11/10/2019 [A.C. No. 6655 : October 11, 2011] PACITA CAALIM-VERZONILLA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VICTORIANO G. PASCUA, RESPONDENT.

: …

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tw eet Share

Search

Philippine Supre m e C ourt Jurisprude nce > Ye ar 2011 > O ctobe r 2011 De cisions > [A.C . No. 6655 :
O ctobe r 11, 2011] PAC ITA C AALIM-VER ZO NILLA, C O MPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VIC TO R IANO G. PASC UA,
R ESPO NDENT.:

Custom Search
Search
EN BANC

[A.C. No. 6655 : October 11, 2011]

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review PACITA CAALIM-VERZONILLA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VICTORIANO G. PASCUA,
RESPONDENT.

DE CISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before the C ourt is the verified affidavit-complaint[1 ]

of Pacita C aalim-Verzonilla seeking the
disbarment of respondent Atty. Victoriano G. Pascua for allegedly falsifying a public document and
evading the payment of correct taxes through the use of falsified documents.

C omplainant alleges that on September 15, 2001, respondent prepared and notarized two Deeds of
Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Deceased Lope C aalim with Sale. The first deed[2 ] was for a
consideration of P250,000 and appears to have been executed and signed by Lope's surviving spouse,
C aridad Tabarrejos, and her children (complainant, Virginia C aalim-Inong and Marivinia C aalim) in
favor of spouses Madki and Shirley Mipanga. The second deed[3 ]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.

C omplainant avers that both deeds are spurious because all the heirs' signatures were falsified. She
contends that her sister Marivinia does not know how to sign her name and was confined at the
C agayan Valley Medical C enter, Tuguegarao C ity, at the time the deeds were allegedly signed by her,
as shown by a certification[4 ]from said hospital. The certification, dated February 6, 2004 and signed
by Dr. Alice Anghad, Medical Officer IV, attested that Marivinia has been confined at the Psychiatry
Ward of the C agayan Valley Medical C enter since May 3, 1999 after being diagnosed of "Substance
Induced Psychosis" and "Schizophrenia, Undifferentiated Type."

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
C omplainant further alleges that the two deeds were not presented to any of them and they came to
know of their existence only recently. She further claims that the C ommunity Tax C ertificates[5 ]
(C TC s) in her name and in the names of her mother and her sister Marivinia were procured only by
the vendee Shirley and not by them. C omplainant submits the affidavit[6 ] executed by Edwin
Gawayon, Barangay Treasurer of C -8, C laveria, C agayan, on August 3, 2002, attesting that the C TC s
were procured at the instance of Shirley and were paid without the complainant and her co-heirs
personally appearing before him. Gawayon stated that the signatures and thumbmarks appearing on
the C TC s are not genuine and authentic because it can be seen with the naked eyes that the
signatures are similar in all three C TC s.

Lastly, complainant alleges that the two deeds were used by respondent and Shirley to annul a
previously simulated deed of sale [7 ] dated June 20, 1979 purportedly executed by Lope in favor of the
spouses Madki and Shirley Mipanga. Said deed was likewise a complete nullity because at that time
Shirley Mipanga was only sixteen years old and still single.

In his comment,[8 ] respondent admits having prepared and notarized the two disputed Deeds of
Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate with Sale (subject deeds), but denies any irregularity in their
execution. He claims that the preparation and notarization of the subject deeds were made under the
following circumstances:

In the morning of September 15, 2001, complainant, C aridad, Virginia and Shirley Mipanga went to his
ChanRobles Intellectual Property house and requested him to prepare a deed of sale of a residential lot located in C laveria, C agayan.
Division He was informed by the parties that the agreed purchase price is P1,000,000 and was presented the

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2011octoberdecisions.php?id=882 1/6
11/10/2019 [A.C. No. 6655 : October 11, 2011] PACITA CAALIM-VERZONILLA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VICTORIANO G. PASCUA, RESPONDENT. : …
October-2011 Jurisprudence
[G.R. No. 179195 : October 03, 2011] PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, A PPELLEE, VS. A NGELINO
YA NSON, A PPELLA NT.
[G.R. No. 177218 : October 03, 2011] PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, A PPELLEE, VS. NOEL T. SA LES,
A PPELLA NT.
[G.R. No. 168552 : October 03, 2011] PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PLA INTIFF-A PPELLEE, VS. JERRY
JA CA LNE Y GUTIERREZ, A CCUSED-A PPELLA NT.
[G.R. Nos. 156556-57 : October 04, 2011] ENRIQUE
U. BETOY, PETITIONER, VS. THE BOA RD OF
DIRECTORS, NA TIONA L POWER CORPORA TION,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 194143 : October 04, 2011] SA LVA DOR
D. VIOLA GO, SR., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS A ND JOA N V. A LA RILLA , RESPONDENTS.
[A .M. No. 2011-07-SC : October 04, 2011] SUPREME
COURT, COMPLA INA NT, VS. EDDIE V. DELGA DO,
UTILITY WORKER II, JOSEPH LA WRENCE M.
MA DEJA , CLERK IV, A ND WILFREDO A . FLORENDO,
UTILITY WORKER II, A LL OF THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK OF COURT, SECOND DIVISION RESPONDENTS.
[A .M. No. RTJ- 04-1845 [FORMERLY A .M. NO. IPI
NO. 03-1831-RTJ] : October 05, 2011] A TTY.
FRA NKLIN G. GA CA L, COMPLA INA NT, VS. JUDGE
JA IME I. INFA NTE, REGIONA L TRIA L COURT, BRA NCH
38, IN A LA BEL, SA RA NGA NI, RESPONDENT.
[A .C. No. 9000 : October 05, 2011] TOMA S P. TA N,
JR., COMPLA INA NT, VS. A TTY. HA IDE V. GUMBA ,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 184757 : October 05, 2011] PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PLA INTIFF-A PPELLEE, VS.
A NICETO BULA GA O, A CCUSED-A PPELLA NT.
[G.R. No. 182946 : October 05, 2011] A LCA TEL
PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. I.M. BONGA R &
CO., INC. A ND STRONGHOLD INSURA NCE CO., INC.,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 182902 : October 05, 2011] VIRRA MA LL
TENA NTS A SSOCIA TION, INC., PETITIONER, VS.
VIRRA MA LL GREENHILLS A SSOCIA TION, INC.,
LOLITA C. REGA LA DO, A NNIE L. TRIA S, WILSON GO,
PA BLO OCHOA , JR., BILL OBA G A ND GEORGE V.
WINTERNITZ, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 182848 : October 05, 2011] EMIRA TE
SECURITY A ND MA INTENA NCE SYSTEMS, INC. A ND
ROBERTO A . YA N, PETITIONERS, VS. GLENDA M.
MENESE, RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 180504 : October 05, 2011] PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PLA INTIFF-A PPELLEE, VS. EDWIN
ULA T Y A GUINA LDO @ PUDONG, A CCUSED-
A PPELLA NT
[G.R. No. 180497 : October 05, 2011] PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PLA INTIFF-A PPELLEE, VS.
PA TRICIO TA GUIBUYA , A CCUSED-A PPELLA NT.
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2011octoberdecisions.php?id=882
certificate of title to the property. Upon finding that the registered owner is "Lope C aalim, married to
C aridad Tabarrejos" and knowing that Lope already died sometime in the 1980s, he asked for, and
was given, the names and personal circumstances of Lope's surviving children. He asked where
Marivinia was, but C aridad told him that Marivinia remained home as she was not feeling well. As
C aridad assured him that they will fetch Marivinia after the deed of conveyance is prepared, he
proceeded to ask the parties to present their C TC s. C aridad and Pacita, however, told him that they
have not secured their C TC s while Virginia forgot to bring hers. So he instructed them to get C TC s
from C laveria.
An hour later, C aridad and Shirley came back with the C TC s of C aridad, Virginia, complainant and
Marivinia. After he finished typing the deed and the details of the C TC s, C aridad said that she will
bring the deed with her to C laveria for her daughters to sign. He then told them that it was necessary
for him to meet them all in one place for them to acknowledge the deed before him as notary public.
It was agreed upon that they will all meet at the house of the Mipangas between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00
noon on that same day.
Respondent arrived at the Mipanga residence shortly before 12:00 noon. There he saw Shirley,
C aridad, complainant, Pacita and Marivinia with two other persons whom he later learned were the
instrumental witnesses to the execution of the document. Upon being informed that the parties have
already affixed their signatures on the deed, he examined the document then inquired from the heirs
if the signatures appearing therein were theirs and if they were truly selling the property for
P1,000,000. The heirs answered in the affirmative, thereby ratifying and acknowledging the
instrument and its contents as their own free and voluntary act and deed. Thus, he notarized the
document and then gave the original and two carbon copies to Shirley while leaving two in his
possession.
Respondent adds that Shirley thereafter asked him what steps were needed to effect registration of
the deed and transfer of the title in her and her husband's name. He replied that all the unpaid land
taxes should be paid including the capital gains tax, documentary stamp taxes and estate tax to the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) which will then issue the necessary clearance for registration. When
asked how much taxes are payable, he replied that it depends on the assessment of the BIR examiner
which will be based on the zonal value or selling price stated in the deed of sale. He added that the
estate taxes due, with interests and surcharges, would also have to be paid. Since the consideration
for the sale is P1,000,000, the taxes payable was quite enormous. Shirley asked him who between
the vendor and the vendee should pay the taxes, and he replied that under the law, it is the obligation
of the vendors to pay said taxes but it still depends upon the agreement of the parties. He asked if
there was already an agreement on the matter, but the parties replied in the negative.
Shirley then told the vendors that they should shoulder the payment of taxes. C aridad and her co-
vendors, however, refused and said that a big portion of the P1,000,000 paid to them was already
used by them to pay and settle their other obligations. Shirley then offered to pay one-half of
whatever amount the BIR will assess, but C aridad insisted that another document be prepared stating
a reduced selling price of only P250,000 so that they need not contribute to the payment of taxes
since Shirley was anyway already willing to pay one-half of the taxes based on the selling price stated
in the first deed. This resulted in a heated discussion between the parties, which was, however, later
resolved by an agreement to execute a second deed. The prospect of preparing an additional deed,
however, irritated respondent as it meant additional work for him. Thus, respondent went home.
Later, the parties visited respondent at his house and pleaded with him to prepare the second deed
with the reduced selling price. Moved by his humane and compassionate disposition, respondent gave
in to the parties' plea.
In the presence of all the heirs, the vendees and the instrumental witnesses, respondent prepared and
notarized the second deed providing for the lower consideration of only P250,000. He used the same
document number, page number and book number in the notarial portion as the first deed because
according to him, the second deed was intended by the parties to supplant the first.
Respondent denies complainant's assertions that the two deeds are simulated and falsified, averring
that as stated above, all the parties acknowledged the same before him. Likewise, he and his clients,
the spouses Madki and Shirley Mipanga, presented the subject deeds as exhibits in C ivil C ase No.
2761-S also pending before the Regional Trial C ourt (RTC ), Branch 12, of Sanchez Mira, C agayan.
As to the allegation that Marivinia did not appear before him as she was allegedly under confinement
at the C agayan Valley Medical C enter on September 15, 2001, respondent cites a medical
certificate [9 ] stating that Marivinia was confined in said hospital from May 3, 1999 to August 10, 1999.
He also points out that Marivinia is one of the plaintiffs in C ivil C ase No. 2836-S pending before the
RTC , Branch 12, Sanchez Mira, C agayan, for the annulment of the subject deeds, and nothing in the
complaint states that she is mentally or physically incapacitated. Otherwise, her co-plaintiffs would
have asked the appointment of a guardian for her.
By Resolution[1 0 ] dated August 10, 2005, this C ourt referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
In a Report and Recommendation[1 1 ] dated May 3, 2007, C ommissioner Jose Roderick F. Fernando
found respondent administratively liable on account of his indispensable participation in an act
designed to defraud the government. He recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for three months and that his notarial commission, if still existing, be revoked and that
respondent be prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.
According to C ommissioner Fernando, respondent did not offer any tenable defense to justify his
actions. As a notary, it was his responsibility to ensure that the solemnities of the act of notarization
were followed. As a lawyer, it was likewise incumbent upon him that the document he drafted and
subsequently notarized was neither unlawful nor fraudulent. C ommissioner Fernando ruled that
respondent failed on both counts since he drafted a document that reflected an untruthful
consideration that served to reduce unlawfully the tax due to the government. Then he completed the
act by likewise notarizing and thus converting the document into a public document.
On June 26, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved C ommissioner Fernando's
report and recommendation but imposed a higher penalty on respondent. Its Resolution No. XVII-
2007-285 reads:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating C ommissioner of the above-entitled
case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A;" and, finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and
rules, and considering Respondent's violation of Notarial Law and for his participation to
a transaction that effectively defrauded the government, Atty. Victoriano G. Pascua is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years and SUSPENSION of his
Notarial C ommission for two (2) years with Warning that a similar violation in the
future will be dealt with severely.[1 2 ]
2/6
11/10/2019 [A.C. No. 6655 : October 11, 2011] PACITA CAALIM-VERZONILLA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VICTORIANO G. PASCUA, RESPONDENT. : …
[G.R. No. 178321 : October 05, 2011] PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PLA INTIFF-A PPELLEE, VS.
CONRA DO LA OG Y RA MIN, A CCUSED-A PPELLA NT.
[G.R. No. 172954 : October 05, 2011] ENGR. JOSE
E. CA YA NA N, PETITIONER, VS. NORTH STA R
INTERNA TIONA L TRA VEL, INC., RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 170512 : October 05, 2011] OFFICE OF
THE OMBUDSMA N, PETITIONER, VS. A NTONIO T.
REYES, RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 169293 : October 05, 2011]
DEVELOPMENT BA NK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
PETITIONER, VS. TRA VERSE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORA TION A ND CENTRA L SURETY A ND
INSURA NCE COMPA NY, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 169042 : October 05, 2011] ERDITO
QUA RTO, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORA BLE
OMBUDSMA N SIMEON MA RCELO, CHIEF SPECIA L
PROSECUTOR DENNIS VILLA IGNA CIO, LUISITO M.
TA BLA N, RA UL B. BORILLO, A ND LUIS A . GA YYA ,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 159328 : October 05, 2011] HEIRS OF
A NTONIO FERA REN, REPRESENTED BY A NTONIO
FERA REN, JR., JUSTINA FERA REN-TA BORA , LEA H
FERA REN-HONA SA N, ELIZA BETH MA RIE CLA IRE
FERA REN-A RRA STIA , MA . TERESA FERA REN-
GONZA LES, JOHA NNA MICHELYNNE FERA REN YA BUT,
SCHELMA A NTONETTE FERA REN-MENDOZA A ND JUA N
MIGUEL FERA REN YA BUT, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT
OF A PPEA LS (FORMER 12TH DIVISION) A ND
CECILIA TA DIA R, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 154559 : October 05, 2011] THE LA W
FIRM OF RA YMUNDO A . A RMOVIT, PETITIONER, VS.
COURT OF A PPEA LS A ND BENGSON COMMERCIA L
BUILDING, INC., RESPONDENTS.
[A .M. No. P-09-2716 : October 11, 2011] TERESITA
GUERRERO-BOYLON, COMPLA INA NT, VS. A NICETO
BOYLES, SHERIFF III, MUNICIPA L TRIA L COURT IN
CITIES, BRA NCH 2, CEBU CITY, RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 174476 : October 11, 2011] PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PLA INTIFF-A PPELLEE, VS.
A RNOLD T. A GCA NA S, A CCUSED-A PPELLA NT.
[A .C. No. 6655 : October 11, 2011] PA CITA
CA A LIM-VERZONILLA , COMPLA INA NT, VS. A TTY.
VICTORIA NO G. PA SCUA , RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 177807 : October 11, 2011] EMILIO
GA NCA YCO, PETITIONER, VS. CITY GOVERNMENT OF
QUEZON CITY A ND METRO MA NILA DEVELOPMENT
A UTHORITY, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 177933]
METRO MA NILA DEVELOPMENT A UTHORITY,
PETITIONER, VS. JUSTICE EMILIO A . GA NCA YCO
(RETIRED), RESPONDENT,
[G.R. Nos. 187117 and 187127 : October 12, 2011]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON.
JOSE D. A ZA RRA GA A ND JOHN REY PREVENDIDO,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 195033 : October 12, 2011] A GG
TRUCKING A ND/OR A LEX A NG GA EID, PETITIONERS,
VS. MELA NIO B. YUA G, RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 193185 : October 12, 2011] PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PLA INTIFF-A PPELLEE, VS.
RICA RDO MONDEJA R Y BOCA RILI, A CCUSED-
A PPELLA NT.
[G.R. No. 192164 : October 12, 2011] REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT MA NILA SECOND
DIVISION A NSELMO DE LEON CUYO, PETITIONER,
VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
[A .C. No. 9081 : October 12, 2011] RODOLFO A .
ESPINOSA A ND MA XIMO A. GLINDO,
COMPLA INA NTS, VS. A TTY. JULIETA A . OMA ÑA ,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 195419 : October 12, 2011] PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PLA INTIFF-A PPELLEE, VS. HA DJA
JA RMA LA LLI Y PURIH, RONNIE A RINGOY Y
MA SION, A ND NESTOR RELA MPA GOS (A T LA RGE),
A CCUSED. HA DJA JA RMA LA LLI Y PURIH A ND
RONNIE A RINGOY Y MA SION, A CCUSED-
A PPELLA NTS.
[G.R. No. 189365 : October 12, 2011] HON. JUDGE
JESUS B. MUPA S, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONA L
TRIA L COURT, BRA NCH 112 A ND CA RMELITA F.
ZA FRA , CHIEF A DMINISTRA TIVE OFFICER, DSWD,
PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
THRU ITS DULY A UTHORIZED REPRESENTA TIVE, THE
LEGA L SERVICE OF THE DSWD, QUEZON CITY A ND
THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERA L,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 187497 : October 12, 2011] THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, A PPELLEE, VS. MELA NIO GA LO
A LIA S "DODO" A ND "EDGA R," A LIA S "A LDO,"
A LIA S "YOCYOC," A LIA S "DODO," A LIA S "JIMMY,"
A LIA S "JOSEPH," A LIA S "DINDO," A ND A LIA S
"G.R.," A CCUSED, EDWIN VILLA MOR A LIA S "TA TA ,"
A PPELLA NT.
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2011octoberdecisions.php?id=882
The above resolution is well taken.
By respondent's own account of the circumstances surrounding the execution and notarization of the
subject deeds of sale, there is a clear basis for disciplining him as a member of the bar and as notary
public.
Respondent did not deny preparing and notarizing the subject deeds. He avers that the true
consideration for the transaction is P1,000,000 as allegedly agreed upon by the parties when they
appeared before him for the preparation of the first document as well as the notarization thereof. He
then claimed to have been "moved by his humane and compassionate disposition" when he acceded
to the parties' plea that he prepare and notarize the second deed with a lower consideration of
P250,000 in order to reduce the corresponding tax liability. However, as noted by C ommissioner
Fernando, the two deeds were used by respondent and his client as evidence in a judicial proceeding
(C ivil C ase No. 2671-S), which only meant that both documents still subsist and hence contrary to
respondent's contention that the second deed reflecting a lower consideration was intended to
supersede the first deed.
As to the charge of falsification, the C ourt finds that the documents annexed to the present complaint
are insufficient for us to conclude that the subject deeds were indeed falsified and absolutely
simulated. We have previously ruled that a deed of sale that allegedly states a price lower than the
true consideration is nonetheless binding between the parties and their successors in interest.[1 3 ]
C omplainant, however, firmly maintains that she and her co-heirs had no participation whatsoever in
the execution of the subject deeds. In any event, the issues of forgery, simulation and fraud raised by
the complainant in this proceeding apparently are still to be resolved in the pending suit filed by the
complainant and her co-heirs for annulment of the said documents (C ivil C ase No. 2836-S).
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. His act clearly violated Rule 1.02, C anon 1 of the C ode of Professional Responsibility which
reads:
C ANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE C ONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPEC T FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROC ESSES.
X x x x
Rule 1.02. - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance
of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
Not only did respondent assist the contracting parties in an activity aimed at defiance of the law, 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 Gonzales v. Ramos,[1 4 ] we elucidated on how important and sacrosanct the notarial act is:
By affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, the respondent converted the Deed of
Absolute Sale, from a private document into a public document. Such act is no empty
gesture. The principal function of a notary public is to authenticate documents. When a
notary public certifies to the due execution and delivery of a document under his hand
and seal, he gives the document the force of evidence. Indeed, one of the purposes of
requiring documents to be acknowledged before a notary public, in addition to the
solemnity which should surround the execution and delivery of documents, is to
authorize such documents to be given without further proof of their execution and
delivery. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.
C ourts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the
acknowledgement executed before a notary public and appended to a private
instrument. Hence, a notary public must discharge his powers and duties, which are
impressed with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity.[1 5 ]
Moreover, while respondent's duty as a notary public is principally to ascertain the identity of the
affiant and the voluntariness of the declaration, it is nevertheless incumbent upon him to guard
against any illegal or immoral arrangement or at least refrain from being a party to its consummation.
[1 6 ]Rule IV, Section 4 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice in fact proscribes notaries public from
performing any notarial act for transactions similar to the herein document of sale, to wit:
SEC . 4. Refusal to Notarize. - A notary public shall not perform any notarial act
described in these Rules for any person requesting such an act even if he tenders the
appropriate fee specified by these Rules if:
(a) the notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction is
unlawful or immoral;
x x x x
In this case, respondent proceeded to notarize the second deed despite knowledge of its illegal
purpose. His purported desire to accommodate the request of his client will not absolve respondent
who, as a member of the legal profession, should have stood his ground and not yielded to the
importunings of his clients. Respondent should have been more prudent and remained steadfast in his
solemn oath not to commit falsehood nor consent to the doing of any.[1 7 ] 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.[1 8 ]
Respondent also failed to comply with Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice when
he gave the second document the same document number, page number and book number as the
first:
SEC . 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. - x x x
x x x x
3/6
11/10/2019 [A.C. No. 6655 : October 11, 2011] PACITA CAALIM-VERZONILLA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VICTORIANO G. PASCUA, RESPONDENT. : …
[G.R. No. 185833 : October 12, 2011] ROBERT
TA GUINOD, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 183444 : October 12, 2011] DEPA RTMENT
OF PUBLIC WORKS A ND HIGHWA YS, PETITIONER,
VS. RONA LDO E. QUIWA , DOING BUSINESS UNDER
THE NA ME "R.E.Q. CONSTRUCTION," EFREN N. RIGOR,
DOING BUSINESSS UNDER THE NA ME "CHIA RA
CONSTRUCTION," ROMEO R. DIMA TULA C, DOING
BUSINESS UNDER THE NA ME "A RDY CONSTRUCTION"
A ND FELICITA S C. SUMERA , DOING BUSINESS UNDER
THE NA ME "F.C.S. CONSTRUCTION," REPRESENTED BY
HER A TTORNEY-IN-FA CT ROMEO M. DE LEON,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 181861 : October 17, 2011] RA UL DA VID,
PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 197042 : October 17, 2011] PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PLA INTIFF-A PPELLEE, VS. JULIET
OLA CO Y POLER, A CCUSED-A PPELLA NT.
[A .C. No. 7241 [Formerly CBD Case No. 05-1506] :
October 17, 2011] A TTY. FLORITA S. LINCO,
COMPLA INA NT, VS. A TTY. JIMMY D. LA CEBA L,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 171660 : October 17, 2011] CONTINENTA L
CEMENT CORPORA TION, PETITIONER, VS. A SEA
BROWN BOVERI, INC., BBC BROWN BOVERI, CORP.,
A ND TORD B. ERIKSON,? ? RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 181881 : October 18, 2011] BRICCIO
"RICKY" A . POLLO, PETITIONER, VS. CHA IRPERSON
KA RINA CONSTA NTINO-DA VID, DIRECTOR IV
RA CQUEL DE GUZMA N BUENSA LIDA , DIRECTOR IV
LYDIA A . CA STILLO, DIRECTOR III ENGELBERT
A NTHONY D. UNITE A ND THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 196271 : October 18, 2011] DA TU
MICHA EL A BA S KIDA , IN HIS PERSONA L CA PA CITY,
A ND IN REPRESENTA TION OF MA GUINDA NA O
FEDERA TION OF A UTONOMOUS IRRIGA TORS
A SSOCIA TION, INC., HA DJI MUHMINA J. USMA N,
JOHN A NTHONY L. LIM, JA MILON T. ODIN, A SRIN
TIMBOL JA IYA RI, MUJIB M. KA LA NG, A LIH A L-SA IDI
J. SA PI-E, KESSA R DA MSIE A BDIL, A ND BA SSA M
A LUH SA UPI, PETITIONERS, VS. SENA TE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
JUA N PONCE ENRILE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTA TIVES,
THRU SPEA KER FELICIA NO BELMONTE, COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS, THRU ITS CHA IRMA N, SIXTO
BRILLA NTES, JR., PA QUITO OCHOA , JR., OFFICE OF
THE PRESIDENT EXECUTIVE SECRETA RY, FLORENCIO
A BA D, JR., SECRETA RY OF BUDGET, A ND ROBERTO
TA N, TREA SURER OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 196305] BA SA RI D.
MA PUPUNO, PETITIONER, VS. SIXTO BRILLA NTES, IN
HIS CA PA CITY A S CHA IRMA N OF THE COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS, FLORENCIO A BA D, JR. IN HIS
CA PA CITY A S SECRETA RY OF THE DEPA RTMENT OF
BUDGET A ND MA NA GEMENT, PA CQUITO OCHOA , JR.,
IN HIS CA PA CITY A S EXECUTIVE SECRETA RY, JUA N
PONCE ENRILE, IN HIS CA PA CITY A S SENA TE
PRESIDENT, A ND FELICIA NO BELMONTE, IN HIS
CA PA CITY A S SPEA KER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTA TIVES, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO.
197221] REP. EDCEL C. LA GMA N, PETITIONER, VS.
PA QUITO N. OCHOA , JR., IN HIS CA PA CITY A S THE
EXECUTIVE SECRETA RY, A ND THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 197280]
A LMA RIM CENTI TILLA H, DA TU CA SA N CONDING
CA NA , A ND PA RTIDO DEMOKRA TIKO PILIPINO
LA KA S NG BA YA N (PDP-LA BA N), PETITIONERS, VS.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THROUGH ITS
CHA IRMA N, SIXTO BRILLA NTES, JR., HON. PA QUITO
N. OCHOA , JR., IN HIS CA PA CITY A S EXECUTIVE
SECRETA RY, HON. FLORENCIO B. A BA D, JR., IN HIS
CA PA CITY A S SECRETA RY OF THE DEPA RTMENT OF
BUDGET A ND MA NA GEMENT, A ND HON. ROBERTO B.
TA N, IN HIS CA PA CITY A S TREA SURER OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 197282]
A TTY. ROMULO B. MA CA LINTA L, PETITIONER, VS.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS A ND THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT, THROUGH EXECUTIVE SECRETA RY
PA QUITO N. OCHOA , JR., RESPONDENTS. LUIS
"BA ROK" BIRA OGO, PETITIONER, VS. THE
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS A ND EXECUTIVE
SECRETA RY PA QUITO N. OCHOA , JR., RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. NO. 197392] JA CINTO V. PA RA S, PETITIONER,
VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETA RY PA QUITO N. OCHOA , JR.,
A ND THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 197454] MINORITY RIGHTS
FORUM, PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENTS-
INTERVENOR.
[A .M. No. SCC-08-12 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO.
08-29-SCC) : October 19, 2011] OFFICE OF THE
COURT A DMINISTRA TOR, COMPLA INA NT, VS. JUDGE
UYA G P. USMA N, PRESIDING JUDGE, SHA RI'A
CIRCUIT COURT, PA GA DIA N CITY, RESPONDENT.
[G.R. Nos. 186659-710 : October 19, 2011]
ZA CA RIA A . CA NDA O, A BA S A . CA NDA O A ND
ISRA EL B. HA RON, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES A ND SA NDIGA NBA YA N,
RESPONDENTS.
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2011octoberdecisions.php?id=882
(e) The notary public shall give to each instrument or document executed, sworn to, or
acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall
also state on the instrument or document the page/s of his register on which the same is
recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries.
X x x x
Respondent admitted having given the second deed the same document number, page number and
book number as in the first deed, reasoning that the second deed was intended to supplant and cancel
the first deed. He therefore knowingly violated the above rule, in furtherance of his client's intention of
concealing the actual purchase price so as to avoid paying the taxes rightly due to the Government.
Even assuming that the second deed was really intended to reflect the true agreement of the parties
and hence superseding the first deed they had executed, respondent remains liable under the afore-
cited Section 2(e) which requires that each instrument or document, executed, sworn to, or
acknowledged before the notary public shall be given a number corresponding to the one in his
register. Said rule is not concerned with the validity or efficacy of the document or instrument
recorded but merely to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the entries in the notarial register.
A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct showing any fault or deficiency in his
moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.[1 9 ] Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules
of C ourt provides:
SEC . 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds herefore. -
A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme C ourt for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office,
grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, of for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before
admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as an attorney for a party
to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.
X x x x
In Gonzales, the notary public who notarized the document despite the non-appearance of one of the
signatories was meted the penalties of revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification from
re-appointment for two years. The notary in Gonzales was likewise suspended from the practice of
law for one year. Said penalty was in accord with the cases of Bon v. Ziga,[2 0 ]Serzo v. Flores,
[2 1 ]Zaballero v. Montalvan[2 2 ] and Tabas v. Mangibin.[2 3 ] The C ourt found that by notarizing the
questioned deed, the respondent in Gonzales engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.[2 4 ]
In the instant case, we hold that respondent should similarly be meted the penalty of suspension and
revocation of his notarial commission for having violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. In line
withcurrent jurisprudence, and as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, the revocation of his
notarial commission and disqualification from re-appointment as notary public for two years is in
order.
With respect, however, to his suspension from the practice of law, we hold that the one-year
suspension imposed in Gonzales and the other cases is not applicable considering that respondent not
only failed to faithfully comply with the rules on notarial practice, he also violated his oath when he
prepared and notarized the second deed for the purpose of avoiding the payment of correct amount of
taxes, thus abetting an activity aimed at defiance of the law. Under these circumstances, we find the
two-year suspension recommended by the IBP Board of Governors as proper and commensurate to
the infraction committed by respondent.
WHEREFORE, 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. He is further WARNED that any similar act or infraction in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished all the courts of the land through the Office of the C ourt
Administrator, as well as the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Bar C onfidant,
and recorded in the personal records of the respondent.
Corona, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Abad, Mendoza,
Sereno, Reyes, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Bersamin and Perez, JJ., on official leave.
Del Castillo, J., on leave.
Endnotes:
[1 ] Rollo, pp. 4-7.
[2 ] Id. at 8.
[3 ] Id. at 10.
[4 ]
Id. at 20.
[5 ] Id. at 11.
[6 ]
Id. at 23.
[7 ] Id. at 44.
[8 ] Id. at 113-130.
[9 ] Id. at 131.
[1 0 ] Id. at 133.
[1 1 ]
Id. at 158-169.
4/6
11/10/2019 [A.C. No. 6655 : October 11, 2011] PACITA CAALIM-VERZONILLA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VICTORIANO G. PASCUA, RESPONDENT. : …
[1 2 ] Id. at 157.
[G.R. No. 184054 : October 19, 2011] PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, A PPELLEE, VS. A RNEL ZA PA TA Y [1 3 ]
CA NILA O, A PPELLA NT. Heirs of the Late Spouses Aurelio and Esperanza Balite v. Lim, G.R. No. 152168,
December 10, 2004, 446 SC RA 56, 58.
[G.R. No. 183891 : October 19, 2011] ROMA RICO J.
MENDOZA , PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE [1 4 ] A.C . No. 6649,June 21, 2005, 460 SC RA 352.
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
[1 5 ]
Id. at 357-358, citing Vda. de Bernardo v. Restauro, A.C . No. 3849, June 25, 2003,
[G.R. No. 183830 : October 19, 2011] PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PLA INTIFF-A PPELLEE, VS. 404 SC RA 599, 603.
DELFIN CA LISO, A CCUSED-A PPELLA NT.
[1 6 ] Balinon v. De Leon, et al., 94 Phil. 277, 282 (1954).
[G.R. No. 179632 : October 19, 2011] SOUTHERN
PHILIPPINES POWER CORPORA TION, PETITIONER, [1 7 ]
VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNA L REVENUE, C anon 10, Rule 10.01, C ode of Professional Responsibility.
RESPONDENT.
Rule 10.01 -- A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
[G.R. No. 176884 : October 19, 2011] CA RMELITO C ourt; nor shall he mislead, or allow the C ourt to be misled by any artifice.
N. VA LENZONA , PETITIONER, VS. FA IR SHIPPING
CORPORA TION A ND/OR SEJIN LINES COMPA NY [1 8 ] Donato v. Asuncion, Sr., A.C . No. 4914, March 3, 2004, 424 SC RA 199, 205.
LIMITED, RESPONDENTS.
[1 9 ] Id. at 203.
[G.R. No. 176229 : October 19, 2011] HO WA I
PA NG, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [2 0 ] A.C . No. 5436, May 27, 2004, 429 SC RA 177, 186.

[G.R. No. 175497 : October 19, 2011] MA RY JOY [2 1 ] A.C . No. 6040, July 30, 2004, 435 SC RA 412, 416.
A NNE GUSTILO A ND BONIFA CIO M. PEÃ ‘A ,
PETITIONERS, VS. JOSE VICENTE GUSTILO III A ND
[2 2 ] A.C . No. 4370, May 25, 2004, 429 SC RA 74, 80.
TERESITA YOUNG A LSO KNOWN A S TITA SY YOUNG,
RESPONDENTS.
[2 3 ] A.C . No. 5602, February 3, 2004, 421 SC RA 511, 515-516.
[G.R. No. 188072 : October 19, 2011] EMERITA M.
DE GUZMA N, PETITIONER, VS. A NTONIO M. [2 4 ]
TUMOLVA , RESPONDENT. Supra note 14 at 359.

[G.R. No. 193479 : October 19, 2011] PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, PLA INTIFF-A PPELLEE, VS.
BERNA RD G. MIRTO, A CCUSED-A PPELLA NT.

[G.R. No. 193872 : October 19, 2011] SIOCHI Back to Home | Back to Main
FISHERY ENTERPRISES, INC., JUN-JUN FISHING
CORPORA TION, DEDE FISHING CORPORA TION, BLUE
CREST A QUA -FA RMS, INC., A ND ILOILO PROPERTY
VENTURES, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. BA NK OF THE QUICK SEARCH
PHILIPPINE ISLA NDS, RESPONDENT.

[G.R. No. 194076 : October 19, 2011] A LFA IS T.

MUNDER, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS A ND A TTY. TA GO R. SA RIP, 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 194160] A TTY. TA GO R. 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
SA RIP, PETITIONER, VS. A LFA IS T. MUNDER,
OLOMODIN M. MA CA BA LA NG, JA MA L M. MA NUA A ND 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENTS. 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932

[A .M. No. P-10-2784 (Formerly A .M. No. 05-3-138- 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
RTC) : October 19, 2011] FA LSIFICA TION OF DA ILY 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
TIME RECORDS OF MA . EMCISA A . BENEDICTOS,
A DMINISTRA TIVE OFFICER I, REGIONA L TRIA L
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
COURT, MA LOLOS CITY, BULA CA N 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964

[A .M. NO. MTJ-11-1793 [FORMERLY A .M. OCA IPI 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
NO. 10-2238-MTJ] : October 19, 2011] A NTONIO Y. 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
CA BA SA RES, COMPLA INA NT, VS. JUDGE FILEMON A .
TA NDINCO, JR., MUNICIPA L TRIA L COURT IN CITIES, 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
8TH JUDICIA L REGION, CA LBA YOG CITY, WESTERN 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
SA MA R, RESPONDENT.
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
[G. R. No. 193234 : October 19, 2011] PEOPLE OF 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
THE PHILIPPINES, PLA INTIFF-A PPELLEE, VS.
ROBERTO MA RTIN Y CA STA NO, A CCUSED- 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
A PPELLA NT.

[G.R. Nos. 191138-39 : October 19, 2011]

MA GDA LA MULTIPURPOSE & LIVELIHOOD
COOPERA TIVE A ND SA NLOR MOTORS CORP.,
PETITIONERS, VS. KILUSA NG MA NGGA GA WA NG LGS,
MA GDA LA MULTIPURPOSE & LIVELIHOOD Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
CORPERA TIVE (KMLMS) A ND UNION MEMBERS/
STRIKERS, NA MELY: THOMA S PA DULLON, HERBERT
BA UTISTA , A RIEL DA DIA , A VELINO PA RENA S,
DENNIS MONTEA LEGRE, SONNY CONSTA NTINO,
SHA NDY CONSTA NTINO, JOSEPH PERNIA , PETER
A LCOY, EDILBERTO CERILLE, FERNA NDO LEONOR,
TEOTIMA R REGINIO, A LBERTO BA JETA , A LLA N
MENESES, RONEL FA BUL, JESUS COMENDA DOR,
JERRY PERNIA , OSCA R RIVERA , LEO MELGA R,
ENRICO LA YGO, RICKY PA LMERO, ROWELL GA RCIA ,
LEOPITO MERA NO, A LEJA NDRO DE LA RA , JOEL
GA RCIA , BONIFA CIO PEREDA , REMEGIO
CONSTA NTINO, DICKSON PILA PIL, RA NDY
CORDA NO, DA RIUS PILA PIL, VENICE LUCERO,
GREGORIO REA NZA RES, EULOGIO REGINIO,
MICHA EL JA VIER, DENNIS MOSQUERA , FREDDIE
A ZORES, ROGELIO CA BRERA , A URELIO TA GUINOD,
OSCA R TA GUINOD, DEWELL PILA PIL, JOEL MA S-ING,
EDUA RDO LOPEZ, GLICERIO REA NZA REZ, JOSEPH
FLORES,BUENA TO CA SA S, ROMEO A ZA GRA ,
A LFREDO ROSA LES, ESTELITO BA JETA , PEDY
GEMINA , FERNA NDO VELA SCO, A LBERTO CA NEZA ,
A LEJA NDRO CERVA NTES, ERICK CA RVA JA L,
RONA LDO BERNA DEZ, JERRY COROSA , JA YSON
COROSA , JA YSON JUA NSON, SHELLY NA REZ,
EDGA RDO GA RCIA , A RIEL LLOSA LA , ROMMEL
ILA YA , RODRIGO PA ULETE, MERVIN PA NGUINTO,
MA RVIN SENA TIN, JA YSON RILLORA , RA FA EL
SA RMIENTO, FREDERICK PERMEJO, NICOLA S
BERNA RDO, LEONCIO PA Z DE LEON, EDWA RD
DENNIS MA NA HA N, A NTONIO BA LDA GO,
A LEXA NDER BA JETA , RESPONDENTS.

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2011octoberdecisions.php?id=882 5/6
11/10/2019 [A.C. No. 6655 : October 11, 2011] PACITA CAALIM-VERZONILLA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VICTORIANO G. PASCUA, RESPONDENT. : …

[G.R. No. 188866 : October 19, 2011] PHILIPPINE

ECONOMIC ZONE A UTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS.
GREEN A SIA CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT
CORPORA TION REPRESENTED BY MR. RENA TO P.
LEGA SPI, PRESIDENT/CEO, RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. No. 188851 : October 19, 2011] PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, PLA INTIFF-A PPELLEE, VS.
MA RCIA NO DOLLA NO, JR., A CCUSED-A PPELLA NT.

[A .C. No. 5325 : October 19, 2011] NEMESIO

FLORA N A ND CA RIDA D FLORA N, COMPLA INA NTS,
VS. A TTY. ROY PRULE EDIZA , RESPONDENT.

[G.R. No. 174631 : October 19, 2011] JHORIZA LDY

UY, PETITIONER, VS. CENTRO CERA MICA
CORPORA TION A ND/OR RA MONITA Y. SY A ND
MILA GROS U. GA RCIA , RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. No. 172777 : October 19, 2011] BENJA MIN B.

BA NGA YA N, JR., PETITIONER, VS. SA LLY GO
BA NGA YA N, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 172792]
RESA LLY DE A SIS DELFIN, PETITIONER, VS. SA LLY
GO BA NGA YA N, RESPONDENT.

[G.R. No. 172196 : October 19, 2011] A DELA IDA

MENESES (DECEA SED), SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIR
MA RILYN M. CA RBONEL-GA RCIA , PETITIONER, VS.
ROSA RIO G. VENTUROZO, RESPONDENT.

[G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011] PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, PLA INTIFF-A PPELLEE, VS.
CHA RLIE BUTIONG, DEFENDA NT-A PPELLA NT.

[G.R. No. 164301 : October 19, 2011] BA NK OF THE

PHILIPPINE ISLA NDS, PETITIONER, VS. BPI
EMPLOYEES UNION-DA VA O CHA PTER-FEDERA TION
OF UNIONS IN BPI UNIBA NK, RESPONDENT.

[G.R. No. 161360 : October 19, 2011] ESTRELLA

TIONGCO YA RED (DECEA SED) SUBSTITUTED BY
CA RMEN M. TIONGCO A .K.A . CA RMEN MA TILDE B.
TIONGCO, PETITIONER, VS. JOSE B. TIONGCO A ND
A NTONIO G. DORONILA , JR., RESPONDENTS.

[G. R. No. 157139 : October 19, 2011] CA RLOS

COTIA NGCO, LUCIO SA LA S, EDITHA SA LONOY, MA .
FILIPINA CA LDERON, ROSA LINDA A BILA R,
MEDA RDA LA RIBA , TITO GUTIERREZ, BENJA MIN
LUCIA NO, MYRNA FILA MOR A ND MONIA NA
NA JA RRO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE PROVINCE OF
BILIRA N A ND THE COURT OF A PPEA LS,
RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. No. 152313 : October 19, 2011] REPUBLIC

FLOUR MILLS CORPORA TION, PETITIONER, VS.
FORBES FA CTORS, INC. RESPONDENT.

[G.R. No. 151993 : October 19, 2011] MA RITIME

FA CTORS INC., PETITIONER, VS. BIENVENIDO R.
HINDA NG, RESPONDENT.

[G.R. No. 145817 : October 19, 2011] URBA N

BA NK, INC, PETITIONER, VS. MA GDA LENO M. PEÃ ‘A ,
RESPONDENT. [G. R. NO. 145822] DELFIN C.
GONZA LEZ, JR., BENJA MIN L. DE LEON, A ND ERIC L.
LEE, PETITIONERS, VS. MA GDA LENO M. PEÃ ‘A ,
RESPONDENT. [G. R. NO. 162562] MA GDA LENO M.
PEÃ ‘A , VS. URBA N BA NK, INC., TEODORO
BORLONGA N, DELFIN C. GONZA LEZ, JR., BENJA MIN
L. DE LEON, P. SIERVO H. DIZON, ERIC L. LEE, BEN T.
LIM, JR., CORA ZON BEJA SA , A ND A RTURO MA NUEL,
JR., RESPONDENTS.

Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Com pany | Disclaim er | E-m ail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ R ED

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2011octoberdecisions.php?id=882 6/6