Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the undersigned Commissioner finds respondent Atty. Aristedes A. Maramot to have violated the Notarial Law, his act having undermined the confidence of the public on notarial documents; and, respectfully recommends his suspension from notarial practice for a period of one (1) year while the other complaints against him are recommended dismissed for lack of merit.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the undersigned Commissioner finds respondent Atty. Aristedes A. Maramot to have violated the Notarial Law, his act having undermined the confidence of the public on notarial documents; and, respectfully recommends his suspension from notarial practice for a period of one (1) year while the other complaints against him are recommended dismissed for lack of merit. [12] In his motion for reconsideration, [13] the respondent submitted that he did not employ any falsity because it was only Margarita - the donor - who had in fact attested to the execution of the deed of donation in the notarial acknowledgement of the deed of donation; that it was inconsequential even if Princess Anne had signed the deed of donation not in his presence; that in conveyances, only the person encumbering or conveying needed to personally appear, sign and acknowledge the deed before the notary public; and that Princess Anne and Mommayda's names were placed in the document merely for them to accept the donation. The respondent pleads for the mitigation of his liability considering that he has exhibited candor in admitting his offense. He represents that his act was not gross enough as to justify suspension; that the complainant had thereby suffered no damage, but had actually benefitted from the act; that he had notarized in good faith; and that with this offense being his first in his 12 years as a law practitioner and as notary public, humanitarian considerations should be considered in his favor because he had children to support and had been his family's sole bread winner. In her comment on the respondent's motion for reconsideration, [14] Majorie avers that Princess Anne could not have signed the instrument in Manila because her daughter was then studying in Victoria, Oriental Mindoro. In Resolution No. XVII-2008-337 dated July 17, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendations of the Commission on Bar Discipline, but modified the penalty by recommending the immediate revocation of the respondent's notarial commission and his disqualification from reappointment as a notary for two years, thus: [15] RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and for Respondent's violation of the Notarial Law, Atty. Aristedes Maramot is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year, immediate Revocation of his Notarial Commission if presently Commissioned and Disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for Two (2) years . [16] The IBP Board of Governors denied the respondent's motion for reconsideration through Resolution No. XIX-2011-424 dated June 26, 2011, [17] thus: RESOLVED
A.C. No. 10450 - EMERITA B. MAHILUM, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. SAMUEL SM. LEZAMA.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
A.C. No. 10450
CaseA.C. No. 12709 - LILIA YUSAY-CORDERO,COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JUANITO AMIHAN, JR..
A.C. No. 12709
CaseA.C. No. 7073 - FIRE OFFICER I DARWIN S. SAPPAYANI, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. RENATO G. GASMEN.
A.C. No. 7073