Lingan vs. Attys.

Calubaquib and Baliga

Facts: A complaint for disbarment was filed by Victor Lingan against Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmy
Baliga on alleged that respondents, both notaries public, falsified certain public documents. Then,
Respondents Calubaquib and Baliga both admitted the incorrectness of the entries and simply attributed
them to the inadvertence in good faith of their secretary and legal assistants to whom they had left the
task of entering all his notarial documents.

Issue: WON respondents violated the Notarial Practice Law and Violation of Lawyer's Oath

Ruling: Yes, The respondents cannot be relieved of responsibility for the violation of the aforesaid
sections by passing the buck to their secretaries, a reprehensible practice which to this day persists
despite our open condemnation. Notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a
public one and makes it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Notaries public
must therefore observe utmost care with respect to the basic requirements of their duties.

Advincula vs. Advincula

Facts: Dr. Advincula has averred that Atty. Advincula committed unlawful and immoral act, that while
Atty. Advincula was still married to her, he had extra-marital sexual relations with Ma. Judith Ortiz
Gonzaga (Ms. Gonzaga), that the extra-marital relations bore a child in the name of Ma. Alexandria
Gonzaga Advincula (Alexandria), and that Atty. Advincula failed to give financial support to their own
children, namely: Ma. Samantha Paulina, Ma. Andrea Lana, and Jose Leandro, despite his having
sufficient financial resources.

Issue: WON Atty. Advincula executed immoral acts

Ruling: Yet, we cannot sanction Atty. Advincula with the same gravity. Although his siring the child with
a woman other than his legitimate wife constituted immorality, he committed the immoral conduct
when he was not yet a lawyer. The degree of his immoral conduct was not as grave than if he had
committed the immorality when already a member of the Philippine Bar. Even so, he cannot escape
administrative liability. Taking all the circumstances of this case into proper context, the Court considers
suspension from the practice of law for three months to be condign and appropriate.