MILA VIRTUSIO, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. GRENALYN V. VIRTUSIO, Respondent.
A.C. No. 6753; September 5, 2012; ABAD, J.
FACTS:
This administrative case concerns a lawyer who failed to
use the money given by another to fund the checks she
issued as accommodation party in payment for the
property that was purchased by such person and
performed a notarial act without commission.
Mila Virtusio (Mila) filed with this Court a Complaint for
disbarment against against her husband's distant relative,
Atty. Grenalyn V. Virtusio.
Mila alleged that Atty. Virtusio convinced her to buy a
house and lot at North Olympus Subdivision in
Novaliches, Quezon City, from its developer, Stateland
Investment Corporation (Stateland).
Mila agreed for Atty. Virtusio to use her personal checks
in paying the seller with Mila reimbursing her. Under this
arrangement, Mila gave Atty. Virtusio the following
amounts: ₱ 95,000.00, ₱ 25,000.00, ₱ 65,000.00, ₱
64,000.00 and ₱ 64,000.00. All of these were properly
receipted except for the ₱ 95,000.00 for which she got a
receipt from her for only ₱ 90,000.00.
On October 25 and November 24, 1999, Mila deposited
identical amounts of ₱ 64,000.00 each in Atty. Virtusio’s
checking account with Equitable Bank. In all, Mila gave
her ₱ 441,000.00.
To her surprise, however, Mila began receiving letters
from Stateland, demanding that she make good the
dishonored checks that it got. When she confronted Atty.
Virtusio regarding this, the latter assured her that she
would take care of the problem. But the demand letters
persisted.
For fear of losing the property, Mila directly dealt with
Stateland. In order not to lose the property, Mila and her
husband decided to settle their overdue obligation with
money they borrowed at high interest. In turn, Stateland
turned over to her three checks of Atty. Virtusio, each for
₱ 71,944.97, with the notation "DAIF."
Mila further alleged that Atty. Virtusio declined to return
to her the money the latter misappropriated despite
demand.
Only when Mila threatened to file a case against her did
Atty. Virtusio agree to pay her by executing a deed of sale
in her favor covering her Mazda car. When she refused to
give up the car, Mila filed a replevin case against Atty.
Virtusio that the court eventually decided in Mila’s favor.
But, as it turned out, Atty. Virtusio had managed to
register the car in her children’s name and sold it to a third
person. Mila filed a case of estafa against Atty. Virtusio
apart from the present disbarment case.
Mila claimed that Atty. Virtusio evaded the return of
money she misappropriated, impeded the execution of a
final judgment, and engaged in conduct that discredits the
legal profession, all in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, rendering her unfit to remain
a member of the bar.
The Court required Atty. Virtusio to comment on the
complaint. She asked for extension of time to comply but
did not file her comment just the same.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner directed Atty.
Virtusio to file a position paper. She filed a motion for
extension of time to file the same but did not.
IBP Investigating Commissioner reported having found
that Atty. Virtusio appropriated portions of the money
that Mila gave her for payment to Stateland, thus
evidencing her moral unfitness to practice the profession.
The Commissioner recommended the imposition of the
penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law
with a two-year disqualification from reappointment as
Notary Public, given that she had notarized documents
despite the expiration of her notarial commission. The
IBP Board of Governors approved the report and
recommendation.
Atty. Virtusio filed a motion for reconsideration of the
IBP Investigating Commissioner’s action. She prayed that
her attached position paper be admitted and considered in
resolving her motion for reconsideration.
In her version of the facts, Atty. Virtusio wants to
convince the Court that she committed no intentional
wrongs and that she was but a victim of circumstances.
Although she admitted using Mila’s money rather than
pay Stateland with it, she explained that, having been busy
attending to her sick son in Manila, she failed to monitor
her check disbursements, entrusting it to an office staff.
Atty. Virtusio averred that she and Mila entered into a
verbal agreement whereby she would pay her in exchange
for Mila’s dismissal of all her actions. Notwithstanding
that the compromise agreement had not been formalized,
Atty. Virtusio claimed that it obliterated her liabilities,
given that she substantially settled her obligations to Mila.
Atty. Virtusio also pointed out, that the charges against
her were not born of some professional relation between
Mila and her. She had acted as an accommodation party,
allowing Mila to make use of her personal checks to
facilitate the purchase of a property from Stateland. And,
assuming that the predicament she finds herself in has a
bearing on her professional conduct, the same does not
amount to grossly immoral conduct since she owned up
to her responsibilities and exerted tireless effort to settle
her accounts.
Further, Atty. Virtusio claimed that she should not be
penalized for violation of the notarial law since this
offense did not form part of the original complaint to
which she was required to respond. At any rate, she
merely committed an oversight.
She had religiously renewed her notarial commission
yearly since May 1995. When she notarized the
questioned documents, she believed in good faith that she
had renewed her notarial commission for 2006 and 2007
just as before. She asked not to be punished for her
mistake since it was brought about by her sincere
commitment to extend free legal service to the
disadvantaged.
Lastly, Atty. Virtusio asked the Court to reconsider the
harsh penalty imposed on her in the light of the peculiar
circumstances of her case and the good faith she showed.
IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution denying the
motion despite an affidavit of desistance that Mila filed in
the meantime.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the IBP erred in finding Atty. Virtusio
guilty of grave misconduct in her dealings with Mila and
in notarizing documents without a renewed commission –
NO.
2. Assuming Atty. Virtusio was guilty of some offenses,
whether or not the IBP imposed the appropriate penalties
on her. – YES.
RULING:
Lawyers are, as officers of the court and instruments for
the administration of justice, expected to maintain not
only legal proficiency but also a high standard of
morality, honesty, and fair dealing. A lawyer’s gross
misconduct, whether in his professional or private
capacity, is ground for suspension or disbarment under
the principle that, since good moral character is an
essential qualification for the admission to the practice of
law, maintaining such trait is a condition for keeping the
privilege.31
By her own account, Atty. Virtusio admitted misusing the
money that Mila entrusted to her for payment to Stateland.
Her excuse is that she lost track of her finances and mixed
up her office funds with her personal funds. But this
excuse is too thin. She admitted misusing ₱ 165,000.00 of
Mila’s money, which is not petty cash. Indeed she tried to
borrow money from a third person to cover it up rather
than just offer her shallow excuse to Mila. Atty. Virtusio’s
use for personal purpose of money entrusted to her
constitutes dishonest and deceitful conduct under the
Code of Professional Responsibility. It provides:
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 — A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES
UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE
LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall
he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Atty. Virtusio cannot absolve herself of liability by
claiming that she failed to attend to her finances because
she had to look after a sick child at that time. Assuming
she had such a child, the fact is that it was not by mere
oversight that she failed to finance the checks for
Stateland.
For, if this were so, she could have easily rectified her
mistake by using her other funds. In truth, she spent the
money that Mila entrusted to her because she had no other
funds. Indeed, she had to borrow money from a third party
later to remedy her financial problems.
What is more, supposedly to cover up for her fault, Atty.
Virtusio executed a deed of sale covering her car in Mila’s
favor rather than return the money she defalcated. But,
again acting with guile, she withheld possession of the car
and transferred its registration in the name of her children.
Atty. Virtusio is guilty by her above acts of gross
misconduct that warrants her suspension for one year
from the practice of law following Section 27, Rule 138
of the Rules of Court.
CONNECTED TO THE TOPIC

The Court cannot also countenance Atty. Virtusio’s

notarization of documents after her notarial commission
had expired. Although the IBP discovered this violation
of the notarial law only in the course of the proceedings
and was not a subject matter of Mila’s complaint, it cannot
close its eyes to the same. Besides, Atty. Virtusio had an
opportunity to defend herself against this additional
charge. Her defense is that she thought that she had
renewed her commission.

Again, Atty. Virtusio’s defense is unsubstantial. She did

not renew her notarial commission for two years, 2006
and 2007, not just one. She could not have missed that fact
considering that, as she said, she had been renewing her
commission yearly from 1995 to 2005.

A lawyer who notarizes a document without a proper

commission violates his lawyer’s oath to obey the
law.1âwphi1 He makes it appear that he is commissioned
when he is not. He thus indulges in deliberate falsehood
that the lawyer’s oath forbids. This violation falls
squarely under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Canon 7 as well. A
proper sanction is authorized.

Considering, however, that based on the evidence Atty.

Virtusio had notarized only two documents without a
proper notarial commission, the Court finds her
suspension from notarial practice for one year adequate.

That Mila had agreed after some financial settlement to

withdraw her complaint against Atty. Virtusio cannot
exempt the latter from the prescribed sanction. She has
outraged the country’s professional code and this
demands a measure of justice. As the Court said in
Spouses Soriano v. Atty. Reyes, disbarment is a
disciplinary action taken for the public good.
Consequently, it is as a rule not subject to some
compromise entered into with the complainant. Besides,
Mila's evidence is already a matter of record and the Court
cannot simply ignore the same.

WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS Atty. Grenalyn V.

Virtusio GUILTY of gross misconduct and violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility
and IMPOSES on her the penalty
of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for one year,
effective immediately. In addition, the
Court REVOKES any Notarial Commission she may
presently have and DISQUALIFIES her from applying
for it for one year also effective immediately. Further, she
is WARNED of a more severe penalty should she
commit a similar infraction in the future.
NOTARIAL JURISDICTION
BELLA A. GUERRERO, PETITIONER, VS.
RESURRECCION A. BIHIS, RESPONDENT.
G.R. NO. 174144, April 17, 2007; CORONA, J
The Scriptures tell the story of the brothers Jacob and
Esau, siblings who fought bitterly over the inheritance of
their father Isaac's estate. Jurisprudence is also replete
with cases involving acrimonious conflicts between
brothers and sisters over successional rights. This case is
no exception.
FACTS:
On February 19, 1994, Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura,
mother of petitioner Bella A. Guerrero and respondent
Resurreccion A. Bihis, died at the Metropolitan Hospital
in Tondo, Manila.
Petitioner filed a petition for the probate of the last will
and testament of the decedent in Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City . jurisdiction did not affect the validity of the notarial will.
The petition alleged the following: petitioner was named
as executrix in the decedent's will and she was legally
qualified to act as such; the decedent was a citizen of the
Philippines at the time of her death; at the time of the
execution of the will, the testatrix was 79 years old, of
sound and disposing mind, not acting under duress, fraud
or undue influence and was capacitated to dispose of her
estate by will.
Respondent opposed her elder sister's petition on the
following grounds: the will was not executed and attested
as required by law; its attestation clause and
acknowledgment did not comply with the requirements of
the law; the signature of the testatrix was procured by
fraud and petitioner and her children procured the will
through undue and improper pressure and influence.
In an order, the trial court appointed petitioner as special
administratrix of the decedent's estate. Respondent
opposed petitioner's appointment but subsequently
withdrew her opposition. Petitioner took her oath as
temporary special administratrix and letters of special
administration were issued to her.
On January 17, 2000, after petitioner presented her
evidence, respondent filed a demurrer thereto alleging
that petitioner's evidence failed to establish that the
decedent's will complied with Articles 804 and 805 of the
Civil Code.
In a resolution dated July 6, 2001, the trial court denied
the probate of the will ruling that Article 806 of the Civil
Code was not complied with because the will was
"acknowledged" by the testatrix and the witnesses at the
testatrix's, residence at No. 40 Kanlaon Street, Quezon
City before Atty. Macario O. Directo who was a
commissioned notary public for and in Caloocan City.
Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals but
the appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the
resolution of the trial court. Thus, this petition.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Petitioner admits that the will was acknowledged by the
testatrix and the witnesses at the testatrix's residence in
Quezon City before Atty. Directo and that, at that time,
Atty. Directo was a commissioned notary public for and
in Caloocan City. She, however, asserts that the fact that
the notary public was acting outside his territorial
Did the will "acknowledged" by the testatrix and the
instrumental witnesses before a notary public acting
outside the place of his commission satisfy the
requirement under Article 806 of the Civil Code? It did
not.
Article 806 of the Civil Code provides:
ART. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a
notary public by the testator and the witnesses. 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.
One of the formalities required by law in connection with
the execution of a notarial will is that it must be
acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and
the witnesses.[6] This formal requirement is one of the
indispensable requisites for the validity of a will.[7] In
other words, a notarial will that is not acknowledged
before a notary public by the testator and the instrumental
witnesses is void and cannot be accepted for probate.
An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a
deed in going before some competent officer and
declaring it to be his act or deed.[8] In the case of a
notarial will, that competent officer is the notary public.
The acknowledgment of a notarial will coerces the
testator and the instrumental witnesses to declare before
an officer of the law, the notary public, that they executed
and subscribed to the will as their own free act or deed.[9]
Such declaration is under oath and under pain of perjury,
thus paving the way for the criminal prosecution of
persons who participate in the execution of spurious wills,
or those executed without the free consent of the
testator.[10] It also provides a further degree of assurance
that the testator is of a certain mindset in making the
testamentary dispositions to the persons instituted as heirs
or designated as devisees or legatees in the will.[11]
Acknowledgment can only be made before a competent
officer, that is, a lawyer duly commissioned as a notary
public.
In this connection, the relevant provisions of the Notarial
Law provide:
SECTION 237. Form of commission for notary public. -
The appointment of a notary public shall be in writing,
signed by the judge, and substantially in the following
form:
GOVERNMENT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
PROVINCE OF ___________
This is to certify that ____________, of the municipality
of ________ in said province, was on the ___ day of
__________, anno Domini nineteen hundred and
_______, appointed by me a notary public, within and for
the said province, for the term ending on the first day of
January, anno Domini nineteen hundred and _____.
_________________
Judge of the Court of First Instance[12] of said Province
xxx xxx xxx
SECTION 240. Territorial jurisdiction. - The jurisdiction
of a notary public in a province shall be co-extensive with
the province. The jurisdiction of a notary public in the
City of Manila shall be co-extensive with said city. No
notary shall possess authority to do any notarial act
beyond the limits of his jurisdiction. (emphases supplied)
A notary public's commission is the grant of authority in
his favor to perform notarial acts.[13] It is issued "within
and for" a particular territorial jurisdiction and the notary
public's authority is co-extensive with it. In other words,
a notary public is authorized to perform notarial acts,
including the taking of acknowledgments, within that
territorial jurisdiction only. Outside the place of his
commission, he is bereft of power to perform any notarial
act; he is not a notary public. Any notarial act outside the
limits of his jurisdiction has no force and effect. As this
Court categorically pronounced in Tecson v. Tecson:[14]
An acknowledgment taken outside the territorial limits of
the officer's jurisdiction is void as if the person taking it
ware wholly without official character. (emphasis
supplied)
Since Atty. Directo was not a commissioned notary public
for and in Quezon City, he lacked the authority to take the
acknowledgment of the testatrix and the instrumental
witnesses. In the same vein, the testatrix and her witnesses
could not have validly acknowledged the will before him.
Thus, Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura's last will and
testament was, in effect, not acknowledged as required by
law.
Moreover, Article 5 of the Civil Code provides:
ART. 5. Acts executed against the provisions of
mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when
the law itself authorizes their validity.
The violation of a mandatory or a prohibitory statute
renders the act illegal and void unless the law itself
declares its continuing validity. Here, mandatory and
prohibitory statutes were transgressed in the execution of
the alleged "acknowledgment." The compulsory language
of Article 806 of the Civil Code was not complied with
and the interdiction of Article 240 of the Notarial Law
was breached. Ineluctably, the acts of the testatrix, her
witnesses and Atty. Directo were all completely void.
The Court cannot turn a blind eye to Atty. Directo's
participation in the preparation, execution and unlawful
"acknowledgment" of Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura's
will. Had he exercised his notarial commission properly,
the intent of the law to effectuate the decedent's final
statements[15] as expressed in her will would not have
come to naught.[16] Hence, Atty. Directo should show
cause why he should not be administratively sanctioned
as a member of the bar and as an officer of the court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
RE: VIOLATION OF RULES ON NOTARIAL
PRACTICE
A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC, January 21, 2015; MENDOZA, J.
FACTS:
This case stemmed from three (3) letter-complaints for
Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice endorsed to the
Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for appropriate action.
The first letter-complaint, was filed by the commissioned
notaries public within and for the jurisdiction of
Lingayen, Pangasinan, namely, Atty. Butch Cardinal
Torio, Atty. Nepthalie Pasiliao, Atty. Dominique
Evangelista, and Atty. Elizabeth C. Tugade
(complainants) before the Executive Judge of the
Regional Trial Court, Lingayen, Pangasinan (RTC-
Lingayen) against Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. (Atty. Siapno)
for notarizing documents without a commission.
In their letter, complainants alleged that Atty. Siapno was
maintaining a notarial office along Alvear Street East,
Lingayen, Pangasinan, and was performing notarial acts
and practices in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City
without the requisite notarial commission.
They asserted that Atty. Siapno was never commissioned
as Notary Public for and within the jurisdiction of
Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City. Instead, he
applied and was commissioned to perform notarial
functions by Executive Judge Anthony Sison of the RTC,
San Carlos City, Pangasinan from March 22, 2007 to
December 31, 2008.
His notarial commission, however, was never renewed
upon expiration. Complainants presented evidence
supporting their allegations such as the pictures of Atty.
Siapno’s law office in Lingayen, Pangasinan; and
documents to prove that Atty. Siapno performed acts of
notarization in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City, to
wit: (1) Addendum to Loan and Mortgage Agreement
showing that the Promissory Note was notarized before
Atty. Siapno in Lingayen, Pangasinan in 2007; (2) Deed
of Absolute Sale, dated January 24, 2008, notarized in
Natividad, Pangasinan; (3) Joint Affidavit of Two
Disinterested Persons Re: Given Name and Date of
Birth, dated January 6, 2009, notarized in Dagupan City;
and (4) Acknowledgement of Debt,dated January 24,
2008, notarized in Dagupan City.
Complainants also averred that Atty. Siapno had
delegated his notarial authority to his secretaries, Mina
Bautista (Bautista) and Mary Ann Arenas (Arenas), who
wrote legal instruments and signed the documents on his
behalf.
RTC-Lingayen forwarded the said letter-complaint to the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) which, in turn,
indorsed the same to the OBC.
The second letter-complaint was filed by Audy B.
Espelita (Espelita) against Atty. Pedro L. Santos (Atty.
Santos). It alleged that Espelita lost his driver’s license
and he executed an affidavit of loss which was notarized
by Atty. Santos. The said affidavit, however, was denied
for authentication when presented before the Notarial
Section in Manila because Atty. Santos was not
commissioned to perform notarial commission within the
City of Manila.
The third letter-complaint came from a concerned citizen
reporting that a certain Atty. Evelyn who was holding
office at Dasmariñas Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila, had been
notarizing and signing documents for and on behalf of
several lawyers.
In its Resolution, the Court directed the Executive Judge
of the RTC-Lingayen to conduct a formal investigation on
the complaint against Atty. Siapno and Executive Judge
Reynaldo G. Ros (Judge Ros) of the RTC-Manila to
conduct a formal investigation on the alleged violation of
the Notarial Law by Atty. Santos, and the illegal activities
of a certain Atty. Evelyn, and thereafter, to submit a report
and recommendation thereon.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Re: Complaint against Atty. Siapno
For his part, Atty. Siapno denied the accusations and
averred that the law office in Lingayen, Pangasinan, was
not his and that Bautista and Arenas were not his
secretaries.
In her Report and Recommendation, the Executive Judge
found that Atty. Siapno was issued a notarial commission
within the jurisdiction of Lingayen, Pangasinan, from
January 20, 2003 to December 31, 2004 and February 8,
2005 to December 3, 2006. His commission, however,
was cancelled on June 8, 2006 and he was not issued
another commission thereafter. The Executive Judge
found Atty. Siapno to have violated the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Commission when he performed notarial
functions without commission and recommended that he
be fined in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00).
The Court agrees with the findings of the Executive Judge
but not to the recommended penalty.
A review of the records and evidence presented by
complainants shows that Atty. Siapno indeed maintained
a law office in Lingayen, Pangasinan, just beside the law
office of one of the complainants, Atty. Elizabeth Tugade.
It was also proven that Atty. Siapno notarized several
instruments with an expired notarial commission outside
the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court.
Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
provides that:
Jurisdiction and Term – A person commissioned
as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place
within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning
court for a period of two (2) years commencing the first
day of January of the year in which the commissioning is
made, unless earlier revoked or the notary public has
resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.
Under the rule, only persons who are commissioned as
notary public may perform notarial acts within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court which granted the
commission. Clearly, Atty. Siapno could not perform
notarial functions in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan
City of the Province of Pangasinan since he was not
commissioned in the said places to perform such act.
This Court has stressed that notarization is not an empty,
meaningless and routine act. It is invested with
substantive public interest that only those who are
qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.
It must be emphasized that the act of notarization by a
notary public converts a private document into a public
document making that document admissible in evidence
without further proof of authenticity.
A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and
credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries public
must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in
the performance of their duties.
By performing notarial acts without the necessary
commission from the court, Atty. Siapno violated not only
his oath to obey the laws particularly the Rules on
Notarial Practice but also Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which proscribes all lawyers
from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct and directs them to uphold the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession, at all times.13
In a plethora of cases, the Court has subjected lawyers to
disciplinary action for notarizing documents outside their
territorial jurisdiction or with an expired commission. In
the case of Nunga v. Viray, a lawyer was suspended by
the Court for three (3) years for notarizing an instrument
without a commission. In Zoreta v. Simpliciano, the
respondent was likewise suspended from the practice of
law for a period of two (2) years and was permanently
barred from being commissioned as a notary public for
notarizing several documents after the expiration of his
commission. In the more recent case of Laquindanum v.
Quintana, the Court suspended a lawyer for six (6)
months and was disqualified from being commissioned as
notary public for a period of two (2) years because he
notarized documents outside the area of his commission,
and with an expired commission.
Considering that Atty. Siapno has been proven to have
performed notarial work in Ligayen, Natividad and
Dagupan City in the province of Pangasinan without the
requisite commission, the Court finds the recommended
penalty insufficient. Instead, Atty. Siapno must be barred
from being commissioned as notary public permanently
and suspended from the practice of law for a period of two
(2) years.
Re: Complaints against Atty. Santos and Atty. Evelyn
In a letter,17 dated July 29, 2013, Judge Ros informed the
Court that he could not have complied with the June 9,
2009 and August 4, 2009 orders of the Court because he
was no longer the Executive Judge of the RTC-Manila at
that time. To date, no formal investigation has been
conducted on the alleged violation of Atty. Santos and the
reported illegal activities of a certain Atty. Evelyn.
With respect to the complaints against Atty. Santos and a
certain Atty. Evelyn, the Clerk of Court is ordered to RE-
DOCKET the same as separate administrative cases.
The incumbent Executive Judge of the RTC-Manila,
whether permanent or in acting capacity, is ordered to
conduct a formal investigation on the matter and to submit
his Report and Recommendation within sixty (60) days
from receipt of copy of this decision.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two
(2) years and BARRED PERMANENTLY from being
commissioned as Notary Public, effective upon his receipt
of a copy of this decision.