Pacita Caalim-Verzonilla vs Atty. Victoriano G.
Pacita Caalim-Verzonilla vs Atty. Victoriano G. PascuaPascua
Before the Court is the verified affidavit-complaint of Pacita Caalim-Verzonilla seeking the Before the Court is the verified affidavit-complaint of Pacita Caalim-Verzonilla seeking the disbarment
disbarment of of respondent Arespondent Atty. tty. Victoriano Victoriano G. G. Pascua Pascua for for allegedly allegedly falsifying falsifying a a publicpublic document and evading the payment of correct taxes through the use of falsified documents. document and evading the payment of correct taxes through the use of falsified documents. FACTS:
FACTS:
The respondent prepared and notarized two Deeds of Extra-Judicial Settlement of The respondent prepared and notarized two Deeds of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Deceased Lope Caalim with Sale. The first deed was for a consideration of the Estate of Deceased Lope Caalim with Sale. The first deed was for a consideration of P250,000 and appears to have been executed and signed by Lope’s su
P250,000 and appears to have been executed and signed by Lope’s surviving spouse,rviving spouse, Caridad Tabarrejos, and her children, (complainant, Virginia Caalim-Inong and Marivinia Caridad Tabarrejos, and her children, (complainant, Virginia Caalim-Inong and Marivinia Caalim) in favor of spouses Madki and Shirley Mipanga. The second deed was for a Caalim) in favor of spouses Madki and Shirley Mipanga. The second deed was for a consideration of P1,000,000 and appears to have been executed by and for the benefit of consideration of P1,000,000 and appears to have been executed by and for the benefit of the same parties as the first deed. The two deeds have identical registration numbers, page the same parties as the first deed. The two deeds have identical registration numbers, page numbers and book numbers in the notarial portion.
numbers and book numbers in the notarial portion.
Complainant alleged that the two deeds were spurious because all of the heirs’ Complainant alleged that the two deeds were spurious because all of the heirs’ signatures were falsified, that their signatures and thumbmarks appearing on the CTCs are signatures were falsified, that their signatures and thumbmarks appearing on the CTCs are not genuine and authentic; and that the two deeds were used by respondent and Shirley to not genuine and authentic; and that the two deeds were used by respondent and Shirley to annul a previously simulated deed of sale.
annul a previously simulated deed of sale.
Respondent admits having prepared and notarized the two disputed Deeds of Respondent admits having prepared and notarized the two disputed Deeds of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate with Sale (subject deeds), but denies any irregularity in their Judicial Settlement of the Estate with Sale (subject deeds), but denies any irregularity in their execution.
execution. ISSUE:
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent should be held liable for violating the Code ofWhether or not the respondent should be held liable for violating the Code of Professional Conduct and Rules on Notarial Practice.
Professional Conduct and Rules on Notarial Practice. HELD:
HELD:
YES. As a lawyer, respondent is expected at all times to uphold the integrity YES. As a lawyer, respondent is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of the legal profession.
the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of the legal profession. A
A notary notary public shall public shall not pnot perform any erform any notarial notarial act described act described in thin these rules ese rules forfor any person requesting such an act even if he tenders the appropriate fee specified by these any person requesting such an act even if he tenders the appropriate fee specified by these rules if: (a) a notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction rules if: (a) a notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or immoral. Sec. 2 Entries in the Notarial register (e) The notary shall give each is unlawful or immoral. Sec. 2 Entries in the Notarial register (e) The notary shall give each instrument or document exercised or sworn to or acknowledged before him a number instrument or document exercised or sworn to or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to one in his register and shall also state on the instrument or document the corresponding to one in his register and shall also state on the instrument or document the pages of register in which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries. pages of register in which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries.
The respondent also violated rule 1.02 of Canon1 of the Code of Professional The respondent also violated rule 1.02 of Canon1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Responsibility – – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance to the law or A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance to the law or at lessening the confidence in the legal system. With his admission that he drafted and at lessening the confidence in the legal system. With his admission that he drafted and notarized another instrument that did not state the true consideration of the sale so as to notarized another instrument that did not state the true consideration of the sale so as to reduce the capital gains and other taxes due on the transaction, respondent cannot escape reduce the capital gains and other taxes due on the transaction, respondent cannot escape liability for making an untruthful statement in a public document for an unlawful purpose. As liability for making an untruthful statement in a public document for an unlawful purpose. As the second deed indicated an amount much lower than the actual price paid for the property the second deed indicated an amount much lower than the actual price paid for the property sold, respondent abetted in depriving the Government of the right to collect the correct taxes sold, respondent abetted in depriving the Government of the right to collect the correct taxes due.
due.
He likewise displayed lack of respect for and made a mockery of the solemnity of the He likewise displayed lack of respect for and made a mockery of the solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment by notarizing such illegal and fraudulent document, he is oath in an Acknowledgment by notarizing such illegal and fraudulent document, he is entitling it full faith and credit upon its face, which it obviously does not deserve considering entitling it full faith and credit upon its face, which it obviously does not deserve considering
its nature and purpose in violation of pertinent sections of the 2004 Rules on Notarial its nature and purpose in violation of pertinent sections of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Practice.
Hence, respondent ATTY. VICTORIANO G. PASCUA is hereby SUSPENDED from Hence, respondent ATTY. VICTORIANO G. PASCUA is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years. In addition, his present notarial commission, the practice of law for a period of two (2) years. In addition, his present notarial commission, if any, is hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary if any, is hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary public for a period of two (2) years.
public for a period of two (2) years.
LUZVIMINDA R. LUSTESTICA VS. ATTY. SERGIO E. BERNABE LUZVIMINDA R. LUSTESTICA VS. ATTY. SERGIO E. BERNABE
A.C. No. 6258
A.C. No. 6258 August 24, 2010 (AJA)August 24, 2010 (AJA)
FACTS: FACTS:
Luzviminda R. Lustestica filed disbarment complaint against Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe for Luzviminda R. Lustestica filed disbarment complaint against Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe for notarizing a falsified or forged Deed of Donation of real property despite the non-appearance notarizing a falsified or forged Deed of Donation of real property despite the non-appearance of the donors
of the donors, Benvenuto H. Lustestica (complainant’s father) and his first wife, , Benvenuto H. Lustestica (complainant’s father) and his first wife, Cornelia P.Cornelia P. Rivero, both of whom were already dead at the time of execution of the said document. The Rivero, both of whom were already dead at the time of execution of the said document. The Court referred the matter to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Court referred the matter to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, evaluation and recommendation.
Philippines for investigation, evaluation and recommendation.
On August 15, 2005, IBP Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. found the respondent On August 15, 2005, IBP Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. found the respondent grossly negligent in the performance of his duties as notary public and recommended that grossly negligent in the performance of his duties as notary public and recommended that the respondent’s notarial commission be suspended for a period of one (1) year. The IBP the respondent’s notarial commission be suspended for a period of one (1) year. The IBP Commissioner also recommended that a penalty ranging from reprimand to suspension be Commissioner also recommended that a penalty ranging from reprimand to suspension be imposed against the respondent, with a warning that a similar conduct in the future will imposed against the respondent, with a warning that a similar conduct in the future will warrant an imposition of a more severe penalty.
warrant an imposition of a more severe penalty.
From these undisputed facts, supervening events occurred that must be taken into From these undisputed facts, supervening events occurred that must be taken into
consideration of the present case. In a decision dated February 9, 2006 for the case filed by consideration of the present case. In a decision dated February 9, 2006 for the case filed by Victorina Bautista against Atty. Bernabe docketed as A.C. No. 6963, the Court revoked the Victorina Bautista against Atty. Bernabe docketed as A.C. No. 6963, the Court revoked the respondents notarial commission and disqualified him from reappointment as Notary Public respondents notarial commission and disqualified him from reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two (2) years, for his failure to properly perform his duties as notary public for a period of two (2) years, for his failure to properly perform his duties as notary public when he notarized a document in the absence of one of the affiants. In addition, the Court when he notarized a document in the absence of one of the affiants. In addition, the Court suspended him from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, with a warning that a suspended him from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, with a warning that a repetition of the same or of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
repetition of the same or of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
On October 8, 2009, the respondent, through a letter addressed to the Office of the Bar On October 8, 2009, the respondent, through a letter addressed to the Office of the Bar Confidant, requested that he be given clearance to resume the practice of law and to allow Confidant, requested that he be given clearance to resume the practice of law and to allow him to be commissioned as a notary public. In his letter, the respondent alleged that he has him to be commissioned as a notary public. In his letter, the respondent alleged that he has already served the penalties imposed against him in A.C. No. 6963 and the present case. He already served the penalties imposed against him in A.C. No. 6963 and the present case. He claimed that after the receipt of the IBP Resolutions in both cases, he did not practice his claimed that after the receipt of the IBP Resolutions in both cases, he did not practice his profession and had not been appointed or commissioned as a notary public.
profession and had not been appointed or commissioned as a notary public. ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent committed a falsehood in violation of his oath as a lawyer and Whether or not Respondent committed a falsehood in violation of his oath as a lawyer and his duties as Notary Public.
his duties as Notary Public. HELD:
HELD:
Yes. We find that Atty. Bernabe should be
Yes. We find that Atty. Bernabe should be disbarred from the practice of law disbarred from the practice of law and and perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a
perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary publicnotary public. . We We emphasizeemphasize that this is respondent’s second offense and while he does not appear to have any
that this is respondent’s second offense and while he does not appear to have any participation in the falsification of the Deed of Donation, his contribution was his gross participation in the falsification of the Deed of Donation, his contribution was his gross
negligence for failing to ascertain the identity of the persons who appeared before him as the negligence for failing to ascertain the identity of the persons who appeared before him as the donors. This is highlighted by his admission in his Answer that he did not personally know donors. This is highlighted by his admission in his Answer that he did not personally know the parties and was not acquainted with them. The blank spaces in the Acknowledgment the parties and was not acquainted with them. The blank spaces in the Acknowledgment indicate that he did not even require these parties to produce documents that would prove indicate that he did not even require these parties to produce documents that would prove that they are the same persons they claim to be. As we emphasized in
that they are the same persons they claim to be. As we emphasized in Maligsa v Cabanting Maligsa v Cabanting :: “A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
“A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The b
profession. The bar should maiar should maintain a high sntain a high standard of legatandard of legal proficiencyl proficiency as well as honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal as well as honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by fai
profession by faithfully perfothfully performing his duties to srming his duties to society, to the bar, toociety, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end a member of the legal
the courts and to his clients. To this end a member of the legal
fraternity should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any fraternity should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and
honesty and integrity of the legal profession.” integrity of the legal profession.”
Under the circumstances, we find that the respondent should be made liable not only as a Under the circumstances, we find that the respondent should be made liable not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer. He not only violated the Notarial Law (Public Act No. notary public but also as a lawyer. He not only violated the Notarial Law (Public Act No. 2103), but also Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 2103), but also Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
A.M. NO. 09-6-1-SC Jan. 21, 2015 A.M. NO. 09-6-1-SC Jan. 21, 2015 Re:
Re: Violation of the Rules on Violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice (M.A.N.A)Notarial Practice (M.A.N.A) FACTS:
FACTS:
Based on three (3) complaints for violation of the Rules on Notarial practice endorsed to the Based on three (3) complaints for violation of the Rules on Notarial practice endorsed to the OBC for appropriate action. The first letter of complaint was filed by the commissioned OBC for appropriate action. The first letter of complaint was filed by the commissioned notaries public
notaries public before the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Lingayen,before the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Lingayen, Pangasinan (
Pangasinan (RTC-LingayenRTC-Lingayen) against Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. () against Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. ( Atty. Atty. SiapnoSiapno) for notarizing) for notarizing documents without a commission.
documents without a commission. Atty
Atty Siapno Siapno was was maintaining maintaining a a notarial notarial office office in in Alvear Alvear Street, Street, East, East, Lingayen, Lingayen, PangasinanPangasinan and was performing notarial acts in Dagupan City without the requisite of notarial and was performing notarial acts in Dagupan City without the requisite of notarial commission. They asserted that he had no jurisdiction to perform such acts for instead he commission. They asserted that he had no jurisdiction to perform such acts for instead he was vested notarial commission by the Executive Judge to perform notarial functions in was vested notarial commission by the Executive Judge to perform notarial functions in March 2007 to December 31, 2008. However, it was never renewed upon expiration. Proofs March 2007 to December 31, 2008. However, it was never renewed upon expiration. Proofs were presented in support with allegations of Notarized documents after the expiration of the were presented in support with allegations of Notarized documents after the expiration of the commision such as: (a) the Addendum to Loan and Mortgage agreement showing the commision such as: (a) the Addendum to Loan and Mortgage agreement showing the promisory notes were; (b) Deed of Absolute Sale dated 01/24/2008; (c) Joint affidavit of two promisory notes were; (b) Deed of Absolute Sale dated 01/24/2008; (c) Joint affidavit of two disinterested persons; and (d) Acknowledgment of Debt. They also averred that he had disinterested persons; and (d) Acknowledgment of Debt. They also averred that he had delegated notarial activities with his secretaries.
Second
letter-Second letter-complaint was the notarization of Atty. Santos complaint was the notarization of Atty. Santos of Audy B. of Audy B. Espelita’s Affidavit ofEspelita’s Affidavit of Loss which was denied by the Notarial Section of Manila because Atty. Santos was not Loss which was denied by the Notarial Section of Manila because Atty. Santos was not commissioned to perform notarial commission within the City of Manila.
commissioned to perform notarial commission within the City of Manila.
Third Letter-complaint came from a concerned citizen alleging that Atty. Evelyn who was Third Letter-complaint came from a concerned citizen alleging that Atty. Evelyn who was holding office at Manila who had been notarizing ang signing documents for and behalf of holding office at Manila who had been notarizing ang signing documents for and behalf of several lawyers.
several lawyers. Atty.
Atty. Siapno Siapno averred averred that that said said documents documents were were not not notarized notarized by by him anhim and d that that the the law offlaw officeice was not his, and neither are the secretaries are employees of his.
was not his, and neither are the secretaries are employees of his.
On the two other complaints, Judge Ros has informed the Court that he was not able to On the two other complaints, Judge Ros has informed the Court that he was not able to comply with SC’s orders because he was no longer the executive Judge of RT
comply with SC’s orders because he was no longer the executive Judge of RTC-Manila. SCC-Manila. SC ordered that said case be RE-DOCKETED the same as separate administrative cases.
ordered that said case be RE-DOCKETED the same as separate administrative cases. ISSUE:
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Siapno has performed unauthorized acts of notarization Whether Atty. Siapno has performed unauthorized acts of notarization HELD:
HELD:
Yes. The Executive Judge upon investigation found out that indeed Atty Siapno was Yes. The Executive Judge upon investigation found out that indeed Atty Siapno was maintaining an office on said place and was performing notarial acts even the if the notarial maintaining an office on said place and was performing notarial acts even the if the notarial has expired. He violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Commission and recommended that he has expired. He violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Commission and recommended that he be fined P50,000.00. Court agreed to such findings for only persons who are commissioned be fined P50,000.00. Court agreed to such findings for only persons who are commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the court which as notary public may perform notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the court which granted the commission. Court reiterated that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, granted the commission. Court reiterated that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routine act. Private documents notarized become public documents that may be admissible routine act. Private documents notarized become public documents that may be admissible as evidence.
as evidence.
Considering that Atty. Siapno has been proven to have performed notarial without the Considering that Atty. Siapno has been proven to have performed notarial without the requisite commission, Atty. Siapno must be barred from being commissioned as notary requisite commission, Atty. Siapno must be barred from being commissioned as notary public permanently and suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (
public permanently and suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2 2 ) years.) years. WHEREFORE,
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. is hereby respondent Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDEDSUSPENDED from the from the practice of law for two (2) years and
practice of law for two (2) years and BARRED PERMANENTLYBARRED PERMANENTLY from being commissioned from being commissioned as Notary Public, effective upon his receipt of a copy of this decision.
as Notary Public, effective upon his receipt of a copy of this decision.
ELERT VS GALAPON ELERT VS GALAPON AM MTJ-00-1294 AM MTJ-00-1294 FACTS: FACTS: A
A letter-complaint letter-complaint dated dated January January 8, 8, 2000 2000 and and an an affidavit-complaint affidavit-complaint dated dated January January 10,10, 2000,both filed by Horst Franz Ellert, charging Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. of the 2000,both filed by Horst Franz Ellert, charging Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court at Dulag, Leyte with grave misconduct, abuse of judicial authority, Municipal Trial Court at Dulag, Leyte with grave misconduct, abuse of judicial authority, ignorance of the law, unlawful notarization, perjury, and false testimony.
ignorance of the law, unlawful notarization, perjury, and false testimony.
This case originated from two (2) cases, namely: DARAB Case No. VIII-169-L-91 entitled This case originated from two (2) cases, namely: DARAB Case No. VIII-169-L-91 entitled "Lualhati V. Ellert vs. Marina Roca, et al."
"Lualhati V. Ellert vs. Marina Roca, et al." Complainant alleged that in the "Answer"
Complainant alleged that in the "Answer" filed by Marina Roca and Odeth Roca with thefiled by Marina Roca and Odeth Roca with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), the signature of Judge Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), the signature of Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr., herein respondent, was affixed in the jurat.
Victorio L. Galapon, Jr., herein respondent, was affixed in the jurat.
In his complaint, Horst Franz Ellert avers that "a Municipal Trial Court judge is only In his complaint, Horst Franz Ellert avers that "a Municipal Trial Court judge is only authorized to administer oaths, or sign jurats to documents only for submission before his authorized to administer oaths, or sign jurats to documents only for submission before his court, in cases pending before his court, such as complaints for filing with his court, sworn court, in cases pending before his court, such as complaints for filing with his court, sworn
statements of witnesses in cases pending or to be filed with his court, affidavits of all kinds, statements of witnesses in cases pending or to be filed with his court, affidavits of all kinds, provided that they are for filing/submission to his court, but definitely, not all other provided that they are for filing/submission to his court, but definitely, not all other documents. Even as an Ex-Officio Notary Public, he is authorized to notarize (sign documents. Even as an Ex-Officio Notary Public, he is authorized to notarize (sign acknowledgments) documents, conveyances of very limited nature.
acknowledgments) documents, conveyances of very limited nature.
In Criminal Case No. 97-07-CR-161 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Horst Franz In Criminal Case No. 97-07-CR-161 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Horst Franz Ellert.", complainant Ellert made the following allegations and rationalizes why it is his Ellert.", complainant Ellert made the following allegations and rationalizes why it is his opinion that respondent judge gave a false testimony as well as perjured himself. On the opinion that respondent judge gave a false testimony as well as perjured himself. On the other hand, Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. prays for the dismissal of the complaints filed by other hand, Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. prays for the dismissal of the complaints filed by complainant Horst Franz Ellert.
complainant Horst Franz Ellert. ISSUE:
ISSUE:
Whether Judge Galapon Jr. has performed functions as notary public ex-officio only in the Whether Judge Galapon Jr. has performed functions as notary public ex-officio only in the notarization of documents connected with the exercise of his official functions.
notarization of documents connected with the exercise of his official functions. HELD:
HELD:
No, Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may perform their No, Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may perform their functions as notaries public
functions as notaries public ex-officioex-officio only in the notarization of documents connected with only in the notarization of documents connected with the exercise of their official functions. They may not undertake the preparation and the exercise of their official functions. They may not undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of
acknowledgment of documents which bear no relation to the performance of theirdocuments which bear no relation to the performance of their functions as judges
functions as judges..
Undoubtedly, the Answer filed with the DARAB that was notarized by respondent judge is a Undoubtedly, the Answer filed with the DARAB that was notarized by respondent judge is a perfect example of a document which bears no relation to the performance of Judge perfect example of a document which bears no relation to the performance of Judge Galapons functions as a judge. Since respondent's actuation of notarizing the aforestated Galapons functions as a judge. Since respondent's actuation of notarizing the aforestated pleading is not in connection with the exercise of his official duties, consequently, he acted pleading is not in connection with the exercise of his official duties, consequently, he acted beyond the scope of his authority as notary public
beyond the scope of his authority as notary publicex-officioex-officio..
Circular No. 1-90 clearly provides that it is only when there are no lawyers or notaries public Circular No. 1-90 clearly provides that it is only when there are no lawyers or notaries public in the municipality or circuit that an MTC and MCTC judge may act as a notary public in the municipality or circuit that an MTC and MCTC judge may act as a notary public provided that, the notarial fees are turned over to the government and a certification is made provided that, the notarial fees are turned over to the government and a certification is made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality or circuit.
municipality or circuit.
In the case at bar, there is no showing that there was no lawyer or notary public in Dulag, In the case at bar, there is no showing that there was no lawyer or notary public in Dulag, Leyte. Therefore, respondent judge action as a notary public cannot qualify as an exception Leyte. Therefore, respondent judge action as a notary public cannot qualify as an exception to Circular No. 1-90.
to Circular No. 1-90.
The defense interposed by the respondent that he sees nothing wrong with what he has The defense interposed by the respondent that he sees nothing wrong with what he has done, nor that he abused his authority when he notarized the subject pleading, is done, nor that he abused his authority when he notarized the subject pleading, is unmeritorious. Judge Galapon should know what the duties of a judge acting as an
unmeritorious. Judge Galapon should know what the duties of a judge acting as an ex-officioex-officio notary public are, and, if he was uncertain of what they are, he should have first verified from notary public are, and, if he was uncertain of what they are, he should have first verified from the Office of the Court Administrator the extent of his authority to notarize documents.
the Office of the Court Administrator the extent of his authority to notarize documents. As
As to to the the charge charge of of False False Testimony Testimony and and Perjury, Perjury, the the complainant complainant is is advised advised to to institute institute aa criminal case with the proper trial court.
criminal case with the proper trial court.
The Office of the Court Administrator, as the name suggests, deals mainly with The Office of the Court Administrator, as the name suggests, deals mainly with administrative functions of the courts. It can act on matters concerning the judicial discipline administrative functions of the courts. It can act on matters concerning the judicial discipline of judges of the MTC, among others. Criminal cases are out of its hands.
of judges of the MTC, among others. Criminal cases are out of its hands. WHEREFORE
WHEREFORE, for unauthorized notarization which constitutes an unlawful practice of law,, for unauthorized notarization which constitutes an unlawful practice of law, respondent Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court at Dulag, Leyte is respondent Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court at Dulag, Leyte is hereby ordered to
hereby ordered to pay a FINE of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00)pay a FINE of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00). He is further. He is further warnedwarned that a repetition of the same or similar infractions will be dealt with more severely.
**********
********************************************************** ****** 2nd 2nd Batch Batch ********************************************************************************
EDGAR PEREA VS. ATTY. RUBEN ALMADRO EDGAR PEREA VS. ATTY. RUBEN ALMADRO
A.C. No. 5246
A.C. No. 5246 March 20, 2003March 20, 2003 (delay in pleadings -
(delay in pleadings - AJA)AJA) FACTS:
FACTS:
Edgar Perea filed a disbarment complaint against his counsel, being charged with frustrated Edgar Perea filed a disbarment complaint against his counsel, being charged with frustrated homicide in RTC, Atty. Ruben Almadro for gross neglect of his duties as lawyer after failing homicide in RTC, Atty. Ruben Almadro for gross neglect of his duties as lawyer after failing to submit a demurrer to evidence which resulted in his order of warrant of arrest.
to submit a demurrer to evidence which resulted in his order of warrant of arrest. Atty.
Atty. Almadro Almadro filed filed three three motions motions for for extension extension of of time time to to file file comment, comment, which which the the courtcourt resolved to grant the said motions with a warning that no further extensions shall be granted. resolved to grant the said motions with a warning that no further extensions shall be granted. Three days later respondent contends, through his counsels Atty. Sua and Atty. Alambra, Three days later respondent contends, through his counsels Atty. Sua and Atty. Alambra, that he did not received any complaint.
that he did not received any complaint.
Through the Answer filed by respondent’s counsels, it states that two days after the RTC Through the Answer filed by respondent’s counsels, it states that two days after the RTC granted the manifestation of defense to file motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence, he granted the manifestation of defense to file motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence, he had finished the draft of the motion and the accompanying pleading which he stored in a had finished the draft of the motion and the accompanying pleading which he stored in a magnetic computer diskette intended for editing prior to its submission in court; such files magnetic computer diskette intended for editing prior to its submission in court; such files were nowhere to be found a few days before the deadline. It further contends that were nowhere to be found a few days before the deadline. It further contends that respondent was preoccupied with other works anent the case of Perea in RTC, since he was respondent was preoccupied with other works anent the case of Perea in RTC, since he was a solo practitioner.
a solo practitioner.
The court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, who later submitted the report and The court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, who later submitted the report and recommendation that Atty. Almadro and his counsels statements were an outrageous lie as recommendation that Atty. Almadro and his counsels statements were an outrageous lie as in the respondent’s 3 motion
in the respondent’s 3 motions for extension, Atty. Almadro never once mentioned that he dids for extension, Atty. Almadro never once mentioned that he did not received a copy of the complaint, it is a manifest violation of Canon 18, 18.03, 18.04 and not received a copy of the complaint, it is a manifest violation of Canon 18, 18.03, 18.04 and should be suspended from the practice of law for 2 years and a fine of P10,000, while his should be suspended from the practice of law for 2 years and a fine of P10,000, while his counsels, Atty. Sua and Atty. Alambra are ordered to explain why they should not be held in counsels, Atty. Sua and Atty. Alambra are ordered to explain why they should not be held in contempt for deliberately foisting falsehood and misrepresentation in court.
contempt for deliberately foisting falsehood and misrepresentation in court. ISSUE:
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Almario can be held liable for failure to submit the demurrer on time. Whether or not Atty. Almario can be held liable for failure to submit the demurrer on time. HELD:
HELD:
Yes. It is plain from the records that respondent lawyer failed to submit a demurrer to Yes. It is plain from the records that respondent lawyer failed to submit a demurrer to evidence for which he had earlier asked permission from the trial court and which his client, evidence for which he had earlier asked permission from the trial court and which his client, herein complainant was relying on. More than that, he failed to contact his client and to herein complainant was relying on. More than that, he failed to contact his client and to apprise the latter about the developments of the case leaving complainant completely apprise the latter about the developments of the case leaving complainant completely surprised and without any protection when years later, he received summons from the trial surprised and without any protection when years later, he received summons from the trial
court asking him to present evidence in his defense and, not long after, the trial court issued court asking him to present evidence in his defense and, not long after, the trial court issued a warrant for his arrest.
a warrant for his arrest.
Respondent would have this Court believe a very preposterous story of how his draft Respondent would have this Court believe a very preposterous story of how his draft disappeared, all the time avoiding the simple fact that he failed to submit the necessary disappeared, all the time avoiding the simple fact that he failed to submit the necessary pleading before the trial court. Such behavior cannot be countenanced and deserves stern pleading before the trial court. Such behavior cannot be countenanced and deserves stern penalty therefor.
penalty therefor.
The act of the IBP in requiring Atty. Kenton Sua and Atty. Alan Alambra to show cause why The act of the IBP in requiring Atty. Kenton Sua and Atty. Alan Alambra to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court for deliberate falsehood and misrepresentation they should not be held in contempt of court for deliberate falsehood and misrepresentation in the preparation of the Answer for herein respondent is appropriate.
in the preparation of the Answer for herein respondent is appropriate.
WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Ruben Almadro guilty of serious neglect of his WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Ruben Almadro guilty of serious neglect of his duties as a lawyer and of open disrespect for the court and the authority it represents, as duties as a lawyer and of open disrespect for the court and the authority it represents, as embodied in Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of embodied in Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and Professional Responsibility, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos, with a WARNING that any or FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos, with a WARNING that any or similar acts of dishonesty would be dealt with more severely.
similar acts of dishonesty would be dealt with more severely.
Heirs of SEGUNDO ROXAS vs. COURT OF
Heirs of SEGUNDO ROXAS vs. COURT OF APPEALS & ANDRES ROXASAPPEALS & ANDRES ROXAS G.R.
G.R. No. No. 76549 76549 December December 10, 10, 19871987 (delay
(delay in in pleadings - pleadings - AJA)AJA) FACTS:
FACTS:
Petitioners seek the review of the Resolution of the Court of Appeals declaring appellants' Petitioners seek the review of the Resolution of the Court of Appeals declaring appellants' Brief filed by herein petitioners to have been filed out of time and denying their motion for Brief filed by herein petitioners to have been filed out of time and denying their motion for reconsideration. RTC rendered judgment dismissing plaintiff Segundo Roxas' complaint for reconsideration. RTC rendered judgment dismissing plaintiff Segundo Roxas' complaint for re-conveyance of title against Andres Roxas and others. Segundo filed an appeal.
re-conveyance of title against Andres Roxas and others. Segundo filed an appeal.
On March 7, 1986, petitioners were required by CA to file appellants' brief within forty-five On March 7, 1986, petitioners were required by CA to file appellants' brief within forty-five (45) days from receipt thereof, copy of which was received by petitioners on March 18, 1986. (45) days from receipt thereof, copy of which was received by petitioners on March 18, 1986. Four days before the lapse of the 45-day period for filing their brief, petitioners filed their first Four days before the lapse of the 45-day period for filing their brief, petitioners filed their first motion for extension of time for thirty (30) days which was granted by the CA, counted from motion for extension of time for thirty (30) days which was granted by the CA, counted from notice thereof,
notice thereof, copy of which copy of which was received by was received by petitioners counsel on May 14, 1986.petitioners counsel on May 14, 1986.
Fifteen days before lapse of the 30-day period extension, petitioners filed a second motion Fifteen days before lapse of the 30-day period extension, petitioners filed a second motion for extension of time for another period of thirty (30) days on the ground that petitioners' for extension of time for another period of thirty (30) days on the ground that petitioners' counsel is suffering from asthma and hypertension and that their brief has not yet been counsel is suffering from asthma and hypertension and that their brief has not yet been completely finished in draft form. CA granted the motion counted from notice thereof, copy of completely finished in draft form. CA granted the motion counted from notice thereof, copy of which was received on June 23, 1986.
which was received on June 23, 1986.
Then, on July 21, 1986, two days before the expiration of the 30-day period granted, Then, on July 21, 1986, two days before the expiration of the 30-day period granted, petitioners filed their last motion for extension of time praying for fifteen (15) days counted petitioners filed their last motion for extension of time praying for fifteen (15) days counted from notice. Before the CA resolve their motion for last extension, petitioners finally filed their from notice. Before the CA resolve their motion for last extension, petitioners finally filed their brief on August 25, 1986.
On October 2, 1986, CA denied petitioners' motion for last extension as it appears, however, On October 2, 1986, CA denied petitioners' motion for last extension as it appears, however, that while the same remained unresolved, appellant filed his brief 18 days beyond (>>>July that while the same remained unresolved, appellant filed his brief 18 days beyond (>>>July 23 (due date) plus 15 days is August 7 (supposed last due date), Aug 7 to 25 is 18 days 23 (due date) plus 15 days is August 7 (supposed last due date), Aug 7 to 25 is 18 days lapsed, hindi ito kasama sa facts, inexplain ko lang, medyo magulo kasi puro dates<<<) the lapsed, hindi ito kasama sa facts, inexplain ko lang, medyo magulo kasi puro dates<<<) the period of extension prayed for by appellant, therefore, appellant's brief is hereby considered period of extension prayed for by appellant, therefore, appellant's brief is hereby considered filed out of time and is ordered expunged from the record. The appeal of plaintiff is ordered filed out of time and is ordered expunged from the record. The appeal of plaintiff is ordered DISMISSED. Motion for Resolution is likewise denied.
DISMISSED. Motion for Resolution is likewise denied. ISSUE:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in considering petitioners’ brief to have been filed out of time Whether or not the CA erred in considering petitioners’ brief to have been filed out of time whereas it was filed before their motion for last extension of time was resolved.
whereas it was filed before their motion for last extension of time was resolved. HELD:
HELD:
No. We so hold that the Resolutions assailed by herein petitioners are products of No. We so hold that the Resolutions assailed by herein petitioners are products of respondent court's sound exercise of its discretion. Pursuant to Section 15, Rule 46 of the respondent court's sound exercise of its discretion. Pursuant to Section 15, Rule 46 of the Revised Rules of Court, an "extension of time for the filing of briefs will not be allowed Revised Rules of Court, an "extension of time for the filing of briefs will not be allowed except for good and sufficient cause, and only if the motion for extension is filed before the except for good and sufficient cause, and only if the motion for extension is filed before the expiration of the time sought to be extended." Allowance or denial of motions for extension expiration of the time sought to be extended." Allowance or denial of motions for extension of time to file briefs is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.
of time to file briefs is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.
Examining the brief filed by herein petitioners it appears however that it consists of Examining the brief filed by herein petitioners it appears however that it consists of twenty-six (26) pa
six (26) pages only wiges only with simple narration th simple narration of facts and of facts and discussions of the isdiscussions of the issues. sues. AnyAny practising lawyer knows that twenty (20) days is more than sufficient to complete the printing practising lawyer knows that twenty (20) days is more than sufficient to complete the printing of brief of such l
of brief of such length including its proof-reading. ength including its proof-reading. It is known among evIt is known among every practising lawyerery practising lawyer that the policy of the Court of Appeals is to limit the second extension of time to file briefs to that the policy of the Court of Appeals is to limit the second extension of time to file briefs to twenty (20) days. Said policy was relaxed further by the respondent Court by giving sixty twenty (20) days. Said policy was relaxed further by the respondent Court by giving sixty (60) days extension on the basis of the plea of petitioners' counsel that he was suffering (60) days extension on the basis of the plea of petitioners' counsel that he was suffering from asthma even if said plea appears to be self-serving as it was not even accompanied by from asthma even if said plea appears to be self-serving as it was not even accompanied by a doctor's certificate. Petitioners abused the laxity extended them by the respondent Court. a doctor's certificate. Petitioners abused the laxity extended them by the respondent Court. They even prayed that the extension of fifteen (15) days be counted from notice. Lawyers They even prayed that the extension of fifteen (15) days be counted from notice. Lawyers should not presume that the courts would grant their motion for extension more so to expect should not presume that the courts would grant their motion for extension more so to expect that if ever granted it would always be counted from notice thereof.
that if ever granted it would always be counted from notice thereof.
They should file their briefs or pleadings within the extended period requested. Failing in this, They should file their briefs or pleadings within the extended period requested. Failing in this, they have only themselves to blame if their appeal or case is dismissed. The petition is they have only themselves to blame if their appeal or case is dismissed. The petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
A.C. No. 5653 February 27, 200
A.C. No. 5653 February 27, 2006 JOHN SIY LIM, Complainant, vs. ATTY. CARMELITO A.6 JOHN SIY LIM, Complainant, vs. ATTY. CARMELITO A. MONTANO, Respondent.
MONTANO, Respondent. FACTS:
FACTS:
In the case at bar, complainant John Siy Lim charged respondent Atty. Montano with In the case at bar, complainant John Siy Lim charged respondent Atty. Montano with gross misconduct relative to his filing of Civil Case No. C19928. Complainant alleged that gross misconduct relative to his filing of Civil Case No. C19928. Complainant alleged that respondent filed the complaint in the said civil case out of malice, indicating that it involves respondent filed the complaint in the said civil case out of malice, indicating that it involves the same parties, the same causes of action and relief prayed for as that of Civil Case No. the same parties, the same causes of action and relief prayed for as that of Civil Case No. C-14542.
In respondent s comment, he denied the allegations against him. While he admitted In respondent s comment, he denied the allegations against him. While he admitted filing the civil case stated herein as a counsel for plaintiff therein, he asserted that it was not filing the civil case stated herein as a counsel for plaintiff therein, he asserted that it was not filed with malicious intent. Moreover, while the new case involved the same party, it was for filed with malicious intent. Moreover, while the new case involved the same party, it was for a different cause of action and relief, and, as such, the principle of res judicata did not apply. a different cause of action and relief, and, as such, the principle of res judicata did not apply. He further explained that the complaint in Civil Case No. C-14542 was for declaratory relief He further explained that the complaint in Civil Case No. C-14542 was for declaratory relief or reformation of instrument, while Civil Case No. 19928 was for annulment of title. He or reformation of instrument, while Civil Case No. 19928 was for annulment of title. He accepted the case based on "his professional appreciation that his client had a good case." accepted the case based on "his professional appreciation that his client had a good case." In his reply, the complainant stressed that the respondent was guilty of forum shopping; Civil In his reply, the complainant stressed that the respondent was guilty of forum shopping; Civil Case No. C-19928 was nothing but a revival of the old complaint; and "the lame excuse of Case No. C-19928 was nothing but a revival of the old complaint; and "the lame excuse of the respondent that the present case is an action in rem while the other case is an action in the respondent that the present case is an action in rem while the other case is an action in personam" did not merit consideration.
personam" did not merit consideration. ISSUE:
ISSUE: Whether Whether or or not not respondent respondent violated violated Canon Canon 12 12 of of Code Code of of ProfessionalProfessional Responsibility and is liable of forum shopping.
Responsibility and is liable of forum shopping. HELD:
HELD:
In this case, it is clear that respondent is guilty of forum shopping. By his own In this case, it is clear that respondent is guilty of forum shopping. By his own admission, he was aware that Civil Case No. C-14542 was already final and executory when admission, he was aware that Civil Case No. C-14542 was already final and executory when he filed the second case (Civil Case No. C-19928). His allegation that he "was not the he filed the second case (Civil Case No. C-19928). His allegation that he "was not the original counsel of his clients" and that "when he filed the subsequent case for nullity of TCT, original counsel of his clients" and that "when he filed the subsequent case for nullity of TCT, his motive was to protect the rights of his clients whom he believed were not properly his motive was to protect the rights of his clients whom he believed were not properly addressed in the prior case for reformation and quieting of title," deserves scant addressed in the prior case for reformation and quieting of title," deserves scant consideration. As a responsible member of the bar, he should have explained the effect of consideration. As a responsible member of the bar, he should have explained the effect of such final and executory decision on his clients rights, instead of encouraging them to file such final and executory decision on his clients rights, instead of encouraging them to file another case involving the same property and asserting the same rights.
another case involving the same property and asserting the same rights.
The filing of another action concerning the same subject matter, in violation of the The filing of another action concerning the same subject matter, in violation of the doctrine of res judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional doctrine of res judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. By his actuations, respondent also in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. By his actuations, respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as a lawyer s mandate "to delay no violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as a lawyer s mandate "to delay no man for money or malice."
man for money or malice."
While we rule that the respondent should be sanctioned for his actions, we also note While we rule that the respondent should be sanctioned for his actions, we also note that the power to disbar should be exercised with great caution, to be imposed only in a clear that the power to disbar should be exercised with great caution, to be imposed only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar. Disbarment should never be decreed where officer of the Court and as a member of the bar. Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser penalty could accomplish the end desired. Thus, respondent lawyer is suspended any lesser penalty could accomplish the end desired. Thus, respondent lawyer is suspended from practice of law for six months.
from practice of law for six months.
VICTOR LINGAN VS ATTYS. ROMMEO CALUBAQUIB AND JIMMY P. BALIGA VICTOR LINGAN VS ATTYS. ROMMEO CALUBAQUIB AND JIMMY P. BALIGA
A.C. NO. 5377 A.C. NO. 5377 FACTS:
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Victor Lingan against Attys. Romeo This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Victor Lingan against Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmy Baliga on November 16, 2000. Complainant alleged that Calubaquib and Jimmy Baliga on November 16, 2000. Complainant alleged that respondents, both notaries public, falsified certain public documents.
respondents, both notaries public, falsified certain public documents.
The case has its roots in a complaint for annulment of title with damages filed by The case has its roots in a complaint for annulment of title with damages filed by Isaac Villegas. Respondent Calubaquib signed the verification and certification of non-forum Isaac Villegas. Respondent Calubaquib signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping of the complaint as notary public and entered the same as Doc. No. 182; Page No. shopping of the complaint as notary public and entered the same as Doc. No. 182; Page No. 38; Book No. CLXXII; Series of 1996. Complainant alleges that this document was falsified 38; Book No. CLXXII; Series of 1996. Complainant alleges that this document was falsified because according to the records of the National Archives, the document entered as Doc. because according to the records of the National Archives, the document entered as Doc. No. 182; Page 38; Book No. CLXXII; Series of 1996 in respondent Calubaquib's notarial No. 182; Page 38; Book No. CLXXII; Series of 1996 in respondent Calubaquib's notarial register was an affidavit of one Daniel Malayao.
register was an affidavit of one Daniel Malayao.
On file with the records of this case is a special power of attorney executed by Isaac On file with the records of this case is a special power of attorney executed by Isaac Villegas appointing respondent Calubaquib as his attorney-in-fact to "enter into a Villegas appointing respondent Calubaquib as his attorney-in-fact to "enter into a compromise agreement under such terms and conditions acceptable to him" which was compromise agreement under such terms and conditions acceptable to him" which was notarized by respondent Baliga and entered as Doc. No. 548, Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; notarized by respondent Baliga and entered as Doc. No. 548, Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series of 1996. Complainant alleged that this special power of attorney was also falsified Series of 1996. Complainant alleged that this special power of attorney was also falsified because, according to Baliga's notarial register, Doc. No. 548; Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; because, according to Baliga's notarial register, Doc. No. 548; Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series of 1996 pertains to an affidavit of loss of one Pedro Telan.
Series of 1996 pertains to an affidavit of loss of one Pedro Telan.
In addition, respondent Baliga filed a petition for reappointment as notary public In addition, respondent Baliga filed a petition for reappointment as notary public which was notarized by respondent Calubaquib and entered in his notarial register as Doc. which was notarized by respondent Calubaquib and entered in his notarial register as Doc. No. 31, page no 08, Book no. CXXX, Series of 1995. However, Notarial Register Book no. No. 31, page no 08, Book no. CXXX, Series of 1995. However, Notarial Register Book no. CXXX was for the year 1996 and entered there as Doc. No. 31, page no. 08 was a CXXX was for the year 1996 and entered there as Doc. No. 31, page no. 08 was a cancellation of real estate mortgage.
cancellation of real estate mortgage.
Respondents both admitted the incorrectness of the entries and simply attributed Respondents both admitted the incorrectness of the entries and simply attributed them to the inadvertence in good faith of their secretary and legal assistants to whom they them to the inadvertence in good faith of their secretary and legal assistants to whom they had left the task of entering all his notarial documents.
had left the task of entering all his notarial documents.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents violated Notarial Practice Law. ISSUE: Whether or not respondents violated Notarial Practice Law. RULING:
RULING: It
It is is abundantly abundantly clear clear that that the the notary notary public public is is personally personally accountable accountable forfor all
all entries entries in in his his notarial notarial register. register. Section Section 245 245 of of the the Notarial Notarial Law Law provides provides that that everyevery notary public shall keep a register to be known as the notarial register, wherein record shall notary public shall keep a register to be known as the notarial register, wherein record shall be made of all his official acts as notary; and he shall supply a certified copy of such record, be made of all his official acts as notary; and he shall supply a certified copy of such record, or any part thereof, to any person applying for it and paying the legal fees therefore. Section or any part thereof, to any person applying for it and paying the legal fees therefore. Section 246 of the same law also provides that the notary public shall enter in such register, in 246 of the same law also provides that the notary public shall enter in such register, in chronological order, the nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged chronological order, the nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him, the person executing, swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument, the before him, the person executing, swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument, the witnesses, if any, to the signature, the date of execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the witnesses, if any, to the signature, the date of execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the instrument, the fees collected by him for his services as notary in connection therewith, and, instrument, the fees collected by him for his services as notary in connection therewith, and, when the instrument is a contract, he shall keep a correct copy thereof as part of his records, when the instrument is a contract, he shall keep a correct copy thereof as part of his records, and shall likewise enter in said records a brief description of the substance thereof and shall and shall likewise enter in said records a brief description of the substance thereof and shall give to each entry a consecutive number, beginning with number one in each calendar year. give to each entry a consecutive number, beginning with number one in each calendar year.
The notary shall give to each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a The notary shall give to each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state on the instrument the number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state on the instrument the page or pages of his
page or pages of his register on which register on which the same is the same is recorded. recorded. No blank line No blank line shall be leshall be leftft between entries.
between entries.
In this connection, Section 249(b) provides that the failure of the notary to make the In this connection, Section 249(b) provides that the failure of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register touching his notarial acts in the manner proper entry or entries in his notarial register touching his notarial acts in the manner required bylaw shall, in the discretion of the proper judge of first instance, be sufficient required bylaw shall, in the discretion of the proper judge of first instance, be sufficient ground for the revocation of his commission:
ground for the revocation of his commission:
Respondents cannot be relieved of responsibility for the violation of the aforesaid Respondents cannot be relieved of responsibility for the violation of the aforesaid sections by passing the buck to their secretaries, a reprehensible practice which to this day sections by passing the buck to their secretaries, a reprehensible practice which to this day persists despite our open condemnation.
persists despite our open condemnation.
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act but one invested with Notarization is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized to do so may substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized to do so may act as notaries public. The protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not act as notaries public. The protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from inflicting themselves upon the public, qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from inflicting themselves upon the public, the courts and the administrative offices in general.
the courts and the administrative offices in general.
Notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public one and Notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public one and makes it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Notaries public must makes it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Notaries public must therefore observe utmost care with respect to the basic requirements of their duties.
therefore observe utmost care with respect to the basic requirements of their duties.
PLUS BUILDERS V. REVILLA PLUS BUILDERS V. REVILLA
A.C. NO. 7056 A.C. NO. 7056 FACTS
FACTS
The respondent lawyer filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Philippine The respondent lawyer filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Philippine Supreme Court, finding respondent guilty of gross misconduct for committing a wilful and Supreme Court, finding respondent guilty of gross misconduct for committing a wilful and intentional falsehood before the court, misusing court procedure and processes to delay the intentional falsehood before the court, misusing court procedure and processes to delay the execution of a judgment and collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law. execution of a judgment and collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law. On November 15, 1999, a decision was rendered by the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite On November 15, 1999, a decision was rendered by the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) in favor of complainant, Plus Builders, Inc. and against the tenants/farmers (PARAD) in favor of complainant, Plus Builders, Inc. and against the tenants/farmers Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al., who were the clients of respondent Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al., who were the clients of respondent Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. The PARAD found that respondent’s clients were mere tenants and not rightful Jr. The PARAD found that respondent’s clients were mere tenants and not rightful possessors/owners of the subject land. The case was elevated all the way up to the possessors/owners of the subject land. The case was elevated all the way up to the Supreme Court, with this Cour
Supreme Court, with this Cour t sustaining complainant’s rights over the land. Continuing tot sustaining complainant’s rights over the land. Continuing to pursue his clients’ lost cause, respondent was found to have committed intentional pursue his clients’ lost cause, respondent was found to have committed intentional falsehood; and misused court processes with the intention to delay the execution of the falsehood; and misused court processes with the intention to delay the execution of the decision through the filing of several motions, petitions for temporary restraining orders, and decision through the filing of several motions, petitions for temporary restraining orders, and the last, an action to quiet title despite the finality of the decision. Furthermore, he allowed the last, an action to quiet title despite the finality of the decision. Furthermore, he allowed non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice of law
non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice of law – – holding themselves out as his holding themselves out as his partners/associates in the law firm.
