed to
submit a copy of the Joint Affidavit to the Clerk of Court of the RTC, and to
retain a copy thereof for his own records, the requirement therefor, as stated
under Section 2 (h),19 Rule VI of the Notarial Rules, applies only to
instruments acknowledged before the notary public. Documents like the
Joint Affidavit which contain a jurat and not an acknowledgment are not
required to be forwarded to the Clerk of Court. Hence, there should be no
administrative infraction on this score. Nevertheless, Basilios aforediscussed violations of the Notarial Rules are grave enough to warrant
sanctions from the Court.
A notary public exercises duties calling for carefulness and
faithfulness.20 Notaries must inform themselves of the facts they certify to;
most importantly, they should not take part or allow themselves to be part of
illegal transactions.21 In line with this mandate, a notary public should not
notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very
person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the
contents and the truth of what are stated therein.22 By failing in this regard,
the notary public permits a falsehood which does not only transgress the
Notarial Rules but also Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides that [a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
17
18
19

See Minute Resolution issued in Robles v. Jungco, A.C. No. 8062, February 08, 2010.
See id.
SEC. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. x x x
xxxx

20
21
22

(h) A certified copy of each months entries and a duplicate original copy of any instrument
acknowledged before the notary public shall, within the first ten (10) days of the month following,
be forwarded to the Clerk of Court and shall be under the responsibility of such officer. If there is no
entry to certify for the month, the notary shall forward a statement to this effect in lieu of certified
copies herein required. (Emphasis supplied)
Gemina v. Madamba, 671 Phil. 541, 550 (2011).
Maria v. Cortez, A.C. No. 7880, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 87, 94.
Agbulos v. Viray, supra note 14, at 7.

Decision

A.C. No. 10783

dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.23 Verily, a notarized document is,

by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face; and it is for this reason
that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in
the performance of his duties; otherwise, the publics confidence in the
integrity of a notarized document would be undermined.
As herein discussed, Basilios failure to properly perform his duty as a
notary public resulted not only in damage to those directly affected by the
notarized document, but also in undermining the integrity of the office of a
notary public and in degrading the function of notarization. In fine, he
should be meted out with the modified penalty of disqualification from being
commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years and suspension
from the practice of law for one (1) year. Although there is no showing that
Basilio prepared the document in question, his utter disregard of the Notarial
Rules as exhibited during the proceedings before the IBP, together with his
admitted failure to revoke or recall his notarization despite his knowledge of
its irregularity, warrants the same treatment as the errant lawyer in Agbulos
v. Viray:24
[T]he Court finds the need to increase that recommended by the IBP
which is one month suspension as a lawyer and six months suspension as
notary public, considering that respondent himself prepared the document,
and he performed the notarial act without the personal appearance of the
affiant and without identifying her with competent evidence of her
identity. With his indiscretion, he allowed the use of a CTC by someone
who did not own it. Worse, he allowed himself to be an instrument of
fraud. Based on existing jurisprudence, when a lawyer commissioned as a
notary public fails to discharge his duties as such, he is meted the penalties
of revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being
commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years, and
suspension from the practice of law for one year.25 (Emphasis supplied)

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Christopher A.

Basilio GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice and Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the
Court hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one (1) year;
REVOKES his incumbent commission as a notary public, if any; and
PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2)
years, effective immediately. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same
offense or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

23
24
25

Almazan, Sr. v. Suerte-Felipe, A.C. No. 7184, September 17, 2014, 735 SCRA 230, 235-236.
Supra note 14.
Id. at 9.

Decision

A.C. No. 10783

SO ORDERED.

ESTELA~ P~-BERNABE
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice
Chairperson

~~Pl~

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice

1\.ssociate Justice