READY FORM INCORPORATED v. ATTY. EGMEDIO J. CASTILLON, JR.

A.C. No. 11774 (Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4186), March 21, 2018

CAGUIOA, J.:

FACTS:

Ready Form was one of the companies who participated in a public bidding conducted by the
NPO. Thereafter, the NPO Bids and Awards Committee (NPO-BAC) required all bidders to re-
submit their eligibility documents, which includes the bidders' past ITRs and financial
documents stamp received by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). After reviewing these
submissions, the NPO-BAC imposed a suspension of one (1) year against Ready Form due to the
supposed misrepresentation and misdeclaration it committed when it submitted alleged false
ITRs and financial statements for the calendar year 2007.

Subsequently, Eastland Printink Corporation (Eastland) filed a Petition for Blacklisting with the
NPO against Ready Form, wherein Eastland alleged that Ready Form had committed other
violations, such as (1) misrepresentation, (2) unlawfully soliciting printing jobs and services, and
(3) undermining the authority and jurisdiction of the NPO. As Eastland's counsel, Atty. Castillon
signed the Petition on behalf of his client.

The NPO then issued a Resolution suspending and blacklisting Ready Form for a period of five
(5) years after finding, among others, that their 2006 Financial Statement contains false
information; hence, it is a falsified document.

Ready Form filed a Complaint-Affidavit (Complaint) before the CBD-IBP praying that Atty.
Castillon be disbarred due to allegedly violating Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 1.03 of Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, alleging as a ground therefor Atty. Castillon's supposed
unlawful use of Ready Form's ITRs. Complainant alleges that this is in violation of Sections 4
and 278 of Republic Act No. 8424, otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code
(NIRC).

ISSUE:
1. Is Atty. Castillon’s act of attaching Ready Form’s audited financial statements in the
Petition for Blacklisting he filed with the NPO constitutes a violation of Sections 4 and 238?
2. In relation to question no. 1, did Atty. Castillon violated Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 1.03 of
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

RULING:
1. No.
Clearly, therefore, the complainant wants this Court to penalize the respondent for using a
publicly-available document to support allegations in a pleading signed by him. This, the Court
refuses to do.
The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that audited financial statements submitted by
corporations, as required by Section 141 of the Corporation Code, are made available to the
public by the SEC. Hence, the Court fails to see how Atty. Castillon violated any law when he
attached a copy of Ready Form's audited financial statements in the Petition for Blacklisting he
filed with the NPO.

2. No.
He who alleges should prove his case in a very clear and convincing manner. An individual
should not be allowed to claim relief just because a lawyer is aiding or was hired by an
opponent. To do so would create more injustice and lead to an even more erroneous practice.
All told, the Court finds that the evidence adduced is wholly insufficient to support the
allegations against Atty. Castillon. As such, the Court fails to see how Atty. Castillon had
violated Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 1.03 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Hence, the Court affirms the IBP's recommendation to dismiss the Complaint.
 SPOUSES ANDRE CHAMBON AND MARIA FATIMA CHAMBON v. ATTY.
CHRISTOPHER S. RUIZ

A.C. No. 11478 September 5, 2017

TIJAM, J.:

FACTS:

Spouses Chambon alleged that they were creditors of a certain Suzette Camasura Auman, also
known as Mrs. Suzette Camasura Remoreras (Remoreras). To secure her obligation, Remoreras
executed a real estate mortgage (REM) over a parcel of land with improvements with TCT No.
29490 which was registered in her maiden name. Said REM was annotated in the Registry of
Deeds of Mandaue City. The TCT was handed over to Spouses Chambon.

As Remoreras failed to pay her loan obligation, Spouses Chambon were prompted to institute an
extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings on the subject property before the Ex-Officio Sheriff of
Mandaue City. As such, a public auction was set. They learned that the RTC issued an Order
which directed the issuance of a new Owner’s Duplicate copy of TCT No. 29490. Apparently, a
Petition for Issuance of a new Owner's Duplicate Copy of TCT No. 29490, which was grounded
on an alleged Notice of Loss/Affidavit of Loss of the subject title, was filed by Remoreras.

Spouses Chambon discovered that the Notice of Loss/ Affidavit of Loss and the Release of
Mortgage were notarized by Atty. Christopher S. Ruiz in Cebu City and that certain defects were
found in said notarized documents and in the Notarial Register. In the jurat of said Notice, there
was no competent evidence of identity of the executor. Also, in said Release, Spouses Chambon
denied having executed the same.

These incidents prompted Spouses Chambon to file a complaint for gross violation of Section 2
(b), paragraph 2 of Rule IV and Section 2, paragraphs (a), (d), and (e) of Rule VI of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice before the IBP.

ISSUE:

Should Atty. Christopher S. Ruiz be administratively disciplined based on the allegations in the
complaint and evidence on record?

RULING:

Yes.

In this case, We find that the Atty. Ruiz failed to live up with the duties of a notary public as
dictated by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
The imposition of the penalty of revocation of notarial commission and suspension from the
practice of law for a period of one year is considered as just and proper. Also, We deem it proper
to impose the penalty of perpetual disqualification from being a notary public. It is beyond
question that Atty. Ruiz was doubly negligent in the performance of his duties as a notary public.
Not only did he notarize an incomplete notarial document, but he also admittedly delegated to his
secretary his duty of entering details in his Notarial Register. To recall, such admission was
apparent from respondent's act of shifting the blame to his secretary when attention was called
out as to the non-accomplishment of pertinent entries in his Notarial Register. To Our mind, such
acts constitute dishonesty to this Court, warranting perpetual disqualification from being a notary
public.
 ATTY. MYLENE S. YUMUL-ESPINA v. ATTY. BENEDICTO D. TABAQUERO

A.C. No. 11238, September 21, 2016

JARDELEZA, J.:

FACTS:

Shirley is married to Derek, a British Citizen. She purchased two properties both of which she
intended to mortgage. Derek allegedly executed an Affidavit of Waiver of Rights which he
subscribed before complainant. Thus, Shirley was able to mortgage one of the properties without
the signature of marital consent of Derek Atkinson.

Derek, however, claims that he could not have executed the Affidavit of Waiver of Rights
because he was out of the country at the time of the execution of the same and therefore, could
not have personally appeared before complainant on that date. Thus, he filed falsification cases
against complainant and Shirley, respectively.

During the pendency of these criminal cases, Atty. Espina filed a complaint-affidavit before the
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline against Atty. Tabaquero. She alleges that in representing
Derek in the criminal cases against her for "Falsification of Document by a Notary Public," and
against Shirley for "Falsification of Public Document," Atty. Tabaquero violated the CPR. She
claims that Atty. Tabaquero prosecuted the criminal complaints against her and Shirley in order
to assert his client's non-existent rights and interest as owner of the property, blatantly
disregarding the constitutional prohibition on foreigners from acquiring private lands in the
Philippines.
ISSUE:
1. Is Atty. Tabaquero guilty of violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?
2. Did Atty. Espina violate the Notarial Law?

RULING:

1. No.

We find Atty. Tabaquero not guilty of violations of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Atty. Espina cannot argue that the intention behind the falsification cases filed by
Atty. Tabaquero (as counsel of Derek) against her and Shirley, respectively, was to circumvent
the constitutional prohibition on foreign ownership of lands in the Philippines. In these cases,
Derek did not seek that the ownership of the lands be conveyed to him. The basis of these
criminal complaints is Atty. Espina’s act of malking it appear that Derek was present, or
participated in the execution of the affidavits. The constitutional prohibition is therefore
irrelevant in these criminal complaints.

2. Yes.
The counter-complaint against Atty. Espina, for violation of the Notarial Law, is meritorious.
The evidence on record sufficiently showed that Derek could not have appeared before Atty.
Espina on October 25, 1999, the day the Affidavit of Waiver was notarized. Derek's passport
entries and the certification from the Bureau of Immigration show that after Derek departed from
the Philippines for United Kingdom on September 27, 1999, his next arrival in the Philippines
was on December 17, 1999.