7/17/2019 Ang v. Gupana

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ang-v-gupana 1/3

CARLITO ANG, Complainant,

vs.

ATTY. JAMES JOSEPH GUPANA, Respondent.

(left to staff again

(E!t"a#J$%i&ial Pa"tition of lot The case stemmed from

an affidavit-complaint3 filed by complainant Carlito Ang

against respondent. Ang alleged that he and the other

heirs of the late Candelaria Magpayo, namely

Purificacion iamante and !illiam Magpayo, e"ecuted

an #"tra-$udicial eclaration of %eirs and

Partition& involving a lot. %e 'as given his share of (,))3

s*uare meters, together 'ith all the improvements

thereon.+ Ho'ee", ')en )e t"ie% to se&$"e a TCT in

)is na*e, )e fo$n% o$t t)at sai% TCT No. (T#++-#

/00 )a% al"ea%1 2een &an&elle% an% in lie$ t)e"eof,

ne' TCTs/  )a% 2een iss$e% in t)e na*es of 3illia*

Mag4a1o, Antonio 5ia*ante, Pat"i&ia 5ia*ante,

Lolita 5. Can6$e, G"ego"io 5ia*ante, J". an% 7e 5.

Monte"o.

(THE REGISTER SHO3E5 AN A77I5A8IT INSTEA5

O7 A 5EE5 O7 A9SOLUTE SALE Ang allege% t)at

t)e"e is "easona2le g"o$n% to 2eliee t)at

"es4on%ent )a% a %i"e&t 4a"ti&i4ation in t)e

&o**ission of fo"ge"ies an% falsifi&ations 2e&a$se

)e 'as t)e one ')o 4"e4a"e% an% nota"i:e% t)e

Affi%ait of Loss;  an% 5ee% of A2sol$te Sale<  t)at le%

to t)e t"ansfe" an% iss$an&e of t)e ne' TCTs. Ang

pointed out that the eed of Absolute ale 'hich 'as

allegedly e"ecuted by Candelaria Magpayo on April ,

/0/, 'as antedated and Candelaria Magpayo1s

signature 'as forged as clearly sho'n by the

Certification/ issued by the 2ffice of the Cler of Court of

the Regional Trial Court 4RTC5 of Cebu. 7$"t)e", t)e

&e"tifie% t"$e &o41 of 4age 0;, 9oo= No. >II, Se"ies of

?< of "es4on%ent@s Nota"ial Re4o"t in%$2ita2l1

s)o'e% t)at 5o&. No. ?<? %i% not "efe" to t)e 5ee% of

A2sol$te Sale, 2$t to an affi%ait.?- As to the Affi%ait

of Loss, 'hich 'as allegedly e"ecuted by the late

Candelaria Magpayo on April (/, //&, it &o$l% not )ae

2een e!e&$te% 21 )e" as s)e 5ie%??  t)"ee 1ea"s 4"io"

to t)e e!e&$tion of t)e sai% affi%ait of loss.

6n his Comment,& respondent denied any 'rongdoing

and argued that Ang is *e"el1 $sing t)e 4"esent

a%*inist"atie &o*4laint as a tool to fo"&e t)e

%efen%ants in a 4en%ing &iil &ase an% t)ei" &o$nsel,

)e"ein "es4on%ent, to a&&e%e to )is 'is)es.

6nvestigating Commissioner 7ydia A. 8avarro of the 69P

Commission on 9ar iscipline, submitted her Report and

Recommendation+ fin%ing "es4on%ent

a%*inist"atiel1 lia2le. he recommended that

respondent be suspended from the practice of la' for

three months. The 6nvestigating Commissioner

a%%itionall1 fo$n% t)at "es4on%ent %elegate% t)e

nota"ial f$n&tions to t)e &le"i&al staff of t)ei" offi&e

7/17/2019 Ang v. Gupana

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ang-v-gupana 2/3

2efo"e 2eing 2"o$g)t to )i* fo" )is signat$"e.: This,

according to the commissioner, :must have been the

reason for the forged signatures of the parties in the

*uestioned document;as 'ell as the erroneous entry in

his notarial register;.: As s$&) nota"1 4$2li&

"es4on%ent s)o$l% not %elegate to an1 $n6$alifie%

4e"son t)e 4e"fo"*an&e of an1 tas= ')i&) 21 la'

*a1 onl1 2e 4e"fo"*e% 21 a *e*2e" of t)e 2a" in

a&&o"%an&e 'it) R$le .-??;  of t)e Co%e of

P"ofessional Res4onsi2ilit1. ?<

the 9oard of <overnors of the 69P issued Resolution

adopting the findings of the 6nvestigating Commissioner

but modifying the recommended penalty.

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration

the 69P 9oard of <overnors denied.

!e affirm the resolution of the 69P 9oard of <overnors

finding respondent administratively liable.

4PARTY 5I5 NOT APPEAR5 %o'ever, the Court findsrespondent administratively liable for violation of his

notarial duties 'hen he failed to re*uire the personal

presence of Candelaria Magpayo 'hen he notari=ed the

 Affidavit of 7oss 'hich Candelaria allegedly e"ecuted on

 April (/, //&. ection of Public Act 8o. ()3,

other'ise no'n as the 8otarial 7a'.

>rom the foregoing, it is clear that the party

acno'ledging must appear before the notary public or

any other person authori=ed to tae acno'ledgments of

instruments or documents.(3 6n the case at bar, the $urat

of the Affidavit of 7oss stated that Candelaria subscribed

to the affidavit before respondent on April (/, //&, at

Mandaue City. Candelaria, ho'ever, 'as already dead

since March (?, //. %ence, it is clear that the $urat 'as

made in violation of the notarial la'.

Res4on%ent li=e'ise iolate% R$le .-?, Canon , of

t)e Co%e of P"ofessional Res4onsi2ilit1 ')i&)

4"oi%es t)at Ba la'1e" s)all not %elegate to an1

$n6$alifie% 4e"son t)e 4e"fo"*an&e of an1 tas=

')i&) 21 la' *a1 onl1 2e 4e"fo"*e% 21 a *e*2e" of

t)e 9a" in goo% stan%ing. Respondent averred in his

position paper that it had been his consistent practice to

course through clerical staff documents to be notarized .

U4on "efe""al, sai% &le"i&al staff inestigates ')et)e"

t)e %o&$*ents a"e &o*4lete as to t)e f$n%a*ental

"e6$i"e*ents an% in6$i"es as to t)e i%entit1 of t)e

in%ii%$al signato"ies t)e"eto. If ee"1t)ing is in

o"%e", t)e1 as= t)e 4a"ties to sign t)e %o&$*ents an%

fo"'a"% t)e* to )i* an% )e again in6$i"es a2o$t t)e

i%entities of t)e 4a"ties 2efo"e affi!ing )is nota"ial

signat$"e.0- It is also )is &le"i&al staff ')o "e&o"%s

ent"ies in )is nota"ial "e4o"t. 

7/17/2019 Ang v. Gupana

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ang-v-gupana 3/3

 As aforesaid, respondent is mandated to observe with

utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of 

his duties as a notary  and to ascertain that the persons

'ho signed the documents are the very same persons

'ho e"ecuted and personally appeared before him to

attest to the contents and truth of 'hat are stated therein.

In *e"el1 "el1ing on )is &le"i&al staff to %ete"*ine t)e

&o*4leteness of %o&$*ents 2"o$g)t to )i* fo"

nota"i:ation, li*iting )is 4a"ti&i4ation in t)e

nota"i:ation 4"o&ess to si*4l1 in6$i"ing a2o$t t)e

i%entities of t)e 4e"sons a44ea"ing 2efo"e )i*, an%

in nota"i:ing an affi%ait e!e&$te% 21 a %ea% 4e"son,

"es4on%ent is lia2le fo" *is&on%$&t. @nder the facts

and circumstances of the case, the revocation of his

notarial commission, dis*ualification from being

commissioned as a notary public for a period of t'o

years and suspension from the practice of la' for one

year are in order.3

!%#R#>2R#, respondent Atty. ames oseph <upana

is found administratively liable for misconduct and is

@P#8# from the practice of la' for one year.

>urther, his notarial commission, if any, is R#B2# and

he is dis*ualified from reappointment as 8otary Public for 

a period of t'o years, 'ith a stem 'arning that repetition

of the same or similar conduct in the future 'ill be dealt

'ith more severely.