Rialubin-Tapucol Law Office

15/05/2026

15/05/2026

⚠️ URGENT NOTICE FROM THE IBP NATIONAL OFFICE ⚠️

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) reminds the public to always verify the credentials of anyone claiming to provide legal services or representing themselves as connected to any court or government agency.

We are officially warning the public regarding an individual using the name "Atty. Allyssa Ann Nordstrome Agustin." Please be informed that this individual is NOT authorized by, employed at, or affiliated with the government and legal offices she claims a connection to.

Protect yourself from unauthorized legal transactions and misrepresentation. Before paying any fees or sharing case details, it is your right to:
✅ Check the official Supreme Court Roll of Attorneys.
✅ Demand to see their Roll Number, IBP Number, and current MCLE compliance.
✅ Contact our National Office or your local IBP Chapter to confirm their standing.

Do not fall victim to individuals refusing to show proper identification. Report suspicious transactions and preserve your evidence.

Contact the IBP to verify legal credentials today:
📞 Helpdesk: 8634-4696 / 8634-4697
📱 Viber: 0919-095-5859
📧 Email: [email protected]

Mag-ingat. Mag-verify. Huwag basta magtiwala sa nagpapakilalang abogado. ⚖️

28/09/2025

SUPREME COURT: NOTARY PUBLIC CAN'T PERFORM NOTARIAL ACT WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF SIGNATORY

| The Supreme Court (SC) has suspended a lawyer for being commissioned as a notary public for six months after he notarized a document without requiring one of the signatories thereto to personally appear before him.

In an 11-page ruling penned by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, the SC's First Division has found Atty. Arnulfo Manigos guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and he was barred from being commissioned as a notary public for six months.

The administrative complaint stemmed from the disbarment cases filed by Macario Mina against Attys. Arnulfo Manigos, Florencio Anchuvas, and Roberto Arca on the ground that they committed falsehood and have intentionally misled the Court.

Mina alleged that Atty. Manigos notarized an instrument without requiring one of the authors thereto to personally appear before him. He claimed that the signatory could not have appeared before Atty. Manigos on the day the document was notarized because the former travelled to the United States.

As regards Atty. Arca and Atty. Anchuvas, Mina contended that they conspired in the notarization of the subject documents. In response, Atty. Manigos admitted that he notarized the document in the absence of the signatory therein. However, he claimed that he notarized the document only after he was convinced by his personal examination of the document that the signatory in fact executed and signed the same.

Meanwhile, Atty. Arca vehemently denied the accusations, and Atty. Anchuvas failed to submit a response on the complaint. In its report and recommendation, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors found Attys. Manigos and Arca liable for violation of Rule 4, Section 2 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (Notarial Rules), but absolved Atty. Anchuvas.

The high court upheld and adopted the findings and conclusion of the IBP Board of Governors with respect to Atty. Manigos. It found that the act of Atty. Manigos notarizing a document even though the signatory thereto did not personally appear before him is a violation of notarial rules.

It cited the 2004 Notarial Rules, which provide that a notary public shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization and (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these rules.

“The requirement of personal appearance is the most effective way of ascertaining the authenticity of the document or instrument presented for notarization because the very person who executed or signed the same personally assures the notary public of their actual participation therein and of the authenticity of their signature,” the Supreme Court said.

On the other hand, as to the complaints against Attys. Arca and Anchuvas, it dismissed the same due to the failure of the complainant to substantiate his claims.

02/05/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that while notarized documents are presumed authentic, they will be invalidated if proven to be fake.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC’s Second Division cleared Gil Chua (Chua) of liability for Interbrand Logistics and Distribution, Inc.’s (Interbrand) unpaid PHP 150 million loan from the Bank of Commerce (Bank).

The loan was secured by promissory notes and notarized Continuing Surety Agreements (CSAs) signed by several of Interbrand’s officers. Chua was listed as one of the sureties, but unlike the other signatories, he was not an officer, director, or shareholder of the company. When Interbrand failed to pay the loans, the Bank sued the company and all the sureties.

Chua denied any involvement, saying he never signed a CSA nor appeared before a notary public. The Bank, however, insisted that the CSA, as a notarized document, is presumed valid.

Emphasizing that notarization does not cure a forged or fabricated document, the SC ruled that the notarized CAS was questionable and that Chua was not bound by it.

The SC found that Chua successfully challenged the validity of the CSA. He consistently denied signing the document or appearing before a notary. He held no position or interest in Interbrand, and the Bank had no specimen of his signature to verify the CSA.

Additionally, his CSA and another were allegedly signed on the same day in far-apart locations but had identical witnesses, which raised doubts as to their authenticity. The notary public who supposedly notarized the CSA was also never presented in court.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/2zz7wmbd.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/5t4dxh45.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

03/04/2025

We are located in front of the SIS (San Ildefonso, Ilocos Sur) Market..