SECOND DIVISION

HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES A.C. No. 6270

LUCAS and FRANCISCA VILLANUEVA,
Complainants, Present:

QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson,
CARPIO,
- versus - CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.

ATTY. SALUD P. BERADIO, Promulgated:

Respondent. January 22, 2007

x---------------------------------------------
-----x

DECISION

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is a disbarment case against

Atty. Salud P. Beradio (respondent), filed by the heirs of the late
spouses Lucas and Francisca Villanueva (spouses Villanueva),
namely: ArdenioM. Fonacier, Araceli M. Fonacier, Alano M. Fonacier
, Eusebio M. Fonacier, Jr., Rolando V. Nazarro, Alejandro
V. Nazarro, Margarita V. Collado, Felisa Collado,
and Herminigildo Ylhi (complainants).
 The Facts

During their lifetime, the spouses Villanueva acquired several parcels

of land in Pangasinan, one of which was covered by Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 2522. Francisca died in 1968, and Lucas
in 1974. Their five children, namely, Simeona, Susana, Maria,
Alfonso, and Florencia, survived them.

On 22 May 1984, Alfonso executed an Affidavit of

Adjudication[1] (affidavit of adjudication) stating that as the only
surviving son and sole heirs (sic) of the spouses Villanueva, he was
adjudicating to himself the parcel of land under OCT No. 2522.
Alfonso then executed a Deed of Absolute Sale [2] (deed of sale) on 5
July 1984, conveying the property to Adriano Villanueva. Respondent
appeared as notary public on both the affidavit of adjudication and
the deed of sale.

Contrary to the misrepresentations of Alfonso, his

sister Florencia was still alive at the time he executed the affidavit of
adjudication and the deed of sale, as were descendants of the other
children of the spouses Villanueva. Complainants claimed that
respondent was aware of this fact, as respondent had been their
neighbor in Balungao, Pangasinan, from the time of their birth, and
respondent constantly mingled with their family. Complainants
accused respondent of knowing the true facts and surrounding
circumstances regarding the properties of the spouses Villanueva, yet
conspiring with Alfonso to deprive his co-heirs of their rightful shares
in the property.
In a resolution dated 11 February 2004, this Court required
respondent to comment on the complaint.

In her Comment,[3] respondent admitted that she notarized the

affidavit of adjudication and the deed of sale executed by Alfonso in
1984. However, respondent denied that she conspired with Alfonso
to dispose of fraudulently the property. Respondent alleged that
Alfonso executed the two documents under the following
circumstances:

That the properties of the late spouses [Villanueva] have

been divided equally among their compulsory heirs, but said
old couple left for themselves one titled lot, the subject now
of the complaint x x x That said titled property was the only
property left by the old couple, to answer for their needs
while they are still alive until their deaths x x x. Alfonso [and
his wife] were tasked to take care of the old couple, as
they were the ones living in the same compound with
their late parents. This fact was and is known by the
other compulsory heirs, and they never questioned the
said act of their parents, as they already had their own
share on the estate of the late [spouses Villanueva]. This
fact was also known to me because [Lucas] and [Alfonso]
lived across the street from our house and I was
requested to the house of the old man when he gave said
title to [Alfonso and Tomasa, his wife]. The other
compulsory heirs who were still alive at the time just made
visits to their parents and never stayed in their old house to
help in the care of their parents. Even [when] the parents
died, it was [Alfonso and his wife] who took charge of the
funeral and all other acts relative thereto.

xxxx

That said title remain[ed] in the custody of [Alfonso] and after

the death of the old man, when the spouses Alfonso
[and Tomasa] needed money to finance the schooling of their
children, it was then that they thought of disposing the land
x x x and said land was sold by them to one Adriano
 Villanueva of which in both documents, I notarized the
same (sic).
xxxx

I can say with all clean and good intentions, that if ever I
notarized said documents, it was done in good faith, to do
my job as expected of me, to help, assist and to guide people
who come to me for legal assistance, as contained in my oath
as a lawyer when I passed the bar. x x x[4] (Emphasis
supplied)

According to respondent, the fact that none of Alfonsos co-heirs filed

their objections at the time he executed the affidavit of adjudication
proved that most of the properties of the spouses Villanueva had
earlier been distributed to the other heirs. It also proved that the
heirs had agreed to abide by the intention of the spouses Villanueva
to leave the property to Alfonso. Respondent asserted that the
personal appearances and acknowledgment by the party to the
document are the core of the ritual that effectively convert a private
document into a public document x x x.

On 26 May 2004, we resolved to refer the complaint to the Integrated

Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which designated Commissioner Leland
R. Villadolid, Jr. (IBP Commissioner Villadolid) to investigate, and
submit his report and recommendation on, the complaint.

The IBPs Findings

In his Report dated 16 September 2005, IBP

Commissioner Villadolid found that respondent violated the
provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the spirit
and intent of the notarial law when she notarized the affidavit
knowing that Alfonso was not the sole compulsory heir of the spouses
Villanueva. Although he found no evidence of fraudulent intent on
respondents part, IBP Commissioner Villadolid held that respondent
engaged in conduct that lessened confidence in the legal system.
Thus, he recommended suspension of
respondents notarial commission for one year. He further
recommended that respondent be reprimanded or suspended from
the practice of law for up to six months.

The Courts Ruling

We sustain partly the IBPs findings and recommendations.

A notary public is empowered to perform a variety

of notarial acts, most common of which are the acknowledgment and
affirmation of a document or instrument. In the performance of
such notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the
significance of the notarial seal as affixed on a document.
The notarial seal converts the document from private to public, after
which it may be presented as evidence without need for proof of its
genuineness and due execution.[5] Thus, notarization should not be
treated as an empty, meaningless, or routinary act.[6] As early
as Panganiban v. Borromeo,[7] we held that notaries public must
inform themselves of the facts to which they intend to certify and to
take no part in illegal transactions. They must guard against any
illegal or immoral arrangements.[8]

On its face, Alfonsos affidavit does not appear to contain any illegal
or immoral declaration. However, respondent herself admitted that
she knew of the falsity of Alfonsos statement that he was the sole heir
of the spouses Villanueva. Respondent therefore notarized a
document while fully aware that it contained a material
falsehood, i.e., Alfonsos assertion of status as sole heir. The affidavit
of adjudication is premised on this very assertion. By this
instrument, Alfonso claimed a portion of his parents estate all to
himself, to the exclusion of his co-heirs. Shortly afterwards,
respondent notarized the deed of sale, knowing that the deed took
basis from the unlawful affidavit of adjudication.

Respondent never disputed complainants allegation of her close

relationship with the Villanueva family spanning several decades.
Respondent even underscored this closeness by claiming that Lucas
himself requested her to come to his house the day Lucas handed to
Alfonso a copy of OCT No. 2522, allegedly so she could hear the
conversation between them.

Respondent claims she is not administratively liable because at the

time Alfonso executed the affidavit, his co-heirs had already received
their respective shares from the estate of the spouses Villanueva.
However, we are not concerned here with the proper distribution of
the spouses Villanuevas estates. Rather, respondents liability
springs from her failure to discharge properly her duties as a notary
public and as a member of the bar.

Where admittedly the notary public has personal knowledge of a false

statement or information contained in the instrument to be
notarized, yet proceeds to affix his or her notarial seal on it, the Court
must not hesitate to discipline the notary public accordingly as the
circumstances of the case may dictate. Otherwise, the integrity and
sanctity of the notarization process may be undermined and public
confidence on notarial documents diminished. In this case,
respondents conduct amounted to a breach of Canon 1 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to obey the
laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes.
Respondent also violated Rule 1.01 of the Code which proscribes
lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful
conduct.
We also view with disfavor respondents lack of candor before the IBP
proceedings. The transcript of hearings shows that respondent
denied preparing or notarizing the deed of sale,[9] when she already
admitted having done so in her Comment.

WHEREFORE, for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility, we REVOKE the commission of
respondent Atty. Salud P. Beradio as Notary Public, if still existing,
and DISQUALIFY her from being commissioned a notary public for
one (1) year. We further SUSPEND respondent from the practice of
law for six (6) months effective upon finality of this decision.

Let copies of this decision be furnished the Office of the Bar

Confidant, to be appended to respondents personal record as
attorney. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and
guidance.

SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION
ZENAIDA B. GONZALES, A.C. No. 6713
Petitioner,
Present:

QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson,

CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA,

- versus - VELASCO, JR., and

BRION, JJ.

Promulgated:

ATTY. NARCISO PADIERNOS,

Respondent. December 8, 2008

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- x

DECISION

BRION, J.:

Before the Court is the Complaint for Disbarment of

Atty. Narciso Padiernos (respondent) filed on May 12, 2003 by
Ms. Zenaida B. Gonzales (complainant) with the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Commissioner
Milagros V. San Juan conducted the fact-finding investigation on the
complaint.

Commissioner San Juan submitted a Report and

Recommendation[1] dated September 10, 2004 to the IBP Board of
Governors who approved this Report and Recommendation in a
resolution dated November 4, 2004.
In a letter[2] dated March 14, 2005, IBP Director for Bar
Discipline Rogelio A. Vinluan transmitted to the Office of Chief
Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (retired) a Notice of Resolution[3] and the
records of the case.

The Factual Background

The complainant alleged in her complaint for disbarment that on

three (3) separate occasions the respondent notarized the following
documents: (1) a Deed of Absolute Sale[4] dated July 16, 1979 which
disposed of her property in Jaen, Nueva Ecija in favor of Asterio,
Estrella and Rodolfo, all surnamed Gonzales; (2) a Subdivision
Agreement[5]dated September 7, 1988 which subdivided her property
among the same persons; and (3) an affidavit of Non-Tenancy[6] dated
March 3, 1988 which certified that her property was not tenanted. All
three documents were purportedly signed and executed by
complainant. All three documents carried forged signatures and
falsely certified that the complainant personally appeared before the
respondent and that she was known to me (the respondent) to be the
same person who executed the foregoing and acknowledged to me that
the same is her own free act and voluntary deed. The complainant
claimed that she never appeared before respondent on the dates the
documents were notarized because she was then in the United States.
 The respondent filed his Answer[7] on June 16, 2003. He
admitted that he notarized the three documents, but denied the
unfounded and malicious imputation that the three documents
contained the complainant's forged signatures. On the false
certification aspect, he countered that with the same or identical facts
obtained in the instant case, the Highest Tribunal, the Honorable
Supreme Court had this to say That it is not necessary to know the
signatories personally, provided he or she or they signed in the
presence of the Notary, alleging that they are the same persons who
signed the names.

On October 13, 2003, the respondent moved to dismiss the

complaint for lack of verification and notification of the date of
hearing.[8]

On December 19, 2003, complainant amended her

complaint.[9] This time, she charged respondent with gross negligence
and failure to exercise the care required by law in the performance of
his duties as a notary public, resulting in the loss of her property
in Jaen, Nueva Ecija, a 141,497 square meters of mango land covered
by TCT NT-29578. The complainant claimed that because of the
respondents negligent acts, title to her property was transferred
to Asterio Gonzales, Estrella Gonzales and Rodolfo Gonzales. She
reiterated that when the three documents disposing of her property
were notarized, she was out of the country. Estrella
Gonzales Mendrano, one of the vendees, was also outside the country
as shown by a certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation (BID) on September 14, 1989.[10] She likewise claimed
that Guadalupe Ramirez Gonzales (the widow of Rodolfo Gonzales,
another vendee) executed an affidavit describing the Deed of
Absolute Sale and Subdivision Agreement as spurious and without
her husband's participation.[11] The affidavit further alleged that the
complainants signatures were forged and the respondent did not
ascertain the identity of the person who came before him and posed
as vendor despite the fact that a large tract of land was being ceded
and transferred to the vendees.

The complainant prayed for the revocation of the

respondent's notarial commission and his suspension from the
practice of law due to his deplorable failure to hold the importance of
the notarial act and observe [with] utmost care the basic requirements
in the performance of his duties as a notary public which include the
ascertainment that the person who signed the document as the very
person who executed and personally appeared before him.

On May 3, 2004, the complainant moved that the case be

considered submitted for resolution in view of respondent's failure to
answer the amended complaint.[12]

The IBP Findings

In her report to the IBP Board of Governors,[13] Commissioner

San Juan categorically noted the respondents admission that he
notarized the three documents in question the Deed of Absolute Sale
on July 16, 1979; the Subdivision Agreement on September 7, 1988
and the affidavit of Non-Tenancy on March 3,
1988. Commissioner San Juan also noted that the complainants
documentary evidence supported her claim that she never executed
these documents and never appeared before the respondent to
acknowledge the execution of these documents. These documentary
evidence consisted of the certification from the BID that complainant
did not travel to the Philippines on the dates the documents were
allegedly notarized;[14] and the affidavit of Guadalupe Ramirez
Gonzales described above.[15]

Commissioner San Juan found that the respondent had no

participation in the preparation or knowledge of the falsity of the
spurious documents, and found merit in the complainant's contention
that the respondent was negligent in the performance of his duties as
a notary public. She faulted the respondent for not demanding proof
of the identity of the person who claimed to be
complainant Zenaida Gonzales when the documents were presented
to him for notarization. She concluded that the respondent failed to
exercise the diligence required of him as notary public to ensure the
integrity of the presented documents. She recommended that the
respondent's notarial commission be revoked and that he be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months.

The Court's Ruling

Rule II of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice[16] provides:

SECTION 1. Acknowledgment. - Acknowledgment refers to
an act in which an individual on a single occasion:

(a) appears in person before the notary public and present

an integrally complete instrument on document;

(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public

or identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and
(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on
the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by
 him for the purpose stated in the instrument or
document, declares that he has executed the instrument
or document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and,
if he acts in a particular representative capacity that he
has the authority to sign in that capacity.

Under the given facts, the respondent clearly failed to faithfully

comply with the foregoing rules when he notarized the three
documents subject of the present complaint. The respondent did not
know the complainant personally, yet he did not require proof of
identity from the person who appeared before him and executed and
authenticated the three documents. The IBP Report observed that had
the respondent done so, the fraudulent transfer of complainant's
property could have been prevented.

Through his negligence in the performance of his duty as a notary

public resulting in the loss of property of an unsuspecting private
citizen, the respondent eroded the complainants and the publics
confidence in the notarial system; he brought disrepute to the
system. As we held in Pantoja Mumar vs. Flores,[17] he thereby
breached Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (which
requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for the law and legal processes) as well as Rule
1.01 of the same Code (which prohibits lawyers from engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct).

The respondent should be reminded that a notarial document is, on

its face and by authority of law, entitled to full faith and credit. For
this reason, notaries public must observe utmost care in complying
with the formalities intended to ensure the integrity of the notarized
document and the act or acts it embodies.[18]
We are not persuaded by the respondent's argument that this Court,
in a similar case or one with identical facts, said that it is not
necessary to know the signatories personally provided he or she or
they signed in the presence of the notary, alleging that they are the
persons who signed the names. The respondent not only failed to
identify the cited case; he apparently also cited it out of context. A
notary public is duty bound to require the person executing a
document to be personally present, and to swear before him that he
is the person named in the document and is voluntarily and freely
executing the act mentioned in the document.[19] The notary public
faithfully discharges this duty by at least verifying the identity of the
person appearing before him based on the identification papers
presented.

For violating his duties as a lawyer and as a notary public, as well as

for the grave injustice inflicted on the complainant, it is only proper
that the respondent be penalized and suffer the consequences of his
acts. We note in this regard that in her amended complaint, the
complainant no longer sought the disbarment of respondent; she
confined herself to the revocation of the
respondents notarial commission and his suspension from the
practice of law. Thus, the recommendation of the IBP is for revocation
of his notarialcommission and for his suspension from the practice of
law for three (3) months. We approve this recommendation as a
sanction commensurate with the transgression committed by the
respondent as a member of the bar and as a notary public.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, ATTY. NARCISO
PADIERNOS of 103 Del Pilar Street, Cabanatuan City,
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of THREE (3)
MONTHS, and his notarial commission is hereby REVOKED.
SO ORDERED.