A.C. NO.

5281 FEBRUARY 12, 2008

MANUEL L. LEE, PETITIONER, VS ATTY. REGINO B. TAMBAGO, RESPONDENT

FACTS:

In a letter-complaint dated April 10, 2000, complainant Manuel L. Lee charged respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago with
violation of the Notarial Law and the ethics of legal profession for notarizing a spurious last will and testament. In the said will,
decedent supposedly bequeathed his entire estate to his wife Lim Hock Lee, save for a parcel of land which he devised to Vicente
Lee, Jr. and Elena Lee, half-siblings of complainant.

The will was purportedly executed and acknowledged before respondent on June 30, 1965.

Complainant, however, pointed out that:

1. the residence certificate of testator in the acknowledgment of the will was dated January 5, 1962
2. the signature of the testator was not the same as his signature as donor in a deed of donation (containing his purported
genuine signature)
3. the residence certificates of the witnesses Cayetano Noynay and Loreto Grajo were not noted
4. the signatures of witnesses Noynay and Grajo were forged and copied from their voters’ affidavits
5. no copy of the will was on file in the archives division of the Records Management and Archives Office of the
National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA)

On October 17, 2001, the Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation

In his report, the investigating commissioner found respondent guilty of violation of pertinent provisions of the old Notarial Law
as found in the Revised Administrative Code. The violation constituted an infringement of legal ethics, particularly Canon 1 and
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Thus, the investigating commissioner recommended the suspension
of respondent for a period of three months.

The IBP Board of Governors, adopted and approved with modification the recommendation of the investigating commissioner.
Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for one year and his notarial commission is Revoked and Disqualified from
reappointment as Notary Public for two (2) years.

The Court affirmed with modification the decision of the IBP Board of Governors. Respondent was suspended from practice of
law for one year and he is perpetually disqualified from reappointment as a notary public.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the will was void

2. Whether or not the respondent violated the Old Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility

Ruling:

1. Yes. The law provides for certain formalities that must be followed in the execution of wills. The following invalidated the
will: (1) Attested by only two witnesses instead of three witnesses as required by law (2) acknowledgment of the will by the
testator and the witnesses in the presence of the notary public (3) old residence certificate of the testator, and (4) absence of
notation of the residence certificate of the witnesses. As the acknowledging officer of the contested will, respondent was
required to faithfully observe the formalities of a will and those of notarization. These formalities are mandatory and cannot
be disregarded, considering the degree of importance and evidentiary weight attached to notarized documents. A notary
public is bound to strictly observe these requirements.

2. Yes. The respondent violated the following:

a. the Lawyer’s Oath

I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will support the Constitution
and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful
suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer
according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I
impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
 b. Section 20 (a) Rule 138 of the Rules of Court

Duties of attorneys – It is the duty of an attorney: (a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to
support the Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines.

c. Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law of and legal
processes.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

d. Art. 806 of the Civil Code

Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. The notary public shall not
be required to retain a copy of the will, or file another with the office of the Clerk of Court.

e. Section 6 of the Residence Tax Act

When a person liable to the taxes prescribed in this Act acknowledges any document before a notary public xxx it shall
be the duty of such person xxx with whom such transaction is had or business done, to require the exhibition of the
residence certificate showing payment of the residence taxes by such person

f. Section 249 (b) and (f) Old Notarial Law.

Grounds for revocation of commission.

The following derelictions of duty on the part of a notary public shall, in the discretion of the proper judge of first instance,
be sufficient ground for the revocation of his commission:
xxx
(b) The failure of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register touching his notarial acts in the
manner required by law.
xxx
(f) The failure of the notary to make the proper notation regarding cedula certificates.

The Notarial Law then in force required the exhibition of the residence certificate upon notarization of a document or instrument:

Section 251. Requirement as to notation of payment of [cedula] residence tax. – Every contract, deed, or other document
acknowledged before a notary public shall have certified thereon that the parties thereto have presented their proper [cedula]
residence certificate or are exempt from the [cedula] residence tax, and there shall be entered by the notary public as a part of
such certificate the number, place of issue, and date of each [cedula] residence certificate as aforesaid.

In the issuance of a residence certificate, the law seeks to establish the true and correct identity of the person to whom it is issued,
as well as the payment of residence taxes for the current year. By having allowed decedent to exhibit an expired residence
certificate, respondent failed to comply with the requirements of both the old Notarial Law and the Residence Tax Act. As much
could be said of his failure to demand the exhibition of the residence certificates of Noynay and Grajo