Legal Ethics Case Digests

A.C. No. 4545 February 5, 2014 CARL CARLIT ITO O ANG, ANG, Comp Compla lain inan ant, t, !. !. ATT TT" ". #A$% #A$%& & #O&% #O&%'( '( G)' G)'ANA, ANA, Re!pon*ent. Le+al %ti-! Rule /.01, Canon  Rule /.01, Canon / FACTS:  The case stemmed from an adavit-complaint led by complainant Carlito Ang against respondent. Ang alleged that he and the other heirs of the late Candelaria Magpayo namely !"ricacion #iamante and $illiam Magpayo e%ec"ted an &%tra-'"dicial #eclaration of (eirs and !artition involving a land )hich )as covered by Transfer Certicate of Title *o. +T-,,/0-122. (e )as given his share of ,2 s3"are meters designated as 4ot *o. ,11-5-,-5- together )ith all the improvements thereon. (o)ever )hen he tried to sec"re a TCT in his name he fo"nd o"t that said  TCT  TCT n"mber had already been cancelled and in lie" thereof ne) TCTs CTs had been iss"ed in the names of $illiam Magpayo Antonio #iamante !atricia #iamante 4olita #. Can3"e 6regorio #iamante 7r. and Fe #. Montero. Ang alleged that there is reasonable gro"nd to believe that respondent had a direct participation in the commission of forgeries and falsications beca"se he )as the one )ho prepared and notari8ed the Adavit of 4oss and #eed of  Absol"te Sale that led to the transfer and iss"ance of the ne) TCTs. Ang pointed o"t that the #eed of Absol"te Sale )hich )as allegedly e%ec"ted by Cand Candel elar aria ia Magp Magpay ayo o on Ap Apri rill 9 9 9/ 9/;/ ;/ )as )as ante anteda date ted d and and Cand Candel elar aria ia Magpayo of Co"rt of the ?egional Trial Co"rt +?TC0 of Ceb" since the *otarial ?eport ind"bitably sho)ed that the doc"ment e%ec"ted )as an adavit not a #eed of Absol"te Sale. As to the the A Ada davi vitt of 4oss oss )hic )hich h )as )as alle allege gedl dly y e%ec"t ec"ted ed by the the late late Candelaria Magpayo on April ,/ 9// it co"ld not have been e%ec"ted by her as she #ied three years prior to the e%ec"tion e%ec"tion of the said adavit of loss. Ang f"rther alleged that respondent made himself the attorney-in-fact and e%ec"ted a #eed of Sale selling the lot to 4im @im So Mecantile Co even tho"gh a civil case )as pending before the ?T ?TC of Manda"e City Ceb". ?espondent espondent denied denied any )rongdoi )rongdoing. ng. Ac Accor cording ding to the responde respondent nt in the pending civil case Ang anchored his claim on the &%tra-'"dicial #eclaration of  (eirs and !artition and so"ght to ann"l the deed of sale and prayed for recon reconvey veyanc ance e of the s"b'ec s"b'ectt parcel parcel of land. land. (o)eve (o)ever r beca"se beca"se of Ange)ise violated ?"le /.9 Canon / of the Code of !rofessional ?espons esponsibi ibilit lity y )hich )hich provi provides des that that BaG BaG la)yer la)yer shall shall not delega delegate te to any "n3"alied person the performance of any tas> )hich by la) may only be performed performed by a member of the 5ar in good standing.B in notari8ing an adavit e%ec"ted by a dead person respondent is liable for miscond"ct. Ender the facts and circ"mstances of the case the revocation of  his notari notarial al commi commissi ssion on dis dis3"al 3"ali icat cation ion from from being being commis commissio sioned ned as a notary p"blic for a period of t)o years and s"spension from the practice of  la) for one year are in order.

A.C. No. 31 February February 12, 2014 IL%R IL%RTO TO C. TALI&I ALI&IC, C, Compla Complaina inant, nt, !. ATT". 'RI$O 'RI$O R. RIN%N RIN%N,, Re!pon*ent. Le+al %ti-! Rule! on Notarial 'ra-ti-e FACTS: An administr administrative ative case led by complainant complainant $ilbert $ilberto o C. Talisic alisic +$ilber +$ilberto0 to0 agai against nst Atty tty. !rimo rimo ?. ?ine ?inen9 n9 +A +Att tty y. ?ine ?inen0 n0 char chargi ging ng the the latt latter er )ith )ith falsication of an &%tra 7"dicial !artition )ith Sale )hich allo)ed the transfer to spo"ses 5en'amin #"rante and &leonor 4avia +Spo"ses #"rante0 of a parcel of land formerly o)ned by $ilbertoHs mother A"rora Corp"8 +A"rora0. Co"r Co"rtt refer eferrred the the case case to the the nte ntegr grat ated ed 5ar 5ar of the the !h !hil ilip ippi pine nes s +5! +5!0 0 Commission on 5ar #iscipline for investigation report and recommendation. $ilberto claimed that his mother died and left behind as heirs her spo"se Celedonio Celedonio Talisic alisic and their three three childre children n namely namely:: Arlene Arlene $ilbert $ilberto o and Alvin. t )as only after his fatherne) of the transfer of the s"b'ect parcel via the s"b'ect deed. $hile $ilberto believed that his fatherno) of the transaction bet)een the Spo"ses #"rante and the Talisics )hen they approached him in his oce as the then !residing  7"dge of the M"nicipal. After After d"e proceed proceedings ings nvestigat nvestigating ing Commissio Commissioner ner Felimon elimon C. Abelita Abelita  +Comm +Commiss ission ioner er Abelit Abelita0 a0 iss iss"ed "ed the ?eport eport and ?ecomm ecommend endati ation on dated dated

*ovember , ,9, for the cancellation of Atty. ?ineneted the complaint. 5! 5! 5ar Com Commissi ission one er #el #ela ?ama ama stat stated ed that hat =ng had had s" s" cient ientlly establ establish ished ed the e%ist e%istenc ence e of the dis dishon honor ored ed chec>I chec>I and that Atty Atty.. #elos #elos Sant Santos os did did not not le le his his ans) ans)er er desp despit ite e noti notice ce and and did did not not also also pres presen entt contrary evidence. (e recommended that Atty. #elos Santos be held liable for violating Canon 9 ?"le 9.9 and Canon  ?"le .2 of the Code of  !rofe !rofessi ssional onal ?espons esponsibi ibilit lity y and that that the penalt penalty y of s"s s"spen pensio sion n from from the practice of la) for three years pl"s the ret"rn of the amo"nt of !9. to the complainant. The 5! 5oard of 6overnors iss"ed ?esol"tion adopting the Commissioner involved herein >no)ingly violated 5atas !ambans ambansa a 5lg. 5lg. ,, ,, and e%hib e%hibite ited d his indi indier erenc ence e to)ar to)ards ds the pernic pernicio" io"s s eect eect of his illega illegall act to p"bli p"blic c inter interest est and p"bli p"blic c order order.91 .91 (e there thereby by s)ept aside his 4a)yer