8/10/2019 Buenaventura vs New Bilibid Prison Officials Gr 114829

1/3

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 114829 March 1, 1995

MAXIMINO GAMIDO Y BUENAENTURA, petitioner,vs.NE! BI"IBID PRISONS #NBP$ O%%ICIA"S, respondents.

DAIDE, &R., J.:

In the Resolution of Septe!ber "##$, %e re&uired 'tt(. Icasiano M. dela Rea of No. $)National Road corner *ru+er Subdivision, Putatan, Muntin+lupa, Metro Manila, to sho% cause%h( no disciplinar( action should be taen a+ainst hi! for !ain+ it appear in thejurat of thepetition in this case that the petitioner subscribed the veri-cation and s%ore to before hi!, asnotar( public, on "# 'pril "##$, %hen in truth and in fact the petitioner did not.

In his /planation of )0 Dece!ber "##$ %hich %as received b( this 1ourt on )2 3anuar( "##2,'tt(. Icasiano M. dela Rea ad!itted havin+ e/ecuted the jurat %ithout the presence ofpetitioner 4a!ido. 5e alle+es6

Firstl(, I !ust honestl( ad!it that I notari7ed it not in his presence. I did it in thehonest belief that since it is juratand not an acno%led+e!ent, it %ould bealri+hts 8sic9 to do so considerin+ that prior to 'pril "#, "##$ and thereafter, Ino% Mr. 4a!ido since I have been in and out of Ne% *ilibid Prisons, not onl(because !( o:ce is here onl( across the Municipal *uildin+ of Muntinlupa, MetroManila but because I handled a nu!ber of cases involvin+ prisoners and +uardsof N*P as %ell as so!e of its personnels 8sic9. That in fact, I atte!pted to havethe docu!ent personall( si+ned b( hi! but considerin+ that I have to strictl(observe rules and re+ulations of the N*P, particularl( on visit, I did not pursue

an(!ore !( intention to have it notari7ed before !e.Secondl(, that in notari7in+ the docu!ent, I honestl( feel and b( heart and in +ood

faith, that as a notar( public and as a practicin+ la%(er, I could !odestl(contribute in the orderl( ad!inistration of ;ustice. The 4a!ido fa!il( use toco!e in the o:ce and in fact hirin+ the le+al services of the undersi+ned but Irefused to handle since I a! alread( pre ho%ever, his spontaneous voluntar( ad!ission

8/10/2019 Buenaventura vs New Bilibid Prison Officials Gr 114829

2/3

!a( be considered in !iti+ation of his liabilit(.

's a notar( public for a lon+ ti!e, as evidenced b( the fact that his &uestioned jurat isindicated to have been entered in *oo $2 of his notarial re+ister, he should no% thesi!ilarities and di?erences bet%een ajurat and an acknowledgement.

'jurat %hich is, nor!all( in this for!6

Subscribed and s%orn to before !e in @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@, this @@@@ da( of @@@@@@@@@@@@,

a:ant havin+ e/hibited to !e his 1o!!unit( Abefore, ResidenceB Ta/ 1erti-cateNo. @@@@@@@@@@@@ issued at @@@@@@@@@@@@@@ on @@@@@@@@@@@@.

Cis that part of an a:davit in %hich the o:cer certi-es that the instru!ent %as s%orn to beforehi! ATheobald vs. 1hica+o R(. 1o., 2 Ill. 'pp. )EB. It is not a part of a pleadin+ but !erel(evidences the fact that the a:davit %as properl( !ade Aoun+ vs. Gooden, )H2 SG )$, )$ (.H#$B.C AJORNKO M. T'L'D' and FR'N1IS1O '. RODRI4O, Modern Legal Forms, vol. I, si/thed., "#E2 printin+, 0"B. The jurat in the petition in the case also be+ins %ith the %ordsCsubscribed and s%orn to !e.C

To subscribe literall( !eans to %rite underneath, as one=s na!e> to si+n at the end of adocu!ent A*lac=s Ja% Dictionar(, Fifth ed., ")#B. To swear!eans to put on oath> to declareon oath the truth of a pleadin+, etc. AId., ")#EB. 'ccordin+l(, in ajurat, the a:ant !ust si+n thedocu!ent in the presence of and tae his oath before a notar( public or an( other personauthori7ed to ad!inister oaths.

's to acknowledgment, Section " of Public 'ct No. )"0 provides6

AaB The acno%led+e!ent shall be !ade before a notar( public or an o:cer dul(authori7ed b( la% of the countr( to tae acno%led+!ents of instru!ents ordocu!ents in the place %here the act is done. The notar( public or the o:certain+ the acno%led+!ent shall certif( that the person acno%led+in+ theinstru!ent or docu!ent is no%n to hi! and that he is the sa!e person %hoe/ecuted it, and acno%led+ed that the sa!e is his free act and deed. Thecerti-cate shall be !ade under his o:cial seal, if he is b( la% re&uired to eep aseal, and if not, his certi-cate shall so state. ASee Joren7o M. Taada andFrancisco '. Rodri+o, Modern Philippine Je+al For!s, vol. II, "#H$ Fifth ed., 02B.

It is obvious that the part( acno%led+in+ !ust lie%ise appear before the notar( public or an(other person authori7ed to tae acno%led+!ents of instru!ents or docu!ents.

The clai! or belief of 'tt(. dela Rea that the presence of petitioner 4a!ido %as not necessar(for thejurat because it is not an acno%led+!ent is patentl( baseless. If this had been hisbelief since he %as -rst co!!issioned as a notar( public, then he has been !ain+ a !ocer(of the le+al sole!nit( of an oath in ajurat. Notaries public and others authori7ed b( la% toad!inister oaths or to tae acno%led+!ents should not tae for +ranted the sole!n dutiesappertainin+ to their o:ces. Such duties are dictated b( public polic( and are i!pressed %ithpublic interest.

5is prior ac&uaintance and friendship %ith petitioner 4a!ido provides no e/cuse for non