8/10/2019 AC4578 VICTOR NUNGA, complainant, vs. ATTY. VENANCIO VIRAY, respondent.

1/2

[A.C. No. 4758. April 30, 1999] VICTOR NUNGA, complainant, vs.ATTY. VENANCIO

VIRAY, respondent. R E S O U T I O N !AVI!E, "R., C.J.#

In his complaint, Victor Nunga seeks the disbarment of respondent VenancioViray on the groundof grave misconduct for notarizing documents without a commission to do so. After issues were joined,the Integrated ar of the !hilippines conducted an investigation.

"he Investigating #ommissioner was Atty. $ydia A. Navarro. %eport dated & August '(() readsas follows*

Victor +. Nunga, president of the asantol %ural ank filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty.Venancio . Viray on the ground of gross and serious misconduct for notarizing documents when hewas not commissioned to do so at the time the said documents were e-ecuted.

#omplainant alleged that in ay '((, he was appointed by the board of directors of asantol %uralank after his father/s resignation as its president.

A few month01 thereafter, he allegedly discovered that one of the bank/s assets consisting of 234 s5uaremeters house and lot in 6alookan #ity was sold without proper bidding by its manager 7esus .anansala to 7esus #arlo 8erard . Viray, a minor born 9ebruary 2, '(( during the transaction onay 22, '():. "he deed of absolute sale was notarized by the respondent who is not only the father ofthe buyer minor but also a stockholder and legal counsel of the vendor bank and was not dulycommissioned as notary public as of that date.

#omplainant further alleged that the said minor vendee wasn/t capable to buy the said property at itsvalue of 9;

8/10/2019 AC4578 VICTOR NUNGA, complainant, vs. ATTY. VENANCIO VIRAY, respondent.

2/2

of their duties. @aligsa v. #abanting, 2:2 ?#%A &4), &'B 0'((:1D Arrieta v. $losa, 2)2 ?#%A 2&), 232F23B 0'((:1.

Ghere the notarization of a document is done by a member of the !hilippine ar at a time whenhe has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinaryaction. 9or one, performing a notarial without such commission is a violation of the lawyer/s oath toobey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial $aw. "hen, too, by making it appear that he is dulycommissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberatefalsehood, which the lawyer/s oath similarly proscribes. "hese violations fall s5uarely within theprohibition of %ule '.4' of #anon ' of the #ode of !rofessional %esponsibility, which provides* HAlawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

y such misconduct as a notary public, the lawyer likewise violates #anon : of the same #ode,which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legalprofession. >laborating on this, we said in Maligsa v. Cabanting@supra*

A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, tothe courts and to his clients. "o this end a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing anyact which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity,honesty and integrity of the legal profession. @#iting arcelo v. 7avier, 2'& ?#%A ' 0'((21.

Ghat aggravated respondent/s unlawful notarization in '(): was the fact that the transactioninvolved was in favor of his son, who was then only eighteen years old and, therefore, a minor.