A.

Rule of Law

(1) Duty to respect the law and legal processes

In Re: Gutierrez

FACTS: Attorney Diosdado Gutierrez was convicted for the murder of one Filemon Samaco
in 1956. He was sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In 1958, after serving a
portion of the penalty, he was granted a conditional pardon by the President. He was
released on the condition that he shall not commit any crime. Subsequently, the widow of
Samaco filed a disbarment case against Gutierrez by reason of the latter’s conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude. Murder, is without a doubt, such a crime.

ISSUE: Whether or not Gutierrez may be disbarred considering the fact that he was granted
pardon.

HELD: Yes. The pardon granted to Gutierrez is not absolute but conditional. It merely
remitted his sentence. It does not reach the offense itself. Gutierrez must be judged upon the
fact of his conviction for murder without regard to the pardon (which he invoked in defense).
The crime was actually qualified by treachery and aggravated by its having been committed
in hand, by taking advantage of his official position (Gutierrez being municipal mayor at the
time) and with the use of motor vehicle. The degree of moral turpitude involved is such as to
justify his being purged from the profession.

WHEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 127, Section 5, and considering the nature of the crime
for which respondent Diosdado Q. Gutierrez has been convicted, he is ordered
disbarred and his name stricken from the roll of lawyers.

Zaldivar vs Gonzales

FACTS: Zaldivar was the governor of Antique.  He was charged before the
Sandiganbayan for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Gonzales was
the then Tanodbayan who was investigating the case. Zaldivar then filed with the
Supreme Court a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus assailing the
authority of the Tanodbayan to investigate graft cases under the 1987 Constitution. The
Supreme Court, acting on the petition issued a Cease and Desist Order against
Gonzalez directing him to temporarily restrain from investigating and filing informations
against Zaldivar.

Gonzales however proceeded with the investigation and he filed criminal informations
against Zaldivar. Gonzalez even had a newspaper interview where he proudly claims
that he scored one on the Supreme Court; that the Supreme Court’s issuance of the
TRO is a manifestation theta the “rich and influential persons get favorable actions from
the Supreme Court, [while] it is difficult for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be
given due course”.

Zaldivar then filed a Motion for Contempt against Gonzalez. The Supreme Court then
ordered Gonzalez to explain his side. Gonzalez stated that the statements in the
newspapers were true; that he was only exercising his freedom of speech; that he is
entitled to criticize the rulings of the Court, to point out where he feels the Court may
have lapsed into error. He also said, even attaching notes, that not less than six justices
of the Supreme Court have approached him to ask him to “go slow” on Zaldivar and to
not embarrass the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not Gonzalez is guilty of contempt.

HELD: Yes. The statements made by respondent Gonzalez clearly constitute contempt

and call for the exercise of the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court. His
statements necessarily imply that the justices of the Supreme Court betrayed their oath
of office. Such statements constitute the grossest kind of disrespect for the Supreme
Court. Such statements very clearly debase and degrade the Supreme Court and,
through the Court, the entire system of administration of justice in the country.

Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. What Gonzalez

seems unaware of is that freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional
freedoms, is not absolute and that freedom of expression needs on occasion to be
adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of equally important public
interests. One of these fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the integrity
and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. There is no antinomy between
free expression and the integrity of the system of administering justice.

Gonzalez, apart from being a lawyer and an officer of the court, is also a Special
Prosecutor who owes duties of fidelity and respect to the Republic and to the Supreme
Court as the embodiment and the repository of the judicial power in the government of
the Republic. The responsibility of Gonzalez to uphold the dignity and authority of the
Supreme Court and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice is heavier than
that of a private practicing lawyer.

Gonzalez is also entitled to criticize the rulings of the court but his criticisms must be
bona fide. In the case at bar, his statements, particularly the one where he alleged that
members of the Supreme Court approached him, are of no relation to the Zaldivar case.

The Supreme Court suspended Gonzalez indefinitely from the practice of law.

Topic: Acting as Counsel for an Association Created for the Purpose of Evading the Law
Title: IN THE MATTER OF THE SUSPENSION OF HOWARD D. TERRELL FROM THE
PRACTICE OF LAW
Reference: G.R. No. 1203, May 15, 1903

FACTS

An action for the suspension of attorney-at-law Howard Terrell from the practice of
law was filed in the CFI of Manila for allegedly assisting in the organization of “Centro
Bellas Artes” and acting as attorney for such association with full knowledge that it was
created for the purpose of evading the law then in force in said city. The CFI of Manila
held that the charges against Terrell were true and made an order suspending him from
his office as a lawyer in the Philippine Islands. Aside from the action for his suspension
from the practice of law, Terrell was also charged with estafa in a separate criminal
action but was eventually acquitted.

ISSUES
 Whether or not Terrell should be suspended from the practice of law?

RULINGS

Yes, he should be suspended.

The promotion of an organization for the purpose of violating or evading the penal
laws amounts to such malpractice on the part of an attorney at law as will justify
removal or suspension.

Assisting a client in a scheme which the attorney knows to be dishonest or

conniving at a violation of law are acts which are enough to justify disbarment.
However, Terrell’s acquittal on the charge of estafa serves to lower his sanction to
suspension from the practice of law in the Philippine Islands for the term of one year
from February 7, 1903.

Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, 416 SCRA 465,

G.R. Nos. 159486-88

November 25, 2003

Doctrines:

Court will not countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of our people’s faith
in the judicial system, let alone, by those who have been privileged by it to practice law
in the Philippines.—The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; it will not denounce
criticism made by anyone against the Court for, if well-founded can truly have
constructive effects in the task of the Court, but it will not countenance any wrongdoing
nor allow the erosion of our people’s faith in the judicial system, let alone, by those who
have been privileged by it to practice law in the Philippines.

A lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers
and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others.—Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility mandates that the lawyer should observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and judicial officers and, indeed, should insist on similar
conduct by others. In liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the
impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the Court, Atty. Paguia has only
succeeded seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the dispensation of justice.

FACTS:

1. Atty. Allan Paguia the legal counsel for the deposed president Joseph Ejercito Estrada
filed a Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Seeking the following relief:

***“1.That Chief Justice Davide and the rest of the members of the Honorable
Court disqualify themselves from hearing and deciding this petition;

“2.That the assailed resolutions of the Sandiganbayan be vacated and set

aside; and

“3.That Criminal Cases No. 26558, No. 26565 and No. 26905 pending before
the Sandiganbayan be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
2. Atty. Paguia further asserts that members of the Supreme Court should inhibit in
deciding on the case as justices are prohibited in any partisan political activity as some
have participated in the EDSA 2 rally, which is a violation of Rule 5.10 of Code of
Judicial Conduct.

3. Several Resolution had been filed by the legal counsel which is in the disguise of
forum shopping, to which the court issued a resolution on July 08, 2003 with a warning to
Atty. Allan Paguia it states, “ on pain of disciplinary sanction, to desist from further
making, directly or indirectly, similar submissions to this Court or to its Members.”

4. Atty. Paguia even after the court’s warning persist on filing cases after cases, to which
the Supreme Court rendered its decision dismissing the certiorari and demanding the
petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estradato show cause and provide a valid reason on why the
Supreme Court should not suspend the legal counsel for conduct unbecoming a lawyer
and officer of the court.

5. Atty. Allan Paguia submitted a response with a continuous claim of political partisan
ship of some of the member of the court, and quoting Canon 5.10 to attack the member of
the the court. Canon 5(10) “A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on political
questions. But to avoid suspicion of political partisanship, a judge shall not make
political speeches, contribute to party funds, publicly endorse candidates for political
office or participate in other partisan political activities”

6. The court responded on the allegations of Atty. Paguia, citing Section 79(b) of the
Omnibus Election Code defines the term “partisan political activities;” the law states:

“The term ‘election campaign’ or ‘partisan political activity’ refers to an act designed
to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to a public office
which shall include:

“(1)Forming organizations, associations, clubs, committees or other groups of persons for

the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign for or against a
candidate;

“(2)Holding political caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades, or other similar

assemblies, for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or
propaganda for or against a candidate.

“(3)Making speeches, announcements or commentaries, or holding interviews for or

against the election of any candidate for public office;

“(4)Publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials designed to support or

oppose the election of any candidate; or

“(5)Directly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges or support for or against a candidate.”

Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, 416 SCRA 465, G.R. Nos. 159486-88 November 25, 2003

7. The court then flagged Atty. Paguia on possible nonobservance of, Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the lawyer should observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers and, indeed, should insist on
similar conduct by others.

8. The attention of Atty. Paguia has also been called to the mandate of Rule 13.02 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Regrettably, Atty. Paguia has persisted in ignoring
the Court’s well-meant admonition.

On the 7th September 2003 issue of the Daily Tribune, Atty. Paguia wrote to say—
 “What is the legal effect of that violation of President Estrada’s
right to due process of law? It renders the decision in Estrada vs. Arroyo
unconstitutional and void. The rudiments of fair play were not observed.
There was no fair play since it appears that when President Estrada filed
his petition, Chief Justice Davide and his fellow justices had already
committed to the other party—GMA—with a judgment already made and
waiting to be formalized after the litigants shall have undergone the
charade of a formal hearing. After the justices had authorized the
proclamation of GMA as president, can they be expected to voluntarily
admit the unconstitutionality of their own act?”

Issue:

Whether Atty. Paguia violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

Ruling:

Yes, Atty. Paguia had been warned repeatedly on the conduct that should be observed
along with the privilege of a practicing law.

In Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility it mandates that the lawyer

should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers and,
indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others. While Rule 13.02 of Code of
Professional Responsibility states that, “A lawyer shall not make public statements in the
media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
party.”

In this case the Atty. Paguia was repeatedly warned, however feeling passionate about the
case, he failed to observe the etiquette that is expected from a lawyer when he repeatedly
filed several cases which are already a forum shopping in nature, responded with an
unfounded claim that some justices violated of the Code of Judicial Conduct, when the
law is clear on the definition of partisan political activity, and going out to the media
stating again his unfounded claim, when the Code of Professional Responsibility is clear
on the limitation on issuance of statements on a pending case which will arouse public
opinion that may affect the people’s trust and confidence on the legal and judicial system.

Wherefore, for the violation of Rule 11 and 13.2 the Code of Professional Responsibility,
Mr. Allan Paguia is indefinitely suspended of practice of law, inside and outside of the
Halls of Justice. Let the copy of this resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant, the Integrated Bat of the Philippines, and Office of the Court Administrator.

DGARDO AREOLA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. MARIA VILMA MENDOZA,

Respondent.

Legal Ethics: Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07

FACTS:

Edgardo D. Areola a.k.a. Muhammad Khadafy filed an administrative complaint

against Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza, from the Public Attorney’s Office for violation of
her attorney’s oath of office, deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in office
under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, and for violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Areola stated that he was filing the complaint in
behalf of his co-detainees Allan Seronda, Aaron Arca, Joselito Mirador, Spouses
Danilo Perez and Elizabeth Perez. He alleged that on October 23, 2006, during
Prisoners Week, Atty. Mendoza, visited the Antipolo City Jail and called all detainees
with pending cases before the RTC, Branch 73, Antipolo City where she was
assigned, to attend her speech/lecture. Areola claimed that Atty. Mendoza stated the
following during her speech:

"O kayong may mga kasong drugs na may pangpiyansa o pang- areglo ay maging

praktikal sana kayo kung gusto ninyong makalaya agad. Upang makatiyak kayo na
hindi masasayang ang pera ninyo ay sa akin ninyo ibigay o ng kamag-anak ninyo ang
pera at ako na ang bahalang maglagay kay Judge Martin at Fiscal Banqui; at kayong
mga detenidong mga babae na no bail ang kaso sa drugs, iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si
Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon."

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Mendoza is giving improper advice to her clients in violation of
Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

The Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors that Atty. Mendoza made
irresponsible advices to her clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. It is the mandate of Rule 1.02 that "a
lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system." Rule 15.07 states that "a lawyer shall
impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness. Atty.
Mendoza’s improper advice only lessens the confidence of the public in our legal
system. Judges must be free to judge, without pressure or influence from external
forces or factors according to the merits of a case. Atty. Mendoza’s careless remark
is uncalled for. In spite of the foregoing, the Court deems the penalty of suspension
for two months as excessive and not commensurate to Atty. Mendoza’s infraction.
Disbarment and suspension of a lawyer, being the most severe forms of disciplinary
sanction, should be imposed with great caution and only in those cases where the
misconduct of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar is
established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. The Court notes that when
Atty. Mendoza made the remark "Iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at
palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon", she was not compelled by bad faith or
malice. While her remark was inappropriate and unbecoming, her comment is not
disparaging and reproachful so as to cause dishonor and disgrace to the Judiciary. In
several administrative cases, the Court has refrained from imposing the actual
penalties in the presence of mitigating factors. Factors such as the respondent’s
length of service, the respondent’s acknowledgement of his or her infractions and
feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable
considerations, respondent’s advanced age, among other things, have had varying
significance in the Court’s determination of the imposable penalty. The Court takes
note of Atty. Mendoza’s lack of ill-motive in the present case and her being a PAO
lawyer as her main source of livelihood. Furthermore, the complaint filed by Areola
is clearly baseless and the only reason why this was ever given consideration was
due to Atty. Mendoza’s own admission. For these reasons, the Court deems it just to
modify and reduce the penalty recommended by the IBP Board of Governors.

Accordingly, the Court finds Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza GUILTY of giving improper
advice to her clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and is accordingly meted out the penalty of REPRIMAND, with the
STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more
severely.

A.C. No. 8108

July 15, 2014

DANTE LA JIMENEZ & LAURO G. VIZCONDE, Complainants, vs. ATTY.

FELISBERTO L. VERANO, JR., Respondent.

Legal Ethics; Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

FACTS:

Jimenez and Vizconde, in their capacity as founders of Volunteers Against Crime and
Corruption (VACC), sent a letter of complaint to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. They
stated that respondent had admitted to drafting the release order, and had thereby
committed a highly irregular and unethical act. They argued that respondent had no
authority to use the DOJ letterhead and should be penalized for acts unbecoming a
member of the bar. For his part, Atty. Lozano anchored his Complaint on
respondent’s alleged violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which states that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land,
and promote respect for legal processes. Atty. Lozano contended that respondent
showed disrespect for the law and legal processes in drafting the said order and
sending it to a high-ranking public official, even though the latter was not a
government prosecutor. Atty. Lozano’s verified Complaint-Affidavit was filed with
the Committee on Bar Discipline of the IBP. However, Atty. Lozano withdrew his
Complaint on the ground that a similar action had been filed by Dante Jimenez.

FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER:

Found respondent guilty of violating Canon 13 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility and recommended that he be issued a warning not to repeat the same
or any similar action due to his own admissions that he drafted the release order
specifically for the signature of the DOJ Secretary. This act of “feeding” the draft order
to the latter was found to be highly irregular, as it tended to influence a public official.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent can be held liable for violating Canon 13 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility
RULING:

The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly executed by

complainant does not, in any way, exonerate the respondent. A case of
suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of
the complainant. Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be
suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of
the charges. Respondent is administratively liable. Canon 13, the provision applied
by the Investigating Commissioner, states that “a lawyer shall rely upon the merits
of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the
appearance of influencing the court.” We believe that other provisions in the Code of
Professional Responsibility likewise prohibit acts of influence-peddling not limited
to the regular courts, but even in all other venues in the justice sector, where respect
for the rule of law is at all times demanded from a member of the bar. These
statements and others made during the hearing establish respondent’s admission
that 1) he personally approached the DOJ Secretary despite the fact that the case
was still pending before the latter; and 2) respondent caused the preparation of the
draft release order on official DOJ stationery despite being unauthorized to do so,
with the end in view of “expediting the case.” The way respondent conducted
himself manifested a clear intent to gain special treatment and consideration from a
government agency. This is precisely the type of improper behavior sought to be
regulated by the codified norms for the bar. Respondent is duty bound to actively
avoid any act that tends to influence, or may be seen to influence, the outcome of an
ongoing case, lest the people’s faith in the judicial process is diluted. The primary
duty of lawyers is not to their clients but to the administration of justice. To that
end, their clients’ success is wholly subordinate. The conduct of a member of the bar
ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any
means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the
pursuit of his devotion to his client’s cause, is condemnable and unethical.

Rule 1.02 states: "A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of
the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system." Further, according to Rule
15.06, "a lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public
official, tribunal or legislative body.” The succeeding rule, Rule 15.07, mandates a
lawyer “to impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of
fairness.” Zeal and persistence in advancing a client’s cause must always be within
the bounds of the law. A self-respecting independence in the exercise of the
profession is expected if an attorney is to remain a member of the bar.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Atty. Felisberto L. Verano, Jr. is found GUILTY of
violating Rules 1.02 and 15.07, in relation to Canon 13 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, for which he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months.

A.C. No. 7766

August 05, 2014

JOSE ALLAN TAN, Complainant, vs. PEDRO S. DIAMANTE,

Respondent.

Legal Ethics; Canon 1 and 18 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility
FACTS:

Complainant hired the services of the respondent. After accepting the

engagement, respondent filed the corresponding complaint before the
Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City. The complaint was eventually
dismissed by the RTC for lack of cause of action and insufficiency of
evidence. While respondent was notified of such dismissal as early as
August 14, 2007, complainant learned of the same only on August 24,
2007 when he visited the former’s office. On such occasion, respondent
allegedly asked for the amount of P10,000.00 for the payment of appeal
fees and other costs, but since complainant could not produce the said
amount at that time, respondent, instead, asked and was given the
amount of P500.00 purportedly as payment of the reservation fee for
the filing of a notice of appeal before the RTC. On September 12, 2007,
Tan handed the amount of P10,000.00 to respondent, who on even date,
filed a notice of appeal before the RTC. In an Order dated September 18,
2007, the RTC dismissed complainant’s appeal for having been filed
beyond the reglementary period provided for by law. Respondent,
however, did not disclose such fact and, instead, showed complainant an
Order dated November 9, 2007 purportedly issued by the RTC
(November 9, 2007 Order) directing the submission of the results of a
DNA testing to prove his filiation to the late Luis Tan, within 15 days
from receipt of the notice. Considering the technical requirements for
such kind of testing, complainant proceeded to the RTC and requested
for an extension of the deadline for its

submission. It was then that he discovered that the November 9, 2007

Order was spurious, as certified by the RTC’s Clerk of Court.
Complainant also found out that, contrary to the instant administrative
complaint for disbarment against respondent.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent can be held liable for violating Canon 1 and
18 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility

RULING:

Under Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the CPR, it is the lawyer’s duty to keep
his client constantly updated on the developments of his case as it is
crucial in maintaining the latter’s confidence. In the case at bar, records
reveal that as of August 14, 2007, respondent already knew of the
dismissal of complainant’s partition case before the RTC. Despite this
fact, he never bothered to inform complainant of such dismissal as the
latter only knew of the same on August 24, 2007 when he visited the
former’s office. To add insult to injury, respondent was inexcusably
negligent in filing complainant’s appeal only on September 12, 2007, or
way beyond the reglementary period therefor, thus resulting in its
outright dismissal. Clearly, respondent failed to exercise such skill, care,
and diligence as men of the legal

profession commonly possess and exercise in such matters of

professional employment. Worse, respondent attempted to conceal the
dismissal of complainant’s appeal by fabricating the November 9, 2007
Order which purportedly required a DNA testing to make

it appear that complainant’s appeal had been given due course, when in
truth, the same had long been denied. In so doing, respondent engaged
in an unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct that caused undue
prejudice and unnecessary expenses on the part of complainant.
Accordingly, respondent clearly violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
CPR, which provides:

CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the
land and

promote respect for law and legal processes.

Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful

conduct.

Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and

dishonorable. They reveal moral flaws in a lawyer. They are
unacceptable practices. A lawyer’s relationship with others should be
characterized by the highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor.
This is the essence of the lawyer’s oath. Any gross misconduct of a
lawyer, whether in his professional or private capacity, puts his moral
character in serious doubt as a member of the Bar, and renders him
unfit to continue in the practice of law.

WHEREFORE, respondent Pedro S. Diamante is hereby DISBARRED for

Gross Misconduct and violations of Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Rule 18.04,
Canon 18 of the Code of ProfessionaResponsibility, and his name is
ordered STRICKEN OFF from the roll of attorneys.
Guarin v. Atty. Limpin, A.C. No. 10576, January 14, 2015

A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating the
law commits an act which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer.

In filing a GIS that contained false information, Atty. Limpin has violated Canon 1 and
Rule 1.01 of the CPR. Moreover, in allowing herself to be swayed by the business
practice of having Mr. de los Angeles appoint the members of the BOD and officers of
the Corporation despite the rules enunciated in the Corporation Code with respect to
the election of such officers, Atty. Limpin has transgressed Rule 1.02 of the CPR

FACTS:

In 2004, Guarin was hired by Mr. Celso de los Angeles as Chief Operating Officer and
thereafter as President of One Card Company, Inc., a member of the Legacy Group of
Companies. On August 11, 2008, he resigned and transferred to St. Luke’s Medical
Center. On November 27, 2008, Atty. Limpin, the Corporate Secretary of Legacy
Card, Inc. (LCI), another corporation under Legacy Group, filed with SEC a General
Information Sheet (GIS) for LCI which identified Guarin as its Chairman of the Board
of Directors and President. Mired with allegations of anomalous business
transactions and practices, LCI applied for voluntary dissolution on December 18,
2008. Guarin filed a complaint for disbarment with the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP CBD) against Atty. Limpin for
violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. IBP
CBD found that Atty. Limpin violated Canon 1 and Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the CPR
and recommended that she be suspended from the practice of law for three months.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Limpin has violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the

CPR

RULING:

YES. Atty. Limpin has violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the CPR.

Members of the Bar are reminded that their first duty is to comply with the rules of
procedure, rather than seek exceptions as loopholes. A lawyer who assists a client in
a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating the law commits an act which
justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer. There is no indication that Guarin
held any share to the corporation and that he is ineligible to hold a seat in the BOD
and be the president of the company, It is undisputed that Atty. Limpin filed and
certified that Guarin was a stockholder of the LCI in the GIS. Thus, in filing a GIS that
contained false information, Atty. Limpin has violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the
CPR. Moreover, in allowing herself to be swayed by the

business practice of having Mr. de los Angeles appoint the members of the BOD and
officers of the Corporation despite the rules enunciated in the Corporation Code
with respect to the election of such officers, Atty. Limpin has transgressed Rule 1.02
of the CPR .
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Christine A.C. Limpin GUILTY of violation of
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent Atty. Christine A.C. Limpin from the practice of
law for SIX (6) MONTHS effective upon finality of this Decision, with a warning that a
repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.

Duty to uphold the Constitution and the national interest

Kupers vs. Hontanosas

FACTS:
Complainant Kupers filed an administative case against respondent Atty. Hontanosas for
allegedly preparing and notarizing contracts that are both invalid and illegal for being
violative of the limitations on aliens leasing private lands under P. D. 471. He knowingly
indicated that the contract shall be enforced for 49 years, instead of 25 years, and
renewable for another 49 years. He failed to inform his clients of the limitations of the
aforesaid law and by his acts, deliberately prepared a document contrary to law.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Hontanosas violated the Lawyer's Oath and several canons of the
Code of Professional Responsibilty in preaparing and notarizing the illegal lease
contracts

RULINGS:
In preparing and notarizing the illegal lease contracts, respondent violated the Attorney’s
Oath and several canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. One of the
foremost sworn duties of an attorney-at-law is to “obey the laws of the Philippines." This
duty is enshrined in the Attorney’s Oath and in Canon 1, which provides that “(a) lawyer
shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and
legal processes.” The other canons of professional responsibilty which respondent
transgressed are the ff: 

CANON 15 -- A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN

ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.

Rule 15.07 - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the
principles of fairness.

CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE

SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
Aside from constituting violation of the lawyer's oath, the acts of respondents also
amount to gross misconduct under Section 27, Rule 138 of Rules Court.
The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that
seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court. 

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Johnson B. Hontanosas, is found GUILTY of violating

the lawyer’s oath and gross misconduct. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
six (6) months with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt
with more severely.
Duty to uphold the integrity of the legal system: the special role of the notary public

Santuyo vs. Hidalgo (2005)

Case of a lawyer who was negligent of his notarial duty by making his secretary use his
seal.

Ponente: Corona

Facts:

- Complainants Benjamin and Editha Santuyo retrieved notarization for a deed of

sale from respondent lawyer (Atty. Edwin Hidalgo).

- A Danilo German contests the ownership of the land. He had an affidavit from
respondent lawyer denying the authenticity of his signature on the deed of sale. It was
alleged that the Santuyo spouses forged respondent’s signature.

- The deed of sale had all the legal formalities of a deed of sale, including
respondent’s dry seal.

- Respondent denies notarizing the deed of sale. He was then a junior lawyer at
Carpio General and Jacob Law Office; he did notary public duties. He avers that
sometimes, the secretaries by themselves affix the dry seals of the junior associates on
documents by the firm.

- Respondents says he was on vacation when the deed in question was notarized,
and that he did not know the Santuyos until 6 years after the said notarization. He says
the secretaries must have affixed the dry seal when he was not in the office (with the
concurrence of the senior partners).

- Case referred to IBP.

- IBP said the signatures were indeed questionable BUT respondent lawyer was
negligent, allowing secretaries to execute his notarial functions, including keeping his
dry seal and notarial register.

Issue:

-1. WON the signature was forged. YES. 2. WON respondent was negligent in his notarial
duty. YES.

Ratio:

- 1. Santuyos had no personal knowledge of respondent lawyer’s act of notarizing the

said deed. They just to the office and the firm gave them a deed with respondent’s
“notarization.”

-Santuyos did not contest the fact that they met respondent lawyer 6 years after the
notarization of questioned deed. (So they really did not appear before the respondent)

- 2. The responsibility attached to a notary public is SENSITIVE. Respondent should have

been more discreet and cautious in the execution of his duties. He should not have
entrusted everything to secretaries.
- Entrusting everything to secretaries open up many possibilities of misusage.

- Negligence of respondent lawyer is not only found in the questioned notarization of

deed, but in the act of entrusting to secretaries the act of making necessary entries in
his notarial registry.

Held:

-Respondent is GUILTY of NEGLIGENCE, and is suspended from his commission as a

notary public for 2 years.

ELSA L. MONDEJAR, complainant, vs. ATTY. VIVIAN G. RUBIA, respondent.

A. C. Nos. 5907 and 5942, THIRD DIVISION, July 21, 2006, CARPIO MORALES, J

B.

Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are thus mandated to subscribe to the

sacred duties appertaining to their office, such duties being dictated by public policy
impressed with public interest. A graver responsibility is placed upon them by reason
of their solemn oath to obey the laws, to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of
any, and to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangement, and other duties and
responsibilities. In this case, the document clearly appears to have been ante-dated in
an attempt to exculpate Marilyn from the Anti-Dummy charge against her in 2002. As
to the said discrepancies of dates appearing in the document because of the
respondent’s acts, Commissioner Aguila found respondent to have violated Rule 1.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility

FACTS

By two separate complaints filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA),
Elsa L. Mondejar (complainant) sought the disbarment of Atty. Vivian G.
Rubia(respondent) and the cancellation of her notarial commission for allegedly
committing deceitful acts and malpractice in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Sometime in 2002, complainant charged Marilyn Carido (Marilyn)
and her common law husband Japanese national Yoshimi Nakayama (Nakayama)
before the Digos City Prosecutor's Office for violation of the Anti-Dummy Law.
During the pendendy of the case, it was raised that on April 20, 2001, respondent
notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale of a parcel of land situated in Digos City,
purportedly executed by Manuel Jose Lozada (Lozada) as vendor and Marilyn as
vendee. Complainant alleged that respondent falsified the document by forging the
signature of Lozada who has been staying in Maryland, U.S.A. since 1992. Hence,
administrative cases were filed against the respondent.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent is guilty of violation of the Code of Professional

Responsibility (YES)
RULING

YES

As to the discrepancies of dates appearing in the document because of the

respondent’s acts, Commissioner Aguila found respondent to have violated Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that a lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Lawyers commissioned
as notaries public are thus mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties appertaining
to their office, such duties being dictated by public policy impressed with public
interest. A graver responsibility is placed upon them by reason of their solemn oath
to obey the laws, to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any, and to guard
against any illegal or immoral arrangement, and other duties and responsibilities. In
this case, the document clearly appears to have been ante-dated in an attempt to
exculpate Marilyn from the Anti-Dummy charge against her in 2002. The document
was allegedly notarized on January 9, 2001 but a new revised/amended document
was made in 2002 bearing the original date of execution/acknowledgment. If that
were so, how could an error have been committed regarding the other year 2001
original entries in the notarial register, when the purported new document was to
retain the original January 9, 2001 date as it would merely input additional
conditions thereto? The above-quoted discussion by the Investigating IBP
Commissioner of why he discredited respondent's explanation behind the
conflicting dates appearing in the document is thus well-taken.

WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Vivian Rubia, for violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, is suspended for One (1) Month, and warned
that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Lee vs Tambago, A.C No. 5281, February 2008

Facts:

 Complainant Manuel lee charged respondent Atty. Regino Tambago with

violation of the notarial law and the ethics of the legal profession for
notarising a spurious last will and testament.
 Complainant averred that his father, Vicente lee, Sr., never executed the
contested will. The signature of the two witnesses in the will are claimed
to be spurious.
 In the said will, the decedent supposedly bequeathed his entire estate to
his wife Lim Hock Lee, save for a parcel of land which he devised to
Vicente Lee, Jr., and Elena Lee, half siblings of the complainant.
 Complainant claimed that while the will was executed and acknowledged
on June 1965, the decedent’s residence certificate noted in the
acknowledgement of the will was dated January 1962.
 Complainant also point out the absence of notation of the residence
certificate of the two witnesses in the will.
 Respondent answered that the complaint contain false allegations. He
claimed that the will and testament was validly executed and actually
notarized by him as per affidavit of Gloria Novato, common law wife of the
decedent, and corroborated by the joint-affidavit of the children of the
decedent namely Elena Lee and Vicente Lee.
 The RTC referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report, and
recommendation.
 The IBP investigating commissioner found respondent guilty of violation of
the old notarial law. Also, the violation constituted an infringement of
legal ethics of the CPR. The commissioner recommended the suspension
of the respondent for a period of 3 months.
  The IBP Board of Governors, in its resolution, adopted and approved with
modifications the recommendation of the commissioner. Respondent was
suspended from the practice of law for 1 year and his notarial commission
was revoked and disqualified from reappointment as notary public for 2
years.

Issue:

Whether or not the will is valid?

Ruling:

 The SC ruled that the will is invalid.

 The will was attested by only 2 witnesses and therefore it is considered
void.
 A notarial will is required by law to be subscribed at the end thereof by
the testator himself. In addition, it should be attested and subscribed
by 3 or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of
one another.
 The object of solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close
the door on bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and
testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity.
 The Civil Code likewise requires that a will must be acknowledged
before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses.
 An Acknowledgement is the act of one who has executed a deed in
going before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his
act or deed. An Acknowledgement in a notarial will has a two-fold
purpose: (1) to safeguard the testator’s wishes long after his demise,
and (2) to assure that his estate is administered in the manner that he
intends it to be done.
 The acknowledgment of the will in question shows that this
requirement was neither strictly nor substantially complied with. There
was an absence of a notation of the residence certificate of the notarial
witnesses in the acknowledgement. Similarly, the notation of the
testator’s old residence certificate in the same acknowledgment was a
clear breach of the law. These omissions by respondent invalidated the
will.
 Defects in the observance of the solemnities prescribed by the law
render the entire will invalid.
 Respondent was suspended to practice law for a period of 1 year and
his notarial commission is revoked and he is perpetually disqualified
from reappointment as a notary public.

Notarial duties

A.C. No. 6677

JUNE 10, 2014

EUPROCINA I. CRISOSTOMO, MARILYN L. SOLIS, EVELYN MARQUIZO,

ROSEMARIE BALATUCAN, MILDRED BATANG, MARILEN MINERALES, and
MELINDA D. SIOTING, Complainants, vs. ATTY. PHILIP z. A. NAZARENO,
Respondent.

Legal Ethics; Canon 1; Rule 1.01; Canon 10

FACTS:
Sometime in 2001, complainants individually purchased housing units from Rudex
International Development Corp. (Rudex). In view of several inadequacies and
construction defects in the housing units and the subdivision itself, complainants
sought the rescission of their respective contracts to sell before the Housing and
Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), seeking the refund of the monthly
amortizations they had paid. Rudex was represented by Atty. Nazareno. Judgments
of default were eventually rendered against Rudex in the first batch of rescission
cases. Sometime in August 2003, Rudex filed three (3) petitions for review before
the HLURB assailing the same. In the certifications against forum shopping attached
to the said petitions, Rudex, through its President Ruben P. Baes, and legal counsel
Atty. Nazareno, stated that it has not commenced or has knowledge of any similar
action or proceeding involving the same issues pending before any court, tribunal or
agency – this, notwithstanding the fact that Rudex, under the representation of Atty.
Nazareno, previously filed an ejectment case on September 9, 2002 against Sioting
and her husband, Rodrigo Sioting (Sps. Sioting).On January 29, 2004, Rudex, again
represented by Atty. Nazareno, filed another complaint against Sps. Sioting before
the HLURB for the rescission of their contract to sell and the latter’s ejectment,
similar to its pending September 9, 2002 ejectment complaint. Yet, in the
certification against forum shopping attached thereto Rudex declared that it has not
commenced or is not aware of any action or proceeding involving the same issues
pending before any court, tribunal or agency. The said certification was notarized by
Atty. Nazareno himself. On April 1, 2004, six (6) similar complaints for rescission of
contracts to sell and ejectment, plus damages for non-payment of amortizations due,
were filed by Atty. Nazareno, on behalf of Rudex, against the other complainants
before the HLURB. The certifications against forum shopping attached thereto
likewise stated that Rudex has not commenced or has any knowledge of any similar
pending action before any court, tribunal or agency. On February 21, 2005,
complainants jointly filed the present administrative complaint for disbarment
against Atty. Nazareno, claiming that in the certifications against forum shopping
attached to the complaints for rescission and ejectment of Rudex filed while Atty.
Nazareno was its counsel, the latter made false declarations therein that no similar
actions or proceedings have been commenced by Rudex or remained pending before
any other court, tribunal or agency when, in fact, similar actions or proceedings for
rescission had been filed by herein complainants before the HLURB against Rudex
and Atty. Nazareno, and an ejectment complaint was filed by Rudex, represented by
Atty. Nazareno, against Sps. Sioting. In addition, complainants asserted that Atty.
Nazareno committed malpractice as a notary public since he only assigned one (1)
document number (i.e., Doc. No. 1968) in all the certifications against forum
shopping that were separately attached to the six (6) April 1, 2004 complaints for
rescission and ejectment. Despite notice, Atty. Nazareno failed to file his comment
and refute the administrative charges against him. In the interim, the HLURB, in the
Resolutions dated April 14, 200524 and May 12, 2005,25 dismissed Rudex’s
complaints for rescission and ejectment on the ground that its statements in the
certifications against forum shopping attached thereto were false due to the
existence of similar pending cases in violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of
Court. The IBP’s Investigating Commissioner recommended the suspension of Atty.
Nazareno for a period of six (6) months for his administrative violations. The
Investigating Commissioner found, among others, that there were unassailable
proofs that the certification against forum shopping attached to Rudex’s ejectment
complaint against Sps. Sioting had been erroneously declared. Investigating
Commissioner observed that Atty. Nazareno cannot claim innocence of his omission
since he was not only Rudex’s counsel but the notarizing officer as well. Having
knowingly made false entries in the subject certifications against forum shopping,
the Investigating Commissioner recommended that Atty. Nazareno be held
administratively liable and thereby penalized with six (6) months suspension. In a
Resolution30 dated April 15, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and
approved the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation, but
modified the recommended penalty from a suspension of six (6) months to only one
(1) month.

ISSUE:

WON Atty. Nazareno should be held administratively liable and accordingly

suspended for a period of one (1) month

RULING:

The Court affirms the IBP’s findings with modification as to the penalty
imposed. Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, the submission of false
entries in a certification against forum shopping constitutes indirect or direct
contempt of court, and subjects the erring counsel to the corresponding
administrative and criminal actions.

In the realm of legal ethics, said infraction may be considered as a violation of Rule
1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In this case, it has been established that Atty. Nazareno made false declarations in
the certifications against forum shopping attached to Rudex’s pleadings, for which
he should be held administratively liable. Considering that Atty. Nazareno did not
even bother to refute the charges against him despite due notice, the Court finds no
cogent reason to deviate from the IBP’s resolution on his administrative liability.
However, as for the penalty to be imposed, the Court deems it proper to modify the
IBP’s finding on this score and suspends him from the practice of law for a period of
one (1) year. Separately, the Court further finds Atty. Nazareno guilty of malpractice
as a notary public, considering that he assigned only one document number (i.e.,
Doc. No. 1968) to the certifications against forum shopping attached to the six (6)
April 1, 2004 complaints for rescission and ejectment despite the act that each of
them should have been treated as a separate notarial act. It is a standing rule that
for every notarial act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of
the notarization, among others, the entry and page number of the document
notarized, and that he shall give to each instrument or document executed, sworn to,
or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his register.
Evidently, Atty. Nazareno did not comply with the foregoing rule. Worse, Atty.
Nazareno notarized the certifications against forum shopping attached to all the
aforementioned complaints, fully aware that they identically asserted a material
falsehood. The administrative liability of an erring notary public in this respect was
clearly delineated as a violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1.

In said case, the lawyer who knowingly notarized a document containing false
statements had his notarial commission revoked and was disqualified from being
commissioned as such for a period of one (1) year. Thus, for his malpractice as a
notary public, the Court is wont to additionally impose the same penalties of such
nature against him. However, due to the multiplicity of his infractions on this front,
coupled with his willful malfeasance in discharging the office, the Court deems it
proper to revoke his existing commission and permanently disqualify him from
being commissioned as a notary public.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Philip Z. A. Nazareno is found GUILTY of making false
declarations in the certifications against forum shopping subject of this case, as well as
malpractice as a notary public. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of one ( 1) year, effective upon his receipt of this Decision, with a
STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
severely. Further, he is PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a
notary public and, his notarial commission, if currently existing, is hereby REVOKED.

A.C. No. 6470 July 8, 2014

MERCEDITA DE JESUS, Complainant, vs. ATTY. JUVY MELL SANCHEZ-MALIT,

Respondent.

Legal Ethics: Canon 1 and Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 10.01 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility as well as her oath as notary public.

FACTS:

Complainant alleged that on 1 March 2002, respondent had drafted and notarized a
Real Estate Mortgage of a public market stall that falsely named the former as its
absolute and registered owner. As a result, the mortgagee sued complainant for
perjury and for collection of sum of money. She claimed that respondent was a
consultant of the local government unit of Dinalupihan, Bataan, and was therefore
aware that the market stall was government-owned. Prior thereto, respondent had
also notarized two contracts that caused complainant legal and financial problems.
One contract was a lease agreement notarized by respondent sometime in
September 1999 without the signature of the lessees.

However, complainant only found out that the agreement had not been signed by
the lessees when she lost her copy and she asked for another copy from respondent.
Respondent drafted and notarized said agreement, but did not advise complainant
that the property was still covered by the period within which it could not be
alienated. The other contract was a sale agreement over a property covered by a
Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) which complainant entered into with a
certain Nicomedes Tala (Tala) on 17 February 1998. Respondent drafted and
notarized said agreement, but did not advisecomplainant that the property was still
covered by the period within which it could not be alienated. In her Comment,
respondent explained that the mortgage contract was prepared in the presence of
complainant and that the latter had read it before affixing her signature. However,
complainant urgently needed the loan proceeds so the contract was hastily done. It
was only copied from a similar file in respondent’s computer, and the phrase
"absolute and registered owner" was inadvertently left unedited. Still, it should not
be a cause for disciplinary action, because complainant constructed the subject
public market stall under a "Build Operate and Transfer" contract with the local
government unit and, technically, she could be considered its owner. Besides, there
had been a prior mortgage contract over the same property in which complainant
was represented as the property’s absolute owner, but she did not complain.
Moreover, the cause of the perjury charge against complainant was not the
representation of herself as owner of the mortgaged property, but her guarantee
that it was free from all liens and encumbrances. The perjury charge was even
dismissed, because the prosecutor found that complainant and her spouse had,
indeed, paid the debt secured with the previous mortgage contract over the same
market stall. With respect to the lease agreement, respondent countered that the
document attached to the Affidavit-Complaint was actually new. She gave the court’s
copy of the agreement to complainant to accommodate the latter’s request for an
extra copy. Thus, respondent prepared and notarized a new one, relying on
complainant’s assurance that the lessees would sign it and that it would be returned
in lieu of the original copy for the court. Complainant, however, reneged on her
promise. As regards the purchase agreement of a property covered by a CLOA,
respondent claimed that complainant was an experienced realty broker and,
therefore, needed no advice on the repercussions of that transaction. Actually, when
the purchase agreement was notarized, complainant did not present the CLOA, and
so the agreement mentioned nothing about it. Rather, the agreement expressly
stated that the property was the subject of a case pending before the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB); complainant was thus notified of the
status of the subject property. Finally, respondent maintained that the SPAs
submitted by complainant as additional evidence were properly notarized. It can be
easily gleaned from the documents that the attorney-in-fact personally appeared
before respondent; hence, the notarization was limited to the former’s participation
in the execution of the document. Moreover, the acknowledgment clearly stated that
the document must be notarized in the principal’s place of residence.

ISSUE:

WON the respondent failed to perform her duty as a notary public

RULING:

Yes. The Court finds that she committed misconduct and grievously violated her
oath as a notary public. The important role a notary public performs cannot be
overemphasized. The Court has repeatedly stressed that notarization is not an
empty, meaningless routinary act, but one invested with substantive public interest.
Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it
admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity.

Thus, a notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It
is for this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of his notarial duties; otherwise, the public's
confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined. Where
the notary public admittedly has personal knowledge of a false statement or
information contained in the instrument to be notarized, yet proceeds to affix the
notarial seal on it, the Court must not hesitate to discipline the notary public
accordingly as the circumstances of the case may dictate. Otherwise, the integrity
and sanctity of the notarization process may be undermined, and public confidence
in notarial documents diminished. In this case, respondent fully knew that
complainant was not the owner of the mortgaged market stall. That complainant
comprehended the provisions of the real estate mortgage contract does not make
respondent any less guilty. If at all, it only heightens the latter’s liability for
tolerating a wrongful act. Clearly, respondent’s conduct amounted to a breach of
Canon 1 and Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent’s explanation about the unsigned lease agreement executed by
complainant sometime in September 1999 is incredulous. If, indeed, her file copy of
the agreement bore the lessees’ signatures, she could have given complainant a
certified photocopy thereof. It even appears that said lease agreement is not a rarity
in respondent’s practice as a notary public. Records show that on various occasions
from 2002 to 2004, respondent has notarized 22 documents that were either
unsigned or lacking signatures of the parties. Technically, each document maybe a
ground for disciplinary action, for it is the duty of a notarial officer to demand that a
document be signed in his or her presence. A notary public should not notarize a
document unless the persons who signed it are the very same ones who executed it
and who personally appeared before the said notary public to attest to the contents
and truth of what are stated therein. Thus, in acknowledging that the parties
personally came and appeared before her, respondent also violated Rule 10.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and her oath as a lawyer that she shall do no
falsehood. Certainly, respondent is unfit to continue enjoying the solemn office of a
notary public. In several instances, the Court did not hesitate to disbar lawyers who
were found to be utterly oblivious to the solemnity of their oath as notaries public.
Even so, the rule is that disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct
that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the
court and the Court will not disbar a lawyer where a lesser penalty will suffice to
accomplish the desired end. Theblatant disregard by respondent of her basic duties
as a notary public warrants the less severe punishment of suspension from the
practice of law and perpetual disqualification to be commissioned as a notary public.

Hence, she is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE YEAR effective
immediately.

Her notarial commission, if still existing, is IMMEDIATELY REVOKED and she is hereby
PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public .

A.C. No. 7184

September 17, 2014

FELIPE B. ALMAZAN, SR., Complainant, vs. ATTY. MARCELO B. SUERTE FELIPE,

Respondent.

Legal Ethics; Canon 1, Rule 1.01

FACTS:

On April 27, 2006, Complainant Felipe B. Almazan, Sr. charged respondent,

previously of the Public Attorney's Office, for malpractice and gross negligence in
the performance of his duty as a notary public and/or lawyer, alleging that the
latter, despite not having been registered as a notary public for the City of Marikina,
notarized the acknowledgment of the document entitled "Extra judicial Settlement
of the Estate of the Deceased Juliana P. Vda. De Nieva" dated "25th day of 1999"
(subject document), stating that he is a "notary public for and in the City of
Marikina." Said document was one of the attachments to the Amended

Complaint dated August 14, 2003 filed in Civil Case entitled "Esperanza Nieva Dela
Cruz[(as represented by respondent)] v. Brita T. Llantada[(as represented by
complainant)]." To prove his claim, complainant attached a Certification dated May
26, 2005 issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Marikina City, certifying that per the court’s record, respondent is not a
commissioned notary public for the City of Marikina from March 30, 1994 to the
date of issuance. In a Resolution dated July 5, 2006, the Court required respondent
to file his Comment which he eventually submitted on February 13, 2007 after
proper service. In said pleading, respondent admitted that he indeed notarized the
acknowledgment of the subject document but denied that he was not commissioned
as a notary public at that time. To prove his defense, he attached a Certification
dated August 23, 2006 issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Pasig
City, certifying the fact of his appointment as notary public for the City of Pasig and
in the Municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and Mandaluyong for the years
1998-1999 under Appointment No. 98. Further, respondent, thru the comment,
incorporated his own administrative complaint against complainant for malpractice
and harassment of a fellow lawyer in view of the filing of the instant administrative
case against him. In response, complainant filed a Reply dated April 26, 2007
asserting that he has the legitimate right to file the administrative complaint against
respondent for his unlawful act of notarization, which is not an act of harassment as
respondent claims. He also draws attention to the fact that the subject document
was incompletely dated and yet notarized by respondent. In a Resolution dated July
11, 2007, the Court, inter alia, referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. Eventually, both
parties appeared during the mandatory conference held on April 30, 2008. IBP
recommended that respondent be suspended for a period of two (2) years from the
practice of law. However, since it does not appear that he was still commissioned as
a notary public, the Investigating Commissioner did not recommend that he be
disqualified as such. In a Resolution dated October 9, 2008, the IBP Board of
Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner with modification, decreasing the penalty of suspension
to one (1) year, with immediate revocation of notarial commission if presently
commissioned, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for
two (2) years. On reconsideration, the IBP Board of Governors, in a Resolution22
dated March 8, 2014, modified the penalty stated in its previous resolution,
imposing, instead, the penalty of reprimand with warning, and disqualification from
being commissioned as a notary public for the decreased period of one (1) year.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable;

RULING:

Yes, the Court concurs with the findings of the IBP except as to the penalty.

As the Investigating Commissioner correctly observed, respondent, who himself

admitted that he was commissioned as notary public only in the City of Pasig and
the Municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and Mandaluyong for the years
1998-1999, could not notarize the subject document’s acknowledgment in the City
of Marikina, as said notarial act is beyond the jurisdiction of the commissioning
court, i.e., the RTC of Pasig. The territorial limitation of a notary public’s jurisdiction
is crystal clear from Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: Sec.
11. Jurisdiction and Term– A person commissioned as notary public may perform
notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning
courtfor a period of two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the year in
which the commissioning court is made, unless either revoked or the notary public has
resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court. (Emphasis supplied) Said principle
is equally echoed in the Notarial Law found in Chapter 12, Book V, Volume I of the
Revised Administrative Code of 1917, as amended, 24 of which Section 240, Article
II states: Sec. 240. Territorial jurisdiction. – The jurisdiction of a notary public in a
province shall be co-extensive with the province. The jurisdiction of a notary public in
the City of Manila shall be co-extensive with said city. No notary shall possess
authority to do any notarial act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction. (Emphases
supplied)

For misrepresenting in the said acknowledgment that he was a notary public for and
in the City of Marikina, when it is apparent and, in fact, uncontroverted that he was
not, respondent further committed a form of falsehood which is undoubtedly
anathema to the lawyer’s oath. Perceptibly, said transgression also runs afoul of
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that
"[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” It
cannot be over-emphasized that notarization is not an empty, meaningless,
routinary act. Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, such that
only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Hence, the
requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public are treated with a
formality definitely more than casual.

(Emphases supplied) With respondent’s liability herein established, and considering

further the attendant circumstances of this case, take for instance, that he is a first
time offender and that he had already acknowledged his wrongdoings, the Court
finds that suspension for a period of six (6) months from the practice of law would
suffice as a penalty. In addition, he is disqualified from being commissioned as a
notary public for a period of one (1) year and, his notarial commission, if currently
existing, is hereby revoked.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe is found GUILTY of

malpractice as a notary public, and violating the lawyer’s oath as well as Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, effective upon his receipt of this
Resolution, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will
be dealt with more severely. He is likewise DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as
a notary public for a period of one

(1) year and his notarial commission, if currently existing, is hereby REVOKED.

A.C. No. 8103

December 03, 2014

ATTY. AURELIO C. ANGELES, JR., PROVINCIAL LEGAL OFFICER, BATAAN

CAPITOL, BALANGA CITY, BATAAN, Complainant, vs. ATTY. RENATO C. BAGAY,
Respondent.

Legal Ethics; Canon 7; Canon 9

FACTS:
This case stemmed from the letter, dated June 11, 2008, submitted by Atty. Aurelio
C. Angeles, Jr. (Atty. Angeles, Jr.), the Provincial Legal Officer of Bataan, to Hon.
Remigio M. Escalada, Jr. (Executive Judge), Executive Judge of the Regional Trial
Court of Bataan against Atty. Renato C. Bagay (respondent), for his alleged
notarization of 18 documents at the time he was out of the country from March 13,
2008 to April 8, 2008. These documents were endorsed to the Provincial Legal
Office by the Provincial Treasurer who had information that they were notarized
while respondent was outside the country attending the Prayer and Life Workshop
in Mexico. The letter contained the affidavits of the persons who caused the
documents to be notarized which showed a common statement that they did not see
respondent sign the documents himself and it was either the secretary who signed
them or the documents came out of the office already signed. Upon verification with
the Bureau of Immigration, it was found out that a certain Renato C. Bagay departed
from the country on March 13, 2008 and returned on April 8, 2008. The copy of the
Certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration was also attached to the letter.
The Report and Recommendation of Atty. Felimon C. Abelita III (Atty. Abelita III) as
Investigating Commissioner found that the letter of Atty. Angeles, Jr., dated June 11,
2008, was not verified, that most of the attachments were not authenticated
photocopies and that the comment of respondent was likewise not verified. Atty.
Abelita III, however, observed that respondent’s signature on his comment
appeared to be strikingly similar to the signatures in most of the attached
documents which he admitted were notarized in his absence by his office secretary.
He admitted the fact that there were documents that were notarized while he was
abroad and his signature was affixed by his office secretary who was not aware of
the import of the act. Thus, by his own admission, it was established that by his
negligence in employing an office secretary who had access to his office, his notarial
seal and records especially pertaining to his notarial documents without the proper
training, respondent failed to live up to the standard required by the Rules on
Notarial Practice. Finding respondent guilty of negligence in the performance of his
notarial duty which gave his office secretary the opportunity to abuse his
prerogative authority as notary public, the Investigating Commissioner
recommended the immediate revocation of respondent’s commission as notary
public and his disqualification to be commissioned as such for a period of two (2)
years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the said recommendation
in its Resolution, dated September 28, 2013.

ISSUE:

Whether the notarization of documents by the secretary of respondent while he was

out of the country constituted negligence

RULING:

The Court answers in the affirmative. Respondent admitted in his comment and
motion for reconsideration that the 18 documents were notarized under his notarial
seal by his office secretary while he was out of the country. This clearly constitutes
negligence considering that respondent is responsible for the acts of his secretary.
Section 9 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a “Notary Public”
refers to any person commissioned to perform official acts under these Rules. A
notary public’s secretary is obviously not commissioned to perform the official acts
of a notary public. Respondent must fully bear the consequence of his negligence. A
person who is commissioned as a notary public takes full responsibility for all the
entries in his notarial register. He cannot relieve himself of this responsibility by
passing the buck to his secretaryRespondent violated Canon 9 of the CPR which
requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of
law. Due to his negligence that allowed his secretary to sign on his behalf as notary
public, he allowed an unauthorized person to practice law. By leaving his office open
despite his absence in the country and with his secretary in charge, he virtually
allowed his secretary to notarize documents without any restraint. Respondent also
violated his obligation under Canon 7 of the CPR, which directs every lawyer to
uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The people, who
came into his office while he was away, were clueless as to the illegality of the
activity being conducted therein. They expected that their documents would be
converted into public documents. Instead, they later found out that the notarization
of their documents was a mere sham and without any force and effect. By
prejudicing the persons whose documents were notarized by an unauthorized
person, their faith in the integrity and dignity of the legal profession was eroded.

WHEREFORE, the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is

ADOPTED with MODIFICATION.1âwphi1 Finding Atty. Renato C. Bagay grossly
negligent in his duty as a notary public, the Court REVOKES his notarial commission
and DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two
(2) years. The Court also SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for three (3) months
effective immediately, with a WARNING that the repetition of a similar violation will
be dealt with even more severely.

RE: VIOLATION OF RULES

ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE

DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This case stemmed from three (3) letter-complaints for Violation of Rules on Notarial
Practice endorsed to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for appropriate action. The
first letter-complaint, 1 dated March 2, 2009, was filed by the commissioned notaries
public within and for the jurisdiction of Lingayen, Pangasinan, namely, Atty. Butch
Cardinal Torio, Atty. Nepthalie Pasiliao, Atty. Dominique Evangelista, and Atty.
Elizabeth C. Tugade (complainants) before the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial
Court, Lingayen, Pangasinan (RTC-Lingayen) against Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. (Atty.
Siapno) for notarizing documents without a commission. In their letter, complainants
alleged that Atty. Siapno was maintaining a notarial office along Alvear Street East,
Lingayen, Pangasinan, and was performing notarial acts and practices in Lingayen,
Natividad and Dagupan City without the requisite notarial commission. They asserted
that Atty. Siapno was never commissioned as Notary Public for and within the
jurisdiction of Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City. Instead, he applied and was
commissioned to perform notarial functions by Executive Judge Anthony Sison of the
RTC, San Carlos City, Pangasinan from March 22, 2007 to December 31, 2008. His
notarial commission, however, was never renewed upon expiration. Complainants
presented evidence supporting their allegations such as the pictures of Atty. Siapno’s law
office in Lingayen, Pangasinan; and documents to prove that Atty. Siapno performed acts
of notarization in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City, to wit: (1) Addendum to Loan
and Mortgage Agreement2 showing that the Promissory Note was notarized before Atty.
Siapno in Lingayen, Pangasinan in 2007; (2) Deed of Absolute Sale,3 dated January 24,
2008, notarized in Natividad, Pangasinan; (3) Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested
Persons Re: Given Name and Date of Birth,4 dated January 6, 2009, notarized in Dagupan
City; and (4) Acknowledgement of Debt,5 dated January 24, 2008, notarized in Dagupan
City. Complainants also averred that Atty. Siapno had delegated his notarial authority to
his secretaries, Mina Bautista (Bautista) and Mary Ann Arenas (Arenas), who wrote legal
instruments and signed the documents on his behalf. On March 17, 2009, the RTC-
Lingayen forwarded the said lettercomplaint to the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA)6 which, in turn, indorsed the same to the OBC. The second letter-complaint7 was
filed by Audy B. Espelita (Espelita) against Atty. Pedro L. Santos (Atty. Santos). It
alleged that in 2008, Espelita lost his driver’s license and he executed an affidavit of loss
which was notarized by Atty. Santos. The said affidavit, however, was denied for
authentication when presented before the Notarial Section in Manila because Atty. Santos
was not commissioned to perform notarial commission within the City of Manila. The
third letter-complaint 8 came from a concerned citizen reporting that a certain Atty.
Evelyn who was holding office at Room 402 Leyba Bldg., 381 Dasmariñas Street, Sta.
Cruz, Manila, had been notarizing and signing documents for and on behalf of several
lawyers. In its Resolution, 9 dated June 9, 2009, the Court directed the Executive Judge of
the RTC-Lingayen to conduct a formal investigation on the complaint against Atty.
Siapno and Executive Judge Reynaldo G. Ros (Judge Ros) of the RTC-Manila to conduct
a formal investigation on the alleged violation of the Notarial Law by Atty. Santos, and
the illegal activities of a certain Atty. Evelyn, and thereafter, to submit a report and
recommendation thereon.

Re: Complaint against Atty. Siapno

With regard to the complaint against Atty. Siapno, the Executive Judge conducted a
hearing wherein the complainants affirmed the allegations in their letter-complaint. For
his part, Atty. Siapno denied the accusations and averred that the law office in Lingayen,
Pangasinan, was not his and that Bautista and Arenas were not his secretaries.10 In her
Report and Recommendation,11 the Executive Judge found that Atty. Siapno was issued a
notarial commission within the jurisdiction of Lingayen, Pangasinan, from January 20,
2003 to December 31, 2004 and February 8, 2005 to December 3, 2006. His commission,
however, was cancelled on June 8, 2006 and he was not issued another commission
thereafter. The Executive Judge found Atty. Siapno to have violated the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Commission when he performed notarial functions without commission and
recommended that he be fined in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) The
Court agrees with the findings of the Executive Judge but not to the recommended
penalty. A review of the records and evidence presented by complainants shows that
Atty. Siapno indeed maintained a law office in Lingayen, Pangasinan, just beside the law
office of one of the complainants, Atty. Elizabeth Tugade. It was also proven that Atty.
Siapno notarized several instruments with an expired notarial commission outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice provides that: Jurisdiction and Term – A person commissioned as notary
public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the
commissioning court for a period of two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the
year in which the commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked or the notary public has resigned
under these Rules and the Rules of Court. Under the rule, only persons who are
commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court which granted the commission. Clearly, Atty. Siapno could not
perform notarial functions in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City of the Province of
Pangasinan since he was not commissioned in the said places to perform such act. Time
and again, this Court has stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless and
routine act. It is invested with substantive public interest that only those who are qualified
or authorized may act as notaries public.12 It must be emphasized that the act of
notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document
making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A
notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this
reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties. By performing notarial acts without the necessary
commission from the court, Atty. Siapno violated not only his oath to obey the laws
particularly the Rules on Notarial Practice but also Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which proscribes all lawyers from engaging in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and directs them to uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession, at all times.13 In a plethora of cases, the Court has
subjected lawyers to disciplinary action for notarizing documents outside their territorial
jurisdiction or with an expired commission. In the case of Nunga v. Viray,14 a lawyer was
suspended by the Court for three (3) years for notarizing an instrument without a
commission. In Zoreta v. Simpliciano, 15 the respondent was likewise suspended from the
practice of law for a period of two (2) years and was permanently barred from being
commissioned as a notary public for notarizing several documents after the expiration of
his commission. In the more recent case of Laquindanum v. Quintana,16 the Court
suspended a lawyer for six (6) months and was disqualified from being commissioned as
notary public for a period of two (2) years because he notarized documents outside the
area of his commission, and with an expired commission. Considering that Atty. Siapno
has been proven to have performed notarial work in Ligayen, Natividad and Dagupan
City in the province of Pangasinan without the requisite commission, the Court finds the
recommended penalty insufficient. Instead, 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.

Re: Complaints against Atty. Santos and Atty. Evelyn

In a letter,17 dated July 29, 2013, Judge Ros informed the Court that he could not have
complied with the June 9, 2009 and August 4, 2009 orders of the Court because he was
no longer the Executive Judge of the RTCManila at that time. To date, no formal
investigation has been conducted on the alleged violation of Atty. Santos and the reported
illegal activities of a certain Atty. Evelyn. With respect to the complaints against Atty.
Santos and a certain Atty. Evelyn, the Clerk of Court is ordered to RE-DOCKET the
same as separate administrative cases. The incumbent Executive Judge of the RTC-
Manila, whether permanent or in acting capacity, is ordered to conduct a formal
investigation on the matter and to submit his Report and Recommendation within sixty
( 60) days from receipt of copy of this decision.

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.

PITOGO vs. SUELLO

AC 10695 March 18, 2015

FACTS:

Crescenciano M. Pitogo (Pitogo) purchased a motorcycle from Emcor, Inc. However,

Emcor, Inc. allegedly failed to cause the registration of the motorcycle under his name.
Pitogo, thus, filed a Civil Complaint before the RTC against EMCOR, Inc.

The motorcycle was eventually registered in Pitogo’s name based on three (3)
documents notarized by respondent Atty. Joselito Troy Suello (Suello).

Pitogo obtained a copy of the 3 documents from LTO Cebu. On August 3, 2009, he went
to Suello’s office to have them certified. Pitogo claims that when he called Suello the
next day, the latter “disowned the documents.” Suello instead ordered his secretary to
give Pitogo a copy of his notarial register.

On September 10, 2009, Pitogo filed his Affidavit-Complaint against Suello. Pitogo
alleges that there were discrepancies between the 3 documents notarized by Suello and
Suello’s entries in his notarial register.

In his Position Paper, Suello explains that it was his secretary who certified Pitogo’s
documents on August 3, 2009. Pitogo called Suello the next day to ask for a certification.
When he advised Pitogo that he can get it at his office after verifying the documents,
Pitogo informed him that his secretary already certified them as true copies. Suello told
Pitogo that his secretary was not given such authority.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Suelo must be held administratively liable

HELD:

YES. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with such
substantial public interest that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as
notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public document,
making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity.
For this reason, notaries must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of
this form of conveyance would be undermined.

Hence, when respondent negligently failed to enter the details of the three (3)
documents on his notarial register, he cast doubt on the authenticity of complainant’s
documents. He also cast doubt on the credibility of the notarial register and the notarial
process. He violated not only the Notarial Rules but also the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which requires lawyers to promote respect for law and legal processes.

Respondent also appears to have committed a falsehood in the pleadings he submitted.

In his Answer to complainant’s Affidavit-Complaint, respondent claimed that he certified
complainant’s documents as true copies. Later, in his Position Paper, he passed the
blame to his secretary. This violates the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
prohibits lawyers from engaging in dishonest and unlawful conduct.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Joselito Troy Suello GUILTY of violating Canon 1
and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months
and is STERNLY WARNED that any similar violation will be dealt with more severely. His
notarial commission is immediately revoked if presently commissioned. He is
DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as notary public for one (1) year.

JOY A. GIMENO, Complainant, -versus- ATTY. PAUL CENTILLAS ZAIDE,

Respondent.

A. C. No. 10303, SECOND DIVISION, April 22, 2015, BRION,J.

B.

Lawyers are prohibited to use of intemperate, offensive, and abusive language in a

lawyer’s professional dealings, whether with the courts, his clients, or any other
person. Canon 8, Rule 8.01 clearly states that a lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive, or otherwise, improper.
Based on the record, it is clear that the respondent, in the reply that he drafted, called
complainant a “notorious extortionist”. This is a clear violation of the Canons
mentioned above and a confirmation of the respondent’s lack of restraint in the use
and choice of his words. While a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and
courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language. In
keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer’s language even in his
pleadings, must be dignified.

FACTS:

Joy Gimeno (Complainant) filed a Complaint against Atty. Paul Zaide(Respondent)

charging the latter with usurpation of a notary public’s office, falsification, use of
intemperate, offensive, and abusive language, and violation of lawyer-client trust. It
was submitted that complainant was respondent’s former client. Complainant
engaged the services of the Zaragoza-Makabangkit-Zaide Law Offices (ZMZ) in an
annulment of title case that involved her husband and her parents-in-law. Despite
the previous lawyer-client relationship, respondent still appeared against her in the
complaint for estafa and violation of RA 3019 filed against the complainant with the
Ombudsman. Complainant posited that by appearing against a former client, Atty.
Zaide violated the prohibition against the representation of conflicting clients’
interests. Furthermore, complainant also alleges that the respondent called her a
“notorious extortionist” in the same administrative complaint filed against her. In
his defense, respondent denied that he used any intemperate, offensive, and abusive
language in his pleadings.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found the
respondent administratively liable for violating the Notarial Practice Rules,
representing conflicting interests, and using abusive and insulting language in his
pleadings. It was recommended that the respondent be suspended for a total of nine
months. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings of the Investigating
Commissioner but modified the penalty to be imposed increasing it to one year.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent may be held administratively liable for the use of
intemperate, offensive, and abusive language against the complainant

RULING:

Lawyers are prohibited to use of intemperate, offensive, and abusive language in a

lawyer’s professional dealings, whether with the courts, his clients, or any other
person. The prohibition stems from the following canons and rules of the Code of
Professional Responsibility:

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY,

FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND

SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.

Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language

which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT

DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON

SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.

Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing

language or behavior before the Courts.

Based on the record, it is clear that the respondent, in the reply that he
drafted, called complainant a “notorious extortionist”. This is a clear violation of
the Canons mentioned above and a confirmation of the respondent’s lack of
restraint in the use and choice of his words. While a lawyer is entitled to present his
case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive
and abusive language. In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a
lawyer’s language even in his pleadings, must be dignified.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to ADOPT the recommended

penalty of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Atty. Paul
Centillas Zaide is found GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and
for using intemperate, offensive and, abusive language in violation of Rule 8.01, Canon
8 and Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His notarial
commission, if existing, is hereby REVOKED, and he is declared DISQUALIFIED from
being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. He is also
SUSPENDED for one (1) year from the practice of law.