MANUEL L. LEE vs. ATTY. REGINO B.

TAMBAGO [DIGEST]
A.C. No. 5281.February 12, 2008
CORONA, J.

FACTS:

In a letter-complaint dated April 10, 2000, complainant Manuel L. Lee charged respondent Atty.
Regino B. Tambago with violation of the Notarial Law and the ethics of the legal profession
for notarizing a spurious last will and testament.

In his complaint, complainant averred that his father, the decedent Vicente Lee, Sr., never executed
the contested will. Furthermore, the spurious will contained the forged signatures of Cayetano
Noynay and Loreto Grajo, the purported witnesses to its execution.

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
complainant.

The will was purportedly executed and acknowledged before respondent on June 30, 1965.
Complainant, however, pointed out that the residence certificate of the testator noted in the
acknowledgment of the will was dated January 5, 1962. Furthermore, the signature of the testator
was not the same as his signature as donor in a deed of donation (containing his purported genuine
signature). Complainant averred that the signatures of his deceased father in the will and in the deed
of donation were "in any way (sic) entirely and diametrically opposed from (sic) one another in all
angle[s]."

Complainant also questioned the absence of notation of the residence certificates of the purported
witnesses Noynay and Grajo. He alleged that their signatures had likewise been forged and merely
copied from their respective voters’ affidavits.

Complainant further asserted that no copy of such purported will was on file in the archives division
of the Records Management and Archives Office of the National Commission for Culture and the
Arts (NCCA). In this connection, the certification of the chief of the archives division dated
September 19, 1999 stated:

Doc. 14, Page No. 4, Book No. 1, Series of 1965 refers to an AFFIDAVIT executed by BARTOLOME
RAMIREZ on June 30, 1965 and is available in this Office[’s] files.

Respondent in his comment dated July 6, 2001 claimed that the complaint against him contained
false allegations: (1) that complainant was a son of the decedent Vicente Lee, Sr. and (2) that the
will in question was fake and spurious. He alleged that complainant was "not a legitimate son of
Vicente Lee, Sr. and the last will and testament was validly executed and actually notarized by
respondent per affidavit of Gloria Nebato, common-law wife of Vicente Lee, Sr. and corroborated by
the joint affidavit of the children of Vicente Lee, Sr., namely Elena N. Lee and Vicente N. Lee, Jr.
xxx."

The IBP Board of Governors, in its Resolution No. XVII-2006-285 dated May 26, 2006, resolved:
[T]o ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein
made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the
evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering Respondent’s failure to
comply with the laws in the discharge of his function as a notary public, Atty. Regino B. Tambago is
hereby suspended from the practice of law for one year and Respondent’s notarial commission is
Revoked and Disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for two (2) years.
ISSUE:

1. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT is guilty for notarizing a will purportedly executed and

acknowledged before respondent on June 30, 1965 despite that the residence certificate of the
testator noted in the acknowledgment of the will was dated January 5, 1962.

2. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT is respondent liable for violation of his oath as a lawyer and
constituted transgressions of Section 20 (a), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and Canon 1 and Rule
1.01 of the CPR. 

RULING: 

A will is an act whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities prescribed by law, to control to a
certain degree the disposition of his estate, to take effect after his death. A will may either be notarial
or holographic.

The law provides for certain formalities that must be followed in the execution of wills. 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.

A notarial will, as the contested will in this case, is required by law to be subscribed at the end
thereof by the testator himself. In addition, it should be attested and subscribed by three or more
credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.

The will in question was attested by only two witnesses, Noynay and Grajo. On this circumstance
alone, the will must be considered void. This is in consonance with the rule that acts executed
against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself
authorizes their validity.

The Civil Code likewise requires that a will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the
testator and the witnesses. The importance of this requirement is highlighted by the fact that it was
segregated from the other requirements under Article 805 and embodied in a distinct and separate
provision.

An acknowledgment 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. It involves an extra step undertaken whereby
the signatory actually declares to the notary public that the same is his or her own free act and deed.
The acknowledgment 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.

A cursory examination of the acknowledgment of the will in question shows that this particular
requirement was neither strictly nor substantially complied with. For one, there was the conspicuous
absence of a notation of the residence certificates of the notarial witnesses Noynay and Grajo in the
acknowledgment. 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.

As the acknowledging officer of the contested will, respondent was required to faithfully observe the
formalities of a will and those of notarization. As we held in Santiago v. Rafanan:

The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of notaries public. They are required to
certify that the party to every document acknowledged before him had presented the proper
residence certificate (or exemption from the residence tax); and to enter its number, place of issue
and date as part of such certification.
These formalities are mandatory and cannot be disregarded, considering the degree of importance
and evidentiary weight attached to notarized documents. A notary public, especially a lawyer, is
bound to strictly observe these elementary requirements.

1. YES. The Notarial Law then in force required the exhibition of the residence certificate upon
notarization of a document or instrument:

Section 251. Requirement as to notation of payment of [cedula] residence tax. – Every contract,
deed, or other document acknowledged before a notary public shall have certified thereon that the
parties thereto have presented their proper [cedula] residence certificate or are exempt from the
[cedula] residence tax, and there shall be entered by the notary public as a part of such certificate
the number, place of issue, and date of each [cedula] residence certificate as aforesaid.

The importance of such act was further reiterated by Section 6 of the Residence Tax Act which
stated:

When a person liable to the taxes prescribed in this Act acknowledges any document before a
notary public xxx it shall be the duty of such person xxx with whom such transaction is had or
business done, to require the exhibition of the residence certificate showing payment of the
residence taxes by such person xxx.

In the issuance of a residence certificate, the law seeks to establish the true and correct
identity of the person to whom it is issued, as well as the payment of residence taxes for the
current year. By having allowed decedent to exhibit an expired residence certificate,
respondent failed to comply with the requirements of both the old Notarial Law and the
Residence Tax Act. As much could be said of his failure to demand the exhibition of the
residence certificates of Noynay and Grajo.

2. YES. 

Respondent should be faulted for having failed to make the necessary entries pertaining to the will in
his notarial register. The old Notarial Law required the entry of the following matters in the notarial
register, in chronological order:

1. nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him;

2. person executing, swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument;
3. witnesses, if any, to the signature;
4. date of execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the instrument;
5. fees collected by him for his services as notary;
6. give each entry a consecutive number; and
7. if the instrument is a contract, a brief description of the substance of the instrument.
In an effort to prove that he had complied with the above mentioned rule, respondent contended that
he had crossed out a prior entry and entered instead the will of the decedent. As proof, he presented
a photocopy of his notarial register. To reinforce his claim, he presented a photocopy of a
certification stating that the archives division had no copy of the affidavit of Bartolome Ramirez.

A photocopy is a mere secondary evidence. It is not admissible unless it is shown that the original is
unavailable. The proponent must first prove the existence and cause of the unavailability of the
original, otherwise, the evidence presented will not be admitted. Thus, the photocopy of
respondent’s notarial register was not admissible as evidence of the entry of the execution of the will
because it failed to comply with the requirements for the admissibility of secondary evidence.

In the same vein, respondent’s attempt to controvert the certification dated September 21, 1999
must fail. Not only did he present a mere photocopy of the certification dated March 15, 2000; its
contents did not squarely prove the fact of entry of the contested will in his notarial register.

Notaries public must observe with utmost care and utmost fidelity the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties, otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of notarized deeds
will be undermined.

Defects in the observance of the solemnities prescribed by law render the entire will invalid. This
carelessness cannot be taken lightly in view of the importance and delicate nature of a will,
considering that the testator and the witnesses, as in this case, are no longer alive to identify the
instrument and to confirm its contents. Accordingly, respondent must be held accountable for his
acts. The validity of the will was seriously compromised as a consequence of his breach of duty.

In this connection, Section 249 of the old Notarial Law provided:

Grounds for revocation of commission. — The following derelictions of duty on the part of a notary
public shall, in the discretion of the proper judge of first instance, be sufficient ground for the
revocation of his commission: xxx       xxx       xxx

(b) The failure of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register touching his
notarial acts in the manner required by law. xxx       xxx       xxx

(f) The failure of the notary to make the proper notation regarding cedula certificates.

The first and foremost duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines,
uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land. For a lawyer is the servant of the law and
belongs to a profession to which society has entrusted the administration of law and the
dispensation of justice.

While the duty to uphold the Constitution and obey the law is an obligation imposed on every citizen,
a lawyer assumes responsibilities well beyond the basic requirements of good citizenship. As a
servant of the law, a lawyer should moreover make himself an example for others to emulate. Being
a lawyer, he is supposed to be a model in the community in so far as respect for the law is
concerned.

The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. A breach of these conditions justifies
disciplinary action against the erring lawyer. A disciplinary sanction is imposed on a lawyer upon a
finding or acknowledgment that he has engaged in professional misconduct. These sanctions meted
out to errant lawyers include disbarment, suspension and reprimand.
Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. vs. Attys. Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon
A.C. No. 4690 | August 29, 2000

FACTS: 
Attys. Antonio Llorente and Ligaya Salayon were election officers of the COMELEC and held the
position of Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively for the Pasig City Board of Candidates. The
respondents helped conduct and oversee the 1995 elections.

Then Senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. alleged that the respondents tampered with the
votes received by them by either adding more votes for particular candidates in their Statement of
Votes (SoV) or reducing the number of votes of particular candidates in their SoV. Pimentel filed an
administrative complaint for their disbarment.

Respondents argued that the discrepancies were due to honest mistake, oversight and fatigue.
Respondents also argued that the IBP Board of Governors had already exonerated them from any
offense and that the motion for reconsideration filed by Pimentel was not filed on time.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondents are guilty of improper conduct as lawyers.

RULING:

Yes. Respondents do not dispute the fact that massive irregularities attended the canvassing of the
Pasig City election returns. The only explanation they could offer for such irregularities is that the
same could be due to honest mistake, human error, and/or fatigue on the part of the members of the
canvassing committees who prepared the SoVs.

There is a limit, we believe, to what can be construed as an honest mistake or oversight due to
fatigue, in the performance of official duty. The sheer magnitude of the error renders the defense of
honest mistake or oversight due to fatigue, as incredible and simply unacceptable.

Indeed, what is involved here is not just a case of mathematical error in the tabulation of votes per
precinct as reflected in the election returns and the subsequent entry of the erroneous figures in one
or two SoVs but a systematic scheme to pad the votes of certain senatorial candidates at the
expense of the petitioner in complete disregard of the tabulation in the election returns.

A lawyer who holds a government position may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for
misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. However, if the misconduct also
constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyer’s oath or is of such
character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part, such
individual may be disciplined as a member of the bar for such misconduct.

Here, by certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question, respondents committed a breach of
Rule 1.01 of the Code which stipulates that a lawyer shall not engage in “unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.” By express provision of Canon 6, this is made applicable to lawyers in
the government service. In addition, they likewise violated their oath of office as lawyers to “do no
falsehood.”

The Court found the respondents guilty of misconduct and fined them PhP 10,000 each and issued a
stern warning that similar conduct in the future will be severely punished.
Khan, Jr., Vs Simbillo, AC 5299 (August 19, 2003)

Facts:

Respondent Atty. Rizalino Simbillo had his legal services published in the July 5, 2000 issue of the
Philippine Daily Inquirer, which reads “Annulment of Marriage Specialist”. A staff member of the Public
Information Office of the Supreme Court pretended to be an interested party and she spoke to Mrs.
Simbillo.

The latter claimed that her husband was an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a
court decree within four to six months. She also added that her husband charges a fee of P48, 000 for
the said service. Office of the Court Administrator and the Public Information Office revealed that similar
advertisements were published in the August 2000 issues of Manila Bulletin and Philippine Star.

Thus, petitioner Atty. Ismael Khan, Jr., Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information
Office, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Simbillo for violation of the following:

Rule 2.03. –

A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business.

Rule 3.01. –

A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or
legal services.

Rule 138, Sec. 27 of the Rules of Court.

– Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. –  A

member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office,
grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the
admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party
without authority to do so.
This case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and found the respondent guilty.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is guilty of violating Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility as well as Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court?

Held:

Respondent was found guilty and was suspended from the practice of law for a year. The practice of law
is not a business but a public duty. Money will only be a secondary consideration in such profession.

Respondent also referred to himself as an “Annulment of Marriage Specialist” which undermined the
sanctity of marriage and encourage people to go for marriage dissolutions.

This would defeat the purpose of laws protecting marriage bonds. Moreover, there were elements
provided that can distinguish the legal profession from business.

These are the following:

1. A duty of public service

2. A relation as an officer of the court to the administration of justice involving thorough sincerity,
integrity and reliability;
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort
to current business methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing
directly with their clients.
Dacanay vs. Baker & McKenzie [A.C. No. 2131 May 10, 1985]

FACTS:

[R]espondent Vicente A. Torres, using the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie, which contains the
names of the ten lawyers, asked a certain Rosie Clurman for the release of 87 shares of Cathay
Products International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client. Attorney Dacanay, in his reply dated December
7, 1979, denied any liability of Clurman to Gabriel. He requested that he be informed whether the
lawyer of Gabriel is Baker & McKenzie “and if not, what is your purpose in using the letterhead of
another law office.” Not having received any reply, he filed the instant complaint. As admitted by the
respondents in their memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a professional partnership organized in
1949 in Chicago, Illinois with members and associates in 30 cities around the world. Respondents,
aside from being members of the Philippine bar, practicing under the firm name of Guerrero &
Torres, are members or associates of Baker & McKenzie.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Baker & McKenzie, an alien law firm, could practice law in the Philippines.

HELD:

NO. Respondents were enjoined from practicing law under the firm name Baker & McKenzie.

RATIO:

Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138,
Rules of Court).

[R]espondents’ use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constituted a representation that being
associated with the firm they could “render legal services of the highest quality to multinational
business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment”. This was unethical
because Baker & McKenzie was not authorized to practice law here.