View full case

AZUCENA C. TABAO v. ATTY. ALEXANDER R. LACABA

FACTS:

In this case, Atty. Alexander R. Lacaba was charged with violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice based on a complaint filed by Azucena C. Tabao. The complaint arose from the notarization of a Counter-Affidavit executed by Noel, Paul, Marlin, and Marie. It was alleged that Marlin and Marie did not personally appear before Atty. Lacaba and instead, their mothers and another person signed on their behalf.

Atty. Lacaba defended himself by claiming that he conducted a video call with Marlin and Marie and obtained their authorization for their respective mothers to sign the Counter-Affidavit. He argued that the video call served as a substitute for their personal presence. After conducting an investigation, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Atty. Lacaba guilty of violating certain rules on notarial practice.

The Investigating Commissioner recommended a three-month suspension, revocation of Atty. Lacaba's notarial commission, and a two-year prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public. The findings and recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner were then adopted by the IBP Board of Governors. However, the Board of Governors increased the penalty imposed on Atty. Lacaba.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Lacaba violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice for not complying with the requirements of personal appearance and attestation of the affiants.

  2. Whether Atty. Lacaba violated notarial laws for failing to indicate the document number, page number, book number, and corresponding series year of his notarial register in the Counter-Affidavit.

RULING:

  1. Atty. Lacaba did violate the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice for not complying with the requirements of personal appearance and attestation of the affiants. He also violated notarial laws for failing to indicate the necessary information in the Counter-Affidavit.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice for not complying with the requirements of personal appearance and attestation of the affiants.

  • Violation of notarial laws for failing to indicate the necessary information in the document.