GARRIDO vs.

GARRIDO
Facts:
The petitioner, the respondent’s legal wife, filed a complaint-affidavit and a supplemental affidavit
for disbarment against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Romana P. Valencia
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Discipline, charging them with gross
immorality, in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The
complaint arose after the petitioner caught wind through her daughter that her husband was having
an affair with a woman other than his wife and already had a child with her; and the same
information was confirmed when one of her daughters saw that her husband walking in a
Robinsons mall with the other respondent, Atty. Valencia, with their child in tow. First, the
respondents filed a Motion for Suspension of Proceedings in view of the criminal complaint for
concubinage Maelotisea filed against them, and the Petition for Declaration of Nullity (of
marriage) Atty. Garrido filed to nullify his marriage to Maelotisea. The IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline denied this motion for lack of merit. Second, the respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss
the complaints after the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City declared the marriage between Atty.
Garrido and Maelotisea "an absolute nullity." Since Maelotisea was never the legal wife of Atty.
Garrido, the respondents argued that she had no personality to file her complaints against them.
The respondents also alleged that they had not committed any immoral act since they married
when Atty. Garrido was already a widower, and the acts complained of were committed before his
admission to the bar. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline also denied this motion. Third,
Maelotisea filed a motion for the dismissal of the complaints she filed against the respondents,
arguing that she wanted to maintain friendly relations with Atty. Garrido, who is the father of her
six (6) children. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline likewise denied this motion. After a much
further investigation into the matter, the time and effort given yielded results telling her that Atty.
Valencia and her legal husband had been married in Hong Kong. Moreover, on June 1993, her
husband left their conjugal home and joined Atty. Ramona Paguida Valencia at their residence,
and has since failed to render much needed financial support. In their defense, they postulated that
they were not lawyers as of yet when they committed the supposed immorality, so as such, they
were not guilty of a violation of Canon1, Rule 1.01.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Garrido’s and Valencia’s actions constitute a violation of Canon 1, Rule1.01
and thus a good enough cause for their disbarment, despite the offense being supposedly
committed when they were not lawyers.
Held:
Yes. Membership in the Bar is a privilege, and as a privilege bestowed by law through the Supreme
Court, membership in the Bar can be withdrawn where circumstances show the lawyer’s lack of
the essential qualifications required of lawyers, be they academic or moral. In the present case, the
Court had resolved to withdraw this privilege from Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Rowena P.
Valencia for the reason of their blatant violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which commands that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct. Furthermore, The contention of respondent that they were not yet lawyers
when they got married shall not afford them exemption from sanctions; good moral character was
already required as a condition precedent to admission to the Bar. As a lawyer, a person whom the
community looked up to, Atty. Garrido and Valencia were shouldered with the expectation that
they would set a good example in promoting obedience to the Constitution and the laws. When
they violated the law and distorted it to cater to his own personal needs and selfish motives, not
only did their actions discredit the legal profession. Such actions by themselves, without even
including the fact of Garrido’s abandonment of paternal responsibility, to the detriment of his
children by the petitioner; or the fact that Valencia married Garrido despite knowing of his other
marriages to two other women including the petitioner, are clear indications of a lack of moral
values not consistent with the proper conduct of practicing lawyers within the country. As such,
their disbarment is affirmed.

A.C. No. 10782, September 14, 2016

ATTY. DELIO M. ASERON; Complainant
v.
ATTY. JOSE A. DIÑO, JR.; Respondent
FACTS:
On January 25, 2009, the complainant figured in a vehicular accident along Commonwealth
Avenue, Quezon City with a bus operated by Nova Auto Transport, Inc. (NATI) which, at that
time,was driven by Jerry Garcia.Consequently, the complainant filed the following cases: (i) a
criminal case against Garcia forReckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property with
Serious Physical Injuries docketed asCriminal Case No. 025403 before the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Quezon City, Branch 36; (ii) a civilcase for Damages against Garcia and NATI docketed
as Ci Case No. Q-09-64558 before the RegionalTrial Court of Quezon City, Branch 105. In both
instances, the respondent is the counsel of record forGarcia and NATI.
The complainant, however, claimed that the respondent's reply letter dated March 20, 2009,
wascouched in abusive, disrespectful language, malicious and unfounded accusations and
besmirched hisreputationThe complainant asseverated that the respondent made a mockery of the
judicial system byemploying unwarranted dilatory tactics in Criminal Case No. 025403 and Civil
Case No. Q-09-64558by filing numerous motions that were eventually denied by the courts for
lack of merit.
Moreover, the complainant alleged that the respondent committed malpractice by misleading the
court when he admitted ownership of the passenger bus with body number 054 and plate number
TWC 653 as that of NATI in one pleading and denying it in another.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is sufficient evidence on record to hold the respondent liable for violation of
the CPR.
HELD:
As an officer of the court, the respondent could have aired his charge against the complainant in
a proper forum and without using offensive and abusive language. He should refrain from being
tempted by the adversarial nature of our legal system to use strong language in pursuit of his duty
to advance the interest of his client.

Indeed, there is a strong showing that the Respondent had failed to conduct himself toward his
fellow lawyer with that courtesy that all have the right to expect. When he mentioned that
Complainant had used his influence in persuading the fiscal, he used a language which was
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. He showed ill-feelings toward Complainant and allowed
such feeling to influence him in his conduct and demeanor towards the latter.

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

ATTY. YUMUL-ESPINA V ATTY TABAQUERO
Facts:
Shirley Atkinson is married to Derik Atkinson, a British Citizen. She purchased two properties
(covered by TCT (Transfer Certificate of Title) No. 142730 and TCT No. 151683), both of which
she intended to mortgage. In order to facilitate the mortgage on TCT No. 142730, Derek allegedly
executed an Affidavit of Waiver of Rights which he subscribed before complainant (as notary
public) on October 25, 1999. Thus, Shirley was able to mortgage TCT No. 142730 without the
signature of marital consent of Derek.
Derek however, claims that he could not have executed the Affidavit of Waver of Rights because
he was out of the country on October 25, 1999, and therefore, could not have personally appeared
before complainant on that date. Thus, he filed falsification cases against complainant and Shirley,
respectively.
During the pendency of these criminal cases, complainant filed a complaint-affidavit before the
IBP Commissioner complainant executed and filed an affidavit of Desistance. Respondent also
filed and executed his Affidavit of Desistance/Withdrawal. Thus, investigating Commissioner
Eduardo R. Robles, in his Report and Recommendation, recommended that the complaint and
counter-complaint be dismissed upon the “prodding of the parties.” The IBP Board issued
Resolution adopting and approving the recommendation to dismiss the complaint and counter-
complaint against the parties.
Issue:
W/O the IBP correctly held to adopt the recommendation of the investigation commissioner.
Held/Ruling:
The SC did not agree with the ruling of the IBP Board. The cases should not have been dismissed
on the basis of the affidavit of desistance. Disbarment proceedings are sui generis. Their main
purpose is mainly to determine the fitness of a lawyer to continue acting as an officer of the court
and as participant in the dispensation of justice. Hence, the underlying motives of the complainant
are unimportant and of the little relevance.
The Court reiterates that it consistently looked with disfavor upon affidavits of desistance filed in
disbarment proceedings.
We find respondent not guilty of violations of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Complainant cannot argue that the intention behind the falsification cases filed by respondent
against her and Shirley, respectively, was to circumvent the constitutional prohibition on foreign
ownership of lands in the Philippines. In these cases, Derek did not seek that the ownership of the
lands be conveyed to him. The basis of these criminal complaints is complainant’s act of making
it appear that Derek was present, or participated in the execution of the affidavits. The
constitutional prohibition is therefore irrelevant in these criminal complaints.
However, the counter-complaint against complainant, for violation of the Notarial Law, is
meritorious. The evidence on record sufficiently showed that Derek could not have appeared
before complainant on October 25, 1999, the day the Affidavit of Waiver was notarized.

A.C. No. 9459, January 07, 2020

RENE J. HIERRO, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY.
PLARIDEL C. NAVA II, RESPONDENT.
FACTS:
Hierro filed a letter-complaint for disbarment charging Atty. Nava of violating Canons 7.03, 15.03,
17, 21.01 and 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility through the following acts: 1. Conflict
of interest on the part of Atty. Nava for acting as counsel for Annalyn Hierro (Annalyn), Hierro's
spouse, in her petition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary protection order (TPO)8 against
Hierro before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City when Hierro used to be a client of
Atty. Nava;- MAIN TOPIC
2. Grossly immoral conduct for engaging in adulterous relations with Annalyn and fathering a
child with her;and
3. Dereliction of duty for abandoning Hierro as the latter's counsel in a case for Grave Threats with
the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, docketed as Criminal Case No. S-799-09 after the
filing of the petition which resulted to Hierro's conviction.
Atty. Nava vehemently denied the allegations against him. On the allegation of (1) conflict of
interest, Atty. Nava contends that he was compelled to sign the petition with prayer for the issuance
of a TPO9 out of exigency and for humanitarian consideration since prompt and responsive action
is needed to preserve the life of Annalyn and her three young daughters:
Moreover, Atty. Nava claims that his engagement was limited only to the filing of the petition and
securing a TPO from the court. As soon as the TPO was issued, he withdrew as counsel for
Annalyn. Furthermore, there was no confidential information in the filing of the civil action
because although the narration of all criminal cases involving Hierro was included in the petition
for the issuance of a TPO, it is nonetheless based on public records and was not revealed by Hierro
to Atty. Nava in confidence. Additionally, Atty. Nava avers that such disclosure is not prejudicial
to the case of Hierro and is therefore not covered by the prohibition of Canon 21.01 on conflict of
interest (2) As to the allegation of grossly immoral conduct, Atty. Nava said that such allegation
is a mere afterthought and has no factual basis. As a matter of fact, the complaint for adultery filed
against him was dismissed by the investigating prosecutor as the latter found the case to be without
merit (3) Regarding the allegation of abandonment of Hierro in his Grave Threats case which led
to his conviction, Atty. Nava vehemently denied such allegation saying it was Hierro who
terminated his services. He also pointed out that the said case was promulgated on September 2,
2011, way before the filing of the civil case of Annalyn on October 21, 2011. This belies the claim
of Hierro that Atty. Nava abandoned him after the filing of the petition against him. Besides, to
negate the allegation of abandonment, Atty. Nava claims that he was the one who presented Hierro
to the witness stand and was the one who conducted the direct examination until his full testimony
was terminated.

IBP recommended that Atty. Nava be disbarred and his name be stricken off from the Roll of
Attorneys.
ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Nava violated Canon 15.03 of the
Rules of Court: Yes
RULING:
Canon 15.03 demands that: "A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
SC adopt the said recommendation.
Atty. Nava was the lawyer of Hierro in seven of the eight cases (estafa, falsification, perjury). As
defense counsel for Hierro, Atty. Nava advocates the innocence of his client in these cases.
However, in citing these as part of the petition for the issuance of a TPO, in effect, he is implying
that there is merit in these cases which is diametrically opposed to his position as defense counsel
of Hierro. This clearly violates the rule against conflict of interest. We are not convinced by Atty.
Nava's defense that he accepted the engagement by Annalyn because of emergency, exigency and
on temporary capacity only. As a lawyer, he should have used better judgment to foresee the
possibility of conflict of interest as that is what the society expects of him. Besides, even if the
filing of the TPO is an emergency which requires a swift response, he could have easily
recommended another competent lawyer in his place.

MAIN TOPIC
--------------------------------------------------------
As for the gross immorality charge against Atty. Nava, a thorough review of the records would
show that there is merit to the said charge. In order to exculpate himself from any liability, he
highlights the dismissal of the complaint for adultery against him and Annalyn by the Office of
the Prosecutor. However, it must be noted that administrative cases are sui generis and are not
affected by the result of any civil or criminal case. They do not involve a trial of an action or a
suit, being neither purely civil nor purely criminal,19 but rather involve investigations by the Court
into the conduct of its officers.20 Therefore, the instant case, being administrative in nature, may
proceed independently and is not bound by the outcome of any criminal and civil proceeding.
To prove the charge of grossly immoral conduct, Annalyn admitted to maintaining adulterous
relations with Atty. Nava. It must be emphasized that Annalyn's admission is not the only piece of
evidence pointing to such fact. In her judicial affidavit, Atty. Nava's wife, Cecilia Lim-Nava, stated
under oath that Atty. Nava admitted having an affair with Annalyn and that he fathered a child
with her. Furthermore, the record of the criminal proceedings for the crime of adultery included
the affidavits of Mercedes Nava (Mercedes) and Joy Legarda who confirmed the extramarital affair
of Atty. Nava and Annalyn. The Court has pointed out that when the integrity or morality of a
member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he/she denies the charge, for he/she must
meet the issue and overcome the evidence presented on the charge. He/she must present proof that
he/she still maintains the degree of integrity and morality expected of him/her at all times.24 Atty.
Nava failed in this regard. Atty. Nava should have desisted from the illicit relationship with
Annalyn not only for the reason that she is married, but also because her husband was his client.
His act of involving himself in sexual relations with the wife of his client definitely transgressed
the clearly-defined bounds of decency and morality. These circumstances were more than
sufficient to establish the charge of gross immorality.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds and declares respondent Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II GUILTY of
conflict of interest and gross immorality in violation of Rule15.03 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, respectively; DISBARS him from the practice of law effective upon
receipt of this Decision; and ORDERS his name be stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.

Nunez v Ricafort (382 SCRA 381)

Facts:
An administrative complaint was by Soledad Nuñez, a septuagenarian represented by her attorney-
in-fact Ananias B. Co, Jr., seeking the disbarment of Atty. Romulo Ricafort on the ground of grave
misconduct.
Sometime in October 1982, Soledad authorized Atty. Ricafort to sell her two parcels of land
located in Legazpi City for P40,000. She agreed to the lawyer 10% of the price as commission.
Atty. Ricafort succeeded in selling the lots, but despite Soledad’s repeated demands, he did not
turn over the proceeds of the sale. This forced Soledad to file an action for a sum of money before
the RTC, Quezon City.
The court rendered its decision ordering the Atty. to pay Soledad the sum of P16,000 as principal
obligation, with at the legal rate from the date of the commencement of the action.
An appeal to the CA was made. However, the appeal was dismissed for failure to pay the required
docket fee within the reglementary period despite notice.
Soledad filed a motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution. But it appears that only a
partial satisfaction of the P16,000 judgment was made, leaving P13,800 unsatisfied. In payment
for the latter, Atty. issued four postdated checks but was dishonored because the account against
which they were drawn was closed.
Hence, Soledad was forced to file four criminal complaints for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 before the
MTC, Quezon City.
In a joint affidavit, Atty. Ricafort admitted having drawn and issued said four postdated checks in
favor of Soledad. Allegedly believing in good faith that said checks had already been encashed by
Soledad, he subsequently closed his checking account in China Banking Corporation, Legazpi
City, from which said four checks were drawn. He was not notified that the checks were
dishonored. Had he been notified, he would have made the necessary arrangements with the bank.
The court required Atty. to comment on the complaint. But he never did despite the favorable
action on his three motions for extension of time to file the comment. His failure to do so compelled
Soledad to file a motion to cite Atty. in contempt on the ground that his strategy to file piecemeal
motions for extension of time to submit the comment “smacks of a delaying tactic scheme that is
unworthy of a member of the bar and a law dean.”
The IBP findings show that the Atty. had no intention to “honor” the money judgment against him.
It recommended that Atty. be declared “guilty of misconduct in his dealings with complainant”
and be suspended from the practice of law for at least one year and pay the amount of the checks
issued to the complainant.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Romulo Ricafort is guilty of grave misconduct in his dealings with
complainant.
Held:
YES. There is a blatant violation of Rule 1:01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides:
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct.
By violating Rule 1:01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. diminished
public confidence in the law and the lawyers. Instead of promoting such confidence and respect,
he miserably failed to live up to the standards of the legal profession.
His act of issuing bad checks in satisfaction of the alias writ of execution for money judgment
rendered by the trial court was a clear attempt to defeat the ends of justice. His failure to make
good the checks despite demands and the criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 showed his
continued defiance of judicial processes, which he, as an officer of the court, was under continuing
duty to uphold.
To further demonstrate his very low regard for the courts and judicial processes, he even had the
temerity of making a mockery of the court’s generosity to him. We granted his three motions for
extension of time to file his comment on the complaint in this case. Yet, not only did he fail to file
the comment, he as well did not even bother to explain such failure notwithstanding our resolution
declaring him as having waived the filing of the comment. To the SC, Atty. openly showed a high
degree of irresponsibility amounting to willful disobedience to its lawful orders.
Atty. Ricafort then knowingly and willfully violated Rules 12.04 and 12:03 of Canon 12 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility stating that:
Lawyers should avoid any action that would unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a
judgment or misuse court processes; and that lawyers, after obtaining extensions of time to file
pleadings, memoranda or briefs, should not let the period lapse without submitting the same or
offering an explanation for their failure to do so.
The SC indefinitely suspended Atty. Ricafort from the practice of law and directed to pay Soledad
P13,800.

[A.C. No. 8253(Formerly CBD Case No. 03-1067), March 15, 2011] ERLINDA R. TAROG,
COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROMULO L. RICAFORT, RESPONDENT.

FACTS: 1992, the Tarogs sought the advice of Atty. Jaime L. Miralles regarding their
bankforeclosed property located in the Bicol Region. Atty. Miralles advised them to engage a
Bicol-based attorney for that purpose, so they engaged Atty. Ricafort as their attorney. Atty.
Ricafort required the Tarogs to pay P7,000.00 as filing fee, which they gave to him. He explained
the importance of depositing P65,000.00 in court to counter the P60,000.00 deposited by Antonio
Tee, the buyer of the foreclosed property. November 7, 1992, the Tarogs delivered the P65,000.00
to Atty. Ricafort. After some time, the Tarogs visited Atty. Ricafort to verify the status of the
consignation. Atty. Ricafort informed them that he had not deposited the amount in court, but in
his own account. He promised to return the money, plus interest. Despite several inquiries about
when the amount would be returned, however, the Tarogs received mere assurances from Atty.
Ricafort that the money was in good hands. When it became apparent to the Tarogs that Atty.
Ricafort would not make good his promise of returning the P65,000.00, plus interest, Arnulfo
demanded by his letter dated December 3, 2002 that Atty. Ricafort return the P65,000.00, plus
interest, and the P15,000.00 paid for the filing of the memorandum. Yet, they did not receive any
reply from Atty. Ricafort. Atty. Ricafort denied that the P65,000.00 was intended to be deposited
in court, insisting that the amount was payment for his legal services under a "package deal". He
claimed that the fees were agreed upon after considering the value of the property, his skill and
experience as a lawyer, the labor, time, and trouble involved, and his professional character and
social standing; that at the time he delivered the check, Arnulfo read, understood, and agreed to
the contents of the complaint, which did not mention anything about any consignation; and that
Arnulfo, being a retired school principal, was a learned person who would not have easily fallen
for any scheme like the one they depicted against him. ISSUE: Is Atty. Romulo Ricafort guilty of
grave misconduct in his dealings with the Tarogs?

RULING: Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Commissioner Reyes, because they were
supported by substantial evidence. However, imposed the penalty of disbarment instead of the
recommended penalty of indefinite suspension, considering that Atty. Ricafort committed a very
serious offense that was aggravated by his having been previously administratively sanctioned for
a similar offense on the occasion of which he was warned against committing a similar offense.
Atty. Ricafort was required to hold in trust any money and property of his clients that came into
his possession, and he needed to be always mindful of the trust and confidence his clients reposed
in him. Thus, having obtained the funds from the Tarogs in the course of his professional
employment, he had the obligation to deliver such funds to his clients (a) when they became due,
or (b) upon demand. Atty. Ricafort's act of obtaining P65,000.00 and P15,000.00 from the Tarogs
under the respective pretexts that the amount would be deposited in court and that he would prepare
and file the memorandum for the Tarogs erected a responsibility to account for and to use the
amounts in accordance with the particular purposes intended. For him to deposit the amount of
P65,000.00 in his personal account without the consent of the Tarogs and not return it upon
demand, and for him to fail to file the memorandum and yet not return the amount of P15,000.00
upon demand constituted a serious breach of his fiduciary duties as their attorney. He reneged on
his duty to render an accounting to his clients showing that he had spent the amounts for the
particular purposes intended. He was thereby presumed to have misappropriated the moneys for
his own use to the prejudice of his clients and in violation of the clients' trust reposed in him. He
could not escape liability, for upon failing to use the moneys for the purposes intended, he should
have immediately returned the moneys to his clients. Atty. Ricafort's plain abuse of the confidence
reposed in him by his clients rendered him liable for violation of Canon 16, particularly Rule 16.01,
supra, and Canon 17, all of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His acts and actuations
constituted a gross violation of general morality and of professional ethics that impaired public
confidence in the legal profession and deserved punishment.
Adelita R Llunar vs Atty Romulo Ricafort AC No. 6484 - June 16 2015
The Facts:
Sometime in the year 2000 Herein petitioner, Adelita engaged the services of Atty. Romulo
Ricafort for the recovery of a parcel of land owned by the Banez family but which was fraudulently
registered to a different name. The lot was the subject of foreclosure proceedings, hence, Adelita
gave to Atty. Ricafort the amount of P95,000.00 (partial redemption fee, as filing fees, and
attorneys fees). Three years later, complainant learned that Atty. Ricafort did not file any case with
the RTC of Legazpi City, hence, she demanded the return of P95,000.00. The latter averred that
there was a complaint for annulment of title filed against Ard Cervantes, though not him, but by
another lawyer. Thus, he was willing to refund the amount less the P50,000.00 which he gave to
Atty. Abitria. Adelita refused to recognize the case filed by Atty. Abitria, insisting she did not hire
him as counsel; also, the complaint was filed three years late and the property cannot be redeemed
from the bank anymore. She also learned that Atty. Ricafort was indefinitely suspended from the
practice of law since 2002 in A.C. No. 5054, thus she suspected it was the reason why another
lawyer filed the case.
The Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Ricafort should be held administratively liable.
The Ruling:
The respondent is found guilty of Grave Misconduct in his dealings with his client and in engaging
in the practice of law while under indefinite suspension, and thus impose upon him the ultimate
penalty of DISBARMENT.
The respondent in this case committed several infractions making him liable for grave misconduct.
First, the respondent did not exert due diligence in handling the complainant’s case. He failed to
act promptly in redeeming the complainant’s property within the period of redemption. What is
worse is the delay of three years before a complaint to recover the property was actually filed in
court. The respondent clearly dilly-dallied on the complainant’s case and wasted precious time and
opportunity that were then readily available to recover the complainant’s property. Under these
facts, the respondent violated Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which
states that “a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.”
Second, the respondent failed to return, upon demand, the amounts given to him by the
complainant for handling the latter’s case. On three separate occasions, the respondent received
from the complainant the amounts of P19,000.00, P70,000.00, and P6,500.00 for purposes of
redeeming the mortgaged property from the bank and filing the necessary civil case/s against Ard
Cervantes. The complainant approached the respondent several times thereafter to follow up on
the case/s to be filed supposedly by the respondent who, in turn, reassured her that actions on her
case had been taken.
After the complainant discovered three years later that the respondent had not filed any case in
court, she demanded that the respondent return the amount of P95,000.00, but her demand was left
unheeded. The respondent later promised to pay her, but until now, no payment of any amount has
been made. These facts confirm that the respondent violated Canon 16 of the CPR, which mandates
every lawyer to “hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession” and “to account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.”
In addition, a lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds or property he holds for his client
gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated these funds or property for his own use to
the prejudice of, and in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. 3
Third, the respondent committed dishonesty by not being forthright with the complainant that he
was under indefinite suspension from the practice of law. The respondent should have disclosed
this fact at the time he was approached by the complainant for his services. Canon 15 of the CPR
states that “a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions
with his clients.” The respondent lacked the candor expected of him as a member of the Bar when
he accepted the complainant’s case despite knowing that he could not and should not practice law.
Lastly, the respondent was effectively in the practice of law despite the indefinite suspension
imposed on him. This infraction infinitely aggravates the offenses he committed. Based on the
above facts alone, the penalty of suspension for five (5) years from the practice of law would have
been justified, but the respondent is not an ordinary violator of the profession’s ethical rules; he is
a repeat violator of these rules.

SPOUSES PEPITO AND PRESCILA FRIAS vs. ATTY. NELLY E. ABAOA.C. No. 12467
[Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5072],
April 10, 2019PERALTA, J.:
Facts:
Spouses Frias narrated that in the early 1900s their daughter, Susana Frias, was enduring heart
disease. They decided to bring Susana to Davao for her treatment. Because of financial difficulties,
they asked Spouses Arbiz if they can lend money for transportation and medical expenses. Spouses
Arbiz agreed to lend money but demanded that it be secured with the Spouses Frias’ property in
Capiz for twenty years. Because the Spouses Frias were unsure of their capacity to pay back the
loan in time, and were afraid they might lose the subject property if they failed to settle the loan,
they allegedly offered instead to lease the property to the Spouses Arbiz to which the latter agreed.
These agreements, however, were not put into writing as it was the usual practice those days.
Spouses Frias left for South Cotobato but despite all medical treatments their daughter died in
2000. Sometime in 2000, they learned that Spouses Arbiz died and that the heirs, Spouses Escutin,
took possession of the subject property. After the expiration of the lease contract, Spouses Frias
decided to return to Capiz and reclaim the subject property. However, the Spouses Escutin refused
to turnover the possession of the subject property. Thus, the Spouses Frias filed a complaint for
ejectment against the Spouses Escutin.
In their Answer, the Spouses Escutin argued that the subject property was sold to their parents by
the Spouses Frias. They attached a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 11, 1995
purportedly executed by complainants in favor of the parents of the Spouses Escutin. The Deed of
Absolute Sale was notarized by herein respondent Atty. Abao on July 11, 1995. However, the
Spouses Frias insisted that it was impossible for them to execute any document of conveyance of
the said parcel of land to anybody because at that time they already left for Mindanao and never
came back to Dao, Capiz, until April 4, 2015.
Spouses Frias found that the documents does not exist and that respondent Atty. Abao was never
commissioned as Notary Public in the City of Roxas, Province of Capiz for the year 1995 and had
no notarial files on record for the same year. Thus this instant administrative complaint. In her
Answer respondent admitted that she notarized the subject Deed of Absolute Sale without the
necessary notarial commission to do so. She offered no valid excuse for her unauthorized notarial
act. She denied having notarized a fictitious deed of absolute sale, and maintained that
complainants personally appeared and signed the subject Deed of Absolute Sale before her.
The IBP-CBD recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 6months,
and that if she is presently commissioned as notary public, she be disqualified from being
commissioned as notary public for 2 years. Further, for executing an untruthful judicial affidavit
and testifying thereon, the IBP-CBD, likewise, recommended a penalty of suspension from the
practice of law 1 year.
Issue:
Whether respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Ruling:
Yes
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. 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.
In the present case, it is undisputable that Atty. Abao performed notarial acts on the subject deed
of absolute sale knowing fully well that; she was without a valid notarial commission. Her lack of
notarial commission at the time of the unauthorized notarization was likewise sufficiently
established by the Certification issued by Atty. Jelou F. Almalbis-Laguna, Clerk of Court VI of
the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, 6th Judicial Region, Roxas City in the
territory where Atty. Abao performed the unauthorized notarial act. Clearly, Atty. Abao could not
perform notarial functions inDao, Capiz, since she was not commissioned in the places to perform
such act in the year 1995.
Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a person commissioned as a 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. Commission either means the grant of authority to perform notarial or the written evidence
of authority. Without a commission, a lawyer is unauthorized to perform any of the notarial acts.
Clearly, for misrepresenting in the subject Deed of Absolute Sale that she was a notary public for
and in Dao, Capiz, when in fact she was not, Atty. Abao further committed a form of falsehood
which is undoubtedly anathema to the lawyer's oath. Atty. Abao's misdeeds run afoul of her duties
and responsibilities, both as a lawyer and a notary public.
By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission from the court, Atty. Abao violated
not only her 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.
In the case of Nunga v. Atty. Viray,17 the Court appropriately held that where the notarization of
a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or
commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action. For one, performing a
notarial [act] without such commission is a violation of the lawyer's oath to obey the laws, more
specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly commissioned when
he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the
lawyer's oath similarly proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule
1.01 of Canon 1of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: "A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."

A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC January 21, 2015

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 toperform notarial commission within the City of Manila.
The third letter-complaint8 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 toconduct 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 thathe be fined in the amount
of Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00).
The Court agrees with the findingsof 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 officeof 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 inany
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.1âwphi1 Itis 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
tofull faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe withutmost
care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.
By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission from the court, Atty. Siapno
violated notonly 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 dignityof 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 RTC Manila 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.
Let copies of this decision be furnished all the courts of the land through the Office of the Court
Administrator, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant, and be
recorded in the personal files of the respondent.
With respect to the complaints against Atty. Pedro L. Santos and a certain Atty. Evelyn, the Clerk
of Court is ordered to RE-DOCKET them as separate administrative cases. The Executive Judge
of the Regional Trial Court, Manila, is ordered to conduct a formal investigation on the matter and
to submit his Report and Recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of a copy of this
decision.
SO ORDERED.

[A.C. No. 10592. April 3, 2019.]

NAPOLEON R. AGATON, Complainant, v. ATTY. LUCAS V. SUGUI, Respondent
.REYES, J., JR., J.
FACTS:
Sometime in April 2011, Atty. Sugui notarized an Affidavit of a certain Luz Rollon. However,
Agaton claims that Luz Rollon never appeared before Atty. Sugui to swear to the Subject Affidavit,
which is shown by the fact that above the name Luz Rollon was written “by: A.S. Rollon”.
Moreover, it appears that a Community Tax Certificate (CTC)was presented to Atty. Sugui and
that the details of the same were not indicated in the Subject Affidavit. Agaton further claims that
Luz Rollon was out of the country from February 2011 to December 2011 certified by the Bureau
of Immigration, making it impossible for her to have personally appeared before Atty. Sugui in
August 2011.
For his defense, Atty. Sugui claimed to have been burdened by numerous documents for signature
at the time he personally notarized the Subject Affidavit. Likewise, he failed to notice the word
"by" next to the signature of the person appearing before him, who in turn presented an
"identification card" as proof of identity. Finally, Atty. Sugui posits thathe acted in good faith and
that the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official functions had not been
overturned by the evidence of Agaton.
The Court referred the case to the IBP. The IBP Commissioner recommended that his notarial
commission be revoked and disqualified from appointment for 2 years and suspended from the
practice of law for 6 months for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The Commissioner
said that he cannot use good faith as an excuse from violating the 2004 Notarial Rules; that he no
longer enjoyed the presumption of regularity as the Subject Affidavit was improperly notarized in
the first place.
The IBP Board adopted the findings of the IBP Commissioner but removed thesuspension from
the practice of law.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Sugui is administratively liable for violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules.
HELD: Yes. Atty. Sugui is administratively liable for violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules. The
Court held that his carelessness is unacceptable. His argument that he was burdened by numerous
documents awaiting his signature and that there were a number of persons waiting in line to have
their documents notarized must fail.
Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Notarial Rules clearly provides:
SEC. 2. Prohibitions. -xxx
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument
or document---
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public
through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
Here, it was determined by the IBP that the Subject Affidavit was indeed notarized by Atty. Sugui
without the personal appearance of the supposed affiant, Luz Rollon. This fact was not denied by
Atty. Sugui.
Moreover, the jurat of the Subject Affidavit was; based on a mere CTC, which is not among those
considered competent evidence of identity under the 2004 Notarial Rules. In the case of Heir of
Unite v. Guzman, the Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for his act of
notarizing a document using only a CTC as evidence of identity.
Time and again, the Court has held that notarization is not a purposeless ministerial act; by
converting an otherwise private instrument into a public one, notarization is imbued with public
interest and therefore authorized officers are bound to observe utmost diligence in the performance
of their duties as such. Based on the established facts, it is therefore clear that Atty. Sugui is liable
for violating the mandatory provisions of the2004 Notarial Rules.
The Court REINSTATED the recommendation by the IBP Commissioner. Atty. Sugui is
SUSPENDED from his practice of law for 6 months. His notarial commission is REVOKED and
DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for 2 years.