Complainant Manuel L. Lee Respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago

Eloise
CASE 51
LEE V. TAMBAGO (A.C. No. 5281, February 12, 2008)
TOPIC: DUTY TO UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM; SPECIAL ROLE OF THE NOTARY PUBLIC
FACTS:
1. Complainant Manuel L. Lee charged respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago with violation of the Notarial
Law and the ethics of the legal profession for notarizing an allegedly spurious last will and testament
containing forged signatures of complainant’s father, the decedent, Vicente Lee Sr. and two other witnesses.
2. In the said will, the 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.
3. Summary of averments of complainant:
a. The will was purportedly executed and acknowledged before respondent on June 30, 1965.
Complainant, however, pointed out that the residence certificate of the testator noted in the
acknowledgment of the will was dated January 5, 1962.
b. Furthermore, the signature of the testator was not the same as his signature as donor in a deed of
donation which supposedly contained his purported signature.
c. Complainant further asserted that no copy of such purported 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).
4. Court referred the case to the IBP. IBP-Board of Governors suspended respondent from the practice of law
for one year and revoked his notarial commission and disqualified him from reappointment as Notary
Public for two (2) years.
ISSUE: Whether the lapses in the subject will justify the administrative sanctions upon respondent.
RULING: YES. The law provides for certain formalities that must be followed in the execution of wills. The object of
solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door on bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of
wills and testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity. A notarial will, as the contested will in this
case, is required by law to be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself. It should be attested
and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. The
will in question was attested by only two witnesses. On this circumstance alone, the will must be
considered void. The Civil Code likewise requires that a will must be acknowledged before a notary public by
the testator and the witnesses.
A cursory examination of the acknowledgment of the will in question shows that there was conspicuous absence
of a notation of the residence certificates of the notarial witnesses in the acknowledgment. Similarly, the
notation of the testator’s old residence certificate in the same acknowledgment was a clear breach of the
law. These omissions by respondent invalidated the will. The Notarial Law is explicit that notaries public are
required to certify that the party to every document acknowledged before him had presented the proper residence
certificate (or exemption from the residence tax); and to enter its number, place of issue and date as part of such
certification. 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.
Respondent’s failure, inadvertent or not, to file in the archives division a copy of the notarized will was NOT a
cause for disciplinary action pursuant to Art. 806, NCC: “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.” Nevertheless, respondent should be faulted for having
failed to make the necessary entries pertaining to the will in his notarial register. These gross violations of the law
also made respondent liable for violation of his oath as a lawyer and constituted transgressions of Section 20 (a),
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR. Respondent, as notary public, evidently failed
in the performance of the elementary duties of his office.
VERDICT: Atty. Regino B. Tambago is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year and his notarial
commission REVOKED. Because he has not lived up to the trustworthiness expected of him as a notary public and
as an officer of the court, he is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary public.

Complainant Manuel L. Lee Respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complainant Manuel L. Lee Respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complainant Manuel L. Lee Respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eloise

You might also like