MELODY R. NERY, Complainant, vs. ATTY. GLICERIO A. SAMPANA, Respondent. Legal Ethics; Canon 15; Canon 16; Rule 16.03; Canon 17; Canon 18; Rule 18.03 FACTS:
Nery alleged that in June 2008, she engaged the services of Sampana for the annulment of her marriage and for her adoption by an alien adopter. The petition for annulment was eventually granted, and Nery paid P200,000.00 to Sampana. As for the adoption, Sampana asked Nery if she had an aunt, whom they could represent as the wife of her alien adopter. Sampana then gave Nery a blurred copy of a marriage contract, which they would use for her adoption. Thereafter, Nery paid Sampana P100,000.00, in installment: (a) P10,000.00 on 10 September 2008; (b) P50,000.00 on 2 October 2008; and (c) P40,000.00 on 17 November 2008. Nery no longer asked for receipts since she trusted Sampana. Sampana admitted that he received "one package fee" for both cases of annulment and adoption. Despite receiving this fee, he unjustifiably failed to file the petition for adoption and fell short of his duty of due diligence and candor to his client. Sampana’s proffered excuse of waiting for the certification before filing the petition for adoption is disingenuous and flimsy. Inhis position paper, he suggested to Nery that if the alien adopter would be married to her close relative, the intended adoption could be possible. Under the Domestic Adoption Act provision, which Sampana suggested, the alien adopter can jointly adopt a relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity of his/her Filipino spouse, and the certification of the alien’s qualification to adopt is waived.
Having no valid reason not to file the petition for adoption, Sampana misinformed Nery of the status of the petition. He then conceded that the annulment case overshadowed the petition for adoption. Verily, Sampana neglected the legal matter entrusted tohim. He even kept the money given him.
Commissioner Antiquiera found Sampana guilty of malpractice for making Nery believe that he already filed the petition for adoption and for failing to file the petition despite receiving his legal fees. Thus, Commissioner Antiquiera recommended a penalty of three (3) months suspension from the practice of law.
ISSUE:
Should respondent be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility?
RULING:
Yes. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the dutyof fidelity to the client’s cause. Every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of importance. A lawyer
TAXATION II CLASS (A.Y. 2014-2015)
also owes it to the court, their clients, and other lawyers to be candid and fair. Thus, the Code of Professional Responsibility clearly states:
CANON 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.
CANON 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client thatmay come into his possession.
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. x x x.
CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Respondent even kept the money given him, in violation of the Code’s mandate to deliver the client’s funds upon demand. A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use, in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client and of the public confidence in the legal profession.
3. A.C. No. 8637 September 15, 2014
IMELDA CATO GADDI, Complainant, vs. ATTY. LOPE M. VELASCO, JR. Respondent. Legal Ethics; Rule IV, Section 2(b) and Rule VI, Section 3 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; Canon 1; Rule 1.01
FACTS:
This is an administrative complaint filed by Imelda Cato Gaddi (Gaddi) against Atty. Lope M. Velasco (Velasco) for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
According to Gaddi, she was the Operations and Accounting Manager of the Bert Lozada Swimming School (BLSS) when she broached the idea of opening a branch of BLSS in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya (BLSS in Solano) to Angelo Lozada (Angelo), the Chief Operations Officer of BLSS. Believing that Angelo agreed, Gaddi opened a BLSS in Solano. However, in April 2010, Angelo informed the management that he did not authorize a BLSS in Solano. Upon Angelo's complaint, the police officers apprehended the swimming instructors of BLSS in Solano, namely: Jonathan Lagamzon Lozare, Katherine Agatha Gaddi Ancheta, who is Gaddi' s niece, and Lorenz Ocampo Gaddi, who is Gaddi' s grandson.
TAXATION II CLASS (A.Y. 2014-2015)
At past 10:00 a.m. of 22 April 2010, while inside the BLSS main office in Sta. Ana, Manila, Gaddi was informed of the apprehension of the swimming instructors. Worried, Gaddi pleaded with Angelo’s wife, Kristina Marie, and the BLSS Programs Manager Aleza Garcia for permission to leave the office and proceed to Nueva Vizcaya. Instead ofacceding to her plea, they commanded Gaddi tomake a handwritten admission that the BLSS in Solano was unauthorized. They warned Gaddi that she cannot leave the office without the handwritten admission. Thus, Gaddi conceded in doing the handwritten admission and left the office before 1:00 p.m. of the same day. Subsequently, Gaddi found out that Angelo filed a complaint against her regarding the BLSS in Solano using her handwritten admission, which was already notarized by Velasco.
Thus, Gaddi filed the present complaint against Velasco for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically Rule IV, Section 2 (b) and Rule VI, Section 3. Gaddi denied that she personally appeared before Velasco to have her handwritten admission notarized. She alleged that she did not consent to its notarization nor did she personally know him, give any competent evidence of identity or sign the notarial register.
Investigating Commissioner Pablo S. Castillo (Investigating Commissioner) found the complaint impressed with merit, and recommended a penalty of fine of P5,000.00 on Velasco for violation of Rule IV, Section 2(b) and Rule VI, Section 3 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
ISSUE:
Is Atty. Lope M. Velasco liable for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice?
RULING:
Yes. Time and again, we have reminded lawyers commissioned as notaries public that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routinary act. Notarization converts a private document to a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face; for this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.
The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a notary public should not notarize a document unlessthe signatory to the document is in the notary’s presence personally atthe time of the notarization, and personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. At the time of notarization, the signatory shall sign or affix with a thumb or mark the notary public’s notarial register. The purpose of these requirements is to enablethe notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature and to ascertain that the document is the signatory’s free act and deed. If the signatory is not acting of his or her own free will, a notary public is mandated to refuse to perform a notarial act. A notary public is also prohibited from affixing an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete.
TAXATION II CLASS (A.Y. 2014-2015)
For notarizing a document without ascertaining the identity and voluntariness of the signatory to the document, for affixing his signature in an incomplete otarial certificate, and for dishonesty in his pleadings, Velasco failed to discharge his duties as notary public and breached Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Considering these findings and our previous rulings, Velasco should not only be disqualified for two years as a notary public, he must also be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
4. A.C. No. 9925 September 17, 2014
MARIANO R. CRISTOBAL, Complainant, vs. ATTY. RONALDO E. RENTA, Respondent. Legal Ethics; Canon 18, Rule 18.03
FACTS:
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Mariano R. Cristobal against Atty. Ronaldo E. Renta.
Complainant engaged the services of Renta Pe & Associates Law Office for the filing of a "petition for recognition for the minors Codie Darnell Green and Matthew Darnell Green" before the Bureau of Immigration. Respondent as the managing partner signed the "Special Contract of Legal Services" in behalf of said law office. Respondent also received from complainant the "full and package price" of P 160,000 for the filing of the petition for recognition. No such petition, however, was filed. Thus, the instant complaint was filed against respondent for the latter's failure to file the petition for recognition and return the amount of P160,000 despite demand.
In his comment, respondent explained that the petition for recognition was not filed because Anneth Tan, the one supposed to file the petition, misplaced it and did not inform him of such fact. He also claimed that he begged complainant to forgive him and assured him that he will return the money. However, respondent failed to refund the money on time for he was "hard up in funds." Eventually, he was able to save enough and refunded the money to complainant. Respondent likewise begs forgiveness from the Court and promises not to repeat his mistake. In addition, respondent submitted complainant’s Affidavit of Desistance. In the said affidavit, complainant said that respondent cried for forgiveness and that he has forgiven him. Complainant confirmed that respondent had already refunded the amount he paid.
In complainant’s reply, he confirmed the contents of his affidavit of desistance, the refund made by respondent and his act of forgiving the respondent for the latter’s misdeeds.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and should therefore be disbarred.
TAXATION II CLASS (A.Y. 2014-2015) RULING:
Yes, Atty. Ronaldo E. Renta was liable for violation of Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. However, he was REPRIMANDED with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.
On complainant’s affidavit of desistance, we hold that its execution cannot have the effect of abating the instant proceedings against respondent in view of the public service character of the practice of law and the nature of disbarment proceedings as a public interest concern. A case of suspension or disbarment is sui generis and not meant to grant relief to a complainant as in a civil case, but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts. A disbarment case is not an investigation into the acts of respondent but on his conduct as an officer of the court and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility reads:
CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
We have held that once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, it is that lawyer's duty to serve the client with competence and diligence. Here, it is beyond doubt that respondent breached his duty to serve complainant with diligence and neglected a legal matter entrusted to him. He himself admits that the petition for recognition was not filed, seeks forgiveness from the Court and promises not to repeat his mistake. Complainant also submitted official letters from the Bureau of Immigration that indeed no such petition was filed. That Anneth Tan supposedly lost the petition for recognition and failed to inform respondent cannot absolve him of liability for it was his duty not to neglect complainant's case and handle it with diligence.
We note that while respondent failed to refund immediately the amount paid by complainant, he nevertheless exerted earnest efforts that he eventually was able to fully repay complainant and begged complainant's forgiveness.
TAXATION II CLASS (A.Y. 2014-2015)