Case Title: Santiago v Rafanan

Docket Number: AC No. 6252

Date: October 5, 2004
Digest by: Denz

Facts of the Case

1. The defendant Atty Rafanan is charged with violations of the Notarial Law and the CPR on the ground of the following alleged acts.
a. In violation of the notarial law, he notarized several documents on different dates failed and/or refused to:
i. make the proper notation regarding the cedula or community tax certificate of the affiants;
ii. enter the details of the notarized documents in the notarial register; and
iii. make and execute the certification and enter his PTR and IBP numbers in the documents he had notarized
b. He executed an affidavit on behalf of his client in violation of Rule 12.08
c. That he had approached the complainant (who was a witness) together with several men and intimidating him and disarmed him and
thereafter utter veiled threats in violation of Rule 12.07.

Issue/s
1. Should defendant be disciplined?

Ruling
Yes. Defendant should be disciplined.
1. The Notarial law is clear. A notary has, among others, the following duties
a. To certify that the parties to each document has presented to him a proper residence certificate as part of acknowledging the document.
b. To maintain a notarial registry in accordance with the law
2. These formalities are mandatory given the evidentiary weight of notarized documents.
a. Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.
b. Notarization converts a private document into a public document thus making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of
its authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a
notary public and appended to a private instrument.
3. Section 3 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure also expressly requires notary -- in the absence of any fiscal, state prosecutor or
government official authorized to administer the oath -- to certify that he has personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they
voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.
4. Given that the only excuse respondent gave was that he thought these laws were merely directory since others were doing the same is without
merit. Lawyers have a duty to know and obey the laws of the land (Canon 1, Canon 5)
5. Anent the alleged violation of Rule 12.08
a. It was proven that the affidavit was executed in good faith since it was a substantial matter to the case in which it was relevant serving the
ends of justice.
b. Moreover, the affidavit was executed during the preliminary investigation while Rule 12.08 contemplates situations where a counsel also
testifies as a witness in court.
c. Thus, he cannot be held liable for violating Rule 12.08 although counsels are reminded to exercise prudence and refrain from any activity
that may be put into question.
6. Lastly, no sufficient proof was presented to prove the charge of witness harassment.

Disposition: Defendant fined for violating the Notarial Law and Canon 5