Lawyer as Notary Public

8/13/2019 Lawyer as Notary Public

1/99

1.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

A.C. No. 6258 August 24, 2010

LUZVIMINDA R. LUSTESTICA,Complainant,vs.ATT. SER!IO E. "ERNA"E,Respondent.

D E C I S I N

PER CURIAM:

!o" conside"ation is the disba"ment complaint filed b# $u%viminda R.$ustestica &complainant' a(ainst Att#. Se"(io E. Be"nabe&"espondent' fo" nota"i%in( a falsified o" fo"(ed Deed of Donation of"eal p"ope"t# despite the non)appea"ance of the dono"s, Benvenuto*. $ustestica &complainant+s fathe"' and his fi"st ife, Co"nelia P.Rive"o, both of hom e"e al"ead# dead at the time of e-ecution ofthe said document.

In his Anse",the "espondent admitted the fact of death ofBenvenuto *. $ustestica and Co"nelia P. Rive"o, conside"in( thei"death ce"tificates attached to the complaint. /he "espondent claimed,hoeve", that he had no 0noled(e that the "eal Benvenuto *.

$ustestica and Co"nelia P. Rive"o e"e al"ead# dead at the time henota"i%ed the Deed of Donation.1*e also claimed that he e-e"tedeffo"ts to asce"tain the identities of the pe"sons ho appea"ed befo"ehim and "ep"esented themselves as the dono"s unde" the Deed ofDonation.2

Afte" the submission of the "espondent+s Anse" to the complaint, theCou"t "efe""ed the matte" to the Commission on Ba" Discipline of theInte("ated Ba" of the Philippines &IBP Commission on Ba" Discipline'fo" investi(ation, evaluation and "ecommendation. /he IBPCommission on Ba" Discipline made the folloin( findin(s3

/he co"e issue is hethe" o" not Respondent committed a falsehoodin violation of his oath as a la#e" and his duties as Nota"# Publichen he nota"i%ed the Deed of Donation pu"po"tedl# e-ecuted b#Benvenuto *. $ustestica and Co"nelia P. Rive"o as the dono"s andCecilio R. $ustestica and 4uliana $ustestica as the donees on 5Au(ust 667.

Section of Public Act No. 182, othe"ise 0non as the Nota"ial$a, e-plicitl# p"ovides3
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt1http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt3http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt1http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt3


2/99

- - - /he nota"# public o" the office" ta0in( the ac0noled(ment shallce"tif# that the pe"son ac0noled(in( the inst"ument o" document is0non to him and that he is the same pe"son ho e-ecuted itac0noled(ed that the same is his f"ee act and deed. - - -.

As co""ectl# obse"ved b# Complainant, Respondent+s

Ac0noled(ment is the best evidence that N RESIDENCECER/I!ICA/ES e"e p"esented b# the alle(ed dono"s and thedonees. *ad the pa"ties p"esented thei" "esidence ce"tificates toRespondent, it as his dut# and "esponsibilit# unde" the Nota"ial $ato ente", as pa"t of his ce"tification, the numbe", place of issue anddate of each "esidence ce"tificate p"esented b# the pa"ties to theDeed of Donation. Respondent, hoeve", failed to ma0e the "e9ui"edent"ies. Respondent+s claim that the pe"sons ho alle(edl# appea"edbefo"e him and "ep"esented themselves to be the pa"ties to the Deedof Donation shoed thei" "esidence ce"tificates and that he inst"uctedhis sec"eta"# to indicate the details of the "esidence ce"tificates of thepa"ties is self)se"vin( and not suppo"ted b# the evidence on "eco"d.

- - - -

/he fact that Respondent nota"i%ed a fo"(ed:falsified document isalso undisputed not onl# b# ;the< st"en(th of Complainant+sdocumenta"# evidence but mo"e impo"tantl#, b# Respondent+s on=udicial admission. - - -. In vie of Respondent+s =udicial admissionthat the alle(ed dono"s, BEN>EN?/ *. $?S/ES/ICA and his fi"stife, CRNE$IA P. RI>ER, died on @ Septembe" 6@ and 17Septembe" 67, "espectivel#, it is be#ond "easonable doubt thatsaid dono"s could not have pe"sonall# appea"ed befo"e him on 5Au(ust 667 to ;ac0noled(e< to him that the# f"eel# and volunta"#e-ecuted the Deed of Donation. Mo"eove", - - - 9uasi)=udicial notice

of the Decision of the Municipal /"ial Cou"t findin( accused CECI$I$?S/ES/ICA and 4?$IANA $?S/ES/ICA ?I$/ BENDREASNAB$E D?B/ as p"incipals of the c"ime of falsification ofpublic document.7

In his Repo"t dated Au(ust 5, 1885, IBP Commissione" $eland R.>illadolid, 4". found the "espondent ("ossl# ne(li(ent in thepe"fo"mance of his duties as nota"# public and "ecommended that the"espondent+s nota"ial commission be suspended fo" a pe"iod of one&' #ea". /he IBP Commissione" also "ecommended that a penalt#"an(in( f"om "ep"imand to suspension be imposed a(ainst the"espondent, ith a a"nin( that a simila" conduct in the futu"e ill

a""ant an imposition of a mo"e seve"e penalt#.

5

B# Resolution No. >II)1885) dated ctobe" 11, 1885, the Boa"dof ove"no"s of the IBP Commission on Ba" Discipline adopted andapp"oved the Repo"t of the IBP Commissione". /he pe"tinent po"tionof this Resolution "eads3

;C


3/99

S?SPENDED f"om the p"actice of la fo" one &' #ea" andRespondent+s nota"ial commission is Revo0ed and Dis9ualified f"om"eappointment as Nota"# Public fo" to &1' #ea"s ith a notificationthat this suspension of one #ea" must be se"ved in succession to theinitial "ecommendation of the IBP Boa"d of Suspension of one #ea" inCBD Case No. 87)2@.

!"om these undisputed facts, supe"venin( events occu""ed that mustbe ta0en into conside"ation of the p"esent case.

!i"st, CBD Case No. 87)2@, entitled >icto"ina Bautista,complainant, v. Att#. Se"(io E. Be"nabe, "espondent, hich as thecase "efe""ed to in Resolution No. >II)1885), as doc0eted asA.C. No. 62@befo"e the Cou"t. In a decision dated !eb"ua"# 6,188, the Cou"t "evo0ed the "espondent+s nota"ial commission anddis9ualified him f"om "eappointment as Nota"# Public fo" a pe"iod ofto &1' #ea"s, fo" his failu"e to p"ope"l# pe"fo"m his duties as nota"#public hen he nota"i%ed a document in the absence of one of the

affiants. In addition, the Cou"t suspended him f"om the p"actice of lafo" a pe"iod of one &' #ea", ith a a"nin( that a "epetition of thesame o" of simila" acts shall be dealt ith mo"e seve"el#.

Second, on 4anua"# , 188, the "espondent filed a motion fo""econside"ation of Resolution No. >II)1885) befo"e the IBPCommission on Ba" Discipline. /he "espondent moved to "econside"the IBP Resolution, claimin( that the penalt# imposed fo" theinf"action committed as too ha"sh. /he motion as denied inResolution No. >II)188), dated 4anua"# 1, 188,fo" lac0 of=u"isdiction of the IBP Commission on Ba" Discipline, since theadminist"ative matte" had then been endo"sed to the Cou"t.

/hi"d, on 4anua"# 7, 188, a motion fo" "econside"ation &the same asthe one filed ith the IBP Commission on Ba" Discipline' as filed b#the "espondent befo"e the Cou"t. In a Minute Resolution dated Ma"ch11, 188, the Cou"t noted the findin(s and "ecommendations inResolution No. >II)1885) and "e9ui"ed the complainant to filehe" Comment to the "espondent+s motion fo" "econside"ation. n Ap"il1, 188, the complainant filed he" Comment p"a#in( fo" the denial ofthe motion.

n 4ul# 5, 188, the Cou"t issued a Minute Resolution notin( thedenial of the "espondent+s motion fo" "econside"ation, b# the IBPCommission on Ba" Discipline, and the complainant+s Comment to

the "espondent+s motion befo"e the Cou"t.

Subse9uentl#, on 4anua"# 1, 1886, the Cou"t decla"ed the caseclosed and te"minated afte" conside"in( that no motion fo""econside"ation o" petition fo" "evie, assailin( both IBP "esolutions,had been filed b# the "espondent.6

n ctobe" , 1886, the "espondent, th"ou(h a lette" add"essed tothe ffice of the Ba" Confidant, "e9uested that he be (iven clea"ance
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt7http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt7http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt9


4/99

to "esume the p"actice of la and to allo him to be commissioned asa nota"# public. In his lette", the "espondent alle(ed that he hasal"ead# se"ved the penalties imposed a(ainst him in A.C. No. 62and the p"esent case. *e claimed that afte" the "eceipt of the IBPResolutions in both cases, he did not p"actice his p"ofession and hadnot been appointed o" commissioned as a nota"# public.

/he ffice of the Ba" Confidant

Actin( on the "espondent+s lette", the ffice of the Ba" Confidantsubmitted a Repo"t and Recommendation, hich states3

. /he E!!EC/I>I/ of the "espondent+s suspension anddis9ualification should have been CMMENCED on the dateof "eceipt of the Decision of the Cou"t and not f"om the date of"eceipt of the Resolution of the IBP "ecommendin( the"espondent+s suspension f"om the p"actice of la anddis9ualification f"om bein( commissioned as nota"# public, it

bein( "ecommendato"# in natu"eF

1. /he p"a#e" of the "espondent to "esume his p"actice of lain Adm. Case No. 62 be deniedF

2. /he "espondent be REG?IRED to submit ce"tification f"omcompetent cou"ts and IBP that he has full# se"ved the enti"epe"iod of suspension and dis9ualification in Adm. Case No.62F

7. /he Cou"t ma# no !INA$$ RES$>E the findin(s and"ecommendation of the IBP in its Resolution No. >II)1885)

, dated ctobe" 1885, in Adm. Case No. 15, fo" finaldisposition of the case and fo" p"ope" dete"mination hethe"the o"de" of suspension and dis9ualification in Adm. Case No.62 should be lifted afte" the "espondent has satisfacto"il#shon that he has full# se"ved the suspension anddis9ualification.8

/he Cou"t+s Rulin(

/he findin(s of the Boa"d of ove"no"s of the IBP Commission onBa" Discipline a"e ell)ta0en. He cannot ove"emphasi%e theimpo"tant "ole a nota"# public pe"fo"ms. In on%ales v. Ramos,est"essed that nota"i%ation is not an empt#, meanin(less "outina"# act

but one invested ith substantive public inte"est. /he nota"i%ation b#a nota"# public conve"ts a p"ivate document into a public document,ma0in( it admissible in evidence ithout fu"the" p"oof of itsauthenticit#.1A nota"i%ed document is, b# la, entitled to full faith andc"edit upon its face.2It is fo" this "eason that a nota"# public mustobse"ve ith utmost ca"e the basic "e9ui"ements in the pe"fo"manceof his dutiesF othe"ise, the public+s confidence in the inte("it# of anota"i%ed document ould be unde"mined.7
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt14


5/99

/he "eco"ds undeniabl# sho the ("oss ne(li(ence e-hibited b# the"espondent in discha"(in( his duties as a nota"# public. *e failed toasce"tain the identities of the affiants befo"e him and failed to compl#ith the most basic function that a nota"# public must do, i.e., to"e9ui"e the pa"ties+ p"esentation of thei" "esidence ce"tificates o" an#othe" document to p"ove thei" identities. iven the "espondent+s

admission in his pleadin( that the dono"s e"e al"ead# dead hen henota"i%ed the Deed of Donation, e have no doubt that he failed inhis dut# to asce"tain the identities of the pe"sons ho appea"edbefo"e him as dono"s in the Deed of Donation.

?nde" the ci"cumstances, e find that the "espondent should bemade liable not onl# as a nota"# public but also as a la#e". *e notonl# violated the Nota"ial $a &Public Act No. 182', but also Canon and Rule .8 of the Code of P"ofessional Responsibilit#.

Section of Public Act No. 182 &ld Nota"ial $a'5states3

&a' /he ac0noled(ment shall be made befo"e a nota"# public o" anoffice" dul# autho"i%ed b# la of the count"# to ta0e ac0noled(mentsof inst"uments o" documents in the place he"e the act is done. /henota"# public o" the office" ta0in( the ac0noled(ment shall ce"tif#that the pe"son ac0noled(in( the inst"ument o" document is 0nonto him and that he is the same pe"son ho e-ecuted it, andac0noled(ed that the same is his f"ee act and deed. /he ce"tificateshall be made unde" his official seal, if he is b# la "e9ui"ed to 0eep aseal, and if not, his ce"tificate shall so state.

In tu"n, Canon of the Code of P"ofessional Responsibilit# p"ovidesthat ;a< la#e" shall uphold the Constitution, obe# the las of theland and p"omote "espect fo" la and le(al p"ocesses. At the same

time, Rule .8 of the Code of P"ofessional Responsibilit# p"ohibits ala#e" f"om en(a(in( in unlaful, dishonest, immo"al o" deceitfulconduct.

In this "e(a"d, a "eadin( of the "espondent+s Ac0noled(ment in theDeed of Donation shos ho these p"ovisions e"e violated b# the"espondent3

BE!RE ME, Nota"# Public fo" and in Bulacan this A? 85667 da# of Au(ust, 667, pe"sonall# appea"ed3

BEN>EN?/ *. $?S/ES/ICA3 C./.C. J

KKKKKKK3KKKKKKKK3KKKKKKKK

CRNE$IA RI>ER 3 C./.C. JKKKKKKKK3KKKKKKKK3KKKKKKKK

CECI$I $?S/ES/ICA 3 C./.C. JKKKKKKKK3KKKKKKKK3KKKKKKKK
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt15http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt15


6/99

4?$IANA $?S/ES/ICA 3 C./.C. JKKKKKKKK3KKKKKKKK3KKKKKKKK

0non to me and to me 0non to be the same pe"sons ho e-ecutedthe fo"e(oin( inst"ument and ac0noled(ed to me that the same a"ethei" f"ee act and volunta"# deed.

/he "espondent en(a(ed in dishonest conduct because he falsel#"ep"esented in his Ac0noled(ment that the pe"sons ho appea"edbefo"e him e"e 0non to him to be the same pe"sons hoe-ecuted the Deed of Donation, despite the fact that he did not 0nothem and did not asce"tain thei" identities as he attested.@

Mo"eove", the "espondent en(a(ed in unlaful conduct hen he didnot obse"ve the "e9ui"ements unde" Section of the ld Nota"ial $athat "e9ui"es nota"ies public to ce"tif# that the pa"t# to the inst"umenthas ac0noled(ed and p"esented, befo"e the nota"ies public, thep"ope" "esidence ce"tificate &o" e-emption f"om the "esidence

ce"tificate' and to ente" the "esidence ce"tificate+s numbe", place, anddate of issue as pa"t of the ce"tification./he unfilled spaces in theAc0noled(ment he"e the "esidence ce"tificate numbe"s shouldhave been clea"l# established that the "espondent did not pe"fo"mthis le(al dut#.

Hith these conside"ations, e find that the imposition ofadminist"ative sanctions fo" the above inf"actions committed is ino"de".

/he IBP Commission on Ba" Discipline "ecommended the penalt# ofsuspension, fo" a pe"iod of one &' #ea", f"om the p"actice of la anddis9ualification f"om "eappointment as Nota"# Public fo" a pe"iod ofto &1' #ea"s. Conside"in( that this is al"ead# Att#. Be"nabe+s secondinf"action, e find the IBP+s "ecommendation to be ve"# li(htF it is notcommensu"ate ith his demonst"ated p"edisposition to unde"ta0e theduties of a nota"# public and a la#e" li(htl#.

In Mali(sa v. Cabantin(,6e disba""ed a la#e" fo" failin( tosubsc"ibe to the sac"ed duties imposed upon a nota"# public. Inimposin( the penalt# of disba"ment, the Cou"t conside"ed thela#e"+s p"io" misconduct he"e he as suspended fo" a pe"iod of si-&' months and a"ned that a "epetition of the same o" simila" actould be dealt ith mo"e seve"el#.18

In !lo"es v. Chua,1e disba""ed the la#e" afte" findin( that hedelibe"atel# made false "ep"esentations that the vendo" appea"edbefo"e him hen he nota"i%ed a fo"(ed deed of sale. He too0 intoaccount that he as p"eviousl# found administ"ativel# liable fo"violation of Rule .8 of the Code of P"ofessional Responsibilit# &fo"b"ibin( a =ud(e' and ste"nl# a"ned that a "epetition of simila" act o"acts o" violation committed b# him in the futu"e ould be dealt ithmo"e seve"el#.11
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt22


7/99

In /"a#a v. >illamo",12e found the "espondent nota"# public (uilt# of("oss misconduct in his nota"ial p"actice fo" failin( to obse"ve thep"ope" p"ocedu"e in dete"minin( that the pe"son appea"in( befo"ehim is the same pe"son ho e-ecuted the document p"esented fo"nota"i%ation. /a0in( into account that it as his second offense, heas pe"petuall# dis9ualified f"om bein( commissioned as a nota"#

public.17

In Social Secu"it# Commission v. Co"al,15e suspended indefinitel#the nota"ial commission of the "espondent la#e" ho as found tohave p"epa"ed, nota"i%ed and filed to complaints that e"e alle(edl#e-ecuted and ve"ified b# people ho have lon( been dead. He alsodi"ected him to sho cause h# he should not be disba""ed.1

Conside"in( these established "ulin(s, "ead in li(ht of theci"cumstances in the p"esent case, e find that Att#. Be"nabe shouldbe disba""ed f"om the p"actice of la and pe"petuall# dis9ualifiedf"om bein( commissioned as a nota"# public. He emphasi%e that this

is "espondent+s second offense and hile he does not appea" to havean# pa"ticipation in the falsification of the Deed of Donation, hiscont"ibution as his ("oss ne(li(ence fo" failin( to asce"tain theidentit# of the pe"sons ho appea"ed befo"e him as the dono"s. /hisis hi(hli(hted b# his admission1@in his Anse" that he did notpe"sonall# 0no the pa"ties and as not ac9uainted ith them. /heblan0 spaces in the Ac0noled(ment indicate that he did not even"e9ui"e these pa"ties to p"oduce documents that ould p"ove thatthe# a"e the same pe"sons the# claim to be. As e emphasi%ed inMali(sa3

A la#e" shall at all times uphold the inte("it# and di(nit# of the le(alp"ofession. /he ba" should maintain a hi(h standa"d of le(al

p"oficienc# as ell as honest# and fai" dealin(. A la#e" b"in(s hono"to the le(al p"ofession b# faithfull# pe"fo"min( his duties to societ#, tothe ba", to the cou"ts and to his clients. /o this end a membe" of thele(al f"ate"nit# should "ef"ain f"om doin( an# act hich mi(ht lessenin an# de("ee the confidence and t"ust "eposed b# the public in thefidelit#, honest# and inte("it# of the le(al p"ofession.1

In li(ht of the above findin(s and penalties, the "espondent+s "e9uestto be (iven clea"ance to "esume the p"actice of la and to appl# fo" anota"ial commission, afte" se"vin( the administ"ative sanctions in A.C.No. 62, is no moot and academic. He, acco"din(l#, den# the"e9uest fo" clea"ance to p"actice la and to appl# fo" nota"ial

commission.

H*ERE!RE, p"emises conside"ed, the Cou"t "esolves to3

&' N/E the lette" dated ctobe" , 1886 of "espondent Att#.Se"(io E. Be"nabe to the ffice of the Ba" Confidant.
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt27http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt28http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt27http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_6258_2010.html#fnt28


8/99

&1' ADP/ the findin(s and "ecommendations of the IBPCommission on Ba" Discipline ith MDI!ICA/IN on theadminist"ative penalt# imposed.

&2' DEC$ARE "espondent Att#. Se"(io E. Be"nabe liable fo"("oss ne(li(ence, in the pe"fo"mance of his duties as nota"#

public, and fo" his deceitful and dishonest attestation, in thecou"se of administe"in( the oath ta0en befo"e him.Respondent Att#. Se"(io E. Be"nabe is he"eb# DISBARREDf"om the p"actice of la and his name is RDEREDS/RICLEN f"om the Roll of Atto"ne#s. *e is alsoPERPE/?A$$ DISG?A$I!IED f"om bein( commissioned asa nota"# public.

&7' DEN the "e9uest fo" clea"ance to p"actice la and toappl# fo" nota"ial commission of "espondent Att#. Se"(io E.Be"nabe.

$et a cop# of this Decision be attached to Att#. Se"(io E. Be"nabe+s"eco"d, as a membe" of the ba", and copies fu"nished to theInte("ated Ba" of the Philippines and the ffice of the Cou"tAdminist"ato" fo" ci"culation to all cou"ts.

In vie of the nota"i%ation of a falsified deed hose pu"po"ted pa"tiese"e al"ead# dead at the time of nota"i%ation, let a cop# of thisDecision be fu"nished the ffice of the P"osecuto" ene"al,Depa"tment of 4ustice fo" hateve" action, ithin its =u"isdiction, itma# deem app"op"iate to b"in( a(ainst Att#. Se"(io E. Be"nabe.

S RDERED.


9/99

2.


Manila

SECND DI>ISIN

A.C. No. #081 O$to%&' 12, 2011

RODOL(O A. ESPINOSA )*+ MAIMO A. !LINDO,Complainants,vs.ATT. -ULIETA A. OMAA,Respondent.

D E C I S I N

CARPIO, J.:

T/& C)s&

Befo"e the Cou"t is a complaint fo" disba"ment filed b# Rodolfo A.Espinosa &Espinosa' and Ma-imo A. lindo &lindo' a(ainst Att#.4ulieta A. maa &maa'.

T/& A*t&$&+&*t ()$ts

Complainants Espinosa and lindo cha"(ed maa ith violation ofhe" oath as a la#e", malp"actice, and ("oss misconduct in office.

Complainants alle(ed that on @ Novembe" 66@, Espinosa and hisife Elena Ma"antal &Ma"antal' sou(ht maa+s le(al advice onhethe" the# could le(all# live sepa"atel# and dissolve thei" ma""ia(esolemni%ed on 12 4ul# 62. maa then p"epa"ed a documententitled Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay &cont"act' hich "eads3

REP?B$ILA N PI$IPINASBAAN N ?MACA

$A$AHIAN N G?EN

LAS?ND?AN N PA*I*IHA$A

LAMI, E$ENA MARAN/A$ A/ RD$! ESPINSA, m(a !ilipino,ma# sapat na (ulan(, datin( le(al na ma()asaa, 0asalu0u#an(nanini"ahan at ma# pahati"an( sulat sa B"(#. Buensoceso, umaca,Gue%on, at CME$EC, Int"amu"os, Manila a#on sa pa(0a0asunod)sunod, matapos ma0apanumpa n( naaa#on sa batas a#na(papatuna# n( na(0asundo n( m(a sumusunod3

. Na nais na namin( ma(hiala# at ma(0an#a)0an#a n( amin( m(a buha# n( alan( pa0ialaman,


10/99

0un( 0a#a+t baat isa sa amin a# maaa"i n( humanapn( ma0a0asama sa buha#F

1. Na an( amin( m(a ana0 na sina A"iel 4ohnEspinosa, 7 na taon( (ulan(F Ai%a Espinosa, taon( (ulan( at Ald"in Espinosa, 8 taon( (ulan( a#

namili na 0un( 0anino sasama sa amin( dalaa. SiA"iel 4ohn at Ai%a Espinosa a# sasama sa 0anilan(ama, Rodolfo Espinosa, at an( bunso, Ald"inEspinosa at sasama naman sa ina na si ElenaF

2. Na dahil sina A"iel 4ohn at Ai%a a# na(sisipa()a"alsa 0asalu0u#an sila a# pansamantalan( mananatili sa0anilan( ina, haban( tinatapos an( 0anilan( pa()aa"al. Sa pasu0an sila a# maaa"i n( isama n( ama,sa lu(a" 0un( saan si#a a# nanini"ahanF

7. Na an( m(a bata a# maaa"in( dalain n( sino man

sa amin( dalaa tuin( ma# pa(0a0ataonF

5. Na ma(bibi(a# n( buanan( (astusin o supo"taan( ama 0a# Ald"in at an( 0a0ulan(an sa m(apan(an(ailan(an nito a# pupunan n( inaF

. Na lahat n( m(a 0asan(0apan sa baha# tulad n(/.>., (as stove, m(a 0a(amitan sa 0usina a# a0in(&Rodolfo' ipina(0a0aloob 0a# Elena at hindi na a0ointe"esado ditoF

@. Na lahat n( maaa"in( maipunda" n( sino man sa

amin dalaa sa m(a panahon( da"atin( a# amin(m(a sa"i)sa"ilin( pa()aa"i na at hindi napina(samahan o con=u(al.

BI$AN PA/?NA n( lahat n( ito, nila(daan namin ito n(a#on( i0a)@ n( Nob#emb"e, 66@, dito sa umaca, Gue%on.

&S(d'E$ENA MARAN/A$

Na(0asundo

&S(d'RD$! ESPINSA

Na(0asundo

PINA/?NAAN A/ PINAN?MPAAN dito sa ha"ap 0o n(a#on( i0a)@n( Nob#emb"e, 66@, dito sa umaca, Gue%on

A//. 4?$IE/A A. MAOANota"# PublicP/R No. 2@16F )8)6@umaca, Gue%on

Doc. No. 71FPa(e No. 6@F


11/99

Boo0 No. IFSe"ies of 66@.

Complainants alle(ed that Ma"antal and Espinosa, full# convinced ofthe validit# of the cont"act dissolvin( thei" ma""ia(e, sta"tedimplementin( its te"ms and conditions. *oeve", Ma"antal eventuall#

too0 custod# of all thei" child"en and too0 possession of most of thep"ope"t# the# ac9ui"ed du"in( thei" union.

Espinosa sou(ht the advice of his fello emplo#ee, complainantlindo, a la ("aduate, ho info"med him that the cont"act e-ecutedb# maa as not valid. Espinosa and lindo then hi"ed the se"vicesof a la#e" to file a complaint a(ainst maa befo"e the Inte("atedBa" of the Philippines Commission on Ba" Discipline &IBP)CBD'.

maa alle(ed that she 0nos lindo but she does not pe"sonall#0no Espinosa. She denied that she p"epa"ed the cont"act. Sheadmitted that Espinosa ent to see he" and "e9uested fo" the

nota"i%ation of the cont"act but she told him that it as ille(al. maaalle(ed that Espinosa "etu"ned the ne-t da# hile she as out of theoffice and mana(ed to pe"suade he" pa"t)time office staff to nota"i%ethe document. *e" office staff fo"(ed he" si(natu"e and nota"i%ed thecont"act. maa p"esented Ma"antal+s Sinumpaang Salaysay&affidavit' to suppo"t he" alle(ations and to sho that the complaintas insti(ated b# lindo. maa fu"the" p"esented a lette" of apolo(#f"om he" staff, A"lene Dela Pea, ac0noled(in( that she nota"i%edthe document ithout maa+s 0noled(e, consent, and autho"it#.

Espinosa late" submitted a Karagdagang Salaysay statin( thatmaa a""ived at his "esidence to(ethe" ith a (i"l hom he late""eco(ni%ed as the pe"son ho nota"i%ed the cont"act. *e fu"the"

stated that maa as not in he" office hen the cont"act asnota"i%ed.

T/& D&$so* o t/& Cosso* o* ")' Ds$3*&

In its Repo"t and Recommendationdated !eb"ua"# 188@, the IBP)CBD stated that Espinosa+s desistance did not put an end to thep"oceedin(s. /he IBP)CBD found that maa violated Rule .8,Canon of the Code of P"ofessional Responsibilit# hich p"ovidesthat a la#e" shall not en(a(e in unlaful, dishonest, immo"al o"deceitful conduct. /he IBP)CBD stated that maa had failed toe-e"cise due dili(ence in the pe"fo"mance of he" function as a nota"#

public and to compl# ith the "e9ui"ements of the la. /he IBP)CBDnoted the inconsistencies in the defense of maa ho fi"st claimedthat it as he" pa"t)time staff ho nota"i%ed the cont"act but then late"claimed that it as he" fo"me" maid ho nota"i%ed it. /he IBP)CBDfound3

Respondent t"ul# si(ned the 9uestioned document, #et she stilldisclaimed its autho"ship, the"eb# "evealin( much mo"e he"
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/ac_9081_2011.html#fnt1http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/ac_9081_2011.html#fnt1http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/ac_9081_2011.html#fnt1


12/99

p"opensit# to lie and ma0e deceit, hich she is dese"vin( ;ofED, the Repo"t and Recommendation of theInvesti(atin( Commissione" of the above)entitled case, he"ein madepa"t of this Resolution as Anne- A and, findin( the "ecommendationfull# suppo"ted b# the evidence on "eco"d and the applicable lasand "ules, and conside"in( that Respondent cont"acted a secondma""ia(e ithout ta0in( app"op"iate le(al steps to have the fi"stma""ia(e annulled, Att#. Rolando C. dela C"u% is he"eb#S?SPENDED f"om the p"actice of la fo" one &' #ea" and fo"nota"i%in( le(al documents despite full 0noled(e of the e-pi"ation ofhis nota"ial commission Att#. Rolando C. dela C"u% is S?SPENDED

f"om the p"actice of la fo" anothe" one &' #ea", fo" a total of to &1'#ea"s Suspension f"om the p"actice of la.

/his Cou"t finds the "ecommendation of the IBP to fault "espondentell ta0en, e-cept as to the penalt# contained the"ein.

At the th"eshold, it is o"th st"essin( that the p"actice of la is not a"i(ht but a p"ivile(e bestoed b# the State on those ho sho thatthe# possess the 9ualifications "e9ui"ed b# la fo" the confe"ment ofsuch p"ivile(e. Membe"ship in the ba" is a p"ivile(e bu"dened ithconditions. A la#e" has the p"ivile(e and "i(ht to p"actice la onl#du"in( (ood behavio", and he can be dep"ived of it fo" misconductasce"tained and decla"ed b# =ud(ment of the cou"t afte" oppo"tunit#

to be hea"d has been affo"ded him. Hithout invadin( an#constitutional p"ivile(e o" "i(ht, an atto"ne#+s "i(ht to p"actice la ma#be "esolved b# a p"oceedin( to suspend, based on conduct "ende"in(him unfit to hold a license o" to e-e"cise the duties and"esponsibilities of an atto"ne#. It must be unde"stood that the pu"poseof suspendin( o" disba""in( him as an atto"ne# is to "emove f"om thep"ofession a pe"son hose misconduct has p"oved him unfit to beent"usted ith the duties and "esponsibilities belon(in( to an office ofatto"ne# and, thus, to p"otect the public and those cha"(ed ith theadminist"ation of =ustice, "athe" than to punish an atto"ne#.Elabo"atin( on this, e said on Mali(sa v. Att#. Cabantin(,6that theBa" should maintain a hi(h standa"d of le(al p"oficienc# as ell as of

honest# and fai" dealin(. A la#e" b"in(s hono" to the le(alp"ofession b# faithfull# pe"fo"min( his duties to societ#, to the ba", tothe cou"ts and to his clients. A membe" of the le(al f"ate"nit# should"ef"ain f"om doin( an# act hich mi(ht lessen in an# de("ee theconfidence and t"ust "eposed b# the public in the fidelit#, honest# andinte("it# of the le(al p"ofession. /oa"ds this end, an atto"ne# ma#be disba""ed o" suspended fo" an# violation of his oath o" of hisduties as an atto"ne# and counselo", hich include statuto"# ("oundsenume"ated in Section 1@, Rule 2 of the Rules of Cou"t, all of these
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt19


18/99

bein( b"oad enou(h to cove" p"acticall# an# misconduct of a la#e"in his p"ofessional o" p"ivate capacit#.

E9uall# o"th# of "ema"0 is that the la p"ofession does not p"esc"ibea dichotom# of standa"ds amon( its membe"s. /he"e is no distinctionas to hethe" the t"ans("ession is committed in the la#e"+s

p"ofessional capacit# o" in his p"ivate life. /his is because a la#e"ma# not divide his pe"sonalit# so as to be an atto"ne# at one time anda me"e citi%en at anothe".18/hus, not onl# his p"ofessional activitiesbut even his p"ivate life, insofa" as the latte" ma# "eflect unfavo"abl#upon the (ood name and p"esti(e of the p"ofession and the cou"ts,ma# at an# time be the sub=ect of in9ui"# on the pa"t of the p"ope"autho"ities.1

ne of the conditions p"io" to admission to the ba" is that an applicantmust possess (ood mo"al cha"acte". Possession of such mo"alcha"acte" as "e9ui"ement to the en=o#ment of the p"ivile(e of lap"actice must be continuous. the"ise, membe"ship in the ba" ma#

be te"minated hen a la#e" ceases to have (ood mo"al conduct.

11

In the case at bench, the"e is no dispute that "espondent and /e"esitaRive"a cont"acted ma""ia(e on 2 Ma# 61 befo"e 4ud(e /omas H.Maca"anas. In less than a #ea", the# pa"ted a#s oin( to thei"i""econcilable diffe"ences ithout see0in( =udicial "ecou"se. /he unionbo"e no offsp"in(. Afte" thei" sepa"ation in)fact, "espondent neve"0ne the he"eabouts of /e"esita Rive"a since he had lost all fo"msof communication ith he". Seven #ea"s the"eafte", "espondentbecame att"acted to one Ma"# 4ane Pascua, ho as also a facult#membe" of S$?)$*S. /he"e is also no dispute ove" the fact that in66, "espondent ma""ied Ma"# 4ane Pascua in the Municipal /"ialCou"t &M/C' of Ba(uio Cit#, B"anch . Respondent even admitted

this fact. Hhen the second ma""ia(e as ente"ed into, "espondent+sp"io" ma""ia(e ith /e"esita Rive"a as still subsistin(, no actionhavin( been initiated befo"e the cou"t to obtain a =udicial decla"ationof nullit# o" annulment of "espondent+s p"io" ma""ia(e to /e"esitaRive"a o" a =udicial decla"ation of p"esumptive death of /e"esitaRive"a.

Respondent as al"ead# a membe" of the Ba" hen he cont"actedthe bi(amous second ma""ia(e in 66, havin( been admitted to theBa" in 65. As such, he cannot fei(n i(no"ance of the mandate ofthe la that befo"e a second ma""ia(e ma# be validl# cont"acted, thefi"st and subsistin( ma""ia(e must fi"st be annulled b# the app"op"iate

cou"t. /he second ma""ia(e as annulled onl# on 7 ctobe" 667befo"e the R/C of Ben(uet, B"anch 6, o" about five #ea"s afte""espondent cont"acted his second ma""ia(e. /he annulment of"espondent+s second ma""ia(e has no bea"in( to the instantdisba"ment p"oceedin(. !i"stl#, as ea"lie" emphasi%ed, the annulmentcame afte" the "espondent+s second bi(amous ma""ia(e. Secondl#,as e held in In "e3 Almacen, a disba"ment case is sui (ene"is fo" it isneithe" pu"el# civil no" pu"el# c"iminal but is "athe" an investi(ation b#the cou"t into the conduct of its office"s. /hus, if the ac9uittal of a
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt22


19/99

la#e" in a c"iminal action is not dete"minative of an administ"ativecase a(ainst him, o" if an affidavit of ithd"aal of a disba"ment casedoes not affect its cou"se, then neithe" ill the =ud(ment of annulmentof "espondent+s second ma""ia(e also e-one"ate him f"om a"on(doin( actuall# committed. So lon( as the 9uantum of p"oof )clea" p"eponde"ance of evidence ) in disciplina"# p"oceedin(s a(ainst

membe"s of the Ba" is met, then liabilit# attaches.12

Section 1@, Rule 2 of the Rules of Cou"t cites ("ossl# immo"alconduct as a ("ound fo" disba"ment.

/he Cou"t has laid don ith a common definition of hat constitutesimmo"al conduct, vis))vis, ("ossl# immo"al conduct. Immo"al conductis that conduct hich is illful, fla("ant, o" shameless, and hichshos a mo"al indiffe"ence to the opinion of the (ood and"espectable membe"s of the communit# and hat is ("ossl#immo"al, that is, it must be so co""upt and false as to constitute ac"iminal act o" so unp"incipled as to be "ep"ehensible to a hi(h

de("ee.

17

?ndoubtedl#, "espondent+s act constitutes immo"al conduct. But is itso ("oss as to a""ant his disba"mentQ Indeed, he e-hibited adeplo"able lac0 of that de("ee of mo"alit# "e9ui"ed of him as amembe" of the Ba". In pa"ticula", he made a moc0e"# of ma""ia(ehich is a sac"ed institution demandin( "espect and di(nit#. *is act ofcont"actin( a second ma""ia(e hile the fi"st ma""ia(e as still inplace, is cont"a"# to honest#, =ustice, decenc# and mo"alit#.15

*oeve", measu"ed a(ainst the definition, e a"e not p"epa"ed toconside" "espondent+s act as ("ossl# immo"al. /his finds suppo"t inthe folloin( "ecommendation and obse"vation of the IBP Investi(ato"

and IBP Boa"d of ove"no"s, thus3

/he uncontested asse"tions of the "espondent belies an# intention toflaunt the la and the hi(h mo"al standa"d of the le(al p"ofession, toit3

a. Afte" his fi"st failed ma""ia(e and p"io" to his second ma""ia(e o" fo"a pe"iod of almost seven &@' #ea"s, he has not been "omanticall#involved ith an# omanF

b. *is second ma""ia(e as a sho of his noble intentions and totallove fo" his ife, hom he desc"ibed to be ve"# intelli(ent pe"sonF

c. *e neve" absconded f"om his obli(ations to suppo"t his ife andchildF

d. *e neve" disclaimed pate"nit# ove" the child and husband"# &sic'ith "elation to his ifeF
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt25


20/99

e. Afte" the annulment of his second ma""ia(e, the# have pa"ted a#shen the mothe" and child ent to Aust"aliaF

f. Since then up to no, "espondent "emained celibate.1

In the case of /e""e v. /e""e,1@"espondent as disba""ed because his

mo"al cha"acte" as deepl# flaed as shon b# the folloin(ci"cumstances, vi%3 he convinced the complainant that he" p"io"ma""ia(e to Be"cenilla as null and void ab initio and that she asle(all# sin(le and f"ee to ma""# him. Hhen complainant and"espondent had cont"acted thei" ma""ia(e, "espondent ent th"ou(hla school hile bein( suppo"ted b# complainant, ith someassistance f"om "espondent+s pa"ents. Afte" "espondent had finishedhis la cou"se and (otten complainant p"e(nant, "espondentabandoned the complainant ithout suppo"t and ithout thehe"eithal fo" delive"in( his on child safel# to a hospital.

In the case of Co=uan(co, 4". v. Palma,1"espondent as also

disba""ed fo" his ("ossl# immo"al acts such as3 fi"st, he abandonedhis laful ife and th"ee child"enF second, he lu"ed an innocent#oun( oman into ma""#in( himF thi"d, he misp"esented himself as abachelo" so he could cont"act ma""ia(e in a fo"ei(n landF and fou"th,he availed himself of complainant+s "esou"ces b# secu"in( a planetic0et f"om complainant+s office in o"de" to ma""# the latte"+s dau(hte".*e did this ithout complainant+s 0noled(e. Afte"a"ds, he evenhad the teme"it# to assu"e complainant that eve"#thin( is le(al.

Such acts a"e antin( in the case at ba". In fact, no less than the"espondent himself ac0noled(ed and decla"ed his ab=ect apolo(#fo" his misstep. *e as humble enou(h to offe" no defense save fo"his love and decla"ation of his commitment to his ife and child.

Based on the "easons stated above, e find the imposition ofdisba"ment upon him to be undul# ha"sh. /he poe" to disba" mustbe e-e"cised ith ("eat caution, and ma# be imposed onl# in a clea"case of misconduct that se"iousl# affects the standin( and cha"acte"of the la#e" as an office" of the Cou"t. Disba"ment should neve" bedec"eed he"e an# lesse" penalt# could accomplish the enddesi"ed.16In line ith this philosoph#, e find that a penalt# of to#ea"s suspension is mo"e app"op"iate. /he penalt# of one &' #ea"suspension "ecommended b# the IBP is too li(ht and notcommensu"ate to the act committed b# "espondent.

As to the cha"(e of misconduct fo" havin( nota"i%ed seve"aldocuments du"in( the #ea"s 6)66@ afte" his commission asnota"# public had e-pi"ed, "espondent humbl# admitted havin(nota"i%ed ce"tain documents despite his 0noled(e that he no lon(e"had autho"it# to do so. *e, hoeve", alle(ed that he "eceived nopa#ment in nota"i%in( said documents.

It has been emphaticall# st"essed that nota"i%ation is not an empt#,meanin(less, "outina"# act. n the cont"a"#, it is invested ith
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt27http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt28http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt28http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt29http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt29http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt27http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt28http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt29


21/99

substantive public inte"est, such that onl# those ho a"e 9ualified o"autho"i%ed ma# act as nota"ies public. Nota"i%ation of a p"ivatedocument conve"ts the document into a public one ma0in( itadmissible in cou"t ithout fu"the" p"oof of its authenticit#. A nota"ialdocument is b# la entitled to full faith and c"edit upon its face and,fo" this "eason, nota"ies public must obse"ve ith the utmost ca"e the

basic "e9ui"ements in the pe"fo"mance of thei" duties. the"ise, theconfidence of the public in the inte("it# of this fo"m of conve#anceould be unde"mined.28

/he "e9ui"ements fo" the issuance of a commission as nota"# publicmust not be t"eated as a me"e casual fo"malit#. /he Cou"t hascha"acte"i%ed a la#e"+s act of nota"i%in( documents ithout the"e9uisite commission to do so as "ep"ehensible, constitutin( as itdoes not onl# malp"actice but also - - - the c"ime of falsification ofpublic documents.2

/he Cou"t had occasion to state that he"e the nota"i%ation of a

document is done b# a membe" of the Philippine Ba" at a time henhe has no autho"i%ation o" commission to do so, the offende" ma# besub=ected to disciplina"# action o" one, pe"fo"min( a nota"ial actithout such commission is a violation of the la#e"+s oath to obe#the las, mo"e specificall#, the Nota"ial $a. /hen, too, b# ma0in( itappea" that he is dul# commissioned hen he is not, he is, fo" allle(al intents and pu"poses, indul(in( in delibe"ate falsehood, hichthe la#e"+s oath simila"l# p"osc"ibes. /hese violations fall s9ua"el#ithin the p"ohibition of Rule .8 of Canon of the Code ofP"ofessional Responsibilit#, hich p"ovides3 A la#e" shall noten(a(e in unlaful, dishonest, immo"al o" deceitful conduct. B#actin( as a nota"# public ithout the p"ope" commission to do so, thela#e" li0eise violates Canon @ of the same Code, hich di"ects

eve"# la#e" to uphold at all times the inte("it# and di(nit# of the le(alp"ofession.

In the case of Buensuceso v. Ba"e"a,21a la#e" as suspended fo"one #ea" hen he nota"i%ed five documents afte" his commission asNota"# Public had e-pi"ed, to it3 a complaint fo" e=ectment, affidavit,supplemental affidavit, a deed of sale, and a cont"act to sell. uidedb# the p"onouncement in said case, e find that a suspension of to&1' #ea"s is =ustified unde" the ci"cumstances. *e"ein "espondentnota"i%ed a total of fou"teen &7' documents22ithout the "e9uisitenota"ial commission.

the" cha"(es constitutin( "espondent+s misconduct such as thependin( c"iminal case fo" child abuse alle(edl# committed b# hima(ainst a hi(h school student filed befo"e the P"osecuto"+s ffice ofBa(uio Cit#F the pendin( administ"ative case filed b# the /eache"s,Staff, Students and Pa"ents befo"e an Investi(atin( Boa"d c"eated b#S$?F and the pendin( labo" case filed b# S$?)$*S !acult# befo"e theN$RC, Co"dille"a Administ"ative Re(ion, on alle(ed ille(al deductionof sala"# b# "espondent, need not be discussed, as the# a"e still
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt30http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt31http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt32http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt33http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt30http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt31http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt32http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6010_2006.html#fnt33


22/99

pendin( befo"e the p"ope" fo"ums. At such sta(es, the p"esumption ofinnocence still p"evails in favo" of the "espondent.

H*ERE!RE, findin( "espondent Att#. Rolando Dela C"u% (uilt# ofimmo"al conduct, in dis"e(a"d of the Code of P"ofessionalResponsibilit#, he is he"eb# S?SPENDED f"om the p"actice of la fo"

a pe"iod of to &1' #ea"s, and anothe" to &1' #ea"s fo" nota"i%in(documents despite the e-pi"ation of his commission o" a total of fou"&7' #ea"s of suspension.

$et copies of this Decision be fu"nished all the cou"ts of the landth"ou(h the Cou"t Administ"ato", as ell as the IBP, the ffice of theBa" Confidant, and "eco"ded in the pe"sonal "eco"ds of the"espondent.

S RDERED.


23/99

4.


Manila

SECND DI>ISIN

A.C. No. 5;ille(as a(ainst complainant ith theRe(ional /"ial Cou"t of /u(ue(a"ao, Ca(a#an, doc0eted as CivilCase No. 582. Respondent Caluba9uib si(ned the ve"ification and

ce"tification of non)fo"um shoppin(2of the complaint as nota"# publicand ente"ed the same as Doc. No. 1F Pa(e No. 2F Boo0 No.C$IIF Se"ies of 66. Complainant alle(es that this document asfalsified because acco"din( to the "eco"ds of the National A"chives,the document ente"ed as Doc. No. 1F Pa(e 2F Boo0 No. C$IIFSe"ies of 66 in "espondent Caluba9uib+s nota"ial "e(iste" as anaffidavit of one Daniel Mala#ao.7

/he t"ial cou"t decided Civil Case No. 582 in favo" ofcomplainant5and, as a "esult, the plaintiff the"e, th"ou(h "espondentCaluba9uib, appealed it to the Cou"t of Appeals, he"e it asdoc0eted as CA).R. C> No. 552@.

n file ith the "eco"ds of this case is a special poe" ofatto"ne#dated Septembe" 8, 66 e-ecuted b# Isaac >ille(asappointin( "espondent Caluba9uib as his atto"ne#)in)fact to ente"into a comp"omise a("eement unde" such te"ms and conditionsacceptable to him hich as nota"i%ed b# "espondent Bali(a andente"ed as Doc. No. 57, Pa(e No. 8F Boo0 No. >IIIF Se"ies of66.@Complainant alle(ed that this special poe" of atto"ne# asalso falsified because, acco"din( to "espondent Bali(a+s nota"ial
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt1http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt3http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt4http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt5http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt7http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt7http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt1http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt3http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt4http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt5http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt7


24/99

"e(iste", Doc. No. 57F Pa(e No. 8F Boo0 No. >IIIF Se"ies of 66pe"tains to an affidavit of loss of one Ped"o /elan,dated Au(ust 1,66.

In addition, on 4anua"# 1, 665, "espondent Bali(a filed a petition fo""eappointment as nota"# public fo" and in /u(ue(a"ao, Ca(a#an,

hich as nota"i%ed b# "espondent Caluba9uib and ente"ed in hisnota"ial "e(iste" as Doc. No. 2, Pa(e No. 8, Boo0 No. C,Se"ies of 665. *oeve", Nota"ial Re(iste" Boo0 No. C as fo"the #ea" 66 and ente"ed the"e as Doc. No. 2, Pa(e No. 8 as acancellation of "eal estate mo"t(a(e dated 4anua"# , 66.

In his anse",6"espondent Bali(a admitted the inco""ectness of theent"ies and simpl# att"ibuted them to the inadve"tence in (ood faith ofhis sec"eta"# to hom he had left the tas0 of ente"in( all his nota"ialdocuments.

Respondent Caluba9uib+s comment,8hoeve", contained a much

len(thie" account of the alle(ed events leadin( up to this case, thebul0 of hich as meant to cast complainant and his motives in asiniste" li(ht. In a nutshell, he made it appea" that the "eason fo" thecomplaint as that he &"espondent' tha"ted a f"audulent attempt b#complainant to ("ab a pa"cel of land. *e also stated that complainanthad filed a case fo" falsification of documents a(ainst him ith thembudsman but it as dismissed.

In the end, hoeve", he &li0e his co)"espondent Bali(a' admitted tothe mista0en ent"ies and also asc"ibed the same to his le(alassistants. Simila"l#, b# a# of defense, he pointed out that theNota"ial $a p"ovides that onl# cont"acts need to have thei" copiesincluded in the nota"ial "eco"ds. It does not "e9ui"e affidavits,

ve"ifications o" subsc"iptions of petitions hich a"e me"e alle(ationsof facts to be ente"ed in the Nota"ial Re(iste", despite idesp"eadp"actice to the cont"a"#.

?pon "eceipt of "espondents+ comments, e "efe""ed the case to theInte("ated Ba" of the Philippines &IBP' fo" investi(ation, "epo"t and"ecommendation.

In the cou"se of the p"oceedin(s befo"e the IBP, complainant alle(edthat "espondent Caluba9uib, ith the help of "espondent Bali(a andseve"al othe" pe"sons, as t"#in( to dep"ive him &complainant' of apa"cel of land he had bou(ht f"om Isaac >ille(as+ mothe")in)la.

Acco"din( to complainant, "espondent impe"sonated >ille(as, hoas in hidin( due to seve"al civil and c"iminal cases pendin( a(ainsthim, b# fo"(in( his si(natu"e in all documents and pleadin(s "elatedto the civil case filed a(ainst him &complainant'. *e pointed to theinco""ect nota"ial ent"ies as p"oof of this falsification.

*e p"esented in evidence a motion fo" ithd"aalfiled in the Cou"tof Appeals, appa"entl# b# >ille(as, disavoin( an# involvement in thecase filed b# "espondent Caluba9uib.
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt11


25/99

/o fu"the" butt"ess his alle(ations of falsification, complainant pointedout that "espondent Caluba9uib seemed unable to ph#sicall# p"oduce>ille(as. !o" e-ample, hen the mbudsman o"de"ed him top"oduce >ille(as, "espondent Caluba9uib me"el# p"esented anaffidavit1supposedl# e-ecuted b# >ille(as and so"n to befo"e ahi(hl# "e(a"ded ;Depa"tment of 4ustice< official.

In the IBP+s "epo"t and "ecommendation,2dated Decembe" @, 188,Commissione" Rebecca >illanueva)Maala found "espondents liablefo" ine-cusable ne(li(ence and "ecommended the "evocation of thecommission of "espondents Caluba9uib and Bali(a as nota"ies publicfo" to #ea"s f"om "eceipt of the final decision. Commissione" Maala+s"epo"t did not touch on complainant+s alle(ations of fo"(e"#.

Hhen the IBP "esolved7to adopt Commissione" Maala+s "epo"t and"ecommendation, both complainant5and "espondent Bali(afiledmotions fo" "econside"ation@ith this Cou"t. Respondent Caluba9uibopposedcomplainant+s motion fo" "econside"ation.

In his motion fo" "econside"ation, complainant assailed the penalt#"ecommended b# the IBP as ("ossl# inade9uate. Reite"atin( hisalle(ation of fo"(e"#, he attached documents bea"in( >ille(as+alle(edl# fo"(ed si(natu"e as ell as documents ith his supposed"eal si(natu"e6fo" compa"ison.

In his opposition:comment, "espondent Caluba9uib "efutedcomplainant+s scathin( accusations of f"aud and abuse of his publicposition, and p"a#ed fo" the dismissal of the complaint. In his motionfo" "econside"ation, "espondent Bali(a dec"ied the penalt# imposedas disp"opo"tionate to the inf"action he had committed.

/he "espondents havin( admitted "esponsibilit# fo" the nota"ialent"ies, the 9uestion no is hethe" these e"e the p"oduct of ame"e mista0e o" evidence of la"(e" scheme to def"aud complainanthose alle(ations, if t"ue, a"e se"ious enou(h to me"it the disba"mentof both "espondents.

/he missin( lin0, as it e"e, beteen the admitted inf"actions of"espondents and the nefa"ious machinations alle(ed b# complainantis hethe" o" not the latte" as able to p"ove that >ille(as+ si(natu"eon the documents nota"i%ed b# "espondents as in fact fo"(ed.

!o"(e"# cannot be p"esumed. It must be p"oved b# clea", positive and

convincin( evidence. Me"e alle(ation the"eof is not evidence.18neho alle(es fo"(e"# has the bu"den of p"ovin( the same.1He findthat complainant failed to discha"(e this bu"den.

Complainant alle(ed mainl# that >ille(as could not possibl# havesi(ned the documents in 9uestion because he as a fu(itive f"om=ustice, ith seve"al civil and c"iminal cases pendin( a(ainst him.Assumin( this alle(ation to be t"ue, it p"oved nothin(. /he me"e factthat >ille(as as a fu(itive f"om =ustice did not p"eclude the possibilit#
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt15http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt15http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt21


26/99

that he mi(ht have sec"etl# met ith his la#e" fo" pu"poses of filin( asuit. It ould have been diffe"ent had complainant p"esentedevidence that >ille(as as, at the time the 9uestioned documentse"e e-ecuted, definitel# somehe"e else. But the ba"e a"(umentthat >ille(as+ bein( a fu(itive "ende"ed it impossible fo" him to si(nsome documents as simpl# too nebulous to inspi"e belief.

As additional evidence, complainant p"esented, as attachments to hismotion fo" "econside"ation, a numbe" of documents pu"po"tedl#bea"in( >ille(as+ "eal si(natu"e, the latest of hich as the motion toithd"a alle(edl# filed b# >ille(as himself. *oeve", the ve"acit# ofthe last of those documents as vi(o"ousl# contested b# an affidavitalso pu"po"tedl# filed b# >ille(as. /he to documents, both nota"i%ed,effectivel# cancelled each othe" out, absent some othe" c"ediblep"oof.

It is t"ue that the"e e"e dissimila"ities beteen the si(natu"espu"po"tedl# belon(in( to >ille(as and his (enuine si(natu"e on

the conformeof the (ene"al poe" of atto"ne#

11

e-ecuted b# his ifein favo" of his mothe")in)la. *oeve", the fact of fo"(e"# cannot bep"esumed simpl# because the"e a"e dissimila"ities beteen thestanda"d and the 9uestioned si(natu"es.12If complainant as so su"ethe si(natu"es e"e fa0e, he should have submitted them fo" e-pe"tanal#sis to the National Bu"eau of Investi(ation, the PhilippineNational Police o" some othe" hand"itin( e-pe"t. /he "eco"ds a"ebe"eft of an# such anal#sis o" even an# attempt to have thesi(natu"es e-amined.

!u"the"mo"e, all the documents on hich the contested si(natu"eappea"ed e"e nota"i%ed. Nota"ial documents ca""# the p"esumptionof "e(ula"it#. /o cont"adict them, the evidence p"esented must be

clea", convincin( and mo"e than me"el#p"eponde"ant.17Complainant+s unco""obo"ated theo"# of an enti"econspi"ac# of la#e"s and (ove"nment officials beholden to"espondent Caluba9uib did not constitute such evidence.

/he fo"(e"# of >ille(as+ si(natu"e havin( "emained unp"oven, e canonl# hold "espondents liable fo" thei" omissions that have actuall#been p"oved.

In this "espect, e find that the "ecommendations of IBPCommissione" Maala adopted b# the IBP e"e suppo"ted b# theevidence on "eco"d, pa"ticula"l# the documents themselves as ell as

the "espondents+ on admission.

In "esponse, on the othe" hand, to "espondents+ feeble attempts todeflect the blame f"om themselves and onto thei" staff, e call thei"attention to Sections 175, 17 and 176&b' of the Nota"ial $a.15

Sections 175 and 17 of the Nota"ial $a p"ovided3
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt25


27/99

SEC. 175. Nota"ial Re(iste". Eve"# nota"# public shall 0eep a"e(iste" to be 0non as the nota"ial "e(iste", he"ein "eco"d shall bemade of )his official acts as nota"#F and he shall suppl# a ce"tifiedcop# of such "eco"d, o" an# pa"t the"eof, to an# pe"son appl#in( fo" itand pa#in( the le(al fees the"efo"e. &emphasis supplied'

--- --- ---

SEC. 17. Matte"s to be ente"ed the"ein. /he nota"# public shallente" in such "e(iste", in ch"onolo(ical o"de", the natu"e of eachinst"ument e-ecuted, so"n to, o" ac0noled(ed befo"e him, thepe"son e-ecutin(, sea"in( to, o" ac0noled(in( the inst"ument, theitnesses, if an#, to the si(natu"e, the date of e-ecution, oath, o"ac0noled(ment of the inst"ument, the fees collected b# him fo" hisse"vices as nota"# in connection the"eith, and, hen the inst"umentis a cont"act, he shall 0eep a co""ect cop# the"eof as pa"t of his"eco"ds, and shall li0eise ente" in said "eco"ds a b"ief desc"iption ofthe substance the"eof and shall (ive to each ent"# a consecutive

numbe", be(innin( ith numbe" one in each calenda" #ea". /henota"# shall (ive to each inst"ument e-ecuted, so"n to, o"ac0noled(ed befo"e him a numbe" co""espondin( to the one in his"e(iste", and shall also state on the inst"ument the pa(e o" pa(es ofhis "e(iste" on hich the same is "eco"ded. No blan0 line shall be leftbeteen ent"ies.

--- --- ---

In this connection, Section 176&b' stated3

SEC. 176. "ounds fo" "evocation of commission./he folloin(de"elictions of dut# on the pa"t of a nota"# public shall, in thedisc"etion of the p"ope" =ud(e of fi"st instance, be sufficient ("ound fo"the "evocation of his commission3

--- --- ---

&b' /he failu"e of the nota"# to ma0e the p"ope" ent"# o" ent"ies in hisnota"ial "e(iste" touchin( his nota"ial acts in the manne" "e9ui"ed b#la.

--- --- ---

!"om the lan(ua(e of the subsection, it is abundantl# clea" that thenota"# public ispersonally accountablefo" all ent"ies in his nota"ial"e(iste". Respondents cannot be "elieved of "esponsibilit# fo" theviolation of the afo"esaid sections b# passin( the buc0 to thei"sec"eta"ies, a "ep"ehensible p"actice hich to this da# pe"sistsdespite ou" open condemnation.1Respondents, especiall#Caluba9uib, a self)p"oclaimed p"ominent le(al p"actitione", shouldhave 0non bette" than to (ive us such a simple)minded e-cuse.
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt26


28/99

He li0eise "emind "espondents that nota"i%ation is not an empt#,meanin(less o" "outina"# act but one invested ith substantive publicinte"est, such that onl# those ho a"e 9ualified o" autho"i%ed to do soma# act as nota"ies public. /he p"otection of that inte"est necessa"il#"e9ui"es that those not 9ualified o" autho"i%ed to act must bep"evented f"om inflictin( themselves upon the public, the cou"ts and

the administ"ative offices in (ene"al.1@

Nota"i%ation b# a nota"# public conve"ts a p"ivate document into apublic one and ma0es it admissible in evidence ithout fu"the" p"oofof its authenticit#.1Nota"ies public must the"efo"e obse"ve utmostca"e ith "espect to the basic "e9ui"ements of thei" duties.16

Bein( not onl# la#e"s but also public office"s, "espondents shouldhave been acutel# aa"e of thei" "esponsibilities. Respondents+ actsdid not amount to me"e simple and e-cusable ne(li(ence. *avin(failed to pe"fo"m thei" so"n dut#, "espondents e"e s9ua"el# inviolation of Rule .8 of Canon of the Code of P"ofessional

Responsibilit#

28

and Section 1@, Rule 2 of the Rules of Cou"t hichp"ovides3

SEC. 1@. Disba"ment o" suspension of atto"ne#s b# Sup"eme Cou"tF("ounds the"efo"e.A membe" of the ba" ma# be disba""ed o"suspended f"om his office as atto"ne# b# the Sup"eme Cou"t fo" an#deceit, malp"actice o" othe" ("oss misconduct in such office, ("ossl#immo"al conduct o" b# "eason of his conviction of a c"ime involvin(mo"al tu"pitude, o" fo" an# violation of the oath hich is "e9ui"ed tota0e befo"e admission to p"actice, o" fo" a illful disobedience of an#laful o"de" of a supe"io" cou"t, o" fo" co""uptl# and illfull# appea"in(as an atto"ne# fo" a pa"t# to a case ithout autho"it# to do so. /hep"actice of solicitin( cases at la fo" the pu"pose of (ain, eithe"

pe"sonall# o" th"ou(h paid a(ents o" b"o0e"s, constitutes malp"actice.

ERE(ORE, in vie of the fo"e(oin(, "espondents Att#. Romeo I.Caluba9uib and Att#. 4imm# P. Bali(a a"e he"eb# found (uilt# ofviolation of Rule .8, Canon of the Code of P"ofessionalResponsibilit# and of thei" la#e"+s oath. /he# a"e botho"de"ed SUSPENDEDf"om the p"actice of lafo" ONEEAReffective immediatel#, ith a a"nin( that anothe"inf"action shall be dealt ith mo"e seve"el#.

/hei" p"esent commissions as nota"ies public, if an#, a"ehe"eb# REVO7ED, ith DIS=UALI(ICATIONf"om "eappointment as

nota"ies public fo" a pe"iod of to #ea"s.

$et a cop# of this Resolution be attached to the pe"sonal "eco"ds ofAtt#. Romeo I. Caluba9uib and Att#. 4imm# P. Bali(a, and copiesfu"nished the Inte("ated Ba" of the Philippines, the ffice of the Cou"tAdminist"ato" and ffice of the Ba" Confidant fo" dissemination to allcou"ts nationide.

/his Resolution is immediatel# e-ecuto"#.
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt27http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt28http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt29http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt30http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt27http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt28http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt29http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/ac_5377_2006.html#fnt30


29/99

SO ORDERED.


30/99

5.


Manila

/*IRD DI>ISIN

A.C. No. 65#1 M)> 4, 2005

MARISSA L. MACARILA,complainant,vs.(ELI ". SERIA,"espondent.

D E C I S I N

PAN!ANI"AN, J.?

!ailu"e to "ende" the le(al se"vices a("eed upon, despite theundisputed "eceipt of an acceptance fee, is a clea" violation of theCode of P"ofessional Responsibilit#. Ne(li(ence in attendin( to theneeds of a client and a deceitful cove")up of such ca"elessnessli0eise constitute ma=o" b"eaches of the la#e"Ts oath.

T/& C)s&

Befo"e us is a ve"ified Complaintfo" malp"actice and:o" ("ossmisconduct a(ainst Att#. !eli- B. Se"ia, filed b# Ma"issa $.

Maca"ila# ith the Inte("ated Ba" of the Philippines Commission onBa" Discipline &IBP)CBD' on Septembe" 11, 1882.

/he IBP)CBD, th"ou(h Di"ecto" Ro(elio A. >inluan, "e9ui"ed"espondent to anse" the cha"(es.1It the"eafte" held a mandato"#confe"ence:hea"in( on 4anua"# 2, 1887, du"in( hich the pa"tiese"e able to ente" into a stipulation of facts as ell as to p"esent andma"0 thei" documenta"# evidence.2Afte" the# submitted thei""espective Position Pape"s,7the case as deemed submitted fo""esolution.

/he investi(ato" of the case, Commissione" $eland R. >illadolid 4".,

summa"i%ed the antecedents thus3

ComplainantTs ve"sion of the facts pe"tinent to this case is asfollos3

Sometime in #ea" 1888, Complainant and one 4enel#nBalao"o &TBalao"oT' bou(ht a lot f"om one Alba"ia Mohammad&TMohammadT'. Complainant and Balao"o, hoeve", could not"e(iste" the sale ith the Re(iste" of Deeds and cause the
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt1http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt3http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt4http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt4http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt1http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt3http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt4


31/99

t"ansfe" of the title in thei" names because Mohammad failedto su""ende" the one"Ts duplicate ce"tificate of title fo" saidlot. Subse9uentl#, Complainant lea"ned f"om one Reina n(&Tn(T' that Mohammad had mo"t(a(ed the said lot to a thi"dpa"t#. n( advised Complainant to (et a cop# of themo"t(a(e cont"act and to do this the latte" needs to have a

contact in the Re(iste" of Deeds. Sometime in 4anua"# o"!eb"ua"# 1881, n( int"oduced Complainant to one >ic Paule&TPauleT', an emplo#ee of the Re(iste" of Deeds of Gue%onCit#, ho advised Complainant to (et a la#e" to handle thecase. Complainant alle(edl# (ave Paule P,888.88 fo" thehelp the latte" ill (ive he" in secu"in( a cop# of the mo"t(a(econt"act conce"ned. n Ma"ch , 1881, Complainant,Balao"o and n( met ith Paule at the Sta" Mall inMandalu#on( and p"oceeded to the office of Respondent, thela#e" "ecommended b# Paule. Du"in( said meetin(,Complainant consulted Respondent about the p"oblemconce"nin( the t"ansfe" of the sub=ect lot title in he" andBalao"oTs names and the latte" advised that the fi"st thin(

;the# have to do


32/99

So""eda &TAtt#. So""edaT' that such manne" of se"vice isapp"op"iate in vie of the lac0 of info"mation "e(a"din(MohammadTs he"eabouts. Respondent, hoeve",immediatel# (ot an("# so Complainant did not insist on he"in9ui"ies and su((estions.

n Ma"ch 17, 1882, upon ComplainantTs "e9uest, Att#.So""eda called Respondent to in9ui"e about the specificb"anch he"e the case a(ainst Mohammad as supposedl#pendin(. Respondent (ot an("# and hun( up the phone.?pon lea"nin( this, Complainant autho"i%ed Att#. So""eda tote"minate the se"vices of Respondent on he" behalf. Att#.So""eda called Respondent a second time but as able total0 onl# ith p"esumabl# RespondentTs lad#)"eceptionist o"sec"eta"# hom Att#. So""eda "e9uested to =ust "ela# toRespondent his messa(e "e(a"din( the te"mination ofRespondentTs se"vices. n Ma"ch 1, 1882, Att#. So""eda,upon ComplainantTs "e9uest, sent a lette" to Respondentconfi"min( the ve"bal te"mination of se"vices, and also as0in(fo" the tu"nove" of the pe"tinent documents that e"e ithRespondent. Subse9uentl#, Complainant he"self "oteRespondent a lette" affi"min( the contents of the ea"lie" lette"of Att#. So""eda. In a lette" dated Ap"il 7, 1882, Respondentdenied the fact of his te"mination b# Att#. So""eda and invitedComplainant to his office to tal0 thin(s ove". Complainant"esponded th"ou(h Att#. So""eda in a lette" dated Ma# ,1882 b# "eite"atin( the te"mination of RespondentTs se"vicesand the "e9uest fo" the tu"nove" of documents. In a lette"dated Ma# 12, 1882, Respondent enclosed the documents"e9uested. Since it appea"s f"om the documents tu"ned ove"that Respondent neve" filed a suit a(ainst Mohammad,

Complainant "ote Respondent demandin( the "etu"n of themone# she paid fo" the anticipated le(al se"vices Respondentas supposed to "ende" but hich e"e not actuall#"ende"ed. RespondentTs failu"e to "espond to said lette"p"ompted Complainant ;to< send a follo)up lette" dated 4ul#, 1882. Instead of "etu"nin( the mone#, Respondent "oteComplainant a lette" dated 4ul# 7, 1882 den#in( "eceipt ofan# amount f"om Complainant othe" than the P18,888.88acceptance fee and demandin( pa#ment of alle(ed unpaidatto"ne#Ts fee of P78,888 and fees fo" nota"ial se"vicesof P2,888.88 hich Respondent alle(edl# advanced fo"Complainant. /hus, Complainant filed the p"esentadminist"ative case fo" disciplina"# action, li0eise p"a#in( fo"

the "etu"n of the mone# she paid fo" the anticipated le(alse"vices Respondent as supposed to "ende" but hich e"enot actuall# "ende"ed.

n the othe" hand, RespondentTs ve"sion of the factspe"tinent to this case is as follos3

n Ma"ch , 1881, Complainant, Balao"o and n( ent toRespondentTs office du"in( hich Complainant "elated to


33/99

Respondent he" va"ious p"oblems and cases. Respondentadvised Complainant that the solutions to he" p"oblem"e(a"din( Mohammad consist of to &1' phases. /he fi"stphase consists of3 &' havin( the nota"# public of the deedcove"in( the sale of the sub=ect p"ope"t# si(n theac0noled(ment pa(e &since althou(h the said deed

contained the nota"ial seal of said nota"#, the latte" did notsi(n the same'F &1' p"epa"in( a complaint in cou"t to compelMohammad to su""ende" the one"Ts ce"tificate of titleF and&2' e-ecutin( an affidavit of adve"se claim to cause itsinsc"iption on the cop# of the said title in the Re(ist"# ofDeeds to p"otect thei" inte"est. /he second ;phase< consistsof3 &' filin( the complaint in cou"t to compel Mohammad tosu""ende" the one"Ts duplicate ce"tificate of title, to causethe cancellation of said title and the issuance of anothe" titlein the names of Complainant and Balao"o, and to cause the"emoval f"om said title of the mo"t(a(e lien the"eon in favo" of*e"nando and Nenita Rosa"ioF and &1' filin( of a c"iminalcomplaint fo" estafa a(ainst Mohammad. n the same da#,

Complainant en(a(ed Respondent to p"ovide the le(alse"vices to pu"sue the fo"e(oin( "emedies. /he pa"tiesT ve"bala("eement ith "espect to RespondentTs fees is as follos3&' pa#ment of acceptance fee of P18,888.88F &1' pa#ment ofatto"ne#Ts fees of P5,888 afte" Respondent hasaccomplished the fi"st ;phase< of the "emediesF &2' pa#ment ofatto"ne#Ts fees of P5,888 afte" Respondent hasaccomplished the second ;phase< of the "emediesF and &7' fo"hea"in(s:follo)ups, pa#ment of pe" appea"ance feeof P2,888.88. Complainant paid the acceptance fee b#issuin( Respondent a chec0 dated Ma"ch , 1881cove"in( P18,888.88.

/he"eafte", Respondent caused the nota"# public hose sealappea"ed on the deed cove"in( the sale of the sub=ectp"ope"t# to si(n the ac0noled(ment pa(e the"eof, advancin(the nota"ial fee of P2,888.88 hich Complainant failed to pa#fo" hich "eason said nota"# did not si(n said deed. n Ap"il5, 1881, Complainant and Balao"o ent to his office andsi(ned the affidavit of adve"se claim, hich Respondentp"epa"ed. n the same date, Respondent "e9uestedComplainant and Balao"o to si(n the civil complaint andc"iminal complaint a(ainst Mohammad hich Respondentp"epa"ed but Complainant and Balao"o "efused to si(nbecause acco"din( to the latte" to the "esidence of

Mohammad in said complaints is al"ead# "on( sinceMohammadTs he"eabouts a"e al"ead# un0non.Complainant and Balao"o p"omised to locate MohammadTshe"eabouts and as0ed Respondent to ait fo" such data./he"eafte", Respondent even advised Complainant andBalao"o to locate Mohammad because "eso"tin( to the"emed# of complaint and summons b# publication is ve"#e-pensive and should be "eso"ted to onl# as a last "ecou"se.Respondent adds that even as late as 4anua"# , 1882, the


34/99

civil and c"iminal complaints could not be filed becauseComplainant he"self anted Respondent to amend thepleadin(s b# includin( an additional defendant o" "espondentand inc"easin( the claim, fo" dama(es.

Respondent fu"the" claims that he also e-tensivel# (ave

le(al advise to Complainant ith "espect to the folloin(matte"s3 &' ComplainantTs liti(ation a(ainst spouses Casidoto "ecove" he" 8U "etention in a"chitectTs feeF &1' collectionof P88,888.88 indebtedness of one M"s. Di%onF and &2'"ecove"# of ComplainantTs investments in he" 188 and 1881ca" t"ansactions.

Claimin( that Complainant did not pa# him an# amount othe"than the P18,888.88 acceptance fee, Respondent a"(ues thatComplainant still oes him the folloin( amounts3 &'the P2,888.88 he paid to the nota"# public to si(n theac0noled(ment pa(e of the deed cove"in( the sale of the

sub=ect p"ope"t#F &1' theP188 he spent in the nota"i%ation,"e(ist"ation and insc"iption of the affidavit of adve"se claimF&2' theP5,888.88 atto"ne#Ts fees a("eed upon fo"accomplishin( the fi"st ;phase< of ComplainantTs "emedies"elative to he" p"oblem ith MohammadF and &7' anadditional P78,888.88 fo" the le(al se"vices he "ende"ed ith"espect to ComplainantTs othe" p"oblems. Respondent fu"the"claims that Complainant should pa# him the costs "elative tothe filin( of this administ"ative case.5

R&3o't o t/& I*@&stg)t*g Cosso*&'

In the investi(atin( commissione"Ts opinion, "espondent had been

"emiss in attendin( to the cause of his client, in violation of Rules.82 and .87 of the Code of P"ofessional Responsibilit#.Re(a"ded as a me"e afte"thou(ht as his defense that his failu"e tofile the civil and the c"iminal complaints as the fault of complainant.It as noted that if she as indeed "esponsible fo" the non)filin( ofthe complaints, he should have pointed out this fault at the ea"liestoppo"tunit#, hich as in his Ap"il 7, 1882 lette". /he commissione"fu"the" opined that this defense had been invo0ed onl# in"espondentTs lette" dated 4ul# 7, 1882, afte" complainant demandedthe "etu"n of the amounts she had paid.

Hhile li0eise "e=ectin( "espondentTs claim fo" unpaid le(al fees

amountin( to P5,888, the commissione" upheld Balao"oTs so"ntestimon#. It co""obo"ated that of complainant, ho had said that theonl# a("eement beteen he" and "espondent as the acceptance feeof P18,888. *is claim of P78,888 as consultation fee fo" the advice hehad alle(edl# (iven he" conce"nin( othe" le(al p"oblems as also"e=ected fo" lac0 of evidence.

Commissione" >illadolid then "ote the folloin( "ecommendation3
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt5http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt5


35/99

- - - ;/I)1887)2CBD Case No. 82)7Ma"issa $. Maca"ila# vs.

Att#. !eli- B. Se"ia

RES$>ED to ADP/ and APPR>E, as it is he"eb#ADP/ED and APPR>ED, t/ o+$)to*, the Repo"tand Recommendation of the Investi(atin( Commissione" ofthe above)entitled case, he"ein made pa"t of this Resolutionas Anne- TATF and, findin( the "ecommendation full# suppo"tedb# the evidence on "eco"d and the applicable las and "ules,and fo" "espondentTs violation of Canons @ and of the

Code of P"ofessional Responsibilit# b# his failu"e to e-e"cisedue dili(ence in p"otectin( and attendin( to the inte"est ofcomplainant afte" "eceivin( pa#ment fo" the le(al se"vices heas supposed to "ende", Att#. !eli- B. Se"ia ishe"eb# SUSPENDEDf"om the p"actice of la fo" si- &'months and "de"ed to Pa# complainant P78,888.88 b# a#of Restitution.@

T/& Cou'tBs Ru*g

He a("ee ith the fo"e(oin( Resolution of the IBP boa"d of(ove"no"s.

A+*st')t@& L)%t>

A la#e")client "elationship is hi(hl# fiducia"# in natu"eFit is delicate,e-actin( and confidential.6It "e9ui"es a hi(h standa"d of conduct anddemands utmost fidelit#, cando", fai"ness, and (ood faith.8/he le(alp"ofession demands vi(ilance and attention e-pected of a (oodfathe" of a famil#.$a#e"s should adopt the no"m e-pected ofpeople of (ood intentions. In b"ief, the# must ala#s be p"otective of
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt7http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt7http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt11


36/99

the inte"ests of thei" clients as (ood pa"ents ould be p"otective ofthei" on families.1

Indeed, unde" thei" sac"ed oath, la#e"s pled(e not to dela# an#pe"son fo" mone# o" malice. /he# a"e bound to conduct themselvesacco"din( to the best of thei" 0noled(e and disc"etion, ith all (ood

fidelit# to thei" clients.2

/hese duties a"e fu"the" st"essed in the Code of P"ofessionalResponsibilit#, specificall# in the folloin( pe"tinent p"ovisions3

CANN 5 V A la#e" shall obse"ve cando", fai"ness andlo#alt# in all his dealin(s and t"ansactions ith his clients.

CANN V A la#e" shall hold in t"ust all mone#s andp"ope"ties of his client that ma# come into his possession.

- - - - - - - - -

Rule .82 V A la#e" shall delive" the funds and p"ope"t# ofhis client hen due o" upon demand. - - -.

CANN @ V A la#e" oes fidelit# to the cause of his clientand he shall be mindful of the t"ust and confidence "eposed inhim.

CANN V A la#e" shall se"ve his client ith competenceand dili(ence.

- - - - - - - - -

Rule .82 V A la#e" shall not ne(lect a le(al matte"ent"usted to him and his ne(li(ence in connection the"eithshall "ende" him liable.

Rule .87 V A la#e" shall 0eep the client info"med of thestatus of his case and shall "espond ithin a "easonable timeto the clientTs "e9uest fo" info"mation.

Admittedl#, "espondent "eceived the amount of P18,888 asacceptance fee fo" the cases he had a("eed to file on behalf ofcomplainant. Plainl#, he as less than candid in his dealin(s ith his

clientF he displa#ed lac0 of honest# and fidelit# to he" cause.Sufficientl# established e"e the folloin( acts3 &' despite his "eceipton Ma# , 1881, of P18,888 fo" filin( fees, he did not file the caseshe had a("eed to handleF &1' he deceived complainant hen he liedb# sa#in( that a civil complaint had been filed in the sala of one4ud(e Re(ala of the Re(ional /"ial Cou"t of Gue%on Cit#F &2'"espondent "efused to "etu"n the mone# he had "eceived fo" the filin(fees. /hese mis"ep"esentations, lies and lapses constituted a b"each
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt13


37/99

of his so"n dut# as a la#e" and of the ethical standa"ds he as"e9ui"ed to hono" and obse"ve.

$a#e"s oe full devotion to the p"otection of the inte"ests of thei"clients, as ell as a"mth and %eal in the defense of the latte"Ts"i(hts.7nce the# a("ee to handle a case, la#e"s a"e bound to (ive

to it thei" utmost attention, s0ill and competence, "e(a"dless of itssi(nificance.5Public inte"est "e9ui"es that the# e-e"t thei" best effo"tsand use all thei" lea"nin( and abilit# in the speed# p"osecution o"defense of the clientTs cause./hose ho pe"fo"m that dut# ithdili(ence and cando" not onl# safe(ua"d the inte"ests of the client, butalso se"ve the ends of =ustice.@/he# do hono" to the ba" and helpmaintain the communit#Ts "espect fo" the le(al p"ofession.

Mo"eove", the la#e")client "elationship, bein( one of confidence,"e9ui"es la#e"s to (ive the client timel#, ade9uate and t"uthfulupdates on the developments of the case.6In this manne", the t"ustand faith of clients in thei" counsel ould "emain unimpai"ed.

Indeed, "espondent ne(lected a le(al matte" ent"usted to him b#failin( to file the complaints as he as supposed to. ?nbelievable ishis claim that the complaints e"e "ead# as ea"l# as Ap"il 5, 1881, butthat these e"e not filed an#a# because complainant had "efused tosi(n them, absent the co""ect add"ess of the defendant &Alba"iaMohammad'.

irst, evidence abound that it as complainant ho as insistent thatthe cases be filed. She "epeatedl# in9ui"ed about the case, but"espondent ould not (ive he" an# clea" anse". $ate" on, he lied tohe" b# sa#in( that the complaint as pendin( in the sala of one4ud(e Re(ala. *is deception on top of his failu"e to file the cases

e"e "aised in the lette" dated Ma"ch 1, 1882,18"itten b# Att#. NoelSo""eda, he" ne counsel. In his Ap"il 7, 1882 "epl#,1"espondent didnot mention an#thin( about the complaints that had alle(edl# beenp"epa"ed as ea"l# as Ap"il 5, 1881. Commissione" >illadolid aptl#obse"ved in his Repo"t3

- - - /he fact that "espondentTs 7 Ap"il 1882 lette")"esponseto said lette", as ell as "espondentTs subse9uent lette" dated12 Ma# 1882, did not contain eithe" (ives fu"the" c"edence tocomplainantTs ve"sion of the facts. Notabl#, it as onl# in"espondentTs lette" dated 7 4ul# 1882 that "espondent "aisedsuch defenses fo" the fi"st time. Conside"in( that said 7 4ul#

1882 lette" as in "esponse to complainantTs 1 4une 1882lette" demandin( the "etu"n of ce"tain amounts fo" le(alse"vices hich complainant believed "espondent did not"ende", this Commissione" is inclined to believe that suchdefenses a"e me"e afte"thou(ht to defeat complainantTs claimfo" the "etu"n of said amounts.

He"e it not fo" the vi(ilance of complainant in in9ui"in( about thestatus of he" cases, she ould not have 0non that the complaints
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt15http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt15http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_6591_2005.html#fnt21


38/99

had not been filed at all. Respondent delibe"atel# ithheld info"min(he" of his inaction, notithstandin( he" "epeated follo)ups. /hus, heis deemed to have "on(ed he" and effectivel# bet"a#ed the t"ust shehad placed in him.

Second, his alle(ed lac0 of 0noled(e of the co""ect add"ess of the

defendant is not a hind"ance to the filin( of a complaint. Indeed, suchadd"ess is mate"ial to the se"vice of summons11hich, hoeve",p"esupposes that a complaint has been p"ope"l# filed in cou"t.!u"the"mo"e, Section 7 of Rule 7 of the Rules of Cou"t12p"ovidesfo" "emedies hen the defendantTs add"ess is un0non. /hus,"espondent should have neve"theless filed the complaint, especiall#because complainant had al"ead# (iven him pa#ment fo" the filin(fees. *is attempt to cove" up his ne(li(ence b# "on(full# shiftin( theblame to he" cannot be countenanced b# this Cou"t.

inally, "espondent should have "etu"ned the mone# to complainantfolloin( his failu"e to file the cases.17Hhe"e the client (ives mone#

to the la#e" fo" a specific pu"pose )) such as to file an action o" toappeal an adve"se =ud(ment )) the latte" should, upon failu"e to doso, immediatel# "etu"n it to the fo"me".15/he un=ustified ithholdin( offunds belon(in( to the client a""ants the imposition of disciplina"#action a(ainst the la#e".1

It as sufficientl# p"oven that, all in all, complainant had paid"espondent P7,8883

Simila"l#, a "evie of the "eco"ds "eveals that cont"a"# toRespondentTs claim, in addition to the P18,888.88 cove"ed b#the chec0 dated Ma"ch 1881 hich complainant paiddu"in( the pa"tiesT initial meetin(, complainant made

subse9uent pa#ments to "espondent. Balao"o confi"ms thathen she and complainant ent bac0 to "espondentTs officeon 5 Ap"il 1881, complainant paid "espondent P2,888.88and P5,888.88 in cash. Anothe" P18,888.88 as li0eise paidto "espondent as evidenced b# the RCBC chec0 dated Ma# 1881 issued b# complainant to "espondent.1@

$i0eise established as the obvious fact that the onl# le(al se"vice"ende"ed b# "espondent consisted of the nota"i%ation of the Deed ofSale cove"in( the p"ope"t# pu"chased b# complainant and the filin( ofthe adve"se claim. He a("ee ith Commissione" >illadolidthat P,888 as sufficient compensation fo" the se"vices actuall#

"ende"ed. *ence, "espondent must "etu"n to complainant the balanceof P78,888 plus le(al inte"est.

/he failu"e of "espondent to discha"(e his dut# p"ope"l# constitutesan inf"in(ement of e

Lawyer as Notary Public

Documents

Transcript of Lawyer as Notary Public