•

SUPREME COURT OF THE PHIUPft!NES

PUBUC ~TION OFFICE
~-JA,llf::I~

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPP~

SUPREME COURT
Baguio City

SECOND DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:

Ple~e take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 03 April 2019 which reads as follows: I
~ .
'.A.C. No. 10592 (Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4782) - Napoleon R.
!g~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~!: ~~~~s- ~: ~~~~i- ____________ J___________ -x
Before the Court is an administrative case that arose from a
complaint 1 for disbarment filed hy herein complainant Jlfapoleon R. Agaton
(Agaton) against respondent Atty. Lucas V. Sugui (Atty. Sugui) for violating
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (2004 Notarial ~~les) amounting to
Grave Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming of a Lawyer 2 .

The facts show that sometime in August 2011, Atty. Sugui, a

commissioned notary public, notarized an Affidavit datJd August 19, 2011
of a certain Luz Rollon (Subject Affidavit). 3 Howeverf'Agaton claims that
Luz Rollon never appeared before Atty. Sugui to s ear to the Subject
Affidavit, which is shown by the fact that above the n e Luz Rollon was
1
written "by: A.S. Rollon." 4 Moreover, it appears thatfa Community Tax
Certificate (CTC) was presented to Atty. Sugui and th t the details of the
same were not indicated in the Subject Affidavit. 5 Agato further claims that
Luz Rollon was out of the country from February 2011\ to December 2011
- evidenced by a Certification6 dated December 8, to 12 issued by the
Bureau of Immigration - making it impossible for het to have personally
I

appeared before Atty. Sugui on August 2011. 7 •

Pursuant to the Court's Resolution8 dated December 10, 2014, Atty.

Sugui filed his Comment9 dated March 18, 2015. Fo~ his defense, Atty.
Sugui claimed to have been burdened by numerous documents for signature
at the time he personally notarized the Subject Affidavit. 10 Likewise, he
failed to notice the word "by" next to the signature of ~e perso.n appearing
before him, who in turn presented an "identification! card" as proof of
identity. 11 Finally, Atty. Sugui posits that he acted in good faith and that the

1
Rollo, pp. 1-2.
2
Id. at 90-91.
3
Id. at 5-6. '
4
Id.atl,6.
' Id. t
6
Id. at 7.
7
Id at 2.

t~
8
Id. at 10
9
Id. at 21-27. Denominated as "Answer."
10
Id. at 22.
11
Id. at 23.
·1

(217)URES - more -
Resolution 2 A.C. No. 10592
(Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4782)

presumption of regularity in the performance of his official functions had not

been overturned by the evidence of Agaton. 12

In a Resolution 13 dated August 12, 2015, the Court referred the case to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.

A mandatory conference was held on July 22, 2016 and was

terminated on the same day. 14 Only Atty. Sugui submitted a Memorandum. 15

IBP Report and Recommendation

On February 28, 2017, the IBP Commission qn Bar Discipline,

through its Investigating Commissioner, issued a Report and 1
·

Recommendation 16 (Report) of even date finding Atty. Sugui liable for

violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules:

Although the acts committed by the respondent is (sic) indeed a

violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, such acts by themselves
1
do not constitute gross misconduct.

xxxx
!

As discussed above, Atty. Sugui failed to faithful!~ discharge his

duties as a notary public and is RECOMMENDED to be meted out the
penalty of REVOCATION OF THE NOTARIAL 'COMMISSIQN, IF
SUBSISTING, DISQUALIFICATION FROM REAPPOINTMENT AS
NOTARY PUBLIC FOR TWO (2) YEARS, AND SUSPENSION FOR
SIX (6) MONTHS FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW.

RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED. 17

In the Report, the Investigating Commissioner rejected Atty. Sugui's

claim of good faith as the same could not excuse him from violating the
2004 Notarial Rules, i.e., notarization despite the lack of personal
appearance by the affiant. 18 Moreover, the Investigating <!:om.missioner held
that Atty. Sugui no longer enjoyed the presumption of regularity as the
Subject Affidavit was, in the first place, improperly notarifed. 19
I

Acting on the Report, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution

No. XXIII-2017-018,20 adopting the findings of fact and recommendation of
the Investigating Commissioner with modification, to wit: 1

12 Id.
13
Id. at 38.
14
Id. at 65.
15
Id. at 81-84.
16
Id. at 90-99. Penned by Investigating Commissioner Dominica L. Dumangeng-Rosario.
17
Id. at 99.
18
Id. at 94.
19
Id. at 98.
20
Id. at 88-89.

(217)URES - more - 't

Resolution 3 A.C. No. 10592
(Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4782)

RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and rJcommendation

of the Investigating Commissioner with modification imposing instead
the following penalty a) Immediate Revocation of! his Notarial
Commission if still subsisting, and b) Disqualification ftrom being re-
appointed as Notary Public for a period of two (2) years \¼th a Warning
that repetition of a similar act or violation shall be d~t with more
severely. 21 (Emphasis in the original; italic omitted) i
I

Issue

Whether Atty. Sugui is administratively liable for violation of the

2004 Notarial Rules.

The Court's Ruling

After an evaluation of the records of the case and the submissions of

the parties below, the Court affirms the IBP's recommendation.
I
To evade liability, Atty. Sugui argued in the inain that he was
burdened by numerous documents awaiting his signature and that there were
a number of persons waiting in line to have their documents notarized. 22
Atty. Sugui further argued· that he was, at the most, guijty of carelessness
when he fail~d to ascertain the identity of the person signing the Subject
Affidavit. This is unacceptable. !
'
Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Notarial Rules cldarly provides:

SEC. 2. Prohibitions. - xx x

xxxx

(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the persor involved as
signatory to the instrument or document - ·

(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at th9 time of the

notarization; and I

(2) is not personally known to the notary public or othe~se identified

by the notary public through competent evidence pf identity as
defined by these Rules.

Here, it was determined by the IBP that the Subject Affidavit was
indeed notarized by Atty. Sugui without the personal appearance of the
supposed affiant, Luz Rollon. This fact was not denied by .(\tty. Sugui: 23
I

It is clear as day that the person who signed the affidavits in

question was not the affiant herself, hut a ·certain A.S. Rollqn. The phrase

21 Id. at 88.
22
Id. at 22.
23
Id. at 94.

(217)URES - more-
'>t
Resolution 4 A.C. No. 10592
(Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4782)

"by" at the left portion of the affiant's signature, should have raised a red
flag and alerted the respondent. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and
jurisprudence pertaining to such rules, are clear in holding that a person
shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the
instrument or document is not in the notary's presence personally at the
time of notarization.

In fact, in the case of Fabay v. Resuena, the respondent Atty.

Resuena notarized a Special Power of Attorney wherein the signatures of
the principals were signed as "BY: REMEDIOS PEREZ". The court
reiterated in the said case the established rule that a "notary public should
not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the
very same persons who executed and personally appeared i before him to
attest to the contents and truths of what are stated therein." The court
actually disbarred the respondent in the same case, considering the
attendant circumstance.

Aside from this implied admission by the respondent, the

complainant presented other evidence to bolster his claim that Luz Rollon
did not appear personally before the respondent. The certi:f;ication issued
by the Bureau of Immigration clearly shows that the Luz Rollon, the
affiant of the subject documents, was abroad during the time Atty. Sugui
notarized the said subject documents, and hence it was physically
impossible for Luz Rollon to appear .before Atty. Sugui at the time of
notarization. This certification, which shows the travel records, being an
official document from the government, enjoys the presumption of 1

regularity, and hence the respondent should be deemed to h~ve admitted x

x x the genuineness and authenticity of such, when he failed to present
controverting evidence or at least deny the genuineness and authentidty of
the said certification. 24

Moreover, the jurat of the Subject Affidavit was; based on a mere

CTC, which is not among those considered competent evidence of identity
under the 2004 Notarial Rules. 25 In the recent case of Heir of Herminigildo
A. Unite v. Guzman,26 the Court suspended the respondent from the practice
of law for his act of notarizing a document using only a C)'C as evidence of
identity:

In this case, respondent, as duly found by the IBP-IC, clearly

failed to faithfully observe his duties as a notary public w,hen he failed
to confirm the identity of Torrices through the competent evidence of
identity required by the Notarial Rules. This fact is clear from the Deed
itself which shows that Torrices presented only his CTC wh~n he
appeared before respondent. Jurisprudence provides that a community
tax certificate or cedula is no longer considered as a valid and competent
evidence of identity not only because it is not included in the list of
competent evidence of identity under the Rules; more importantly, it does
not bear the photograph and signature of the person app~aring before
notaries public which the Rules · deem as the more appropriate and
competent means by which they can ascertain the person's identity.

24 Id. at 96-97.
25
See Heir of HerminigildoA. Unite v. Guzman, A.C. No. 12062, July 2, 2018, p. 5.
26 Id.

(217)URES - more -
tr
,:

Resolution 5 l A.C. No. 10592

(Formerly €:BD Case No. 15-4782)
I

e
xxxx I
I
As herein discussed, respondent's failure to properiy perform his
duty as a notary public resulted not only in damage to 1those directly
1

affected by the notarized document, but also in underminitjg the integrity

of the office of a notary public and in degrading thb function of
notarization. He should thus be held liable for such negligertce not only as
a notary public but also as a lawyer. Consistent with juri~prudence, he
should be meted out with the modified penalty •f immediate
revocation of his notarial commission, if any, disqual.fication from
being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years,
and suspension from the practice of law for a period of s~x (6) months.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds res~ondent Atty.
Raymund P. Guzman GUILTY of violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice and of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Acbordingly, the
Court hereby: SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period
of six (6) months; REVOKES his incumbent commissi4n as a notary
public, if any; and PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a
notary public for a period of two (2) years. He is WAiRNED that a
repetition of the same offense or similar acts in the futurel shall be dealt
with more severely. 27 (Additional emphasis supplied) I
I
Hence, following the above ruling, the Court reiiistates the penalty
recommended by the Investigating Commissioner. Tit-he and again, the
Court has held that notarization is not· ·a purposeless ininisterial act; by
converting an otherwise private instrument into a public one, notarization is
imbued with· public interest and therefore authorized officers are bound to
observe utmost diligence in the performance of their duties as such. 28 Based
on the established facts, it is therefore clear that Atty. ~ugui is liable for
violating the mandatory provisions of the 2004 Notarial Rfies.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Coulrt finds respondent
Atty. Lucas V. Sugui GUILTY of violating the Rules op. Notarial Practice
of 2004. Accordingly, the Court hereby: SUSPENDS hirh from the practice
of law for a period of six (6) months effective immediattly upon receipt of
this Resolution; REVOKES his incumbent commission as notary public, if
any; and DISQUALIFIES him from being commissione4 as a notary public
for a period of two (2) years. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the
same offense or similar acts in the future shall be dealt With more severely.
He is DIRECTED to immediately file a Manifestation Ion the date of his
receipt of this
>
Resolution to enable this Court to ddtermine
I
when his
suspension shall take effect, copy furnished all courts I and quasi-judicial
bodies where tie has entered his appearance as counsel. i
I

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

Confidant to be appended to respondent's personal recor~ as an attorney, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its information and guidance, and the
Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.

27
Id. at 4-6.

,,
28
Sappayaniv. Gasmen, 768 Phil. I, 8 (2015).

(217)URES - more-
 .
Resolution 6 A.C. No. 10592
.p '.\ !~. (Formerly:CBD Case No. 15-4782)
: i !~
j . f:•:~.

": : .: ....:.. ~

SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on wellness leave)"

Very truly yours,

ti~~j~RFECTO
MARI'X LOU~·C
Division Clerk ~f '? 1/lk
I

By: 2 9 JUL 2019

I

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON

Deputy Division Clerk of Court

MR. NAPOLEON R. AGATON (reg)

Complainant
No. 1479 Crisostomo Street
Sampaloc, 1008 Manila

ATTY. LUCAS V. SUGUI (reg)

Respondent
No. 404 CCI Building, N. Lopez Street
Ermita, Manila

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (reg)

Dofia Julia Vargas Avenue
Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City

*HON. JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ (x)

Office of the Court Administrator
Supreme Court, Manila

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE (x)

LIBRARY SERVICES (x)
[For uploading pursuant to A.M. No. 12-7-1-SC]

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ATTORNEY (x)

OFFICE OF THE REPORTER (x)
Supreme Court, Manila
~

THE BAR CONFIDANT (x)

Supreme Court, Manila

*Note: For Circularization to all Courts.

Please notify the Court of any change in your address.
AC10592. 04/03/19(217)URES

(217)URES