Jandoquile vs. Revilla, Jr.

A notary public’s single violation of the disqualification rule barring notarization for relatives by affinity within the fourth civil degree, absent any deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, or other serious ethical breach, does not constitute a ground for disbarment and is appropriately sanctioned by reprimand and a temporary disqualification from holding a notarial commission.

Bernard N. Jandoquile filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr. after the latter notarized a complaint‑affidavit that was used to charge Jandoquile with fraudulent enlistment in the Philippine Army. The affiants were Heneraline L. Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa, and Elmer L. Alvarado. The Philippine Army investigating officer had recommended Jandoquile’s discharge, and Jandoquile was appealing that recommendation when he initiated the disbarment complaint. The material facts surrounding the notarization were undisputed.

• Nature of the Complaint: Bernard N. Jandoquile sought the disbarment of Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr. on two grounds related to Revilla’s notarization of a complaint‑affidavit that charged Jandoquile with fraudulent enlistment. The affidavit had been used in an administrative proceeding before the Philippine Army, which recommended Jandoquile’s discharge; Jandoquile had appealed the recommendation.

• The Notarized Document: Atty. Revilla, Jr. notarized a complaint‑affidavit executed by Heneraline L. Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa, and Elmer L. Alvarado. The document bore a notarial certificate signed by Revilla as notary public, reflecting a notarial commission valid until December 31, 2012.

• Relationship of the Affiants to the Notary Public: Heneraline Brosas is the sister of Atty. Revilla, Jr.’s wife, Heizel Wynda Brosas Revilla. Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa is a sister‑in‑law of his wife. Both are relatives by affinity of Atty. Revilla, Jr. within the fourth civil degree. Elmer Alvarado is the live‑in houseboy of the Brosas family and was personally known to Revilla.

• Admissions and Defenses: Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not deny that he notarized the affidavit for his relatives by affinity. He contended that he acted primarily as counsel for the affiants, not as a notary public, and that he knew all three affiants personally, obviating the need to demand valid identification cards. He acknowledged, however, that he omitted to indicate in the jurat that the affiants were personally known to him.

• Disqualification by Affinity: Jandoquile maintained that Atty. Revilla, Jr. was disqualified from performing the notarial act under Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice because Heneraline Brosas and Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa were his relatives by affinity within the fourth civil degree.
• Failure to Require Identification: Jandoquile argued that Atty. Revilla, Jr. violated notarial rules by not requiring the three affiants to present valid identification cards before notarizing the complaint‑affidavit.

• Not a Ground for Disbarment: Atty. Revilla, Jr. contended that the single act of notarizing a document for relatives within the fourth civil degree and not requiring identification cards, without any allegation of deceit, damage, or prejudice, did not constitute any of the grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
• Role as Counsel: He argued that he should be regarded as having acted more as counsel for the three affiants than as a notary public, and that his role as legal representative should take precedence in evaluating the propriety of the notarization.
• Personal Knowledge Exception: He asserted that he was justified in dispensing with the presentation of identification cards because he personally knew all three affiants.

• Disqualification: Whether Atty. Revilla, Jr. violated Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice when he notarized the complaint‑affidavit signed by his relatives by affinity within the fourth civil degree.
• Identification Requirement: Whether Atty. Revilla, Jr. should be held liable for failing to require the affiants to present valid identification cards.
• Appropriate Penalty: Whether the established violation warrants the penalty of disbarment.

• Disqualification: The notarization directly contravened Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which plainly disqualifies a notary public from performing a notarial act if he is a spouse, common‑law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree. The notarial certificate established that Revilla affixed his signature as notary public, not as counsel, and his argument that he should be considered to have acted in the latter capacity was rejected.

• Identification Requirement: No liability arose from the failure to demand valid identification cards. Under the definition of “jurat” in Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public need not require competent evidence of identity if the affiant is personally known to him. Revilla’s personal knowledge was established—Heneraline Brosas is his wife’s sister, and the other affiants were likewise personally known. However, the omission to state that fact in the jurat was a procedural deficiency.

• Appropriate Penalty: The violation of the disqualification rule, while clear, did not involve any deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or any other serious ground for disbarment enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Following Maria v. Cortez, removal from the Bar should not be decreed when a punishment less severe—such as reprimand, suspension, or fine—would serve the ends desired. Given the isolated nature of the infraction and the absence of aggravating factors, a reprimand and a three‑month disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public were deemed sufficient.

• Maria v. Cortez doctrine on proportionate notarial sanctions — Removal from the Bar should not be imposed when any punishment less severe, such as reprimand, temporary suspension, or fine, would accomplish the end desired. The severity of the penalty must correspond to the gravity of the misconduct, the presence of aggravating circumstances, and the extent of any resulting prejudice. Applied here, the absence of deceit or gross immorality and the single nature of the disqualification‑rule violation called for reprimand and a limited disqualification from notarial practice rather than disbarment.

• Personal knowledge exception in notarial practice — Under the definition of “jurat” in Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, if the notary public personally knows the individual appearing before him, he is not required to demand competent evidence of identity. Nevertheless, the notary must explicitly state in the jurat that the affiant is personally known to him; failure to do so is a deficiency, though it does not, by itself, constitute a substantive violation.

• “Since the facts are not contested, the Court deems it more prudent to resolve the case instead of referring it to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation.”
• “We cannot agree with his proposition that we consider him to have acted more as counsel of the affiants, not as notary public, when he notarized the complaint‑affidavit. The notarial certificate at the bottom of the complaint‑affidavit shows his signature as a notary public, with a notarial commission valid until December 31, 2012.”
• “Let it be impressed that Atty. Revilla, Jr. was clearly disqualified to notarize the complaint‑affidavit of his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity.”
• “To our mind, Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not commit any deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct or gross immoral conduct, or any other serious ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.”
• “We recall the case of Maria v. Cortez where we reprimanded Cortez and disqualified him from being commissioned as notary public for six months. We were convinced that said punishment, which is less severe than disbarment, would already suffice as sanction for Cortez’s violation. … In imposing the less severe punishment, we were mindful that removal from the Bar should not really be decreed when any punishment less severe such as reprimand, temporary suspension or fine would accomplish the end desired.”

• Maria v. Cortez, A.C. No. 7880, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 87 — Followed. In that case, a notary public notarized a special power of attorney without the alleged signatories appearing before him, violating Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The Court imposed a reprimand and a six‑month disqualification from acting as notary public, emphasizing that disbarment is not warranted when a lighter penalty adequately addresses the infraction. The same proportionality principle governed the penalty imposed in the present case.

• Section 3(c), Rule IV, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Disqualifies a notary public from performing a notarial act if he is a spouse, common‑law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree. Applied: Atty. Revilla’s notarization of the complaint‑affidavit executed by his wife’s sister and sister‑in‑law fell squarely within this prohibition.
• Section 6, Rule II, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Defines “jurat” and requires, among others, that the individual be personally known to the notary public or identified through competent evidence of identity. Applied: Because Revilla personally knew the affiants, he was not required to demand identification cards, but he should have stated that personal knowledge in the jurat.
• Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Enumerates the grounds for disbarment or suspension of attorneys: deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the lawyer’s oath, or willful disobedience of a lawful order. Applied: The single violation of the disqualification rule, unaccompanied by any of these elements, did not warrant disbarment.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (Chairperson), Associate Justices Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, and Bienvenido L. Reyes.