In the case of JUDGE LILY LYDIA LAQUINDANUM vs. ATTY. NESTOR Q.

QUINTANA, En
Banc, A.C. No. 7036, June 29, 2009, the Philippine Supreme Court revoked the
The OBC cited Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides, thus:
notarial commission of respondent Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana, disqualified him from
being commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years, and suspended
him from the practice of law for six (6) months effective immediately, with a warning
that a repetition of a similar violation would be dealt with even more severely. Jurisdiction and Term A person commissioned as notary public may perform
notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning
court for a period of two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the year in
which the commissioning court is made, unless earlier revoked [or] the notary public
The administrative case against Atty. Quintana stemmed from a letter addressed to
has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.
the Court filed by Executive Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum of the Regional Trial
Court of Midsayap, Cotabato requesting that proper disciplinary action be imposed
on him for performing notarial functions in Midsayap, Cotabato, which is beyond the
territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial The OBC stated that under the rule, respondent may perform his notarial acts within
commission, and for allowing his wife to do notarial acts in his absence. the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning Executive Judge Concha, which was
in Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao only. But definitely he could not
extend his commission as notary public in Midsayap or Kabacan and in any place of
the province of Cotabato as he was not commissioned thereat to do such act.
In her letter, Judge Laquindanum alleged that pursuant to A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC,
Midsayap and Kabacan were not part of either Cotabato City or Province of
executive judges are required to closely monitor the activities of notaries public
Maguindanao but part of the province of North Cotabato. Thus, the claim of
within the territorial bounds of their jurisdiction and to see to it that notaries public
respondent that he could exercise his notarial commission in Midsayap, Cotabato
shall not extend notarial functions beyond the limits of their authority. Hence, she
because Cotabato City was part of the province of Cotabato was absolutely devoid of
wrote a letter to Atty. Quintana directing him to stop notarizing documents within
merit.
the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Cotabato (which is
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial
commission for Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao) since certain
documents notarized by him had been reaching her office. Further, per the OBC, evidence on record also showed that there were several
documents which the respondents wife had herself notarized. Respondent justified
that he could not be blamed for the act of his wife as he did not authorize the latter
to notarize documents in his absence. According to him, he even scolded and told
In its Report and Recommendation, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) of the
his wife not to do it anymore as it would affect his profession.
Supreme Court recommended that Atty. Quintana be disqualified from being
appointed as a notary public for two (2) years; and that if his notarial commission
still exists, the same should be revoked for two (2) years. The OBC found the
defenses and arguments raised by Atty. Quintana to be without merit.
The OBC cited the case of Lingan v. Calubaquib et al., Adm. Case No. 5377, June 15,
2006 where the Court held, thus:
A notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register; He
cannot relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the buck to (his) secretaries
The OBC stated that a person who is commissioned as a notary public takes full
responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register. Respondent cannot take
refuge claiming that it was his wifes act and that he did not authorize his wife to
notarize documents. He is personally accountable for the activities in his office as
well as the acts of his personnel including his wife, who acts as his secretary.
The OBC stressed further that Sec. 2, (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice provides, thus[:]
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 through
competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the OBC. However, it found the penalty
of suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months and revocation and
suspension of Atty. Quintana's notarial commission for two (2) years more
appropriate considering the gravity and number of his offenses.
The Court held that after a careful review of the records and evidence, there was no
doubt that Atty. Quintana violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code
of Professional Responsibility when he committed the following acts: (1) he
notarized documents outside the area of his commission as a notary public; (2) he
performed notarial acts with an expired commission; (3) he let his wife notarize
documents in his absence; and (4) he notarized a document where one of the
signatories therein was already dead at that time.
The act of notarizing documents outside ones area of commission is not to be taken
lightly, the Court stated. Aside from being a violation of Sec. 11 of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice, it also partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. Notarizing
documents with an expired commission is a violation of the lawyers oath to obey
the laws, more specifically, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Since the public is
deceived into believing that he has been duly commissioned, it also amounts to
indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath proscribes. Notarizing
documents without the presence of the signatory to the document is a violation of
Sec. 2(b)(1), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and the lawyers oath which unconditionally requires
lawyers not to do or declare any falsehood, the Court added. Finally, the Court
stressed that Atty. Quintana was personally accountable for the documents that he
admitted were signed by his wife. He cannot relieve himself of liability by passing the
blame to his wife, said the Court. He is, thus, guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly
assist in the unauthorized practice of law, it concluded.
The Court furthermore held that a notarial commission should not be treated as a
money-making venture. It is a privilege granted only to those who are qualified to
perform duties imbued with public interest. Notarization is not an empty,
meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that
only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. The
Republic of the Philippines
protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not qualified or authorized
to act must be prevented from imposing upon the public, the courts, and the
Supreme Court
administrative offices in general. It must be underscored that notarization by a Manila
notary public converts a private document into a public document, making that
document admissible in evidence without further proof of the authenticity thereof,
the Court stated. EN BANC
CAMBALIZA v CRISTOBAL-TENORIO

Facts: Cambaliza, a former employee of Atty. Cristal-Tenorio, charged the latter with
grossly immoral conduct. Cambaliza alleged that Atty. has been falsely representing
herself to be married to Felicisimo Tenorio, when in fact Felicisimo was already
married to another woman (Atty. got a fake marriage license.). She also alleges that
the Atty. caused the dissemination to the public of a libelous affidavit against a
Makati Councilor. At the helm of her complaint was the allegation that the Atty.
cooperated in the illegal practice of law by her husband Felicisimo, who is not a
member of the bar. Atty. denies all the allegations. She says that her firm is a sole-
proprietorship; hence, she had no partners in her law office.

Issue: W/N the lawyer is guilty of cooperating in the illegal practice of law.

Held: The lawyer is guilty. The court agrees with the finding of the Commissioner on
Bar Discipline. According to the Commissioner, Atty. cooperated in illegal practice, in
violation of Rule 9.01 based on the ff. evidence: (1) letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law
office, with Felicisimo as senior partner, (2) Sagip Radio Comm. Group card of Atty.
Felicisimo Tenorio (3) an ordered by the MTCC where Felicisimo entered his
appearance as counsel. Any lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar to
misrepresent himself as a lawyer is guilty of violating rule 9.01. The lawyers duty to
prevent or not assist in the unauthorized practice of law is founded on public
interest and policy. The purpose is to protect the public, the client, the bar, and the
court from the incompetence and dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice
 PLUS BUILDERS, INC., and A.C. No. 7056 NACHURA, J.
EDGARDO C. GARCIA, Present:
Complainants, Before us is a motion for reconsideration of our Decision
PUNO, C J., dated September 13, 2006, finding respondent guilty of gross
QUISUMBING,
misconduct for committing a willful and intentional falsehood
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
CARPIO, before the court, misusing court procedure and processes to delay
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, the execution of a judgment and collaborating with non-lawyers in
CORONA, the illegal practice of law.
CARPIO MORALES,
AZCUNA, To recall, the antecedents of the case are as follows:
-versus- TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO, On November 15, 1999, a decision was rendered by the
VELASCO, JR., Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) in favor of herein
NACHURA,
complainant, Plus Builders, Inc. and against the tenants/farmers
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION, and Leopoldo de Guzman, Heirs of Bienvenido de Guzman, Apolonio
PERALTA, JJ. Ilas and Gloria Martirez Siongco, Heirs of Faustino Siongco,
Serafin Santarin, Benigno Alvarez and Maria Esguerra, who were
Promulgated: the clients of respondent, Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. The
ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, February 11, 2009 PARAD found that respondents clients were mere tenants and not
JR., rightful possessors/owners of the subject land. The case was
Respondent. elevated all the way up to the Supreme Court, with this Court
x-----------------------------------------------------
- - - - - -x sustaining complainants rights over the land. Continuing to pursue
his clients lost cause, respondent was found to have committed
intentional falsehood; and misused court processes with the
RESOLUTION intention to delay the execution of the decision through the filing
of several motions, petitions for temporary restraining orders, and
the last, an action to quiet title despite the finality of the
decision. Furthermore, he allowed non-lawyers to engage in the
unauthorized practice of law holding themselves out as his
partners/associates in the law firm.
The dispositive portion of the decision thus reads:
WHEREFORE, Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. is hereby
found guilty of gross misconduct and is SUSPENDED for two
years from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt of this
Decision. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar
acts will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be entered in the record of
respondent as attorney and served on the IBP, as well as on the
court administrator who shall circulate it to all courts for their
information and guidance.[1]
Respondent duly filed a motion for reconsideration within
the reglementary period, appealing to the Court to take a second
look at his case and praying that the penalty of suspension of two
years be reduced to mere reprimand or admonition for the sake of
his family and the poor clients he was defending.[2]
Respondent maintains that he did not commit the acts
complained of. The courses of action he took were not meant to
unduly delay the execution of the DARAB Decision dated
November 19, 1999, but were based on his serious study, research
and experience as a litigation lawyer for more than 20 years and on
the facts given to him by his clients in the DARAB case. He
believes that the courses of action he took were valid and proper
legal theory designed to protect the rights and interests of
Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al.[3] He stresses that he was not the
original lawyer in this case. The lawyer-client relationship with the
former lawyer was terminated because Leopoldo de Guzman, et.
al. felt that their former counsel did not explain/argue their
position very well, refused to listen to them and, in fact, even
castigated them. As the new counsel, respondent candidly relied on
what the tenants/farmers told him in the course of his
interview. They maintained that they had been in open, adverse,
continuous and notorious possession of the land in the concept of
an owner for more than 50 years. Thus, the filing of the action to
quiet title was resorted to in order to determine the rights of his
clients respecting the subject property. He avers that he merely
exhausted all possible remedies and defenses to which his clients
were entitled under the law, considering that his clients were
subjected to harassment and threats of physical harm and summary
eviction by the complainant.[4] He posits that he was only being
protective of the interest of his clients as a good father would be
protective of his own family,[5] and that his services to Leopoldo de
Guzman, et. al were almost pro bono.[6]
Anent the issue that he permitted his name to be used for
unauthorized practice of law, he humbly submits that there was
actually no sufficient evidence to prove the same or did he fail to
dispute this, contrary to the findings of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP). He was counsel of Leopoldo de Guzman, et al.
only and not of the cooperative Kalayaan Development
Cooperative (KDC). He was just holding his office in this
cooperative, together with Attys. Dominador Ferrer, Efren
Ambrocio, the late Alfredo Caloico and Marciano Villavert. He
signed the retainer agreement with Atty. Dominador to formalize
their lawyer-client relationship, and the complainants were fully
aware of such arrangement.[7]
Finally, he submits that if he is indeed guilty of violating the
rules in the courses of action he took in behalf of his clients, he
apologizes and supplicates the Court for kind consideration,
pardon and forgiveness. He reiterates that he does not deserve the
penalty of two years suspension, considering that the complaint
fails to show him wanting in character, honesty, and probity; in
fact, he has been a member of the bar for more than 20 years,
served as former president of the IBP Marinduque Chapter, a legal
aide lawyer of IBP Quezon City handling detention prisoners
and pro bono cases, and is also a member of the Couples for
Christ, and has had strict training in the law school he graduated
from and the law offices he worked with.[8] He is the sole
breadwinner in the family with a wife who is jobless, four (4)
children who are in school, a mother who is bedridden and a sick
sister to support. The familys only source of income is respondents
private practice of law, a work he has been engaged in for more
than twenty-five (25) years up to the present.[9]
On August 15, 2008, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC)
received a letter from respondent, requesting that he be issued a
clearance for the renewal of his notarial commission. Respondent
stated therein that he was aware of the pendency of the
administrative cases[10] against him, but pointed out that said cases
had not yet been resolved with finality. Respondent sought
consideration and compassion for the issuance of the clearance --
considering present economic/financial difficulties -- and
reiterating the fact that he was the sole breadwinner in the family.
It is the rule that when a lawyer accepts a case, he is
expected to give his full attention, diligence, skill and competence
to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it
for a fee or for free.[11] A lawyers devotion to his clients cause not
only requires but also entitles him to deploy every honorable
means to secure for the client what is justly due him or to present
every defense provided by law to enable the latters cause to
succeed.[12] In this case, respondent may not be wanting in this
regard. On the contrary, it is apparent that the respondents acts
complained of were committed out of his over-zealousness and
misguided desire to protect the interests of his clients who were
poor and uneducated. We are not unmindful of his dedication and
conviction in defending the less fortunate. Taking the cudgels from
the former lawyer in this case is rather commendable, but
respondent should not forget his first and foremost responsibility
as an officer of the court. We stress what we have stated in our
decision that, in support of the cause of their clients, lawyers have
the duty to present every remedy or defense within the authority of
the law. This obligation, however, is not to be performed at the
expense of truth and justice.[13] This is the criterion that must be
borne in mind in every exertion a lawyer gives to his case.
[14]
Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the
duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice,
and is enjoined from unduly delaying a case by impeding
execution of a judgment or by misusing court processes.[15]
towards him.[16] We find the suspension of six (6) months from the
practice of law sufficient in this case
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the letter-request dated
August 15, 2008 is NOTED. Respondents Motion for
Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated
September 13, 2006 is hereby MODIFIED in that respondent
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months, effective upon receipt of this Resolution. Respondent
is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the date of his receipt of
said Resolution within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.

Certainly, violations of these canons cannot be Let copies of this Decision be entered in the record of
countenanced, as respondent must have realized with the sanction respondent as attorney and served on the IBP, as well as on the
he received from this Court. However, the Court also knows how Court Administrator, who shall circulate it to all courts for their
to show compassion and will not hesitate to refrain from imposing information and guidance.
the appropriate penalties in the presence of mitigating factors, such
as the respondents length of service, acknowledgment of his or her
infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances,
humanitarian and equitable considerations, and respondents
advanced age, among other things, which have varying
significance in the Courts determination of the imposable
penalty. Thus, after a careful consideration of herein respondents
motion for reconsideration and humble acknowledgment of his
misfeasance, we are persuaded to extend a degree of leniency