A.C. No. 6677. June 10, 2014.*

EUPROCINA I. CRISOSTOMO, MARILYN L. SOLIS,
EVELYN MARQUIZO, ROSEMARIE BALATUCAN,
MILDRED BATANG, MARILEN MINERALES, and
MELINDA D. SIOTING, complainants, vs. ATTY. PHILIP
Z. A. NAZARENO, respondent.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Certification Against Forum

Shopping; Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, the
submission of false entries in a certification against forum
shopping constitutes indirect or direct contempt of court, and
subjects the erring

_______________ 

* EN BANC.

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Crisostomo vs. Nazareno

counsel to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions.

—Separate from the proscription against forum shopping is the
violation of the certification requirement against forum shopping,
which was distinguished in the case of Sps. Ong v. Court of
Appeals, 384 SCRA 139 (2002), as follows: The distinction
between the prohibition against forum shopping and the
certification requirement should by now be too elementary to be
misunderstood. To reiterate, compliance with the certification
against forum shopping is separate from and independent of the
avoidance of the act of forum shopping itself. There is a difference
in the treatment between failure to comply with the certification
requirement and violation of the prohibition against forum
shopping not only in terms of imposable sanctions but also in the
manner of enforcing them. The former constitutes sufficient cause
for the dismissal without prejudice to the filing of the complaint
or initiatory pleading upon motion and after hearing, while the
latter is a ground for summary dismissal thereof and for direct
contempt. x x x. Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, the
submission of false entries in a certification against forum
shopping constitutes indirect or direct contempt of court, and
subjects the erring counsel to the corresponding
administrative and criminal actions.

Notarial Law; It is a standing rule that for every notarial act,

the notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of the
notarization, among others, the entry and page number of the
document notarized, and that he shall give to each instrument or
document executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a
number corresponding to the one in his register.—Separately, the
Court further finds Atty. Nazareno guilty of malpractice as a
notary public, considering that he assigned only one document
number (i.e., Doc. No. 1968) to the certifications against forum
shopping attached to the six (6) April 1, 2004 complaints for
rescission and ejectment despite the fact that each of them should
have been treated as a separate notarial act. It is a standing rule
that for every notarial act, the notary shall record in the notarial
register at the time of the notarization, among others, the entry
and page number of the document notarized, and that he shall
give to each instrument or document executed, sworn to, or
acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in
his register. Evidently, Atty. Nazareno did not comply with the
foregoing rule.

VOL. 726, JUNE 10, 2014 3

Crisostomo vs. Nazareno

Same; Notary Public; Atty. Nazareno notarized the

certifications against forum shopping attached to all the
aforementioned complaints, fully aware that they identically
asserted a material falsehood, i.e., that Rudex had not commenced
any actions or proceedings or was not aware of any pending
actions or proceedings involving the same issues in any other
forum.—Atty. Nazareno notarized the certifications against forum
shopping attached to all the aforementioned complaints, fully
aware that they identically asserted a material falsehood, i.e.,
that Rudex had not commenced any actions or proceedings or was
not aware of any pending actions or proceedings involving the
same issues in any other forum. The administrative liability of an
erring notary public in this respect was clearly delineated as a
violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code in the case of Heirs of
the Late Spouses Villanueva v. Atty. Beradio, 512 SCRA 17 (2007),
to wit: 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, respondent’s 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. (Emphasis
supplied) In said case, the lawyer who knowingly notarized a
document containing false statements had his notarial
commission revoked and was disqualified from being
commissioned as such for a period of one (1) year. Thus, for his
malpractice as a notary public, the Court is wont to additionally
impose the same penalties of such nature against him. However,
due to the multiplicity of his infractions on this front, coupled
with his willful malfeasance in discharging the office, the Court
deems it proper to revoke his existing commission and
permanently disqualify him from being commissioned as a notary
public.
Same; Same; 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.—

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Crisostomo vs. Nazareno

Indeed, respondent ought to be reminded that: 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. Notarization converts a
private document into a public document thus making that
document admissible in evidence without further proof of its
authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith
and credit upon its face. 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. x  x  x  x When a notary public certifies to the due
execution and delivery of the document under his hand and seal
he gives the document the force of evidence. Indeed, one of the
purposes of requiring documents to be acknowledged before a
notary public, in addition to the solemnity which should surround
the execution and delivery of documents, is to authorize such
documents to be given without further proof of their execution
and delivery. Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver
responsibility is placed upon him by reason of his solemn oath to
obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of
any. Failing in this, he must accept the consequences of his
unwarranted actions.  

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Making

False Declarations in the Certifications Against Forum
Shopping and Malpractice as a Notary Public.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Thelma Jader­Manalo for complainants. 

PERLAS­BERNABE,௑J.:
For the Court’s resolution is an administrative
complaint[1] filed by complainants Euprocina I. Crisostomo
(Crisostomo), Marilyn L. Solis (Solis), Evelyn Marquizo
(Marquizo), Rosemarie Balatucan (Balatucan), Mildred
Batang (Batang), Marilen Minerales (Minerales), and
Melinda D. Sioting (Sioting) against respondent Atty.
Philip Z. A. Nazareno (Atty. Nazareno), charging him with
making false declarations in the

_______________
[1] Rollo, pp. 1­12.

5
 VOL. 726, JUNE 10, 2014 5
Crisostomo vs. Nazareno

certifications against forum shopping subject of this case in

disregard of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, and
malpractice as a notary public in violation of  the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
 
The Facts
Sometime in 2001, complainants individually purchased
housing units (subject properties) in Patricia South Villa
Subdivision, Anabu­II, Imus, Cavite, from Rudex
International Development Corp. (Rudex).[2] In view of
several inadequacies and construction defects[3] in the
housing units and the subdivision itself, complainants
sought the rescission of their respective contracts to sell
before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB), seeking the refund of the monthly amortizations
they had paid.[4] The first batch of re­

_______________
[2] Id., at p. 167.
[3]  Complainants uniformly alleged the following defects in the
subdivision and subject properties:
1.     the walls and stairs of the house started to crack;
2.     the rain water is oozing in the window;
3.     the foundation of the house is weak;
4.        bad smell is coming out of the lavatory, comfort room and
floor drainage;
5.     the water tank is too small for the subdivision, water being
supplied is dirty, unsanitary and not potable and inadequate;
6.     defective road, the water stays in the middle of the street;
7.     defective clogged drainage;
8.     no garbage disposal;
9.     no security guard;
10.     no street lights; and
11.     no open areas for parks and garden as in the supposed area,
the water tank was installed. (See id., at p. 86.)
 [4] See the complainants’ individual complaints; id., at pp. 83­139, 260­
261 and 275­283.

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Crisostomo vs. Nazareno

scission cases was filed by herein complainants Sioting[5]

on May 24, 2002, and Crisostomo[6] and Marquizo[7] on
June 10, 2002, while the second batch of rescission cases
was filed by complainants Balatucan[8] on March 3, 2003,
Solis[9] and Ederlinda M. Villanueva[10] (represented by
Minerales) on May 12, 2003, and Batang[11] on July 29,
2003. In all the foregoing rescission cases, Rudex was
represented by herein respondent Atty. Nazareno.
Judgments of default were eventually rendered against
Rudex in the first batch of rescission cases.[12] Sometime in
August 2003, Rudex filed three (3) petitions for review[13]
before the HLURB assailing the same. In the certifications
against forum shopping attached to the said petitions,
Rudex, through its President Ruben P. Baes, and legal
counsel Atty. Nazareno, stated that it has not commenced
or has knowledge of any similar action or proceeding
involving the same issues pending before any court,
tribunal or agency[14] — this, notwithstanding the fact that
Rudex, under the representation of Atty. Nazareno,
previously filed an ejectment case on September 9, 2002
against Sioting and her husband, Rodrigo

_______________
 [5] Id., at pp. 275­283.
 [6] Id., at pp. 6 and 83­92.
 [7] Id., at pp. 6 and 102­111.
 [8] Id., at pp. 6 and 112­121.
 [9] Id., at p. 6.
[10] Id., at pp. 6 and 130­139.
[11] Id., at pp. 6 and 122­129.
[12] The HLURB rendered a Judgment by Default in favor of Sioting on
May 27, 2003. (id., at pp. 7 and 298­304.) The HLURB also rendered a
Judgment by Default in favor of Crisostomo and Marquizo on July 7, 2003
and March 27, 2003, respectively. (id., at p. 6.)
[13] Id., at p. 264. See also petition filed against Sioting; id., at pp. 180­
192, against Crisostomo; id., at pp. 635­650, and against Marquizo; id., at
pp. 651­663.
[14] Id., at pp. 7­8, 153 and 171.

VOL. 726, JUNE 10, 2014 7

 Crisostomo vs. Nazareno

Sioting (Sps. Sioting), before the Municipal Trial Court of

Imus, Cavite (MTC).[15]
  On January 29, 2004, Rudex, again represented by
Atty. Nazareno, filed another complaint[16] against Sps.
Sioting before the HLURB for the rescission of their
contract to sell and the latter’s ejectment, similar to its
pending September 9, 2002 ejectment complaint. Yet, in
the certification against forum shopping attached thereto
executed by the Head of its Credit and Collection
department, Norilyn D. Unisan,[17] Rudex declared that it
has not commenced or is not aware of any action or
proceeding involving the same issues pending before any
court, tribunal or agency.[18] The said certification was
notarized by Atty. Nazareno himself.[19]
  On April 1, 2004, six (6) similar complaints[20] for
rescission of contracts to sell and ejectment, plus damages
for nonpayment of amortizations due, were filed by Atty.
Nazareno, on behalf of Rudex, against the other
complainants before the HLURB. The certifications against
forum shopping attached thereto likewise stated that
Rudex has not commenced or has

_______________
[15] Id., at p. 470. See Decision dated November 18, 2004; id., at pp.
470­475.
[16] Id., at pp. 167­170.
[17] Id., at p. 171.
[18] The specific portion of the certification against forum shopping of
the complaint reads:
4. ௑That [Rudex] has not commenced any other action or
proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency.
5. ௑If I should learn that a similar action or proceeding has been
filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals,
or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report such fact to
[the HLURB] within five (5) days thereafter. (Id.)
xxxx
[19] Id.
[20] Id., at pp. 13­17, 24­28, 35­40, 46­50, 59­64 and 72­76.

8
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Crisostomo vs. Nazareno

any knowledge of any similar pending action before any

court, tribunal or agency.[21]
  On February 21, 2005, complainants jointly filed the
present administrative complaint for disbarment against
Atty. Nazareno, claiming that in the certifications against
forum shopping attached to the complaints for rescission
and ejectment of Rudex filed while Atty. Nazareno was its
counsel, the latter made false declarations therein that no
similar actions or proceedings have been commenced by
Rudex or remained pending before any other court,
tribunal or agency when, in fact, similar actions or
proceedings for rescission had been filed by herein
complainants before the HLURB against Rudex and Atty.
Nazareno, and an ejectment complaint was filed by Rudex,
represented by Atty. Nazareno, against Sps. Sioting. In
addition, complainants asserted that Atty. Nazareno
committed malpractice as a notary public since he only
assigned one (1) document number (i.e., Doc. No. 1968) in
all the certifications against forum shopping that were
separately attached to the six (6) April 1, 2004 complaints
for rescission and ejectment.[22]
Despite notice, Atty. Nazareno failed to file his comment
and refute the administrative charges against him.[23]
In the interim, the HLURB, in the Resolutions dated
April 14, 2005[24] and May 12, 2005,[25] dismissed Rudex’s
complaints for rescission and ejectment[26] on the ground
that its state­

_______________
[21] Id., at pp. 2­3.
[22] See id., at pp. 1­9.
[23] Id., at pp. 729­730.
[24] Id., at pp. 476­477. Signed by Housing and Land Use Arbiter Ma.
Perpetua Y. Aquino and Director Belen G. Ceniza.
[25] Id., at pp. 478­479. Signed by Housing and Land Use Arbiter
Raymundo A. Foronda and Director Belen G. Ceniza.
[26] Rudex’s complaints for rescission and ejectment were dismissed in
favor of Ederlinda M. Villanueva, Crisostomo, Solis, Balatucan, Batang,
and Sioting. (There is no resolution attached to the

9
 VOL. 726, JUNE 10, 2014 9
Crisostomo vs. Nazareno

ments in the certifications against forum shopping

attached thereto were false due to the existence of similar
pending cases in violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules
of Court.  
The IBP’s Report and Recommendation
In a Report and Recommendation[27] dated March 8,
2012, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating
Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero recommended the
suspension of Atty. Nazareno for a period of six (6) months
for his administrative violations.
The Investigating Commissioner found, among others,
that there were unassailable proofs that the certification
against forum shopping attached to Rudex’s ejectment
complaint against Sps. Sioting had been erroneously
declared, considering that at the time Rudex filed the said
complaint in September 2002, Sps. Sioting’s rescission
complaint against Rudex, filed on May 24, 2002, was
already pending. Hence, it was incumbent upon Rudex to
have declared its existence, more so, since both complaints
involve the same transaction and essential facts, and a
decision on the rescission complaint would amount to res
judicata on the ejectment complaint.[28] In this relation,
the Investigating Commissioner observed that Atty.
Nazareno cannot claim innocence of his omission since he
was not only Rudex’s counsel but the notarizing officer as
well. Having knowingly made false entries in the subject
certifications against forum shopping, the Investigating
Commissioner recommended that Atty. Nazareno be held
administratively liable and thereby penalized with six (6)
months suspension.[29]

_______________
records of this case acting on Rudex’s complaint for rescission and
ejectment against Marquizo.)
[27] Rollo, pp. 727­732.
[28] Id., at pp. 730­731.
[29] Id., at pp. 731­732.

10

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Crisostomo vs. Nazareno

In a Resolution[30] dated April 15, 2013, the IBP Board

of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating
Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation, but modified
the recommended penalty from a suspension of six (6)
months to only one (1) month.
The Issue Before the Court
The essential issue in this case is whether or not Atty.
Nazareno should be held administratively liable and
accordingly suspended for a period of one (1) month.
The Court’s Ruling
The Court affirms the IBP’s findings with modification
as to the penalty imposed.
Separate from the proscription against forum
shopping[31] is the violation of the certification requirement
against forum shopping, which was distinguished in the
case of Sps. Ong v. CA[32] as follows:

The distinction between the prohibition against forum

shopping and the certification requirement should by now be too
elementary to be misunderstood. To reiterate,

_______________
[30] Id., at p. 726. IBP Resolution No. XX­2013­434.
[31] “Forum shopping is an act of a party, against whom an adverse judgment
or order has been rendered in one forum, of seeking and possibly getting a
favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special civil action for
certiorari. It may also be the institution of two or more actions or proceedings
grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would
make a favorable disposition. The established rule is that for forum shopping to
exist, both actions must involve the same transactions, same essential facts and
circumstances, and must raise identical causes of actions, subject matter, and
issues. x x x.” (Cruz v. Caraos, 550 Phil. 98, 107; 521 SCRA 510, 520­521 [2007].)
[32] 433 Phil. 490; 384 SCRA 139 (2002).

11

VOL. 726, JUNE 10, 2014 11

Crisostomo vs. Nazareno

compliance with the certification against forum shopping is

separate from and independent of the avoidance of the act of
forum shopping itself. There is a difference in the treatment
between failure to comply with the certification requirement and
violation of the prohibition against forum shopping not only in
terms of imposable sanctions but also in the manner of enforcing
them. The former constitutes sufficient cause for the dismissal
without prejudice to the filing of the complaint or initiatory
pleading upon motion and after hearing, while the latter is a
ground for summary dismissal thereof and for direct contempt. x x
x.[33] 

Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, the

submission of false entries in a certification against forum
shopping constitutes indirect or direct contempt of court,
and subjects the erring counsel to the corresponding
administrative and criminal actions, viz.:

Sectionௐ5.௑Certification against forum shopping.

—The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the
complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief,
or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously
filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any
action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any
court, tribunal or quasi­judicial agency and, to the best of
his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending
therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a
complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he
should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim
has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five
(5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or
initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be
curable by mere amendment of the complaint

_______________
[33] Id., at pp. 501­502; p. 148.

12

12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Crisostomo vs. Nazareno

or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of

the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon
motion and after hearing. The submission of a false
certification or noncompliance with any of the
undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of
court, without prejudice to the corresponding
administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party
or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum
shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with
prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause
for administrative sanctions. (Emphases supplied)

In the realm of legal ethics, said infraction may be

considered as a violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule
10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(Code) which read as follows:

CANONௐ1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE

CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PRO௙ CESSES.
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. 
xxxx
CANONௐ10 — A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND
GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court
to be misled by any artifice. 

In this case, it has been established that Atty. Nazareno

made false declarations in the certifications against forum
shopping attached to Rudex’s pleadings, for which he
should be held administratively liable. 
Records show that Atty. Nazareno, acting as Rudex’s
counsel, filed, in August 2003, petitions for review assailing
the

13

VOL. 726, JUNE 10, 2014 13

Crisostomo vs. Nazareno

judgments of default rendered in the first batch of

rescission cases without disclosing in the certifications
against forum shopping the existence of the ejectment case
it filed against Sps. Sioting which involves an issue related
to the complainants’ rescission cases. Further, on January
29, 2004, Rudex, represented by Atty. Nazareno, filed a
complaint for rescission and ejectment against Sps. Sioting
without disclosing in the certifications against forum
shopping the existence of Sioting’s May 24, 2002 rescission
complaint against Rudex as well as Rudex’s own September
9, 2002 ejectment complaint also against Sps. Sioting.
Finally, on April 1, 2004, Atty. Nazareno, once more filed
rescission and ejectment complaints against the other
complainants in this case without disclosing in the
certifications against forum shopping the existence of
complainants’ own complaints for rescission. 
Owing to the evident similarity of the issues
involved in each set of cases, Atty. Nazareno — as
mandated by the Rules of Court and more pertinently, the
canons of the Code — should have truthfully declared the
existence of the pending related cases in the certifications
against forum shopping attached to the pertinent
pleadings. Considering that Atty. Nazareno did not even
bother to refute the charges against him despite due notice,
the Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the IBP’s
resolution on his administrative liability. However, as for
the penalty to be imposed, the Court deems it proper to
modify the IBP’s finding on this score.
In Molina v. Atty. Magat,[34] a penalty of six (6) months
suspension from the practice of law was imposed against
the lawyer therein who was shown to have deliberately
made false and untruthful statements in one of his
pleadings. Given that Atty. Nazareno’s infractions are of a
similar nature, but recognizing further that he, as may be
gleaned from the foregoing discussion, had repetitively
committed the same, the

_______________
[34] See A.C. No. 1900, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 1.

14

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Crisostomo vs. Nazareno

Court hereby suspends him from the practice of law for a

period of one (1) year. 
Separately, the Court further finds Atty. Nazareno
guilty of malpractice as a notary public, considering that he
assigned only one document number (i.e., Doc. No. 1968) to
the certifications against forum shopping attached to the
six (6) April 1, 2004 complaints for rescission and ejectment
despite the fact that each of them should have been treated
as a separate notarial act. It is a standing rule that for
every notarial act, the notary shall record in the notarial
register at the time of the notarization, among others, the
entry and page number of the document notarized, and
that he shall give to each instrument or document
executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number
corresponding to the one in his register.[35] Evidently, Atty.
Nazareno did not comply with the foregoing rule.
Worse, Atty. Nazareno notarized the certifications
against forum shopping attached to all the aforementioned
complaints, fully aware that they identically asserted a
material falsehood, i.e., that Rudex had not commenced any
actions or proceedings or was not aware of any pending
actions or proceedings involving the same issues in any
other forum. The administrative liability of an erring
notary public in this respect was clearly delineated as a
violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code in the case of
Heirs of the Late Spouses Villanueva v. Atty. Beradio,[36] to
wit:

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

_______________
[35] See Section 2(a) and (e), Rule VI of A.M. No. 02­8­13­SC, entitled the “2004
RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE.”
[36] 541 Phil. 17; 512 SCRA 17 (2007).

15

VOL. 726, JUNE 10, 2014 15

Crisostomo vs. Nazareno

and sanctity of the notarization process may be undermined and

public confidence on notarial documents diminished. In this case,
respondent’s 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.[37] (Emphasis supplied)
 In said case, the lawyer who knowingly notarized a
document containing false statements had his notarial
commission revoked and was disqualified from being
commissioned as such for a period of one (1) year. Thus, for
his malpractice as a notary public, the Court is wont to
additionally impose the same penalties of such nature
against him. However, due to the multiplicity of his
infractions on this front, coupled with his willful
malfeasance in discharging the office, the Court deems it
proper to revoke his existing commission and permanently
disqualify him from being commissioned as a notary public.
Indeed, respondent ought to be reminded that:[38]

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.
Notarization converts a private document into a public document
thus making that document admissible in evidence without
further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law
entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. 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.
x x x x

_______________
[37] Id., at pp. 22­23; p. 23.
[38] Bernardo v. Atty. Ramos, 433 Phil. 8, 15­18; 383 SCRA 498, 504­506 (2002).

16

16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Crisostomo vs. Nazareno

When a notary public certifies to the due execution and delivery of

the document under his hand and seal he gives the document the
force of evidence. Indeed, one of the purposes of requiring
documents to be acknowledged before a notary public, in addition
to the solemnity which should surround the execution and
delivery of documents, is to authorize such documents to be given
without further proof of their execution and delivery. Where the
notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed upon
him by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no
falsehood or consent to the doing of any. Failing in this, he must
accept the consequences of his unwarranted actions.
  
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Philip Z. A. Nazareno
is found GUILTY of making false declarations in the
certifications against forum shopping subject of this case,
as well as malpractice as a notary public. Accordingly, he is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one
(1) year, effective upon his receipt of this Decision, with a
STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Further, he is
PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED from being
commissioned as a notary public and, his notarial
commission, if currently existing, is hereby REVOKED.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the
Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent’s 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.

Sereno (CJ.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo­De Castro,

Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr.,
Perez, Mendoza, Reyes and Leonen, JJ., concur.

17

VOL. 726, JUNE 10, 2014 17

Crisostomo vs. Nazareno

Respondent Atty. Philip Z. A. Nazareno suspended from

practice of law for one (1) year for making false declarations
in certifications against forum shopping and malpractice as
notary public, with stern warning against repetition of
similar acts. He is permanently disqualified from being
notary public and his notarial commission is revoked. 

Notes.—A notary public should not notarize a document

unless the person who signs it is the same person who
executed it, personally appearing before him to attest to
the contents and the truth of what are stated therein.
(Isenhardt vs. Real, 666 SCRA 20 [2012])
By notarizing the questioned document despite the
absence of one of the parties, the notary public engaged in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. (Id.)
——o0o——
‹&RS\ULJKW&HQWUDO%RRN6XSSO\,QF$OOULJKWVUHVHUYHG