MAXIMINO GAMIDO Y BUENAVENTURA, petitioner, vs. NEW BILIBID PRISONS (NBP) OFFICIALS, respondents.
G.R. No. 114829, 1 March 1995.
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
The Supreme court required Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for making it appear in the jurat of the petition in this case that petitioner Gambino subscribed the verification when in truth and in fact the petitioner did not.
In his explanation, Atty. dela Rea admitted having executed the jurat without the presence of petitioner, who was imprisoned in the New Bilibid Prisons at the time of notarization.
He said he did it in the honest belief that since it is jurat and not an acknowledgement, it would be alright to notarize without the petitioner’s presence since he knew the latter.
ISSUE: W/N executing a jurat without the presence of the person swearing is proper.
A jurat is that part of an affidavit in which the officer certifies that the instrument was subscribed and sworn to before him.
Accordingly, in a jurat, the affiant must sign the document in the presence of and take his oath before a notary public or any other person authorized to administer oaths.
An acknowledgment, on the other hand, shall be made before a notary public in which the notary public shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed.
It is obvious that the party acknowledging must likewise appear before the notary public or any other person authorized to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents.
The claim or belief of Atty. dela Rea that the presence of petitioner was not necessary for the jurat because it is not an acknowledgment is patently baseless.
His prior acquaintance and friendship with petitioner provides no excuse for non-compliance with his duty. If Atty. dela Rea were faithful to his duty as a notary public and if he wanted to accommodate a friend who was inside a prison, he could have gone to the latter's cell.
Thus, Atty. dela Rea committed grave misconduct when he agreed to prepare the jurat in the petition in this case in the absence of petitioner, making it appear that the latter personally signed the certification of the petition and took his oath before him when in truth and in fact the said petitioner did not.