REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated Dec em her 7, 2022 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12389 !Formerly CBD Case No. 19-61981 (MAXITA L.
RODRIGUEZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. MA. LIGAYA G. AUSTRIA,
Respondent). - A lawyer co mmissioned as a notary pub li c is mandated to
s ubscri be to the sacred duties appertain ing to the office as it is dictated by
public poli cy and impressed w ith the public inte rest. 1 T hi s reso lves the
Verifi ed Compl a int-Affidavit2 fi led by the complainant Maxita L. Rodriguez
aga inst responde nt Atty. Ma. L igaya G . A ustri a for v iolating he r oath as a
lawyer and as a no tary publi c.

Complain ant is the wi dow of Fel ix C . Rodrig uez (Fe li x). Feli x 's
pare nts, Spouses Florentina C . Rod rigu ez and Vicente M . Rodrig uez (Spouses
Rod rig uez), died intestate and left a parcel of land in E l N ido , Palawan,
consisting of 7,9 10 squa re meters. O n April 14, '.WOO, Feli x a nd hi s s iblings
executed an Extra_judi cia l Settleme nt of Estate,3 adjud icating the property
a mong the mselves in equ a l parts. In April 2009, Feli x's co-he irs a uthori zed
him to negotiate the sale of t he property in a Specia l Power of Attorney4
(SPA). In the m eantime, Felix and hi s w i-fe li ved in the U nited States of
A merica (USA). U pon thei r return to the Philippines in 20 12, they di scovered
that the prope rty was a lready sold to S omersault 1-lold ings E l N ido, Inc. o n
December 14, 2011 , t hrough an "Extrajudic ia l Settle me nt of the Estate of
[Spouses] Flo re ntina C . Rod rig uez and Vicente M . Rodrig uez with
S imul taneous Sale" 5 (EJSESS), sig ned by Oscar C . Rodrig uez (Oscar), Feli x's

1
td aligrn v. Cuha111i11g, 338 Phi l. 9 12, 9 17 ( ! 997) ll'cr Curiam, Ln 13oncl.
Rollo, pp. 2- 4.
Id. at I 0- 12.
' Id. al 13 - 15.
' Id. al 17- ~0.

A(817)URES - more -
 Resolution 2 A.C. No. 12389
[Formerl y CBD Case No. 19-6198]
December 7-A, 2022
brother, as well as some of Feli x's s iblings/co-heirs on their own. Oscar also
sig ned for Felix and some other siblings/co-hei rs .6

The EJSESS was drafted and notarized by respondent. However,

co mplainant imputes irreg ularity upon respondent's discharge of duty as
notary public since the notarial certificate affirmed that Felix personall y
appeared before the notary publ ic on December 14, 2011, w hen he was in the
USA on that date. Complainant also points out that the signature appearing on
top of Felix ' s name in the EJSESS was not his b ut Oscar's. Oscar a lso signed
for some other s iblings and/or heirs .7

Respondent d id not deny notari z ing the EJSESS without Fe li x's

personal appearance. She, however, explained that such appearance was
unnecessary because Felix, li ke the other siblings/heirs, was being represented
by Oscar, who personally appeared in her office, duly authorized by two SPAs.
Respondent claims that she never intended to misrepresent that Felix
personally appeared in her office to have the deed notarized. In fact, when she
drafted the EJSESS, she c learly stated that Felix was being " represented by
his attorney-in-fact OSCAR C . RODRIGUEZ[,]" 8 relying on the presumption
of regularity of the notarized SPAs that Oscar presented to her. Respondent
avers that it was her secretary who inadvertently typed " personally appeared"
in the Acknowledgment portion of the document as she assumed that the
parties will personally appear and sign the deed.9

In its Report and Reco mmendation, 10 the Integrated Bar of the

Phi li ppines-Commission on Bar Disc ipline (IBP-CBD) observed t hat
respondent acknowledged the EJSESS based merely on the parties'
community tax ce1tificates (CTC). Hence, respondent was found to have been
negli gent when she notarized the EJSESS w ithout requiring any competent
proof of identity from the patt ies. T he 1BP-CBD noted that, as early as 2008,
the Cou1i has already ruled o n the unreliability of a CTC as a proof of
identification. In the same vein, respondent was negligent in rely ing upon
Oscar's SPAs, which were also notarized by another notary public based on
CTCs. Putting the blame upon the inadvertence of respondent 's secretary was
unacceptable for the JBP-CBD. lt was recommended then that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for one month; that her notarial
commi ssion, if any, be revoked; and that she be warned that any similar act or
infraction in the future shall be dealt w ith more severely. 11

Upon review, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. CBD-
XXV-2022-02-50, w hich modified the IBP-CBD's recommended penalty to
( I) suspens ion from the practice of law for three months; (2) immediate
revocation of her notarial commission, if subs isting; and (3) d isqualifi cation

6
Id
7
Id.at ] .
H fd. at 34.
9
Id. at 23- 29.
w Id. at 2 16- 220.
II fd. at 2 18- 220.

A(817)URES - more -
 Resolution 3 A.C. No. 12389
[Ponnerly CBD Case No. 19-6 198]
December 7-A, 2022
from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. 12

Should respondent be he ld admin istratively li ab le? We answer in the

affirmative.

The importance of a notarial act has been underscored ad nauseam:

Notari zation is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with

substantive public interest, such that only those who arc qua lifi ed or
authorized may act as notaries public. Notari zation converts a private
document into a public document thus making that document admissible in
evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by
law entitled to ful l faith and credit upon its face. Courts, adm inistrative
agencies and the public al large must be able lo rely upon the
acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private
instrument. 13 (Citations omitted)

Hence, notaries public a re consistently reminded to assume the office

with solemnity, discharg ing every notarial act with utmost circumspection.
Basic requirements in the performance of notarial duties must be complied
with to avoid the erosion of the public's confidence in the integrity of a
notarized document. 14 S lipshod methods in the performance of notarial duties
are never to be countenanced. 15 In other words, it is incumbent upon notaries
public to faithfu lly observe and accord great respect to the oath in an
acknowledgment or jurat; professional indi scretion in this regard e ntails
commensurate consequences . 16

Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (Notarial
Rules) expressly states :

SECTlON. 2. Prohihitions. - xx x

xxxx

(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act ir the person

invo lved as signatory to the instrument or document -

(I) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of

notarization; and

(2) is not personalJy known to the notary public or otherwise

identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules. (Emphasis
supplied)

Relevant to the foregoing is Ru ic 11, Section 12 of the Notarial Ru les,

12
Id at 2 14- 2 15.
u Vda. de Rosales v. Rm11os. 433 Phil. 8. 15-- 16 (2002) [l'cr J. Bellosillo, Second Division l-
1·1 Heirs of"O,(J,/on Unite Ton-ices v. Atty. Gal<1no (Resolution). A .C. No. I 1870. July 7, 2020 [Per J.
Gaerlan, En Bone].
15
Santiago v. Alfy. Ra/anan, 483 Phil. 94 . I04 (2004) I Per J. Panganiban, ThirJ Division 1-
"' 1\1/nligsa v. Atty. Cabm1ti11g, supra note I.

A(817)URES - more -
 Resolutio n 4 A.C. No . 12389
[Formerly CBD Case No. I 9-6 I 98 J
December 7-A, 2022
as arnended, 17 w hi ch provides:

SECTION. 12. Competent Evidence of identity. - T he ph rase

''compe tent evide nce of identity'' refers to the identification of an indiv idua l
based o n:

(a) at least o ne current identification document issued by an official

age ncy bearing the photograph and signature of the
individual, such as but not limited to, passport, d ri ver's li cense,
Professional Regulations Commission ID, N ationa l Bureau ol'
Investigati o n clearance, pol ice clearance, postal ID, voter's ID,
Barangay certifi cation, Govern ment Servi ce a nd Insurance
Syste m (GS IS) e-card, Social Securi ty System (SSS) card,
Philhealth card, sen ior c itizen card, Ove rseas Worke rs Welfa re
Ad m ini stration (OWWA) ID, OFW ID , seaman's book, a lie n
certificate of registration/i mmigrant certificate of registratio n,
governme nt office ID, certifi catio n from the National Counc il
for the We lfare of Disable [d] Pe rsons (NCWDP), De partmen t o r
Socia l We i fa re a nd Deve lopment (DSWD) certification; o r

(b) the oath or affirmation of one c red ible w itness not privy to the
instrume nt, document or transaction w ho is persona ll y known to
the notary public and who personall y knows the indi vidual, or
of two c redible w itnesses ne ither of whom is privy to the
instrume nt, document or transactio n who each persona lly knows
the indi vidual and shows to the no tary publ ic docume ntary
identificatio n. (Emphasis supplied)

In this case, as correctly observed by the IBP, respondent notari zed the
EJSESS without the personal appearance of the signatories who are not
personally know n to her, and without requiring any competent proof of their
identities. Record s show that it was only Oscar w ho came to respondent's
office to have the E.JSESS notari zed. Osca r a nd the rest of the parties in the
deed were identifi ed on ly through CTCs, wh ich have long been ruled out as
competent evidence to ascertai n identity s ince they do not bea r the photograph
and signature of the concerned individual and no competent and relevant proof
of identity is required fo r the ir issuance. 18

In a s imilar vein, be ing a notary public herself, respondent fe ll short of

prudence and c ircumspection expected of her when she uncritica lly relied
upon the SPAs presented by Oscar wh ich were likewise notarized by anothe r
nota ry public based o n CTCs. M indful of the import of a notari al act and the
nature of SPA, wh ich in this case authorized Oscar to dispose of a real
prope11y, respondent should have exercised utmost dili gence in ascertaining
the identities of the part ies in the SPAs. B ut respondent proceeded to notarize
the EJSESS without any competent bas is of the identities of the persons who
purportedly authorized Oscar to sign the EJSESS on their behalf.

The seriou s consequence of respond ent's blunder becomes apparent

17
A.M. No. 02-8- 13-SC, Re: 2004 Ru les un Notarial Pract ice, dated February 19, 2008 .
18
Ong v. Afly. IJ[iis. A.C. No. 13054. November 23, 202 1 [Per J. Caguioa , Fi rst Division]. See a lso
fJr(i•/0 11 v ..-lfly. A /111 0, 578 Phil. 238. 24 1--242 (2008) (Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division·!.

A(817)URES - more -
 Resolu tion 5 A.C. No. 12389
[Formerl y CBD Case No. 19-6198]
December 7-A, 2022
now that Oscar's authority to represent Felix in the EJSESS is being
questioned. Respondent's indiscretion caused the courts, administrative
agencies, and the public at large to cast uncertainty on the validity and
gen uineness of public documents. As a lawyer, respondent is expected to
upho ld the integrity and dignity of the legal professio n and refrain from any
act or omission which m ight d iminish, to any degree, the trust and confidence
reposed by the public in the profession. 19 C learly, she fai led in this regard.

Plainl y, for violating the provis ions of the Notarial R ules, respondent
also failed to ad here to Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
w hich requi res every lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the
land, and promote respect for the law and legal processes. 20

In a long line of cases, we had pena lized notaries public who fa il to

discharge the sacred duties of their office with utmost care and diligence w ith
suspe nsion from the practice of law, revocation of the notarial commission,
a nd disqualification from being commissioned as notary public.2 1 Considering
the attendant circumstances in this case, we find the penalty recommend-=d by
the IBP Boa rd of Governors commensurate to respondent's infraction.

FOR THESE REASONS, the notarial commission of Atty. Ma.

Ligaya G . A ustri a is orde red to be REVOKED, if subsisting. She is further
DISQUALIFIED from be ing commissioned as a notary public for a period
of two (2) years, and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3)
months.

Atty. Ma. Ligaya G. A ustria is DIRECTED to immediately file a

Manifestation to the Court that her suspension has started, copy furnished all
courts and quasi-judicial bodies where she has entered his appearance as
counsel .

Let copies of this Reso lution be fu rni shed to the Office of the Bar
Confidant to be appended to Atty. Ma. Ligaya G . A ustria' s personal record as
attorney; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for their information a nd
g uidance; and the Office of the CoU1i Ad ministrator for circulation to a ll
COUliS in the country.

SO ORDERED."

19
Heirs rlj'Her111inigildo A. Unite v. Ally . G 11:111an, A.C. No. 12062, July 2, 20 18 [Per .J. Perlas-Bernabe,
Second Divis ionj.
w Sa/a:ar v. Alty. Siccuan, /1. .C. No. 11640, Ju ly 19, 20 17 [Notice, Third Division].
21
Ong v. Atty. /Jijis, A.C. No. 13054, November 23, 202 1 [Per J. Caguioa, First Division]; Heirs qf
Ody/on Unite Torrices v. Ally. Gala110 (Reso lution), A.C. No. 11 870, July 7, 2020 [Per J. Gaerlan, En
Banc ]; /-le irs o/Her111i11ig ildo A. Unite v. Ally. G uzman (Notice), supr a note 19; and Bc~11lvn v. Ally.
A/1110, supra note 18.

A(817)URES - more -
Resolution 6 A.C. No. 12389
[Formerly CBD Case No. 19-6198]
December 7-A, 2022

By authority of the Court:

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON

Division Clerk of Court

By:

MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADA

Deputy Division Clerk of Courtrn~:J
03 AUG 2023

ATTY. SALVADOR M. SOLIS (reg) THE BAR CONFIDANT (x)

Counsel for Complainant Supreme Court, Manila
Solis and Associates Law Office
Ground Floor, Manere Building I *HON. RAUL 8 . VILLANUEVA (x)
V-Luna Avenue corner Matahimik Street Office of the Court Administrator
Diliman, Quezon City Supreme Court, Manila

ATTY. MA. LIGAYA G. AUSTRIA (reg) PUBLJC INFORMATION OFFICE (x)

Respondent LIBRARY SERVICES (x)
No. 74 Rizal A venue [For uploading pursuant to A.M. No. 12-7-SC]
Barangay Magkakaibigan
Puerto Princesa C ity, Palawan OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ATTORNEY (x)
PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY (x)
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHIUPPfNES (reg) Supreme Court, Manila
Dona Julia Vargas Avenue
Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig C ity *For Circularization to all Coutts
Please notify t/ze Court of any change i11 your address.
AC12389. 12/07/2022A(8 17)URES

A(817)URES