Legal Writing Case Pool

Pacita Caalim-Verzonilla vs Atty. Victoriano G. Pascua

Before the Court is the verified affidavit-complaint of Pacita Caalim-Verzonilla seeking the disbarment of respondent Atty. Atty. Victoriano G. Pascua for allegedly falsifying a public document and evading the payment of correct taxes through the use of falsified documents. FACTS: The respondent prepared and notarized two Deeds of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Deceased Lope Caalim with Sale. The first deed was for a consideration of P250,000 and appears to have been executed and signed by Lope’s su rviving spouse, Caridad Tabarrejos, and her children, (complainant, Virginia Caalim-Inong and Marivinia Caalim) in favor of spouses Madki and Shirley Mipanga. The second deed was for a consideration of P1,000,000 and appears to have been executed by and for the benefit of the same parties as the first deed. The two deeds have identical registration numbers, page numbers and book numbers in the notarial portion. Complainant alleged that the two deeds were spurious because all of the heirs’ signatures were falsified, that their signatures and thumbmarks appearing on the CTCs are not genuine and authentic; and that the two deeds were used by respondent and Shirley to annul a previously simulated deed of sale. Respondent admits having prepared and notarized the two disputed Deeds of ExtraJudicial Settlement of the Estate with Sale (subject deeds), but denies any irregularity in their execution. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent should be held liable for violating the Code of

Professional Conduct and Rules on Notarial Practice. HELD:

YES. As a lawyer, respondent is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of the legal profession.  A notary public shall not perform p erform any notarial act described in these th ese rules for any person requesting such an act even if he tenders the appropriate fee specified by these rules if: (a) a notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or immoral. Sec. 2 Entries in the Notarial register (e) The notary shall give each instrument or document exercised or sworn to or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to one in his register and shall also state on the instrument or document the pages of register in which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries. The respondent also violated rule 1.02 of Canon1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility  – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance to the law or at lessening the confidence in the legal system. With his admission that he drafted and notarized another instrument that did not state the true consideration of the sale so as to reduce the capital gains and other taxes due on the transaction, respondent cannot escape liability for making an untruthful statement in a public document for an unlawful purpose. As the second deed indicated an amount much lower than the actual price paid for the property sold, respondent abetted in depriving the Government of the right to collect the correct taxes due. He likewise displayed lack of respect for and made a mockery of the solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment by notarizing such illegal and fraudulent document, he is entitling it full faith and credit upon its face, which it obviously does not deserve considering

its nature and purpose in violation of pertinent sections of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Hence, respondent ATTY. VICTORIANO G. PASCUA is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years. In addition, his present notarial commission, if any, is hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary public for a period of two (2) years.

LUZVIMINDA R. LUSTESTICA VS. ATTY. SERGIO E. BERNABE

 A.C. No. 6258

August 24, 2010 (AJA)

FACTS:

Luzviminda R. Lustestica filed disbarment complaint against Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe for notarizing a falsified or forged Deed of Donation of real property despite the non-appearance of the donors, Benvenuto H. Lustestica (complainant’s father) and his first wife, Cornelia P. Rivero, both of whom were already dead at the time of execution of the said document. The Court referred the matter to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, evaluation and recommendation. On August 15, 2005, IBP Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. found the respondent grossly negligent in the performance of his duties as notary public and recommended that the respondent’s notarial commission be suspended for a period of one (1) year. The IBP Commissioner also recommended that a penalty ranging from reprimand to suspension be imposed against the respondent, with a warning that a similar conduct in the future will warrant an imposition of a more severe penalty. From these undisputed facts, supervening events occurred that must be taken into consideration of the present case. In a decision dated February 9, 2006 for the case filed by Victorina Bautista against Atty. Bernabe docketed as A.C. No. 6963, the Court revoked the respondents notarial commission and disqualified him from reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two (2) years, for his failure to properly perform his duties as notary public when he notarized a document in the absence of one of the affiants. In addition, the Court suspended him from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, with a warning that a repetition of the same or of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. On October 8, 2009, the respondent, through a letter addressed to the Office of the Bar Confidant, requested that he be given clearance to resume the practice of law and to allow him to be commissioned as a notary public. In his letter, the respondent alleged that he has already served the penalties imposed against him in A.C. No. 6963 and the present case. He claimed that after the receipt of the IBP Resolutions in both cases, he did not practice his profession and had not been appointed or commissioned as a notary public. ISSUE:

Whether or not Respondent committed a falsehood in violation of his oath as a lawyer and his duties as Notary Public. HELD:

Yes. We find that Atty. Bernabe should be disbarred from the practice of law and perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public. We emphasize that this is respondent’s second offense and while he does not appear to have any participation in the falsification of the Deed of Donation, his contribution was his gross negligence for failing to ascertain the identity of the persons who appeared before him as the donors. This is highlighted by his admission in his Answer that he did not personally know the parties and was not acquainted with them. The blank spaces in the Acknowledgment indicate that he did not even require these parties to produce documents that would prove that they are the same persons they claim to be. As we emphasized in Maligsa v Cabanting : “A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal  profession. The bar bar should maintain maintain a high standard standard of legal legal proficiency as well as honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal  profession by faithfully faithfully performing performing his duties to society, society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession.” 

Under the circumstances, we find that the respondent should be made liable not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer. He not only violated the Notarial Law (Public Act No. 2103), but also Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

A.M. NO. 09-6-1-SC Jan. 21, 2015 Re: Violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice (M.A.N.A) FACTS:

Based on three (3) complaints for violation of the Rules on Notarial practice endorsed to the OBC for appropriate action. The first letter of complaint was filed by the commissioned notaries public before the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Lingayen, Pangasinan (RTC-Lingayen ) against Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. ( Atty.  Atty. Siapno) for notarizing documents without a commission.  Atty Siapno was maintaining a notarial office in Alvear Street, East, Lingayen, Pangasinan and was performing notarial acts in Dagupan City without the requisite of notarial commission. They asserted that he had no jurisdiction to perform such acts for instead he was vested notarial commission by the Executive Judge to perform notarial functions in March 2007 to December 31, 2008. However, it was never renewed upon expiration. Proofs were presented in support with allegations of Notarized documents after the expiration of the commision such as: (a) the Addendum to Loan and Mortgage agreement showing the promisory notes were; (b) Deed of Absolute Sale dated 01/24/2008; (c) Joint affidavit of two disinterested persons; and (d) Acknowledgment of Debt. They also averred that he had delegated notarial activities with his secretaries.

Second letter-complaint was the notarization of Atty. Santos of Audy B. Espelita’s Affidavit of Loss which was denied by the Notarial Section of Manila because Atty. Santos was not commissioned to perform notarial commission within the City of Manila. Third Letter-complaint came from a concerned citizen alleging that Atty. Evelyn who was holding office at Manila who had been notarizing ang signing documents for and behalf of several lawyers.  Atty. Siapno averred that said documents were not notarized by him and an d that the law office off ice was not his, and neither are the secretaries are employees of his. On the two other complaints, Judge Ros has informed the Court that he was not able to comply with SC’s orders because he was no longer the executive Judge of RT C-Manila. SC ordered that said case be RE-DOCKETED the same as separate administrative cases. ISSUE: Whether Atty. Siapno has performed unauthorized acts of notarization HELD: Yes. The Executive Judge upon investigation found out that indeed Atty Siapno was maintaining an office on said place and was performing notarial acts even the if the notarial has expired. He violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Commission and recommended that he be fined P50,000.00. Court agreed to such findings for only persons who are commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the court which granted the commission. Court reiterated that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routine act. Private documents notarized become public documents that may be admissible as evidence. Considering that Atty. Siapno has been proven to have performed notarial without the requisite commission, Atty. Siapno must be barred from being commissioned as notary public permanently and suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2 ) years. WHEREFORE,  respondent Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED   from the practice of law for two (2) years and BARRED PERMANENTLY from being commissioned as Notary Public, effective upon his receipt of a copy of this decision.

ELERT VS GALAPON

 AM MTJ-00-1294 FACTS:

 A letter-complaint dated January 8, 2000 and an affidavit-complaint dated January 10, 2000,both filed by Horst Franz Ellert, charging Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court at Dulag, Leyte with grave misconduct, abuse of judicial authority, ignorance of the law, unlawful notarization, perjury, and false testimony. This case originated from two (2) cases, namely: DARAB Case No. VIII-169-L-91 entitled "Lualhati V. Ellert vs. Marina Roca, et al." Complainant alleged that in the "Answer" filed by Marina Roca and Odeth Roca with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), the signature of Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr., herein respondent, was affixed in the jurat. In his complaint, Horst Franz Ellert avers that "a Municipal Trial Court judge is only authorized to administer oaths, or sign jurats to documents only for submission before his court, in cases pending before his court, such as complaints for filing with his court, sworn

statements of witnesses in cases pending or to be filed with his court, affidavits of all kinds, provided that they are for filing/submission to his court, but definitely, not all other documents. Even as an Ex-Officio Notary Public, he is authorized to notarize (sign acknowledgments) documents, conveyances of very limited nature. In Criminal Case No. 97-07-CR-161 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Horst Franz Ellert.", complainant Ellert made the following allegations and rationalizes why it is his opinion that respondent judge gave a false testimony as well as perjured himself. On the other hand, Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. prays for the dismissal of the complaints filed by complainant Horst Franz Ellert. ISSUE:

Whether Judge Galapon Jr. has performed functions as notary public ex-officio only in the notarization of documents connected with the exercise of his official functions. HELD:

No, Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may perform their functions as notaries public ex-officio only in the notarization of documents connected with the exercise of their official functions. They may not undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of documents which bear no relation to the performance of their functions as judges. Undoubtedly, the Answer filed with the DARAB that was notarized by respondent judge is a perfect example of a document which bears no relation to the performance of Judge Galapons functions as a judge. Since respondent's actuation of notarizing the aforestated pleading is not in connection with the exercise of his official duties, consequently, he acted beyond the scope of his authority as notary public ex-officio. Circular No. 1-90 clearly provides that it is only when there are no lawyers or notaries public in the municipality or circuit that an MTC and MCTC judge may act as a notary public provided that, the notarial fees are turned over to the government and a certification is made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality or circuit. In the case at bar, there is no showing that there was no lawyer or notary public in Dulag, Leyte. Therefore, respondent judge action as a notary public cannot qualify as an exception to Circular No. 1-90. The defense interposed by the respondent that he sees nothing wrong with what he has done, nor that he abused his authority when he notarized the subject pleading, is unmeritorious. Judge Galapon should know what the duties of a judge acting as an ex-officio notary public are, and, if he was uncertain of what they are, he should have first verified from the Office of the Court Administrator the extent of his authority to notarize documents.  As to the charge of False Testimony and Perjury, the complainant is advised to institute a criminal case with the proper trial court. The Office of the Court Administrator, as the name suggests, deals mainly with administrative functions of the courts. It can act on matters concerning the judicial discipline of judges of the MTC, among others. Criminal cases are out of its hands. WHEREFORE, for unauthorized notarization which constitutes an unlawful practice of law, respondent Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court at Dulag, Leyte is hereby ordered to pay a FINE of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00). He is further warned that a repetition of the same or similar infractions will be dealt with more severely.

******************** ******************************* ***************** ****** 2nd Batch ******************* ****************************** ********************* **********

EDGAR PEREA VS. ATTY. RUBEN ALMADRO  A.C. No. 5246 March 20, 2003 (delay in pleadings - AJA) FACTS: Edgar Perea filed a disbarment complaint against his counsel, being charged with frustrated homicide in RTC, Atty. Ruben Almadro for gross neglect of his duties as lawyer after failing to submit a demurrer to evidence which resulted in his order of warrant of arrest.  Atty. Almadro filed three motions for extension of time to file comment, which the court resolved to grant the said motions with a warning that no further extensions shall be granted. Three days later respondent contends, through his counsels Atty. Sua and Atty. Alambra, that he did not received any complaint. Through the Answer filed by respondent’s counsels, it states that two days after the RTC

granted the manifestation of defense to file motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence, he had finished the draft of the motion and the accompanying pleading which he stored in a magnetic computer diskette intended for editing prior to its submission in court; such files were nowhere to be found a few days before the deadline. It further contends that respondent was preoccupied with other works anent the case of Perea in RTC, since he was a solo practitioner. The court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, who later submitted the report and recommendation that Atty. Almadro and his counsels statements were an outrageous lie as in the respondent’s 3 motion s for extension, Atty. Almadro never once mentioned that he did not received a copy of the complaint, it is a manifest violation of Canon 18, 18.03, 18.04 and should be suspended from the practice of law for 2 years and a fine of P10,000, while his counsels, Atty. Sua and Atty. Alambra are ordered to explain why they should not be held in contempt for deliberately foisting falsehood and misrepresentation in court. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Almario can be held liable for failure to submit the demurrer on time. HELD: Yes. It is plain from the records that respondent lawyer failed to submit a demurrer to evidence for which he had earlier asked permission from the trial court and which his client, herein complainant was relying on. More than that, he failed to contact his client and to apprise the latter about the developments of the case leaving complainant completely surprised and without any protection when years later, he received summons from the trial

court asking him to present evidence in his defense and, not long after, the trial court issued a warrant for his arrest. Respondent would have this Court believe a very preposterous story of how his draft disappeared, all the time avoiding the simple fact that he failed to submit the necessary pleading before the trial court. Such behavior cannot be countenanced and deserves stern penalty therefor. The act of the IBP in requiring Atty. Kenton Sua and Atty. Alan Alambra to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court for deliberate falsehood and misrepresentation in the preparation of the Answer for herein respondent is appropriate. WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Ruben Almadro guilty of serious neglect of his duties as a lawyer and of open disrespect for the court and the authority it represents, as embodied in Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos, with a WARNING that any or similar acts of dishonesty would be dealt with more severely.

Heirs of SEGUNDO ROXAS vs. COURT OF APPEALS & ANDRES ROXAS G.R. No. 76549 December 10, 1987 (delay in pleadings - AJA) FACTS: Petitioners seek the review of the Resolution of the Court of Appeals declaring appellants' Brief filed by herein petitioners to have been filed out of time and denying their motion for reconsideration. RTC rendered judgment dismissing plaintiff Segundo Roxas' complaint for re-conveyance of title against Andres Roxas and others. Segundo filed an appeal. On March 7, 1986, petitioners were required by CA to file appellants' brief within forty-five (45) days from receipt thereof, copy of which was received by petitioners on March 18, 1986. Four days before the lapse of the 45-day period for filing their brief, petitioners filed their first motion for extension of time for thirty (30) days which was granted by the CA, counted from notice thereof, copy of which was received by petitioners counsel on May 14, 1986. Fifteen days before lapse of the 30-day period extension, petitioners filed a second motion for extension of time for another period of thirty (30) days on the ground that petitioners' counsel is suffering from asthma and hypertension and that their brief has not yet been completely finished in draft form. CA granted the motion counted from notice thereof, copy of which was received on June 23, 1986. Then, on July 21, 1986, two days before the expiration of the 30-day period granted, petitioners filed their last motion for extension of time praying for fifteen (15) days counted from notice. Before the CA resolve their motion for last extension, petitioners finally filed their brief on August 25, 1986.

On October 2, 1986, CA denied petitioners' motion for last extension as it appears, however, that while the same remained unresolved, appellant filed his brief 18 days beyond (>>>July 23 (due date) plus 15 days is August 7 (supposed last due date), Aug 7 to 25 is 18 days lapsed, hindi ito kasama sa facts, inexplain ko lang, medyo magulo kasi puro dates