canon 1-3 p2

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

1/104

EN BANC

A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC, January 21, 2015

RE: VIOLATION O R!LES ON NOTARIAL "RACTICE

# E C I S I O N

MEN#O$A,J.:

This case stemmed from three (3) letter-complaints for Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice endorsed tothe Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for appropriate action. The first letter-complaint,dated !arch ", "##$,%as filed &' the commissioned notaries pu&lic %ithin and for the urisdiction of in*a'en, Pan*asinan,namel', +tt'. Butch Cardinal Torio, +tt'. Nepthalie Pasiliao, +tt'. ominiue /an*elista, and +tt'. li0a&ethC. Tu*ade (complainants) &efore the 1ecuti/e 2ud*e of the Re*ional Trial Court, in*a'en, Pan*asinan(RTC-Lingayen) a*ainst +tt'. 2uan C. iapno, 2r. (Atty. Siapno) for notari0in* documents %ithout acommission.

4n their letter, complainants alle*ed that +tt'. iapno %as maintainin* a notarial office alon* +l/ear treet

ast, in*a'en, Pan*asinan, and %as performin* notarial acts and practices in in*a'en, Nati/idad anda*upan Cit' %ithout the reuisite notarial commission. The' asserted that +tt'. iapno %as ne/ercommissioned as Notar' Pu&lic for and %ithin the urisdiction of in*a'en, Nati/idad and a*upan Cit'.4nstead, he applied and %as commissioned to perform notarial functions &' 1ecuti/e 2ud*e +nthon' isonof the RTC, an Carlos Cit', Pan*asinan from !arch "", "##5 to ecem&er 3, "##6. 7is notarialcommission, ho%e/er, %as ne/er rene%ed upon e1piration. Complainants presented e/idence supportin*their alle*ations such as the pictures of +tt'. iapno8s la% office in in*a'en, Pan*asinan9 and documents topro/e that +tt'. iapno performed acts of notari0ation in in*a'en, Nati/idad and a*upan Cit', to %it: ()+ddendum to oan and !ort*a*e +*reement"sho%in* that the Promissor' Note %as notari0ed &efore +tt'.iapno in in*a'en, Pan*asinan in "##59 (") eed of +&solute ale,3dated 2anuar' ";, "##6, notari0ed inNati/idad, Pan*asinan9 (3) 2oint +ffida/it of T%o isinterested Persons Re: no%led*ement of e&t,?dated 2anuar'";, "##6, notari0ed in a*upan Cit'.

Complainants also a/erred that +tt'. iapno had dele*ated his notarial authorit' to his secretaries, !inaBautista (Bautista) and !ar' +nn +renas (Arenas), %ho %rote le*al instruments and si*ned the documentson his &ehalf.

On !arch 5, "##$, the RTC-in*a'en for%arded the said letter-complaint to the Office of the Court+dministrator (OCA)=%hich, in turn, indorsed the same to the OBC.

The second letter-complaint5%as filed &' +ud' B. spelita (Espelita) a*ainst +tt'. Pedro . antos (Atty.Santos). 4t alle*ed that in "##6, spelita lost his dri/er8s license and he e1ecuted an affida/it of loss %hich%as notari0ed &' +tt'. antos. The said affida/it, ho%e/er, %as denied for authentication %hen presented&efore the Notarial ection in !anila &ecause +tt'. antos %as not commissioned to perform notarialcommission %ithin the Cit' of !anila.

The third letter-complaint6came from a concerned citi0en reportin* that a certain +tt'. /el'n %ho %asholdin* office at Room ;#" e'&a Bld*., 36 asmari@as treet, ta. Cru0, !anila, had &een notari0in* and

si*nin* documents for and on &ehalf of se/eral la%'ers.

4n its Resolution,$dated 2une $, "##$, the Court directed the 1ecuti/e 2ud*e of the RTC-in*a'en toconduct a formal in/esti*ation on the complaint a*ainst +tt'. iapno and 1ecuti/e 2ud*e Re'naldo

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

2/104

complainants affirmed the alle*ations in their letter-complaint. or his part, +tt'. iapno denied theaccusations and a/erred that the la% office in in*a'en, Pan*asinan, %as not his and that Bautista and+renas %ere not his secretaries.#

4n her Report and Recommendation,the 1ecuti/e 2ud*e found that +tt'. iapno %as issued a notarialcommission %ithin the urisdiction of in*a'en, Pan*asinan, from 2anuar' "#, "##3 to ecem&er 3, "##;and e&ruar' 6, "##? to ecem&er 3, "##=. 7is commission, ho%e/er, %as cancelled on 2une 6, "##= and

he %as not issued another commission thereafter. The 1ecuti/e 2ud*e found +tt'. iapno to ha/e /iolatedthe "##; Rules on Notarial Commission %hen he performed notarial functions %ithout commission andrecommended that he &e fined in the amount of ift' Thousand Pesos (P!"!!!.!!).

The Court a*rees %ith the findin*s of the 1ecuti/e 2ud*e &ut not to the recommended penalt'.

+ re/ie% of the records and e/idence presented &' complainants sho%s that +tt'. iapno indeed maintaineda la% office in in*a'en, Pan*asinan, ust &eside the la% office of one of the complainants, +tt'. li0a&ethTu*ade. 4t %as also pro/en that +tt'. iapno notari0ed se/eral instruments %ith an e1pired notarialcommission outside the territorial urisdiction of the commissionin* court. ection , Rule 444 of the "##;Rules on Notarial Practice pro/ides that: chanro&les/irtualla%li&rar'2urisdiction and Term + person commissioned as notar' pu&lic ma' perform notarial acts in an' place%ithin the territorial urisdiction of the commissionin* court for a period of t%o (") 'ears commencin* thefirst da' of 2anuar' of the 'ear in %hich the commissionin* is made, unless earlier re/o>ed or the notar'pu&lic has resi*ned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.

Dnder the rule, onl' persons %ho are commissioned as notar' pu&lic ma' perform notarial acts %ithin theterritorial urisdiction of the court %hich *ranted the commission. Clearl', +tt'. iapno could not performnotarial functions in in*a'en, Nati/idad and a*upan Cit' of the Pro/ince of Pan*asinan since he %as notcommissioned in the said places to perform such act.

Time and a*ain, this Court has stressed that notari0ation is not an empt', meanin*less and routine act. 4t isin/ested %ith su&stanti/e pu&lic interest that onl' those %ho are ualified or authori0ed ma' act as notariespu&lic."4t must &e emphasi0ed that the act of notari0ation &' a notar' pu&lic con/erts a pri/ate documentinto a pu&lic document ma>in* that document admissi&le in e/idence %ithout further proof of authenticit'. +notarial document is &' la% entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries pu&licmust o&ser/e %ith utmost care the &asic reuirements in the performance of their duties.

B' performin* notarial acts %ithout the necessar' commission from the court, +tt'. iapno /iolated not onl'his oath to o&e' the la%s particularl' the Rules on Notarial Practice &ut also Canons and 5 of the Code ofProfessional Responsi&ilit' %hich proscri&es all la%'ers from en*a*in* in unla%ful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful conduct and directs them to uphold the inte*rit' and di*nit' of the le*al profession, at all times.3

4n a plethora of cases, the Court has su&ected la%'ers to disciplinar' action for notari0in* documentsoutside their territorial urisdiction or %ith an e1pired commission. 4n the case of #unga $. %iray,;a la%'er%as suspended &' the Court for three (3) 'ears for notari0in* an instrument %ithout a commission.4n &oreta $. Simpliciano,?the respondent %as li>e%ise suspended from the practice of la% for a period oft%o (") 'ears and %as permanentl' &arred from &ein* commissioned as a notar' pu&lic for notari0in*se/eral documents after the e1piration of his commission. 4n the more recent case of La'uindanum $.(uintana,=the Court suspended a la%'er for si1 ()) months and %as disualified from &ein* commissionedas notar' pu&lic for a period of t%o (*) 'ears &ecause he notari0ed documents outside the area of hiscommission, and %ith an e1pired commission.

Considerin* that +tt'. iapno has &een pro/en to ha/e performed notarial %or> in i*a'en, Nati/idad anda*upan Cit' in the pro/ince of Pan*asinan %ithout the reuisite commission, the Court finds therecommended penalt' insufficient. 4nstead, +tt'. iapno must &e &arred from &ein* commissioned as notar'pu&lic permanentl' and suspended from the practice of la% for a period of t%o (*) 'ears.

Re: Complaints against Atty. Santos and Atty. E$elyn

4n a letter,5dated 2ul' "$, "#3, 2ud*e Ros informed the Court that he could not ha/e complied %ith the2une $, "##$ and +u*ust ;, "##$ orders of the Court &ecause he %as no lon*er the 1ecuti/e 2ud*e of theRTC-!anila at that time. To date, no formal in/esti*ation has &een conducted on the alle*ed /iolation of+tt'. antos and the reported ille*al acti/ities of a certain +tt'. /el'n.

Aith respect to the complaints a*ainst +tt'. antos and a certain +tt'. /el'n, the Cler> of Court is ordered

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

3/104

to R-OCET the same as separate administrati/e cases.

The incum&ent 1ecuti/e 2ud*e of the RTC-!anila, %hether permanent or in actin* capacit', is ordered toconduct a formal in/esti*ation on the matter and to su&mit his Report and Recommendation %ithin si1t'(=#) da's from receipt of cop' of this decision.

%&EREORE,respondent +tt'. 2uan C. iapno, 2r. is here&' S!S"EN#E#from the practice of la% for t%o

(") 'ears and BARRE# "ERMANENTL'from &ein* commissioned as Notar' Pu&lic, effecti/e upon hisreceipt of a cop' of this decision.

et copies of this decision &e furnished all the courts of the land throu*h the Office of the Court+dministrator, the 4nte*rated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant, and &e recorded in thepersonal files of the respondent.

Aith respect to the complaints a*ainst +tt'. Pedro . antos and a certain +tt'. /el'n, the Cler> of Court isordered to RE-#OC(ETthem as separate administrati/e cases. The 1ecuti/e 2ud*e of the Re*ional TrialCourt, !anila, is ordered to conduct a formal in/esti*ation on the matter and to su&mit his Report andRecommendation %ithin si1t' (=#) da's from receipt of a cop' of this decision.

SO OR#ERE#.

THIRD DIVISION

ATTY. FLORITA S.

LINCO,Complainant,

- versus -

ATTY. JIMMY D. LACEBAL,

Respondent.

A.C. No. 7241[Formerl CBD C!"e No. #$%1$#&'

(re"e)*+

VELASCO, JR.,J., Chairperson,PERALTA,ABAD,

E!DO"A, andPERLAS-BER!ABE,JJ.

(roml-!*e+

O#to$er %&, '(%%

/ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % /

D E C I S I O N(ERALTA,J.+

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

4/104

T)e instant #ase stemmed *rom an Administrative Complaint%dated June +, '(( *iled

$ Att. lorita S. Lin#o /#omplainant0 $e*ore t)e 1nte2rated Bar o* t)e P)ilippines

/1BP0 a2ainst Att. Jimm D. La#e$al *or dis#iplinar a#tion *or )is *ailure to per*orm

)is dut as a notar pu$li#, 3)i#) resulted in t)e violation o* t)eir ri2)ts over t)eir

propert.

T)e ante#edent *a#ts are as *ollo3s4

Complainant #laimed t)at s)e is t)e 3ido3 o* t)e late Att.

Al$erto Lin#o /Att. Lin#o0, t)e re2istered o3ner o* a par#el o* land 3it)

improvements, #onsistin2 o* %'+ s5uare meters, lo#ated at !o. 6, a#opa St., P)ase 1-

A, B, C 7 D, Valle Vie3 E8e#utive Villa2e, Cainta, Ri9al and #overed $ Trans*er

Certi*i#ate o* Title /TCT0 !o. ':((%.Complainant alle2ed t)at Att. Jimm D. La#e$al /respondent0, a notar pu$li#

*or andaluon2 Cit, notari9ed a deed o* donation'alle2edl e8e#uted $ )er

)us$and in *avor o* Ale8ander David T. Lin#o, a minor. T)e notarial a#;no3led2ment

t)ereo* also stated t)at Att. Lin#o and Lina P. Toledo /Toledo0, mot)er o* t)e donee,

alle2edl personall appeared $e*ore respondent on Jul s

repre)ensi$le a#t in #onnivan#e 3it) Toledo 3as not onl violative o* )er and )er

#)ildren>s ri2)ts $ut also in violation o* t)e la3. Respondent>s la#; o* )onest and

#andor is un$e#omin2 o* a mem$er o* t)e P)ilippine Bar.

1n )is Ans3er,+

respondent admitted )avin2 notari9ed and a#;no3led2ed a deed o*donation e8e#uted $ t)e donor, Att. Lin#o, in *avor o* )is son, Ale8ander David

T. Lin#o, as represented $ Lina P. Toledo.

Respondent narrated t)at on Jul 6, '((

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

5/104

3as t)en in*ormed t)at Att. Lin#o 3as si#; and 3anted to dis#uss somet)in2 3it)

)im.

Respondent pointed out t)at Att. Lin#o appeared to $e p)si#all 3ea; and si#;l,

$ut 3as arti#ulate and in *ull #ontrol o* )is *a#ulties. Att. Lin#o s)o3ed )im a deed o*donation and t)e TCT o* t)e propert su$@e#t o* t)e donation. Respondent #laimed

t)at Att. Lin#o as;ed )im a *avor o* notari9in2 t)e deed o* donation in )is presen#e

alon2 3it) t)e 3itnesses.

o3ever, respondent e8plained t)at sin#e )e )ad no idea t)at )e 3ould $e notari9in2 a

do#ument, )e did not $rin2 )is notarial $oo; and seal 3it) )im. T)us, )e instead

told Al2odonand Toledo to $rin2 to )is o**i#e t)e si2ned deed o* donation antime at

t)eir #onvenien#e so t)at )e #ould *ormall notari9e and a#;no3led2e t)e same.

On Jul

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

6/104

3as notari9ed onl on Jul s petition *or revie3 dated a %:, '((: o*

1BP Resolution !o. V11-'((+-'% dated April '&, '((+ and 1BP Resolution !o.

V111-'((6-+&6 dated De#em$er %%, '((6, denin2 #omplainant>s motion *or

re#onsideration and a**irmin2 t)e assailed resolution, t)e Court resolved to re5uire

#omplainant to *ile )er #omment. %'

1n )er Complian#e,%

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

7/104

T)ere is no 5uestion as to respondent>s 2uilt. T)e re#ords su**i#ientl esta$lis)ed t)at

Att. Lin#o 3as alread dead 3)en respondent notari9ed t)e deed o* donation on Jul

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

8/104

and t)e pu$li# at lar2e must $e a$le to rel upon t)e a#;no3led2ment e8e#uted $ a

notar pu$li# and appended to a private instrument.%+

or t)is reason, notaries pu$li# must o$serve 3it) utmost #are t)e $asi# re5uirementsin t)e per*orman#e o* t)eir duties. Ot)er3ise, t)e #on*iden#e o* t)e pu$li# in t)e

inte2rit o* t)is *orm o* #onvean#e 3ould $e undermined.%&en#e, a2ain, a notar

pu$li# s)ould not notari9e a do#ument unless t)e persons 3)o si2ned t)e same are t)e

ver same persons 3)o e8e#uted and personall appeared $e*ore )im to attest to t)e

#ontents and trut) o* 3)at are stated t)erein.

T)is responsi$ilit is more pronoun#ed 3)en t)e notar pu$li# is a la3er. A 2raver

responsi$ilit is pla#ed upon )im $ reason o* )is solemn oat) to o$e t)e la3s and to

do no *alse)ood or #onsent to t)e doin2 o* an. e is mandated to t)e sa#red duties

appertainin2 to )is o**i#e, su#) duties, $ein2 di#tated $ pu$li# poli# and impressed3it) pu$li# interest.%6Respondent>s *ailure to per*orm )is dut as a notar pu$li#

resulted not onl in dama2in2 #omplainant>s ri2)ts over t)e propert su$@e#t o* t)e

donation $ut also in underminin2 t)e inte2rit o* a notar pu$li#. e s)ould, t)ere*ore,

$e )eld lia$le *or )is a#ts, not onl as a notar pu$li# $ut also as a la3er.

1nLanuzo v. Atty. Bongon,%:respondent )avin2 *ailed to dis#)ar2e )is duties as a

notar pu$li#, t)e revo#ation o* )is notarial #ommission, dis5uali*i#ation *rom $ein2

#ommissioned as a notar pu$li# *or a period o* t3o ears and suspension *rom t)e

pra#ti#e o* la3 *or one ear 3ere imposed. e deem it proper to impose t)e same

penalt.

HEREFORE, *or $rea#) o* t)e !otarial La3 and Code o* Pro*essional

Responsi$ilit, t)e notarial #ommission o* respondent ATTY. JIMMY D.

LACEBAL, is REVO8ED. e isDIS90ALIFIED *rom reappointment as !otar

Pu$li# *or a period o* t3o ears. e is also S0S(ENDED*rom t)e pra#ti#e o* la3 *or

a period o* one ear, e**e#tive immediatel. e is *urt)er ARNEDt)at a repetition

o* t)e same or similar a#ts s)all $e dealt 3it) more severel. e is DIRECTEDto

report t)e date o* re#eipt o* t)is De#ision in order to determine 3)en )is suspension

s)all ta;e e**e#t.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/7241.html#sdfootnote16symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/7241.html#sdfootnote17symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/7241.html#sdfootnote18symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/7241.html#sdfootnote19symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/7241.html#sdfootnote16symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/7241.html#sdfootnote17symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/7241.html#sdfootnote18symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/7241.html#sdfootnote19sym

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

9/104

Let #opies o* t)is De#ision $e *urnis)ed t)e O**i#e o* t)e Bar Con*idant, t)e

1nte2rated Bar o* t)e P)ilippines, and all #ourts all over t)e #ountr. Let a #op o* t)is

De#ision li;e3ise $e atta#)ed to t)e personal re#ords o* t)e respondent.

SO ORDERED.

E! BA!CCORA:ON T. NEVADA,

Complainant,

- versus -

ATTY. RODOLFO D. CAS0A,

Respondent.

A.C. No. 7$;1

Present4CORO!A, C.J.,CARP1O,VELASCO, JR.,LEO!ARDO-DE CASTRO,BR1O!,PERALTA,BERSA1!,DEL CAST1LLO,*

ABAD,V1LLARAA, JR.,PERE",

E!DO"A,SERE!O,REFES, andPERLAS-BER!ABE,JJ.Promul2ated4ar#) '(, '(%'

8-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8

D E C I S I O N

VELASCO, JR.,J.+
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/7591.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/7591.htm#_ftn1

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

10/104

Cora9on T. !evada /!evada0 see;s t)e dis$arment o* Att. Rodol*o D.

Casu2a /Casu2a0 *or alle2ed violation o* )is la3ers oat) and t)e '((= Rules on

!otarial Pra#ti#e /!otarial Rules0.

T5e F!

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

11/104

3at#) 3it) diamond dials valued at t3elve t)ousand S dollars /SD %',(((0.

Casu2a too; possession o* t)e valua$les purportedl 3it) t)e o$li2ation o* sellin2

t)em and to remit an pro#eeds to!evada. o3ever, despite repeated demands

$ !evada *or Casu2a to return t)e valua$les or ot)er3ise remit t)e pro#eeds o*

t)e sale, no @e3elr or mone 3as ever returned.

1n #omplian#e 3it) a dire#tive *rom t)e Court, Casu2a su$mitted an

A**idavitG=Hdated De#em$er , '((&, as #omment on t)e administrative #omplaint.

1n it, Casu2a #laims t)at !evada in*ormall instituted )im as t)e administrator o*

t)e otel in a limited #apa#it $ut denied re#eivin2 t)e P)P :(,((( *rom C)ul.

it) re2ard to t)e pie#es o* @e3elr and t)e Role8 3at#), Casu2a stated

t)at !evada a#tuall pa3ned t)em in a pa3ns)op and t)at s)e later as;ed )is 3i*e

to redeem t)em usin2 t)eir o3n mone. T)erea*ter,!evada as;ed Casu2as 3i*e tosell t)e valua$les and reim$urse )ersel* *rom t)e pro#eeds o* t)e sale.

B Resolution o* Jul ', '((6, t)e Court, t)ru t)e O**i#e o* t)e Bar

Con*idant, re*erred t)e #ase to t)e 1nte2rated Bar o* t)e P)ilippines /1BP0 *or

investi2ation, report and re#ommendationde#ision. T)e #ase 3as do#;eted as CBD

Case !o. &:% entitled Corazon T. Nevada v. Atty. Rodolfo D. Casuga.

On Septem$er '', '((6, t)e 1BP Commission on Bar Dis#ipline /CBD0, t)ru

Commisioner !or$erto B. Rui9, issued and sent out a !oti#e o* andator

Con*eren#e dire#tin2 t)e parties to appear $e*ore it on O#to$er '

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

12/104

EREORE, premises #onsidered it is )ere$ re#ommendedt)at Casu2a $e suspended *or one /%0 ear *or 2ross mis#ondu#t,violation o* t)e notarial la3 and in*idelit in t)e #ustod o* monies,

@e3elries and a Role8 3at#) 3)i#) pertain to t)e #omplainant and t)e*amil #orporation.

T)e 1BP Board o* ?overnors later adopted and approved t)e CBDs Report

and Re#ommendation, 3it) modi*i#ation, as indi#ated in Resolution !o. 1-

'(%(-=+% dated Au2ust '6, '(%(, to 3it4

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is )ere$ unanimouslADOPTED and APPROVED, 3it) modi*i#ation, t)e Report andRe#ommendation o* t)e 1nvesti2atin2 Commissioner o* t)e a$ove

entitled #ase 8 8 8 and, *indin2 t)e re#ommendation *ull supported $t)e eviden#e on re#ord and t)e appli#a$le la3s and rules, and#onsiderin2 Casu2as violation o* Canon %+ o* t)e Code o* Pro*essionalResponsi$ilit, *or misappropriation o* )is #lientGsH *unds and @e3elries,*or violation o* t)e !otarial La3 3)en )e si2ned as a part to a lease#ontra#t and notari9ed t)e same and also ta;in2 into #onsideration t)e2ravit o* t)e o**ense #ommitted, Att. Rodol*o D. Casu2a is )ere$SSPE!DED *rom t)e pra#ti#e o* la3 *or *our /=0 ears. 1n addition,Att. Casu2a is Suspended or Dis5uali*ied *rom reappointment as !otarPu$li# *or t3o /'0 ears and Ordered to Return t)e amount o*P:(,(((.((, @e3elries amountin2 to P

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

13/104

T5e I""e"

T)e prin#ipal $ut simple issues in t)is #ase pivot on t)e 2uilt o* Casu2a *or t)e

#)ar2es detailed or implied in t)e $asi# #omplaint and t)e propriet o* t)e return

to !evada o* t)e items, or t)eir mone value, and t)e amount su$@e#t o* t)e #ase.

T5e Cor*" Rl6)-

e a2ree 3it) t)e CBDs in#ulpator *indin2s, as endorsed $ t)e 1BP Board o*

?overnors, and t)e re#ommended up2radin2 o* penalties, as s)o3n in Resolution

!o. 1-'(%(-=+%, $ut su$@e#t to t)e modi*i#ation as s)all $e dis#ussed.

C!"-! 6" -6l* o -ro"" m6"

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

14/104

1n t)e #ase o*In re #orrilleno(, =< P)il. '%', t)is Courtpreviousl ruled t)at or serious mis#ondu#t to e8ist, t)ere must $erelia$le eviden#e s)o3in2 t)at t)e @udi#ial a#ts #omplained o* 3ere#orrupt or inspired $ an intention to violate t)e la3, or 3ere in

persistent disre2ard o* 3ell-;no3n le2al rules.

O* similar tenor is t)e de*inition provided inJa4sani;Rodriguez v.

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

15/104

1n Tan v. >u40a,G%(Ht)e respondent la3er similarl misrepresented )ersel* to )ave

$een aut)ori9ed to sell a par#el o* land $ virtue o* a Spe#ial Po3er o* Attorne

/SPA0. B virtue o* t)e SPA, t)e la3er 3as a$le to o$tain a loan *rom t)e

#omplainant, se#ured $ t)e said par#el o* land t)rou2) an open deed o* sale.

)en t)e respondent la3er de*aulted in t)e pament o* t)e loan, it turned out t)att)e SPA onl aut)ori9ed t)e la3er to mort2a2e t)e propert to a $an;. T)us, t)e

#omplainant #ould not re2ister t)e deed o* sale 3it) t)e re2ister o* deeds and #ould

not re#over t)e amount t)at )e loaned to t)e la3er. 1n t)at #ase, t)e Court ruled4

ere, respondents a#tions #learl s)o3 t)at s)e de#eived

#omplainant into lendin2 mone to )er t)rou2) t)e use o* do#uments and*alse representations and ta;in2 advanta2e o* )er edu#ation and#omplainants i2noran#e in le2al matters. As mani*ested $ #omplainant,

)e 3ould )ave never 2ranted t)e loan to respondent 3ere it not *orrespondents misrepresentation t)at s)e 3as aut)ori9ed to sell t)e

propert and i* respondent )ad not led )im to $elieve t)at )e #ouldre2ister t)e open deed o* sale i* s)e *ails to pa t)e loan. B )er misdeed,respondent )as eroded not onl #omplainants per#eption o* t)e le2al

pro*ession $ut t)e pu$li#s per#eption as 3ell. Her !

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

16/104

it) re2ard to t)e @e3elr and 3at#) entrusted to )im, Casu2a alle2ed

t)at !evada pa3ned t)em and t)erea*ter instru#ted Casu2as 3i*e to redeem t)em

3it) t)e latters mone. e added t)at !evada t)en instru#ted )is 3i*e to sell t)e

valua$les and use t)e pro#eeds to reim$urse )ersel* *or t)e redemption pri#e.A2ain, )o3ever, Casu2as alle2ations are unsupported $ a sin2le s)red o*

eviden#e. Pa3ns)op re#eipts 3ould )ave provided t)e $est eviden#e under t)e

#ir#umstan#es. But t)e 3ere not presented, too.

oreover, Casu2as admission t)at t)e valua$les are indeed in )is

possession, 3it)out an ade5uate reason, supports !evadas version o* t)e stor.

Casu2as *ailure to return su#) propert or remit t)e pro#eeds o* t)e sale is a $latant

violation o* Canon %+ o* t)e Code o* Pro*essional Responsi$ilit /t)e Code0. T)eCodes Canon %+ and Rule %+.< state4

CA!O! %+ - A la3er s)all )old in trust all mones andproperties o* )is #lient t)at ma #ome into )is pro*ession.

Rule %+.(< - A la3er s)all deliver t)e *unds and propert o* )is

#lient 3)en due or upon demand. o3ever, )e s)all )ave a lien over t)e*unds and ma appl so mu#) t)ereo* as ma $e ne#essar to satis* )isla3*ul *ees and dis$ursements, 2ivin2 noti#e promptl t)erea*ter to )is

#lient. e s)all also )ave a lien to t)e same e8tent on all @ud2ments ande8e#utions )e )as se#ured *or )is #lient as provided *or in t)e Rules o*Court.

avin2 $een tas;ed to sell su#) valua$les, Casu2a 3as dut-$ound to return t)em

upon !evadas demand. is *ailure to do so renders )im su$@e#t to dis#iplinar

a#tion. To $e sure, )e #annot use, as a de*ense, t)e la#; o* a la3er-#lient

relations)ip as an e8oneratin2 *a#tor. 1nBarenas v. Alvero,G%%Ht)e Court suspended

a la3er *rom t)e pra#ti#e o* la3 *or t3o /'0 ears a*ter )e *ailed to a##ount *or or

return P)P

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

17/104

)e does not use t)e mone *or t)e intended purpose, t)e la3er mustimmediatel return t)e mone to )is #lient. 8 8 8

Jurispruden#e di#tates t)at a la3er 3)o o$tains possession o* t)e

*unds and properties o* )is #lient in t)e #ourse o* )is pro*essional

emploment s)all deliver t)e same to )is #lient /a0 3)en t)e $e#omedue, or /$0 upon demand. 8 8 8

GRespondentH Att. Alvero #annot ta;e re*u2e in )is #laim t)at

t)ere e8isted no attorne-#lient relations)ip $et3een )im andBar#enas. E=e) 6 6* @ere *re *5!* )o !**or)e%remo=e, or o*5er@6"e 6"avin2 *ailed to return, upon demand, t)e items entrusted to )im $ !evada or

remit t)e pro#eeds o* t)e sale, Casu2a violated Canon %+ and Rule %+.(< o* t)e

Code.

1nAl4endarez, Jr. v. Langit,G%'H

t)e Court suspended a la3er *rom t)epra#ti#e o* la3 *or t3o /'0 ears *or *ailin2 to a##ount *or t)e mone and properties

o* )is #lient. Similarl, in 34all v. Banares,G%

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

18/104

)is re*usal to appear at t)e mandator #on*eren#e $e*ore t)e 1BP. T)us, t)e same

penalt s)ould $e imposed upon Casu2a.

C!"-! =6ol!*e *5e No*!r6!l Rle"

T)e !otarial Rules, A.. !o. ('-6-%

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

19/104

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

20/104

8 8 8 G!Hotari9ation is not an empt, meanin2less routinar a#t. 1tis invested 3it) su$stantive pu$li# interest. 1t must $e unders#ored t)at 88 8 notari9ation 8 8 8 #onverts a private do#ument into a pu$li#do#ument ma;in2 t)at do#ument admissi$le in eviden#e 3it)out *urt)er

proo* o* aut)enti#it t)ereo*. A notarial do#ument is, $ la3, entitled to

*ull *ait) and #redit upon its *a#e. or t)is reason, a notar pu$li# musto$serve 3it) utmost #are t)e $asi# re5uirements in t)e per*orman#e o* 88 8 duties ot)er3ise, t)e #on*iden#e o* t)e pu$li# in t)e inte2rit o* t)is*orm o* #onvean#e 3ould $e undermined.

8 8 8 8

A )o*!r 3l6< "5ol )o* )o*!r6e ! o!

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

21/104

ears, sin#e onl a la3er in 2ood standin2 #an $e 2ranted t)e #ommission o* a

notar pu$li#.

T)e desired dis$arment o* Casu2a, )o3ever, is too severe a san#tion to

impose under t)e premises it #annot $e 2ranted. T)e penalt o* dis$arment s)all$e meted out onl 3)en t)e la3ers mis#ondu#t $orders on t)e #riminal andor is

#ommitted under s#andalous #ir#umstan#e.G%&H

T5e mo)e, >e@elr !) Role/ @!*

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

22/104

A.C. No. 9514 April 10, 2013

BERNARD N. JANDOQUILE, Complainant,

vs.

ATTY. QUIRINO P. REILLA, JR., Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

ILLARA!A, JR., J.:

Befoe !s is a "omplaint#fo dis$ament filed $% "omplainant Benad N. &ando'!ile a(ainst

espondent )tt%. !iino +. Revilla, &.

Te Fa"ts of te "ase ae not disp!ted.

)tt%. Revilla, &. notai-ed a "omplaintaffidavit/si(ned $% 0enealine L. Bosas, 0ei-al%n Bosas

+edosa and Elme L. )lvaado. 0enealine Bosas is a siste of 0ei-el 1%nda Bosas Revilla, )tt%.Revilla, &.2s 3ife. &ando'!ile "omplains tat )tt%. Revilla, &. is dis'!alified to pefom te notaial

a"t4pe Se"tion 45 "6, R!le IV of te /778 R!les on Notaial +a"ti"e 3i" eads as follo3s9

SEC. 4. Dis'!alifi"ations. : ) nota% p!$li" is dis'!alified fom pefomin( a notaial a"t if e9

; ; ; ;

5"6 is a spo!se, "ommonla3 patne, an"esto, des"endant, o elative $% affinit% o "onsan(!init% of

te pin"ipal83itin te fo!t "ivil de(ee.

&ando'!ile also "omplains tat )tt%. Revilla, &. did not e'!ie te tee affiants in te "omplaintaffidavit to so3 tei valid identifi"ation "ads.

In is "omment

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

23/104

)tt%. Revilla, &.=s violation of te afoesaid dis'!alifi"ation !le is $e%ond disp!te. )tt%. Revilla, &.

eadil% admitted tat e notai-ed te "omplaintaffidavit si(ned $% is elatives 3itin te fo!t "ivil

de(ee of affinit%. Se"tion 45"6, R!le IV of te /778 R!les on Notaial +a"ti"e "leal% dis'!alifies im

fom notai-in( te "omplaintaffidavit, fom pefomin( te notaial a"t, sin"e t3o of te affiants o

pin"ipals ae is elatives 3itin te fo!t "ivil de(ee of affinit%. @iven te "lea povision of te

dis'!alifi"ation !le, it $eooved !pon )tt%. Revilla, &. to a"t 3it p!den"e and ef!se notai-in( tedo"!ment. 1e "annot a(ee 3it is poposition tat 3e "onside im to ave a"ted moe as

"o!nsel of te affiants, not as nota% p!$li", 3en e notai-ed te "omplaintaffidavit. Te notaial

"etifi"ateAat te $ottom of te "omplaintaffidavit so3s is si(nat!e as a nota% p!$li", 3it a

notaial "ommission valid !ntil De"em$e 4#, /7#/.

0e "annot teefoe "laim tat e si(ned it as "o!nsel of te tee affiants.

On te se"ond "a(e, 3e a(ee 3it )tt%. Revilla, &. tat e "annot $e eld lia$le. If te nota%

p!$li" ?no3s te affiants pesonall%, e need not e'!ie tem to so3 tei valid identifi"ation "ads.

Tis !le is s!ppoted $% te definition of a !at !nde Se"tion A, R!le II of te /778 R!les on

Notaial +a"ti"e. ) !at efes to an a"t in 3i" an individ!al on a sin(le o""asion9 5a6 appeas inpeson $efoe te nota% p!$li" and pesents an inst!ment o do"!ment> 5$6 is pesonall% ?no3n to

te nota% p!$li" o identified $% te nota% p!$li" to!( "ompetent eviden"e of identit%> 5"6 si(ns

te inst!ment o do"!ment in te pesen"e of te nota%> and 5d6 ta?es an oat o affimation $efoe

te nota% p!$li" as to s!" inst!ment o do"!ment. In tis "ase, 0enealine Bosas is a siste of

)tt%. Revilla, &.=s 3ife> 0ei-al%n Bosas +edosa is is 3ife=s sisteinla3> and Elme )lvaado is

te livein o!se$o% of te Bosas famil%. )tt%. Revilla, &. ?no3s te tee affiants pesonall%. T!s,

e 3as !stified in no lon(e e'!iin( tem to so3 valid identifi"ation "ads. B!t )tt%. Revilla, &. is

not 3ito!t fa!lt fo failin( to indi"ate s!" fa"t in te !at of te "omplaintaffidavit. No statement

3as in"l!ded teein tat e ?no3s te tee affiants pesonall%.Let it $e impessed tat )tt%.

Revilla, &. 3as "leal% dis'!alified to notai-e te "omplaintaffidavit of is elatives 3itin te fo!t

"ivil de(ee of affinit%. 1ile e as a valid defense as to te se"ond "a(e, it does not e;empt imfom lia$ilit% fo violatin( te dis'!alifi"ation !le.

)s 3e said, )tt%. Revilla, &.=s violation of te dis'!alifi"ation !le !nde Se"tion 45"6, R!le IV of te

/778 R!les on Notaial +a"ti"e is not a s!ffi"ient (o!nd to dis$a im. To o! mind, )tt%. Revilla, &.

did not "ommit an% de"eit, malpa"ti"e, (oss mis"ond!"t o (oss immoal "ond!"t, o an% ote

seio!s (o!nd fo dis$ament !nde Se"tion /,R!le #4 of te R!les of Co!t. 1e e"all te "ase

of aia v. Cote-G3ee 3e epimanded Cote- and dis'!alified im fom $ein( "ommissioned as

nota% p!$li" fo si; monts. 1e 3ee "onvin"ed tat said p!nisment, 3i" is less sevee tan

dis$ament, 3o!ld alead% s!ffi"e as san"tion fo Cote-=s violation. In Cote-, 3e noted te

poi$ition in Se"tion /5$6, R!le IV of te /778 R!les on Notaial +a"ti"e tat a peson sall not

pefom a notaial a"t if te peson involved as si(nato% to te inst!ment o do"!ment 5#6 is not inte nota%=s pesen"e pesonall% at te time of te notai-ation and 5/6 is not pesonall% ?no3n to te

nota% p!$li" o ote3ise identified $% te nota% p!$li" to!( a "ompetent eviden"e of identit%.

Cote- ad notai-ed a spe"ial po3e of attone% 3ito!t avin( te alle(ed si(natoies appea

$efoe im. In imposin( te less sevee p!nisment, 3e 3ee mindf!l tat emoval fom te Ba

so!ld not eall% $e de"eed 3en an% p!nisment less sevee s!" as epimand, tempoa%

s!spension o fine 3o!ld a""omplis te end desied. 1wphi1
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/ac_9514_2013.html#fnt9

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

24/104

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

25/104

D E C I S I O N

CAR(IO,J.+

T5e C!"e

Be*ore t)e Court is a #omplaint *or dis$arment *iled $ Rodol*o A. Espinosa/Espinosa0 and a8imo A. ?lindo /?lindo0 a2ainst Att. Julieta A. Omaa /Omaa0.

T5e A)*e

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

26/104

IAS!DA! !? PA?11ALAF

IA1, ELE!A ARA!TAL AT RODOLO ESP1!OSA, m2a ilipino,

ma sapat na 2ulan2, datin2 le2al na ma2-asa3a, ;asalu;uan2 naninira)an at

ma pa)atiran2 sulat sa Br2. Buenso#eso,?uma#a, Mue9on, at

COELEC, 1ntramuros, anila aon sa pa2;a;asunod-

sunod, matapos ma;apanumpa n2 naaaon sa $atas a na2papatuna n2 na2;as

undo n2 m2a sumusunod4

%. !a nais na namin2 ma2)i3ala at ma2;ana-;ana n2 amin2 m2

a $u)a n2 3alan2 pa;ialaman,

;un2 ;aat $a3at isa sa amin a maaari n2 )umanap n2 ma;a;asa

ma sa $u)a

'. !a an2 amin2 m2a ana; na sina Ariel Jo)n Espinosa,

%= na taon2 2ulan2 Ai9a Espinosa,

%% taon2 2ulan2 at Aldrin Espinosa,

%( taon2 2ulan2 a namili na ;un2 ;anino sasama saamin2 dala3

a. Si Ariel Jo)n at Ai9a Espinosa a sasama sa ;anilan2 ama,

Rodol*o Espinosa, at an2 $unso, Aldrin Espinosa

at sasama naman sa ina na si Elena

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

27/104

. !a ma2$i$i2a n2 $u3anan2 2astusin o suporta an2 ama ;a Ald

rin at an2 ;a;ulan2an sa m2a pan2an2ailan2an nito a pupunan n

2 ina

+. !a la)at n2 m2a ;asan2;apan sa $a)a tulad n2 T.V., 2asstove, m2a ;a2amitan sa ;usina a a;in2 /Rodol*o0 ipina2;a;aloo

$ ;a Elena at )indi na a;o interesado dito

&. !a la)at n2 maaarin2 maipundar n2 sino man sa amin dala3a sa

m2a pana)on2 daratin2 a amin2 m2a sari-sarilin2 pa2-aari na at

)indi na pina2sama)an o #on@u2al.

B1LA!? PAT!AF n2 la)at n2 ito, nila2daan namin ito n2aon2 i;a-

%& n2 !o$em$re, %::&, dito sa ?uma#a, Mue9on.

/S2d0 /S2d0

ELE!A ARA!TAL RODOLO ESP1!OSA

!a2;asundo !a2;asundo

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

28/104

P1!AT!AFA! AT P1!A!PAA! dito sa )arap ;o n2aon2 i;a-

%& n2 !o$em$re, %::&, dito sa ?uma#a, Mue9on

ATTF. JL1ETA A. OAA

!otar Pu$li#

PTR !o.

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

29/104

a2ainst Omaa $e*ore t)e 1nte2rated Bar o* t)e P)ilippines Commission on Bar

Dis#ipline /1BP-CBD0.

Omaa alle2ed t)at s)e ;no3s ?lindo $ut s)e does not personall ;no3 Espinosa. S)e

denied t)at s)e prepared t)e #ontra#t. S)e admitted t)at Espinosa 3ent to see )er and

re5uested *or t)e notari9ation o* t)e #ontra#t $ut s)e told )im t)at it 3as

ille2al. Omaa alle2ed t)at Espinosa returned t)e ne8t da 3)ile s)e 3as out o* t)e

o**i#e and mana2ed to persuade )er part-time o**i#e sta** to notari9e t)e do#ument.

er o**i#e sta** *or2ed )er si2nature and notari9ed t)e

#ontra#t. Omaa presented arantals 3inu4paang 3alaysay/a**idavit0 to support )er

alle2ations and to s)o3 t)at t)e #omplaint 3as insti2ated $ ?lindo. Omaa *urt)er

presented a letter o* apolo2 *rom )er sta**, Arlene Dela Pea, a#;no3led2in2 t)at s)enotari9ed t)e do#ument 3it)out Omaas ;no3led2e, #onsent, and aut)orit.

Espinosa later su$mitted a=aragdagang 3alaysaystatin2 t)at Omaa arrived at )is

residen#e to2et)er 3it) a 2irl 3)om )e later re#o2ni9ed as t)e person 3)o notari9ed

t)e #ontra#t. e *urt)er stated t)at Omaa 3as not in )er o**i#e 3)en t)e #ontra#t 3as

notari9ed.

T5e De

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

30/104

$ut t)en later #laimed t)at it 3as )er *ormer maid 3)o notari9ed it. T)e 1BP-CBD

*ound4

Respondent trul si2ned t)e 5uestioned do#ument, et s)e still dis#laimed its

aut)ors)ip, t)ere$ revealin2 mu#) more )er propensit to lie and ma;e de#eit,

3)i#) s)e is deservin2 Go*H dis#iplinar san#tion or dis$arment.

T)e 1BP-CBD re#ommended t)at Omaa $e suspended *or one ear *rom t)e pra#ti#e

o* la3 and *or t3o ears as a notar pu$li#.

1n a Resolution dated %: Septem$er '((&, t)e 1BP Board o* ?overnors adopted and

approved t)e re#ommendation o* t)e 1BP-CBD.

Omaa *iled a motion *or re#onsideration.

1n a Resolution dated '+ June '(%%, t)e 1BP Board o* ?overnors

denied Omaas motion *or re#onsideration.

T5e I""e

T)e sole issue in t)is #ase is 3)et)er Omaa violated t)e Canon o* Pro*essional

Responsi$ilit in t)e notari9ation o* arantal and

Espinosas=asunduan Ng "aghihi!alay.

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

31/104

T5e Rl6)- o *56" Cor*

e adopt t)e *indin2s and re#ommendation o* t)e 1BP-CBD.

T)is #ase is not novel. T)is Court )as ruled t)at t)e e8tra@udi#ial dissolution o* t)e

#on@u2al partners)ip 3it)out @udi#ial approval is void.'T)e Court )as also ruled t)at a

notar pu$li# s)ould not *a#ilitate t)e disinte2ration o* a marria2e and t)e *amil $

en#oura2in2 t)e separation o* t)e spouses and e8tra@udi#iall dissolvin2 t)e #on@u2al

partners)ip,

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

32/104

e li;e3ise a2ree 3it) t)e 1BP-CBD t)at in preparin2 and notari9in2 a void

do#ument, Omaa violated Rule %.(%, Canon % o* t)e Code o* Pro*essional

Responsi$ilit 3)i#) provides t)at GaH la3er s)all not en2a2e in unla3*ul, dis)onest,

immoral or de#eit*ul #ondu#t. Omaa ;ne3 *ull 3ell t)at

t)e=asunduan Ng "aghihi!alay)as no le2al e**e#t and is a2ainst pu$li# poli#.

T)ere*ore, Omaa ma $e suspended *rom o**i#e as an attorne *or $rea#) o* t)e et)i#s

o* t)e le2al pro*ession as em$odied in t)e Code o* Pro*essional Responsi$ilit.%(

HEREFORE, 3e S0S(ENDAtt. Julieta A. Omaa *rom t)e pra#ti#e o* la3 *or

O!E FEAR. e REVO8E Att. Omaas notarial #ommission, i* still e8istin2,

and S0S(END)er as a notar pu$li# *or TO FEARS.

Let a #op o* t)is De#ision $e atta#)ed to Att. Omaas personal re#ord in t)e O**i#e o*

t)e Bar Con*idant. Let a #op o* t)is De#ision $e also *urnis)ed to all #)apters o* t)e

1nte2rated Bar o* t)e P)ilippines and to all #ourts in t)e land.

SO ORDERED.

THIRD DIVISION

JESSICA C. 0Y,

Complainant,

- versus -

A.C. No. &$#$

Present4

T1!?A,J.,

C1CO-!A"AR1O,Ating Chairperson,

VELASCO, JR.,

!ACRA, andREFES,JJ.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/9081.html#sdfootnote11symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/6505.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/9081.html#sdfootnote11symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/6505.htm#_ftn1

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

33/104

ATTY. EMMAN0EL (. SAO,

Respondent.

Promul2ated4Septem$er %%, '((6

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

NACH0RA,J.+

T)is is a dis$arment #ase *iledG%H$ #omplainant Jessi#a C. a2ainst respondent

Att. Emmanuel P. Sao *or alle2edl notari9in2 several do#uments despite t)e

e8piration o* )is #ommission.

Respondent 3as t)e #ounsel *or a #ertain Pa$lo Bur2os, an intervenor in a

#ivil #ase do#;eted as EJ-(%-(

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

34/104

3)erea$outs o* t)e o**i#e aide $ut to no avail. avin2 a#ted on t)e mista;en $elie*

t)at )e still )ad )is notarial #ommission, respondent pleaded t)at )e $e e8#used

and 2iven #lemen# *or t)is *ias#o and $e allo3ed to #orre#t and ma;e amends.G6H

1n a ResolutionG:Hdated De#em$er 6, '((=, 3e re*erred t)e #ase to t)e1nte2rated Bar o* t)e P)ilippines /1BP0 *or investi2ation, report and

re#ommendation.

On Septem$er %, '((, Commissioner Re$e##a Villanueva-aala su$mitted

)er report and re#ommendation,G%(Ht)e pertinent portion o* 3)i#) reads4

CO!CLS1O! A!D RECOE!DAT1O!4

rom t)e *a#ts and eviden#e presented, 3e *ind su**i#ient proo* to3arrant dis#iplinar a#tion a2ainst t)e respondent. !otari9in2 do#umentsa*ter t)e la3ers #ommission as notar pu$li# )ad e8pired is malpra#ti#eand 2ross mis#ondu#t /lores vs. Lo9ada, '% SCRA %'+&0. Respondentse8planation t)at )e 3as made to $elieve $ )is a2ent t)at )is #ommission)as $een *iled and approved #annot $e a##epted *or to rule ot)er3ise 3ill

$e to ena$le irresponsi$le la3ers to avoid dis#iplinar a#tion $ simplattri$utin2 t)e pro$lem to )is aidese#retar or emploee /?utierre9 vs."ulueta, %6& SCRA +(&0.EREORE, premises #onsidered, 3e )ere$ re#ommend t)atrespondent ATTF. EA!EL SAO $e SSPE!DED *or a period o*S1 O!TS *rom re#eipt )ereo* *rom t)e pra#ti#e Go*H )is pro*essionas a la3er and as a mem$er o* t)e Bar.RESPECTLLF SB1TTED.G%%H

Per Resolution !o. V11-'((+-%% dated ar#) '(, '((+, t)e 1BP Board o*

?overnors modi*ied t)e report and re#ommendation o* Commissioner Villanueva-aala $ in#reasin2 t)e re#ommended period o* suspension *rom si8 /+0 mont)s to

one /%0 ear. 1n addition, t)e Board resolved to revo;e respondents notarial

#ommission and dis5uali*ied )im *rom reappointment as notar pu$li# *or a period

o* t3o /'0 ears.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/6505.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/6505.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/6505.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/6505.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/6505.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/6505.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/6505.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/6505.htm#_ftn12

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

35/104

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

36/104

issuan#e o* notarial #ommission. is e**ort in s)i*tin2 t)e responsi$ilit to t)e

o**i#e aide does not stri;e t)e Court as t)e ;ind o* dili2en#e properl re5uired o* a

mem$er o* t)e $ar in per*ormin2 )is duties as notar pu$li#.G%H

To $e sure, t)e re5uirements *or t)e issuan#e o* a #ommission as notar pu$li#

must not $e treated as a mere #asual *ormalit. T)e Court )as #)ara#teri9ed ala3ers a#t o* notari9in2 do#uments 3it)out t)e re5uisite #ommission t)ere*or as

repre)ensi$le, #onstitutin2 as it does, not onl malpra#ti#e, $ut also t)e #rime o*

*alsi*i#ation o* pu$li# do#uments. or su#) repre)ensi$le #ondu#t, t)e Court )as

san#tioned errin2 la3ers $ suspension *rom t)e pra#ti#e o* la3, revo#ation o* t)e

notarial #ommission and dis5uali*i#ation *rom a#tin2 as su#), and even dis$arment.G%+H

Time and a2ain, 3e )ave )eld t)at 3)ere t)e notari9ation o* a do#ument is done $a mem$er o* t)e P)ilippine Bar at a time 3)en )e )as no aut)ori9ation or

#ommission to do so, t)e o**ender ma $e su$@e#ted to dis#iplinar a#tion. One

3)o is per*ormin2 a notarial a#t 3it)out su#) #ommission is a violation o* t)e

la3ers oat) to o$e t)e la3s, more spe#i*i#all, t)e !otarial La3. T)en, too, $

ma;in2 it appear t)at )e is dul #ommissioned 3)en )e is not, )e is, *or all le2al

intents and purposes, indul2in2 in deli$erate *alse)ood, 3)i#) t)e la3ers oat)

similarl pros#ri$es. T)ese violations *all s5uarel 3it)in t)e pro)i$ition o* Rule

%.(% o* Canon % o* t)e Code o* Pro*essional Responsi$ilit, 3)i#) provides t)at a

la3er s)all not en2a2e in unla3*ul, dis)onest, immoral or de#eit*ul #ondu#t. Ba#tin2 as a notar pu$li# 3it)out t)e proper #ommission to do so, t)e la3er

li;e3ise violates Canon & o* t)e same Code, 3)i#) dire#ts ever la3er to up)old

at all times t)e inte2rit and di2nit o* t)e le2al pro*ession.G%&H

As to t)e appropriate penalt, #onsiderin2 t)e #ir#umstan#es o$tainin2 in t)e

instant #ase, and $ased on @urispruden#e on t)is matter, suspension *or si8 /+0

mont)s is ade5uate.

Complainant in t)e instant #ase presented onl one do#ument s)o3in2 respondents

unaut)ori9ed notari9ation. o3ever, $ respondents o3n admission, )e )ad $een

pla#ed in a mista;en $elie* t)at )is #ommission 3as rene3ed *rom '((( to

'(('. Durin2 t)is t3o-ear period, it seems entirel possi$le t)at )e )ad similarl

notari9ed, 3it)out le2al aut)orit, ot)er still unidenti*ied do#uments.G%6H

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

37/104

1nBuensueso v. Barrera,G%:HAtt. Joelito Barrera 3as administrativel san#tioned

*or #ommittin2 a#ts o* unaut)ori9ed notari9ation. As in t)e instant #ase, Att.

Barrera #laimed t)at )e 3as una3are o* said la#; o* aut)orit, and )e s)i*ted t)e

$lame to )is se#retar to 3)om )e )ad entrusted t)e tas; o* ma;in2 sure t)at )is

notarial #ommission 3ould $e rene3ed. T)ou2) onl *ive do#uments 3erepresented to prove )is #ulpa$ilit, #onsiderin2 t)at more t)an t3elve /%'0 ears )ad

lapsed, and it 3as possi$le t)at similar do#uments )ad $een unla3*ull notari9ed,

t)e Court suspended )im *rom t)e pra#ti#e o* la3 *or a period o* one ear.

1n t)e instant #ase, sin#e onl t3o ears )ad lapsed prior to t)e dis#over o* t)e

unaut)ori9ed a#t, si8-mont) suspension su**i#es.

An attornes ri2)t to pra#ti#e la3 ma $e resolved $ a pro#eedin2 to

suspend )im, $ased on #ondu#t renderin2 )im un*it to )old a li#ense or to e8er#iset)e duties and responsi$ilities o* an attorne. 1t must $e understood t)at t)e

purpose o* suspendin2 or dis$arrin2 )im as an attorne is to remove *rom t)e

pro*ession a person 3)ose mis#ondu#t )as proved )im un*it to $e entrusted 3it)

t)e duties and responsi$ilities $elon2in2 to an o**i#e o* attorne, and t)us, to

prote#t t)e pu$li# and t)ose #)ar2ed 3it) t)e administration o* @usti#e, rat)er t)an

to punis) an attorne.G'(H

HEREFORE, premises #onsidered, respondent Emmanuel P. Sao is

)ere$ S0S(ENDED*rom t)e pra#ti#e o* la3 *or a period o* si8 /+0 mont)s. 1naddition, )is present notarial #ommission, i* an, is HEREBY REVO8ED, and )e

is DIS90ALIFIED*rom reappointment as a notar pu$li# *or a period o* t3o /'0

ears. e is *urt)erARNEDt)at an similar a#t or in*ra#tion in t)e *uture s)all

$e dealt 3it) more severel.

Let #opies o* t)is De#ision $e *urnis)ed all t)e #ourts o* t)e land t)rou2) t)e

Court Administrator, as 3ell as t)e 1BP, and t)e O**i#e o* t)e Bar Con*idant, and

re#orded in t)e personal re#ords o* t)e respondent.

SO ORDERED.

EN BANC

LOREN:O D. BRENNISEN,

Complainant,

A.C. No. 741

Present4
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/6505.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/6505.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/6505.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/6505.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/6505.htm#_ftn21

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

38/104

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

39/104

n$e;no3nst to #omplainant, )o3ever, respondent, t)rou2) a spurious Spe#ial

Po3er o* Attorne /SPA0G

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

40/104

T5e As Dupli#ateCerti*i#ate o* t)e propert o* t)e #omplainant

s #op o* TCT !o. '%%&+ 3as stolen and 3as ta;en out*rom )is o**i#e.G6H
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/7481.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/7481.htm#_ftn8

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

41/104

1n its ReportG:Hdated Jul %(, '((:, t)e 1BP Commission on Bar Dis#ipline /1BP-

CBD0, t)rou2) Commissioner Eduardo V. De esa, *ound t)at respondent )ad

undenia$l mort2a2ed and sold t)e propert o* )is #lient 3it)out t)e latter>s

;no3led2e or #onsent, *a#ilitated $ t)e use o* a *alsi*ied SPA. en#e, in additionto )is possi$le #riminal lia$ilit *or *alsi*i#ation, t)e 1BP-CBD dedu#ed t)at

respondent violated various provisions o* t)e Canons o* Pro*essional

Responsi$ilit and a##ordin2l re#ommended t)at )e $e dis$arred and )is name

stri#;en *rom t)e Roll o* Attornes.

On a %=, '(%%, t)e 1BP Board o* ?overnors adopted and approved t)e report o*

Commissioner De esa t)rou2) Resolution !o. 1-'(%%-'=6G%(Has *ollo3s4

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is )ere$unanimousl ADOPTED and APPROVED t)e Report andRe#ommendation o* t)e 1nvesti2atin2 Commissioner in t)e a$ove-entitled #ase, )erein made part o* t)is Resolution as Anne8 >A> and*indin2 t)e re#ommendation *ull supported $ t)e eviden#e onre#ord and t)e appli#a$le la3s and rules, and *indin2 Respondent2uilt o* *alsi*i#ation ma;in2 or usin2 *alsi*ied do#uments and*or $ene*itin2 *rom t)e pro#eedGsH o* )is dis)onest a#ts, Att.Ramon . Conta3i is )ere$ D1SBARRED.

T5e I""e

T)e sole issue $e*ore t)e Court is 3)et)er respondent violated )is la3er>s oat)

3)en )e mort2a2ed and sold #omplainant>s propert, 3)i#) 3as entrusted to )im,

3it)out t)e latter>s #onsent.

T5e Cor*" Rl6)-

A*ter a pun#tilious e8amination o* t)e re#ords, t)e Court #on#urs 3it) t)e *indin2s

and re#ommendation o* Commissioner De esa and t)e 1BP Board o* ?overnors
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/7481.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/7481.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/7481.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/7481.htm#_ftn10

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

42/104

t)at respondent a#ted 3it) de#eit 3)en, t)rou2) t)e use o* a *alsi*ied do#ument, )e

e**e#ted t)e unaut)ori9ed mort2a2e and sale o* )is #lient>s propert *or )is personal

$ene*it.

1ndisputa$l, respondent disposed o* #omplainant>s propert 3it)out )is ;no3led2eor #onsent, and partoo; o* t)e pro#eeds o* t)e sale *or )is o3n $ene*it. is

#ontention t)at )e merel a##ommodated t)e re5uest o* )is t)en *inan#iall-

in#apa#itated o**i#e assistants to #on*irm t)e spurious SPA is *lims and

implausi$le, as )e 3as *ull a3are t)at #omplainant>s si2nature re*le#ted t)ereon

3as *or2ed. As aptl opined $ Commissioner De esa, t)e *raudulent

transa#tions involvin2 t)e su$@e#t propert 3ere e**e#ted usin2 t)e o3ner>s

dupli#ate title, 3)i#) 3as in respondent>s sa*e;eepin2 and #ustod durin2

#omplainant>s a$sen#e.

Conse5uentl, Commissioner De esa and t)e 1BP Board o* ?overnors #orre#tl

re#ommended )is dis$arment *or violations o* t)e pertinent provisions o* t)e

Canons o* Pro*essional Responsi$ilit, to 3it4

Canon % A la3er s)all up)old t)e Constitution, o$e t)e la3s o*t)e land and promote respe#t *or la3 and le2al pro#esses.

Canon %.(% A la3er s)all not en2a2e in unla3*ul, dis)onest,immoral or de#eit*ul #ondu#t.

Canon %+ A la3er s)all )old in trust all mones and properties o*)is #lient 3)i#) ma #ome into )is possession.Canon %+.(% A la3er s)all a##ount *or all mone or propert#olle#ted or re#eived *or or *rom #lient.

Canon %+.(< A la3er s)all deliver t)e *unds and propert o* )is#lient 3)en due or upon demand.Canon %& A la3er o3es *idelit to t)e #ause o* )is #lient and )es)all $e mind*ul o* t)e trust and #on*iden#e reposed in )im.

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

43/104

1n 3a0ayle v. Tandayag,G%%Ht)e Court dis$arred one o* t)e respondent la3ers and

ordered )is name stri#;en *rom t)e Roll o* Attornes on t)e 2rounds o* serious

dis)onest and pro*essional mis#ondu#t. T)e respondent la3er ;no3in2l

parti#ipated in a *alse and simulated transa#tion not onl $ notari9in2 a spurious

Deed o* Sale, $ut also and even 3orse s)arin2 in t)e pro*its o* t)e spe#ioustransa#tion $ a#5uirin2 )al* o* t)e propert su$@e#t o* t)e Deed o* Sale.

1n9lores v. Chua,G%'Ht)e Court dis$arred t)e respondent la3er *or )avin2

deli$eratel made *alse representations t)at t)e vendor appeared personall $e*ore

)im 3)en )e notari9ed a *or2ed deed o* sale. e 3as *ound 2uilt o* 2rave

mis#ondu#t.

1n t)is #ase, respondent>s esta$lis)ed a#ts e8)i$ited )is un*itness and plain ina$ilit

to dis#)ar2e t)e $ounden duties o* a mem$er o* t)e le2al pro*ession. e *ailed to

prove )imsel* 3ort) o* t)e privile2e to pra#ti#e la3 and to live up to t)e e8a#tin2

standards demanded o* t)e mem$ers o* t)e $ar. 1t $ears to stress t)at GtH)e pra#ti#e

o* la3 is a privile2e 2iven to la3ers 3)o meet t)e )i2) standards o* le2al

pro*i#ien# and moralit. An violation o* t)ese standards e8poses t)e la3er to

administrative lia$ilit.G%s ar2ument t)at t)ere 3as no *ormal la3er-#lient

relations)ip $et3een )im and #omplainant 3ill not serve to miti2ate )is lia$ilit.

T)ere is no distin#tion as to 3)et)er t)e trans2ression is #ommitted in a la3er>s

private or pro*essional #apa#it, *or a la3er ma not divide )is personalit as an

attorne at one time and a mere #iti9en at anot)er.G%=H

it) t)e *ore2oin2 dis5uisitions, t)e Court t)us *inds t)e penalt o* dis$arment

proper in t)is #ase, as re#ommended $ Commissioner De esa and t)e 1BP Board

o* ?overnors.Se#tion '&, Rule

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

44/104

$e dis0arredor suspended *rom )is o**i#e as attorne $ t)eSupreme Courtfor any deeit, 4alpratie, or other gross4isondut in suh offie, 888 orfor any violation of theoath3)i#) )e is re5uired to ta;e $e*ore admission to pra#ti#e 888/emp)asis supplied0

T)e Court notes t)at in administrative pro#eedin2s, onl su$stantial eviden#e, i.e.,

t)at amount o* relevant eviden#e t)at a reasona$le mind mi2)t a##ept as ade5uate

to support a #on#lusion, is re5uired.G%Havin2 #are*ull s#rutini9ed t)e re#ords o*

t)is #ase, t)e Court t)ere*ore *inds t)at t)e standard o* su$stantial eviden#e )as

$een more t)an satis*ied.

HEREFORE, respondent ATTF. RAO! . CO!TA1, )avin2 #learl

violated )is la3er>s oat) and t)e Canons o* Pro*essional Responsi$ilit t)rou2)

)is unla3*ul, dis)onest and de#eit*ul #ondu#t, is DISBARREDand )is name

ordered STRIC8EN*rom t)e Roll o* Attornes.

Let #opies o* t)is De#ision $e served on t)e O**i#e o* t)e Bar Con*idant, t)e

1nte2rated Bar o* t)e P)ilippines and all #ourts in t)e #ountr *or t)eir in*ormation

and 2uidan#e. Let a #op o* t)is De#ision $e atta#)ed to respondent>s personal

re#ord as attorne.

SO ORDERED.T0IRD DIVISION

A.C. No. "919 O#$o%&r ', 2014

DO!ADO DI(O!I!BA (ULTAN,Complainant,

vs.

ATTY. CA(AN !ACABANDIN),Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

REYE(, J.:

Tis is an administative "omplaint#filed on a% #8, /77 $efoe te Offi"e of te Ba Confidant $%

Domado Disomim$a S!ltan 5"omplainant6 a(ainst )tt%. Casan a"a$andin( 5espondent6 fo

alle(edl% avin( notai-ed a falsified affidavit.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/7481.htm#_ftn15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/ac_7919_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/ac_7919_2014.html#fnt1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/7481.htm#_ftn15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/ac_7919_2014.html#fnt1

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

45/104

Te Fa"ts

)""odin( to te "omplainant, e an fo te position of a%o fo te !ni"ipalit% of B!adip!so

B!nton(, Lanao del S! in /77. 0e filed is Cetifi"ate of Candida"% 5COC6 dated a" /G, /77

3it te Commission on Ele"tions 5COELEC6 fo te a% #8, /77 ele"tions./Teeafte, an

)ffidavit of 1itda3al of Cetifi"ate of Candida"% fo !ni"ipal a%o4

5)ffidavit of 1itda3al6dated )pil #7, /77 3as notai-ed and s!$mitted $% te espondent to te COELEC, 3itda3in(

te "omplainant=s "andida"% 3ito!t te latte=s ?no3led(e o a!toi-ation.

1en te "omplainant leaned of tis, e 3ote a lette8dated )pil #, /77 and s!$mitted an

)ffidavit

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

46/104

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

47/104

Ote min!te identif%in( details

CONCLUSION9

Based on te a$ove FINDIN@S, te '!estioned si(nat!e DO)DO DISOIB) 53itten in

)a$i" "aa"tesJalpa$et6, on one and, and te sample spe"imen si(nat!es DO)DODISOIB) 53itten in )a$i" "aa"tesJalpa$et6, on te ote and, 1ERE NOT 1RITTEN $%

one and te same peson.//5Undes"oin( and empasis in te oi(inal6

Te espondent maintained tat te NBI offi"e 3o e;amined te "omplainant=s si(nat!e is not an

e;pet in )a$i" lan(!a(e and t!s, "o!ld not (ive an e;pet opinion e(adin( a si(nat!e 3itten in

)a$i" lan(!a(e./4

On tis s"oe, te Co!t efes to a%o )$d!lmoi$ oti aiano v. Commission on Ele"tions and

Domado Disomim$a S!ltan,/83eein te Co!t esolved 3it finalit% te dismissal of aiano=s

petition $efoe te Co!t alle(in( tat te COELEC "ommitted (ave a$!se of dis"etion

amo!ntin( to la"? of !isdi"tion in odein( te "omplainant=s einstatement in te list of ma%oalt%"andidates.

aiano=s petition "allen(ed te iss!an"es of te COELEC 3i" 3ee an"oed on its findin(

tat te affidavit of 3itda3al of "andida"% imp!ted to te "omplainant 3as fo(ed. It 3as dismissed

$% te Co!t in te Resol!tion dated )!(!st #G, /77. OnO"to$e G, /77, te "omplainant 3as ten

po"laimed as te d!l%ele"ted ma%o of B!adiposo B!nton(, Lanao del S!, avin( o$tained te

i(est n!m$e of votes 58,76. aiano filed a motion fo e"onsideation "laimin( tat te

COELEC=s fail!e to avail of te sevi"es of an)a$i" e;pet 3as tantamo!nt to (ave a$!se of

dis"etion./ 5$6 te 3itnesses= manne of testif%in(,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/ac_7919_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/ac_7919_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/ac_7919_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/ac_7919_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/ac_7919_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/ac_7919_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/ac_7919_2014.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/ac_7919_2014.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/ac_7919_2014.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/ac_7919_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/ac_7919_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/ac_7919_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/ac_7919_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/ac_7919_2014.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/ac_7919_2014.html#fnt27

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

48/104

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

49/104

10EREFORE, )tt%. Casan a"a$andin( is fo!nd administativel% lia$le fo mis"ond!"t and is

SUS+ENDED fom te pa"ti"e of la3 fo one 5#6 %ea. F!te, is notaial "ommission, if an%, is

REVOMED and e is DISU)LIFIED fom eappointment as Nota% +!$li" fo a peiod of t3o 5/6

%eas, 3it a stem 3anin( tat epetition of te same o simila "ond!"t in te f!t!e 3ill $e dealt

3it moe seveel%. 0e is DIRECTED to epot to tis Co!t te date of is e"eipt of tis De"ision to

ena$le it to detemine 3en te evo"ation of is notaial "ommission and is dis'!alifi"ation fom$ein( "ommissioned as nota% p!$li" sall ta?e effe"t.

Let "opies of tis De"ision $e f!nised to te Offi"e of te Ba Confidant, te Inte(ated Ba of te

+ilippines, and all "o!ts all ove te "o!nt%. Let a "op% of tis De"ision li?e3ise $e atta"ed to te

pesonal e"ods of )tt%. Casan a"a$andin(.

SO ORDERED.

SECON# #IVISION

A.C. No. 10695, Mar)* 1+, 2015

CRESCENCIANO M. "ITOO, Complainant, $.ATT'. JOSELITO TRO' S!ELLO, Respondent.

R E S O L ! T I O N

LEONEN,J.:

Crescenciano !. Pito*o (Pito*o) purchased a motorc'cle from mcor, 4nc. 7o%e/er, mcor, 4nc. alle*edl'failed to cause the re*istration of the motorc'cle under his name. Pito*o, thus, filed a Ci/il Complaint &eforethe Re*ional Trial Court a*ainst !COR, 4nc.

The motorc'cle %as e/entuall' re*istered in Pito*o8s name &ased on three (3) documents notari0ed &'respondent +tt'. 2oselito Tro' uello (uello)." The documents indicate that the' are re*istered in uello8s

notarial re*ister as follo%s:

. eed of +ssi*nment &et%een!aria P. Ponce F Ro*elioPonce and !COR, 4nc.

oc. No. ;3=9Boo> No. 639Pa*e No. 669eries of "##$3

". eed of ale %ith +ssumptionof !ort*a*e &et%een !aria P.Ponce and !ari0a No. 63,eries of "##$;

3. eed of ale %ith +ssumptionof !ort*a*e &et%een !ari0a

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

50/104

4n the letter dated +u*ust 5, "##$, Pito*o reiterated to uello that the documents %ere important in his ci/ilcase pendin* &efore the Re*ional Trial Court. 7e reuested uello to certif' the authenticit' and /eracit' ofthe three (3) documents he o&tained from the and Transportation Office.6 7e %anted to determine if thedocuments %ere dul' notari0ed &' uello or %ere merel' fa&ricated.$ Pito*o did not recei/e a repl' fromuello.#

On eptem&er #, "##$, Pito*o filed his +ffida/it-Complaint a*ainst uello &efore the Ce&u Chapter of the4nte*rated Bar of the Philippines. Pito*o alle*es that there %ere discrepancies &et%een the three (3)documents notari0ed &' uello and uello8s entries in his notarial re*ister.

pecificall', Pito*o claims that uello8s notarial re*ister sho%ed that the a&o/e entries pertain to thefollo%in* documents:

a. oc. No. ;3=: eed of +&solute ale of !r. Roel . Ra*o9 "

&. oc. No. ;35: eed of +&solute ale of !rs. Conchita Pito*o Tautho93

c. oc. No. "3?: Contract to ell of B Propert' e/elopment Corporation.;

4n his +ns%er to the +ffida/it-Complaint, uello denies ha/in* notari0ed the three (3) documents o&tainedfrom the and Transportation Office.? 7e denies the alle*ation that he diso%ned the documents.= 7eadmits that he certified the documents as true copies.5

4n his Position Paper, uello e1plains that it %as his secretar' %ho certified Pito*o8s documents on +u*ust 3,"##$.6 Pito*o called uello the ne1t da' to as> for a certification.$ Ahen he ad/ised Pito*o that he can *etit at his office after /erif'in* the documents, Pito*o informed him that his secretar' alread' certified them astrue copies."# uello told Pito*o that his secretar' %as not *i/en such authorit'."

uello also claims that Pito*o threatened to file an administrati/e case a*ainst him if he did not issue acertification statin* %hether the documents %ere reall' notari0ed &' him or %ere fa&ricated."" +ccordin* touello, Pito*o needed the certification that the three (3) documents used to re*ister the motorc'cle underhis name %ere fa&ricated so he could claim P.5 million in dama*es for !COR, 4nc.8s alle*ed non-re*istration of his motorc'cle."3 Pito*o8s claim a*ainst !COR, 4nc. %as apparentl' mooted &' there*istration of the motorc'cle under his name.

On 2anuar' #, "#", Commissioner 7ector B. +lme'da of the Commission on Bar iscipline of the4nte*rated Bar of the Philippines recommended uello8s suspension from the acti/e practice of la% for si1 (=)months, as %ell as the re/ocation of his commission as a notar' pu&lic. 7e also recommended uello8sdisualification as notar' pu&lic for t%o (") 'ears.";

On +pril ?, "#3, the 4nte*rated Bar of the Philippines Board of es the follo%in*, to %it:

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

51/104

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

52/104

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

53/104

!) ORLANDO VERAR RIAN, JR.

"etitioners,

% =er"" %

ATTY. RODRIO ICAO,

Respondent.

Present4M1SB1!?,J., Chairperson,CARP1O ORALES,T1!?A,VELASCO, JR., andBR1O!,JJ.

Promul2ated4De#em$er '=, '((6

8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -8

D E C I S I O N

CAR(IO MORALES,J.+

aria Ba#atan illiams and Orlando Verar Rian, Jr. /petitioners0

administrativel #)ar2e Att. Rodri2o 1#ao /respondent0 *or violation o* t)e !otarial

La3 and *or unla3*ul, dis)onest, immoral, and de#eit*ul #ondu#t un$e#omin2 o* an

attorne.G%H

1n t)eir Joint-Complaint-A**idavit *or Dis$arment,G'Hpetitioners alle2e t)at on

a '

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

54/104

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

55/104

3ere a##ompanied $ t)eir #ounsel, Att. Enri5ue9 t)at )e did not re5uire t)e

presentation o* ot)er do#uments to support t)e do#ument as )e 3as not priv to its

preparation and t)at petitioners #omplaint )ad alread pres#ri$ed under Se#tion %,

Rule V111 o* t)e Rules o* Pro#edure o* t)e Commission on Bar Dis#ipline /CBD0 o*

t)e 1BP under 3)i#) a #omplaint *or dis$arment, suspension or dis#ipline o*attornes pres#ri$es in t3o ears *rom t)e date o* t)e pro*essional mis#ondu#t.

Respondent atta#)ed to )is Comment a Joint A**idavitG&Ho* Ramon Ventolero

Verar, artin m$a#, and Desiderio Briones Ventolero, 3)o are amon2 t)e

si2natories to t)e do#ument, in 3)i#) t)e attested to )avin2 appeared $e*ore

respondent to a#;no3led2e as t)eirs t)e si2natures t)e )ad previousl a**i8ed

t)ereon.

T)e Court re*erred t)e #ase to t)e 1nte2rated Bar o* t)e P)ilippines /1BP0 *or

investi2ation, report and re#ommendation.G6H)ile a mandator #on*eren#e)earin2

3as set on April '=, '((&,G:Hpetitioners re5uested t)at t)e #ase $e resolved on t)e

$asis o* t)e parties position papers.G%(H

1n )is Report and Re#ommendation,G%%H1BP Commissioner Edmund T. Espina

/Espina0, $rus)in2 aside respondents de*ense o* pres#ription, #itin2 Calo v.

Dega4oG%'H3)i#) )eld t)at dis$arment pro#eedin2s do not pres#ri$e, *ound

respondent 2uilt o* violation o* t)e !otarial La3.

Espina t)ereupon re#ommended t)at respondent $e reprimanded, 3it)

3arnin2 t)at similar a#ts in t)e *uture 3ould merit severe penalt.

T)e 1BP Board o* ?overnors, $ Resolution o* De#em$er %=, '((&, resolved

to dismiss t)e #ase, viz4

R@3

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

56/104

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

57/104

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

58/104

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

59/104

On Fe$!a% #8, #GG8, "omplainant )nita C. +ea, fome ead of te Re"ods Depatment of te@ovenment Sevi"e Ins!an"e S%stem 5@SIS6, filed an )ffidavitComplaint#a(ainst espondent )tt%.Cistina C. +ateno. Complainant alle(ed tat se 3as te o3ne of a pa"el of land ?no3n as LotC, +sd8/77, lo"ated in Ba%an$a%anan, +aan(, ai?ina, eto anila, "oveed $% TansfeCetifi"ate of Title 5TCT6 No. NA#/88,/Re(iste of Deeds of ai?ina, 3it an ei(tdoo apatment"onst!"ted teeon. Se pesonall% ?ne3 espondent )tt%. Cistina C. +ateno, as espondent 3as

e la3%e in a le(al sepaation "ase, 3i" se filed a(ainst e !s$and in #G8, and teafoementioned popet% 3as e sae in tei popet% settlement. Complainant stated tat sealso ?ne3 pesonall% one Estella D. Ma!s, as se 3as espondent2s t!sted emplo%ee 3o didse"etaial 3o? fo espondent. Estella Ma!s 3as al3a%s tee 3eneve se visited espondent in"onne"tion 3it e "ases.

oeove, "omplainant stated tat, sometime in #GA, espondent s!((ested tat se 5"omplainant6appl% fo a loan fom a $an? to "onst!"t to3no!ses on e popet% fo sale to inteested $!%es,and tat e popet% $e offeed as "ollateal. Respondent ass!ed "omplainant tat se 3o!ld 3o?o!t te speed% po"essin( and elease of te loan. Complainant a(eed, $!t sin"e se ad a$alan"e on e loan 3it te @SIS, espondent lent e te s!m of +/,777.77, 3ito!t an% inteest,to pa% te said loan. 1en e title 3as eleased $% te @SIS, "omplainant ent!sted it toespondent 3o 3o!ld andle te pepaation of do"!ments fo te loan and follo3!p te same,and "omplainant (ave espondent te a!toit% fo tis p!pose. Fom time to time, "omplainantin'!ied a$o!t te appli"ation fo te loan, $!t espondent al3a%s ass!ed e tat se 3as stillpepain( te do"!ments e'!ied $% te $an?. Be"a!se of e ass!an"es, "omplainant did not$ote to "e"? on e popet%, el%in( on espondent2s 3ods tat se 3o!ld andle speedil% tepepaation of e appli"ation.

F!te, "omplainant naated tat 3en se visited e popet%, se dis"oveed tat e apatment3as alead% demolised, and in its pla"e, fo! esidential o!ses 3ee "onst!"ted on e popet%,3i" se late leaned 3as alead% o3ned $% one Enesto D. Lampa, 3o $o!(t e popet% fomEstella D. Ma!s. Complainant immediatel% "onfonted espondent a$o!t 3at se dis"oveed, $!tespondent !st $!sed e aside and i(noed e. )fte veifi"ation, "omplainant leaned tat epopet% 3as sold on Novem$e ##, #GA to Mis$!ilt Tades Compan%, Ltd., and espondent 3as

te Nota% +!$li" $efoe 3om te sale 3as a"?no3led(ed.4

Mis$!ilt Tades Compan%, Ltd.,to!( its ana(in( +atne, Estella D. Ma!s, sold te same to one Enesto D. Lampa on )pil #4,#GG.8

Complainant stated in e Complaint tat se did not sell e popet% to Mis$!ilt Tades Compan%,Ltd., and tat se neite si(ned an% deed of sale in its favo no appeaed $efoe espondent toa"?no3led(e te sale. Se alle(ed tat espondent manip!lated te sale of e popet% to Mis$!iltTades Compan%, Ltd. !sin( e t!sted emplo%ee, Estella D. Ma!s, as te inst!ment in te sale,and tat e si(nat!e 3as fo(ed, as se did not si(n an% deed sellin( e popet% to an%one.

In e )ns3e,

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

60/104

Spo!ses Ma!s "alled !p espondent to tell e tat te% ad ea"ed an a(eement 3it"omplainant, and te% e'!ested espondent to pepae te deed of sale in favo of tei "ompan%,Mis$!ilt Tades Compan%, Ltd. Teeafte, "omplainant and te Spo!ses Ma!s 3ent toespondent2s offi"e 3ee "omplainant si(ned te Deed of Sale afte se e"eived Si;t%SevenTo!sand +esos 5+A,777.776 fom te Spo!ses Ma!s. Respondent alle(ed tat "omplainant too?old of te Deed of Sale, as te !ndestandin( 3as tat te "omplainant 3o!ld, in te meantime,

3o? fo te elease of te mot(a(e, and, teeafte, se 3o!ld delive e "etifi"ate of title,to(ete 3it te Deed of Sale, to te Spo!ses Ma!s 3o 3o!ld ten pa% "omplainant te $alan"eof te a(eed pi"e. Complainant alle(edl% told espondent tat se 3o!ld infom espondent 3ente tansa"tion 3as "ompleted so tat te Deed of Sale "o!ld $e e"oded in te Notaial Boo?.Teeafte, espondent "laimed tat se ad no ?no3led(e of 3at tanspied $et3een "omplainantand te Spo!ses Ma!s. Respondent stated tat se 3as neve ent!sted 3it "omplainant2s"etifi"ate of title to e popet% in ai?ina 5TCT No. NA#/886. oeove, it 3as onl% "omplainant3o ne(otiated te sale of e popet% in favo of Mis$!ilt Tades Compan%, Ltd. )""odin( toespondent, "omplainant2s ina"tion fo ei(t %eas to veif% 3at appened to e popet% onl%meant tat se ad a"t!all% sold te same, and tat se "on"o"ted e sto% 3en se sa3 tepospe"t of e popet% ad se eld on to it. Respondent pa%ed fo te dismissal of te "ase.

On Fe$!a% /, #GG

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

61/104

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

62/104

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

63/104

ma% epose "onfiden"e.44Te $!den of poof ests !pon te "omplainant, and te Co!t 3ille;e"ise its dis"iplina% po3e onl% if se esta$lises e "ase $% "lea, "onvin"in( and satisfa"to%eviden"e.48

In tis "ase, Investi(atin( Commissione Sodan (ave "eden"e to "omplainant2s testimon% tat se(ave espondent e o3ne2s "op% of te "etifi"ate of title to e popet% as espondent 3o!ld appl%

fo a $an? loan in "omplainant2s $ealf, !sin( te s!$e"t popet% as "ollateal.

Complainant2s testimon% 3as "oo$oated $% a!a Oos"o, a fome e"ods po"esso in"omplainant2s offi"e at te @SIS and also a "lient of espondent, 3o stated tat se sa3"omplainant (ive e title to espondent.4

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

64/104

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

65/104

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

66/104

e son Fan"is"o to "ome to is offi"e in Tana% fo te eadin( and

veifi"ation of te "omplaint> espondent fo(ot, o3eve, te e;a"t date 3en

tis 3as done 3i" "o!ld $e an%3ee $et3een Septem$e //, #GG/ and

O"to$e , #GG/, te date of e deat> fom te time s. @o?io"o left is

offi"e in Tana% !p to te time e filed te "omplaint in "o!t, e 3as not a3aetat s. @o?io"o ad alead% died> is offi"e as no telepone and is a$o!t

7 ?ilometes fom te esiden"e of te @o?io"o famil% in Caloo"an> e

notai-ed and filed te "omplaint on Novem$e #7, #GG/ 3ito!t an% pesonal

?no3led(e of te fa"t of deat of s. @o?io"o> K/and, te deat of s.

@o?io"o 3as $o!(t to te attention of te "o!t onl% d!in( te petial

"onfeen"e on a% #,#GG4 3i" odeed E!sta'!io to amend te "omplaint.

On &!ne /, #GG8, te Co!t iss!ed a esol!tion efein( te instant "ase

to te Inte(ated Ba of te +ilippines 5IB+6 fo its investi(ation, epot ande"ommendation.K4

)fte seveal eain(s, Commissione Elpidio @. Soiano III of te IB+

s!$mitted is epot dated Novem$e #7, /774, potions of 3i" ead as

follo3s9

1n t)is #ase, t)e respondent *ailed to ma;e t)e proper entr or entries in )is notarial

re2ister tou#)in2 )is notarial a#ts in t)e manner re5uired $ la3. T)e respondent

s)ould )ave entered t)e *a#t o* See C)ua-?o;io#os veri*i#ation on t)e date 3)en t)elatter a#tuall veri*ied )er #omplaint in t)e respondents presen#e, as opposed to t)e

date 3)en )e *iled t)e #omplaint.

1n addition to *ailin2 to o$e t)e pertinent portions o* t)e notarial la3 5uoted a$ove,

t)e respondent also violated )is la3ers oat) to, inter alia, do no *alse)ood or #onsent

to t)e doin2 o* t)e same.

T)e respondent admits t)at alt)ou2) See C)ua-?o;io#o si2ned and su$s#ri$ed t)e

#ivil #omplaint at an earlier date, t)e said respondent onl entered t)e *a#t o* t)esi2nin2 and su$s#ri$in2 o* t)e said #omplaint mu#) later, t)at is, on t)e date o* t)e

*ilin2 o* t)e said #ivil #omplaint.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_4179.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_4179.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_4179.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_4179.htm#_ftn3

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

67/104

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

68/104

and e8e#uted t)e #ivil #omplaint in 5uestion on t)e date stated in t)e said #ivil

#omplaint in )is presen#e, 3)en in *a#t s)e 3as alread dead on t)e said date or

3as ot)er3ise not p)si#all present.

T)e undersi2ned #ommissioner, )o3ever, is o* t)e opinion t)at t)e respondentsmis#ondu#t 3)ile serious, is not so 2ross as to merit dis$arment or suspension. rom

t)e re#ord, it appears t)at t)e Presidin2 Jud2e o* RTC Ri9al, Bran#) &:, rat)er t)an

#itin2 t)e respondents mis#ondu#t ordered t)e #ivil #omplaint amended.

T)e dama2e t)at 3as #aused to t)e le2al sstem, to t)e respondents #lients to Ali#e

?o;io#o, )er )us$and ariano ?o;io#o, and t)eir dau2)ter Jenni*er ?o;io#o $e#ause

o* t)e respondents mis#ondu#t 3as minimal or 3as ot)er3ise #ontained $ t)e

amendment o* t)e #ivil #omplaint in 5uestion.

urt)ermore, t)e dama2e t)at ma )ave $een #aused $ t)e respondents mis#ondu#t is

miti2ated $ t)e *a#t t)at t)e respondent )ad no dis)onest or sel*is) motive in

notari9in2 t)e #ivil #omplaint despite t)e *a#t t)at t)e a**iant 3as a$sent on t)e date o*

its alle2ed notari9ation.K8

0e ten e"ommended tat9

respondent $e reprimanded and 3arned t)at an *uture mis#ondu#t on

)is part 3ill 3arrant t)e imposition o* a 2reater penalt.K

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

69/104

supported $ t)e eviden#e on re#ord and t)e appli#a$le la3s and rules, and

#onsiderin2 t)at respondent )ad no dis)onest or sel*is) motive in notari9in2 t)e

#ivil #omplaint despite t)e *a#t t)at t)e a**iant 3as a$sent on t)e date o* its

alle2ed notari9ation, Att. Ra*ael P. ateo is )ere$ REPR1A!DED and

AR!ED t)at an *uture mis#ondu#t on )is part 3ill 3arrant t)e imposition o*a 2reater penalt.KA

1ile 3e a(ee 3it te findin(s of te IB+, 3e find tat te penalt% of

epimand is not "ommens!ate to te mis"ond!"t "ommitted $% espondent.

Respondent violated is oat as a la3%e and te C+R 3en e made it

appea tat te "omplaint of te @o?io"o 3as veified $% See C!a on

Novem$e #7, #GG/.

Te veifi"ation of te "ivil "ase s!$mitted to te tial "o!t states,

SUBSCRIBED )ND S1ORN TO T0IS Novem$e #7, #GG/, in Tana%, Ri-al.KTe deat "etifi"ate s!$mitted $% "omplainant states o3eve tat See

C!a @o?io"o died on O"to$e , #GG/.

R!le #7.7# of te C+R olds tat9

A la3er s)all not do an *alse)ood, nor #onsent to t)e doin2 o* an in #ourt

nor s)all )e mislead or allo3 t)e #ourt to $e misled $ an arti*i#e.

Te Notaial La3, as povided fo in Title IV, Capte II, Revised

)dministative Code, also states tat9

Se#. '=.Notarial RegisterEver notar pu$li# s)all ;eep a re2ister to

$e ;no3n as t)e notarial re2ister, 3)erein re#ord s)all $e made o* all )is

o**i#ial a#ts as notar

Se#. '=+.-atters to 0e entered therein. T5e )o*!r 3l6< "5!ll e)*er

6) "

e/e

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

70/104

des#ription o* t)e su$stan#e t)ereo* and s)all 2ive to ea#) entr a #onse#utive

num$er, $e2innin2 3it) num$er one in ea#) #alendar ear. T)e notar s)all

2ive to ea#) instrument e8e#uted, s3orn to, or a#;no3led2ed $e*ore )im a

num$er #orrespondin2 to t)e one in )is re2ister, and s)all also state on t)e

instrument t)e pa2e or pa2es o* )is re2ister on 3)i#) t)e same is re#orded. !o$lan; line s)all $e le*t $et3een entries. /Emp)asis supplied0

It "annot $e stessed eno!( tat notaies p!$li" so!ld $e t!tf!l in

"a%in( o!t tei f!n"tions. Te% m!st o$seve 3it te i(est de(ee of

"ae te $asi" e'!iements in te pefoman"e of tei d!ties in ode to

peseve te "onfiden"e of te p!$li" in te inte(it% of te notaial s%stem.

Co!ts, a(en"ies and te p!$li" at la(e m!st $e a$le to el% !pon te

a"?no3led(ment e;e"!ted $% notaies p!$li" appended to inst!ments.KTei

f!n"tions so!ld not $e tiviali-ed and te% m!st dis"a(e tei po3es andd!ties 3i" ae impessed 3it p!$li" inteest, 3it a""!a"% and fidelit%.KG1it te eodin( fait of te p!$li" in te inte(it% of p!$li" do"!ments, tis

Co!t 3ill e;ot all te moe te notaies p!$li" to $e moe "i"!mspe"t in te

dis"a(e of tei d!ties.K#7

Indeed, faitf!l o$sevan"e and !tmost espe"t of te le(al solemnit% of

te oat in an a"?no3led(ment o !at is sa"osan"t.K##Te a"t of notai-ation

is invested 3it s!$stantive p!$li" inteest s!" tat onl% tose 3o ae

'!alified o a!toi-ed ma% pefom te d!ties of notaies p!$li".K#/

Tis esponsi$ilit% is moe pono!n"ed 3en te nota% p!$li" is a la3%e.

) (ave esponsi$ilit% is pla"ed !pon im $% eason of is solemn oat to

o$e% te la3s and to do no falseood o "onsent to te doin( of an%. K#40e is

mandated to te sa"ed d!ties appetainin( to is offi"e, s!" d!ties, $ein(

di"tated $% p!$li" poli"% and impessed 3it p!$li" inteest. Failin( in is

d!ties, e m!st $ea te "ommens!ate "onse'!en"es.K#8

Se". /8G of te Notaial La3 povides fo (o!nds fo te evo"ation of te

notaial "ommission, t!s9

Se#. '=:. >rounds for revoation of o44ission. --- T5e ollo@6)- erel6

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

71/104

5a6 Te fail!e of te nota% to ?eep a notaial e(iste.

6%7 T8& :il*r& o $8& +o$:r; $o /:i=$&r $o*#8i+> 8i= +o$:ri:l :#$= i+ $8& /:++&r r&?*ir&@ %; l:.

5"6 Te fail!e of te nota% to send te "op% of te enties to te pope "le? ofCo!t of Fist Instan"e 3itin te fist ten da%s of te mont ne;t follo3in(.

5d6 Te fail!e of te nota% to affi; to a"?no3led(ments te date of e;piation of

is "ommission, as e'!ied $% la3.

5e6 Te fail!e of te nota% to fo3ad is notaial e(iste, 3en filled, to te

pope "le? of "o!t.

5f6 Te fail!e of te nota% to ma?e te pope notation e(adin( "ed!la

"etifi"ates.

5(6 Te fail!e of a nota% to ma?e epot, 3itin a easona$le time, to te pope

!d(e of fist instan"e "on"enin( te pefoman"e of is d!ties, as ma% $e

e'!ied $% s!" !d(e.

56)n% ote deeli"tion o a"t 3i" sall appea to te !d(e to "onstit!te (ood

"a!se fo emoval. 5Empasis s!pplied6

1ile 3e a(ee 3it te o$sevation of te IB+ tat tee 3as no poof

tat espondent ad an% disonest o selfis motive in notai-in( te "ivil

"omplaint despite te fa"t tat te affiant 3as a$sent on te date of its alle(ednotai-ation, 3e do not a(ee o3eve tat )tt%. ateos "ond!"t deseves a

mee epimand.

To e;"!lpate imself, espondent "laims tat e enteed te fa"t of si(nin(

and s!$s"i$in( of See C!a@o?io"o of te "omplaint on a late date, tat is

te date of its a"t!al filin(, $e"a!se e 3as opin( tat te paties, 3i"

"ome fom te same famil%, 3o!ld ami"a$l% settle te iss!es aised in te

"omplaint.

1e ae not pes!aded. Te !at m!st t!tf!ll% efle"t all te infomation

stated teein sin"e te "o!ts and te p!$li" el% on s!" epesentations.

Tee is also no !le statin( tat te veifi"ation $e s!$s"i$ed and s3on to at

e;a"tl% te same da% as te filin( of te "omplaint. 1ot notin( also is te

fa"t tat espondent did not aise s!" e;planation in is "omment $efoe tis

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

72/104

Co!t dated Fe$!a% /

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

73/104

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

74/104

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

75/104

NICOEDES TOLENTINO

L)1 OFFFICE

CONSULT)NC )RITIE SERVICES

W/ FINANCIA A!!I!"ANCE

Fe aie L. La$iano

+aale(al

#st I&I ansion, /nd Fl. Rm. 7# Tel9 4A//7

At )ve., "o .0. Del +ila Fa;9 5A4/6 4A//#

@a"e +a?, Caloo"an Cit% Cel.9 57G/A6 /7##G

Ba"?

SERVICES OFFERED9

CONSULT)TION )ND )SSIST)NCE

TO OVERSE)S SE)EN

RE+)TRI)TED DUE TO )CCIDENT,

IN&UR, ILLNESS, SICMNESS, DE)T0

)ND INSUR)NCE BENEFIT CL)IS

)BRO)D.

5empasis s!pplied6

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

76/104

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

77/104

Canons of the CPR are rules of conduct all lawyers must adhere to,

including the manner by which a lawyers services are to be made

known. Thus, Canon 3 of the CPR provides:

C)NON 4 ) L)1ER IN )MIN@ MNO1N 0IS LE@)L

SERVICES S0)LL USE ONL TRUE, 0ONEST, F)IR,

DI@NIFIED )ND OB&ECTIVE INFOR)TION OR ST)TEENT

OF F)CTS.

Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the practice of law

is a profession and not a business; lawyers should not advertisetheir talents as merchants advertise their wares.[13]To allow a lawyer

to advertise his talent or skill is to commercialize the practice of law,

degrade the profession in the publics estimation and impair its

ability to efficiently render that high character of service to which

every member of the bar is called.[14]

Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides:

RULE /.74. ) L)1ER S0)LL NOT DO OR +ERIT TO BE

DONE )N )CT DESI@NED +RI)RIL TO SOLICIT LE@)L

BUSINESS.

Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose

of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers.[15]Such

actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment.[16]

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

78/104

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

79/104

on the strength of Labianos word that respondent could produce a

more favorable result.

Based on the foregoing, respondent clearly solicited employmentviolating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03 and Canon 3 of the CPR and

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

With regard to respondents violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR, settled

is the rule that a lawyer should not steal another lawyers client nor

induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good

result or reduced fees for his services.

[20]

Again the Court notes thatrespondent never denied having these seafarers in his client list nor

receiving benefits from Labianos referrals. Furthermore, he never

denied Labianos connection to his office.[21]Respondent committed

an unethical, predatory overstep into anothers legal practice. He

cannot escape liability under Rule 8.02 of the CPR.

Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture with his clientsas borrowers, respondent violated Rule 16.04:

R!le #A.78 ) la3%e sall not $oo3 mone% fom is "lient !nless te

"lients inteests ae f!ll% pote"ted $% te nat!e of te "ase o $%

independent advi"e. Neite sall a la3%e lend mone% to a "lient

e;"ept, 3en in te inteest of !sti"e, e as to advan"e

ne"essa% e;penses in a le(al matte e is andlin( fo te "lient.

The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his

client. The only exception is, when in the interest of justice, he has

to advance necessary expenses (such as filing fees, stenographers
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn21

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

80/104

7/25/2019 Canon 1-3 P2

81/104

Considering the myriad infractions of respondent (including

violation of the prohibition on lending money to clients), the

sanction recommended by the IBP, a mere reprimand, is a wimpy

slap on the wrist. The proposed penalty is grossly incommensurate

to its findings.

A final word regarding the calling card presented in evidence by

pe

canon 1-3 p2

Documents