CASES IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JOAN B. BUENO

ADELIA V. QUIACHON vs. ATTY. JOSEPH ADORA. RAMOS, A.C. NO.

9317, JUNE 4, 2014
(FORMERLY CBD CASE NO. 12-3615)
FACTS:
This is a disbarment case filed by Adelia V. Quiachon (complainant), against
her lawyer, Atty. Joseph Ador A. Ramos (respondent). The latter represented
complainant, who was then the plaintiff in a labor case filed before the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and in a special proceeding
case filed before the Regional Trial Court (R TC). Complainant charges
respondent with gross negligence and deceit in violation of Canon Rules
18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) granted complainant a favorable decision on 26
November 2007. Upon appeal, it was reversed and set aside by the NLRC in
its Decision dated 25 July 2008. 3 On 24 October 2008, the NLRC also denied
the Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent on complainant's behalf.
A Petition for Certiorari was filed before the Court of Appeals (CA), but it
affirmed the NLRC's reversal of the LA's Decision. The Notice of the CA
Decision was received by respondent on 23 November 2010.
After the Petition was filed before the CA, complainant would always ask
respondent about the status of her case. The latter always told her that there
was no decision yet. Sometime in August 2011, while complainant was in
respondents office waiting for him to arrive, she noticed a mailman
delivering an envelope with the title of her labor case printed thereon.
Complainant asked the secretary of respondent to open the envelope and
was surprised to discover that it contained the Entry of Judgment of the CAs
Decision. Thereafter, complainant tried repeatedly to contact respondent, but
to no avail. When she finally got to talk to him, respondent assured her that
"it was alright" as they still had six months to appeal the case to the
Supreme Court. After that final meeting, no updates on the labor case were
ever communicated to complainant.
With respect to the special proceeding case, the RTC of Roxas City dismissed
it for lack of jurisdiction. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed, but it was
also denied. Once again, respondent did nothing to reverse the RTC Decision.
Consequently, the Entry of Judgment was received on 28 October 2008.

CASES IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JOAN B. BUENO

On 28 November 2011, complainant

Complaint5 against respondent.

filed

the

instant

disbarment

In his Comment, respondent averred that complainant was informed of the

status of the case. He claimed that he had told complainant that he "cannot
cite any error of law or abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of
Appeals decision that necessitates a Petition for Review with the Supreme
Court;" thus, he supposedly advised her to "respect the decision of the Court
of Appeals." Respondent prayed that a Decision be rendered dismissing the
instant disbarment Complaint for lack of merit. During the pendency of the
proceedings, complainant withdrew the disbarment case
ISSUE:
Whether or not the withdrawal of a disbarment case against a lawyer will
terminate or abate the jurisdiction of the IBP and of this Court to continue an
administrative proceeding against a lawyer-respondent as a member of the
Philippine Bar?

HELD:
The court said no.
The Supreme Court held that the withdrawal of a disbarment case against a
lawyer does not terminate or abate the jurisdiction of the IBP and of this
Court to continue an administrative proceeding against a lawyer-respondent
as a member of the Philippine Bar. The complainant in a disbarment case is
not a direct party to the case, but a witness who brought the matter to the
attention of the Court. In this case, Atty. Ramos violated Canon Rules 18.03
and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thus, the appropriate
penalty should be imposed despite the desistance of complainant or the
withdrawal of the charges.

CASES IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JOAN B. BUENO

CASES IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JOAN B. BUENO

ATTY. ALAN F. PAGUIA V. ATTY. MANUEL T. MOLINA, A.C. NO. 9881,

JUNE 4, 2014.

FACTS:
The case involves a conflict between neighbors in a four-unit compound
named "Times Square" at Times Street, Quezon City. The neighbors are the
following: 1) Mr. And Mrs. Gregorio M. Abreu, clients of Atty. Paguia; 2) Mr.
And Mrs. Wilson Lim, clients of respondent Molina; 3) Dr. and Mrs. Eduardo
Yap; and Dr. Belinda San Juan.

The clients of Atty. Molina entered into a contract with the other unit owners
save for Mr. Abreu. The agreement, covered by a document titled "Times
Square Preamble," establishes a set of internal rules for the neighbors on
matters such as the use of the common right of way to the exit gate,
assignment of parking areas, and security. Mr. Abreu, the client of
complainant, Atty. Paguia, was not a party to the contract since the former
did not agree with the terms concerning the parking arrangements.
On 4 February 2010, Atty. Paguia filed a Complaint for Dishonesty with the
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline against Atty. Molina for allegedly giving
legal advice to the latters clients to the effect that the Times Square
Preamble was binding on Mr. Abreu, who was never a party to the contract.

In his Answer, Atty. Molina downplayed the case as a petty quarrel among
neighbors. He maintained that the Times Square Preamble was entered into
for purposes of maintaining order in the residential compound. All
homeowners, except Mr. Abreu, signed the document.

CASES IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JOAN B. BUENO

Respondent further stated in his Answer that Mr. and Mrs. Gregorio Abreu
filed two cases against his clients, Mr. And Mrs. William Lim, on the belief
that Mr. Abreu was not bound by the Times Square Preamble. The first case,
was filed with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), which
was an action to declare the Times Square Preamble invalid. The second suit
was an action for declaratory relief. Both cases, according to respondent,
were dismissed.
Respondent further claimed that another case had been filed in court, this
time by his client, the Lims. They were prompted to file a suit since Mr. Abreu
had allegedly taken matters into his own hands by placing two vehicles
directly in front of the gate of the Lims, thus blocking the latters egress to
Times Street. The Lims filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 96, Quezon
City, a Complaint for Injunction and Damages, coupled with a prayer for the
immediate issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary
Injunction, which was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-08-63579. According to
respondent, the RTC granted the relief prayed for in an Order dated 12
December 2008

ISSUE:
Whether or not an administrative complaint for dishonesty against Atty.
Molina will prosper?

HELD:
The Supreme Court in dismissing the complaint held that when it comes to
administrative cases against lawyers, two things are to be considered:
quantum of proof, which requires clearly preponderant evidence; and burden
of proof, which is on the complainant. Here, the complaint was without
factual basis. The allegation of giving legal advice was not substantiated in
this case, either in the complaint or in the corresponding hearings. Bare
allegations are not proof. Even if Atty. Molina did provide his clients legal
advice, he still cannot be held administratively liable without any showing
that his act was attended with bad faith or malice. The default rule is
presumption of good faith

CASES IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JOAN B. BUENO

CASES IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JOAN B. BUENO

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. SARAH P. AMPONG,

ETC., A.M. NO. P-13-3132, JUNE 4, 2014.

FACTS:
Sometime in August 1994, the CSC instituted an administrative case against
Ampong for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the
Best Interest of the Service for having impersonated or taken the November
1991 Civil Service Eligibility Examination for Teachers on behalf of one Evelyn
B. Junio-Decir (Decir). On March 21, 1996, after Ampong herself admitted to

CASES IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JOAN B. BUENO

having committed the charges against her, the CSC rendered a resolution
dismissing her from service, imposing all accessory penalties attendant to
such dismissal, and revoking her Professional Board Examination for Teachers
(PBET) rating. Ampong moved for reconsideration on the ground that when
the said administrative case was filed, she was already appointed to the
judiciary; as such, she posited that the CSC no longer had any jurisdiction
over her. Ampongs motion was later denied, thus, prompting her to file a
petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA).
On November 30, 2004, the CA denied Ampongs petition and affirmed her
dismissal from service on the ground that she never raised the issue of
jurisdiction until after the CSC ruled against her and, thus, she is estopped
from assailing the same.5 Similarly, on August 26, 2008, the Court En Banc
denied her petition for review on certiorari and, thus, affirmed her dismissal
from service in G.R. No. 167916, entitled "Sarah P. Ampong v. Civil Service
Commission, CSC-Regional Office No. 11"6 (August 26, 2008 Decision).
Notwithstanding said Decision, the Financial Management Office (FMO) of the
OCA, which did not receive any official directive regarding Ampongs
dismissal, continued to release her salaries and allowances. However, in view
of Judge Infantes letter notifying the OCA of such situation, the FMO issued a
Memorandum7 dated September 7, 2011 informing the OCA that starting
June 2011, it had started to withhold Ampongs salaries and allowances.8
In her Comment dated September 25, 2012, Ampong prayed that the Court
revisit its ruling in G.R. No. 167916 despite its finality because it might lead
to unwarranted complications in its enforcement. Moreover, Ampong
reiterated her argument that the CSC did not have any jurisdiction over the
case against her
ISSUE:
Whether or not Ampong be held liable for dishonesty?

HELD:
The Supreme Court has already held in its August 26, 2008 Decision that
Ampong was administratively liable for dishonesty in impersonating and
taking the November 1991 Civil Service Eligibility Examination for Teachers

CASES IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JOAN B. BUENO

on behalf of one Decir. Under section 58(a) of the Uniform Rules on

Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS), the penalty of dismissal
carries with it the following administrative disabilities: (a) cancellation of civil
service eligibility; (b) forfeiture of retirement benefits; and (c) perpetual
disqualification from re-employment in any government agency or
instrumentality, including any government-owned and controlled corporation
or government financial institution. Ampong should be made to similarly
suffer the same. Every employee of the Judiciary should be an example of
integrity, uprightness, and honesty. Court personnel are enjoined to adhere
to the exacting standards of morality and decency in their professional and
private conduct in order to preserve the good name and integrity of the
courts of justice. Here, Ampong failed to meet these stringent standards set
for a judicial employee and does not, therefore, deserve to remain with the
Judiciary

CASES IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JOAN B. BUENO

RE: MELCHOR TIONGSON, HEAD WATCHER, DURING THE 2011 BAR

EXAMINATIONS, B.M. NO. 2482, APRIL 1, 2014.
FACTS:
The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) designated Tiongson, an employee of
the Court of Appeals (CA), to serve as head watcher for the 2011 Bar
Examinations on 6, 13, 20 and 27 November 2011. Tiongson, together with
the designated watchers, namely, Eleonor V. Padilla (Padilla), Christian Jay S.
Puruganan (Puruganan) and Aleli M. Padre (Padre), were assigned to Room
No. 314 of St. Martin De Porres Building in UST.
On 13 November 2011 or during the second Sunday of the bar examinations,
Tiongson brought his digital camera inside Room No. 314. Padilla, Puruganan
and Padre alleged that after the morning examination in Civil Law, while they
were counting the pages of the questionnaire, Tiongson took pictures of the
Civil Law questionnaire using his digital camera. Tiongson allegedly repeated
the same act and took pictures of the Mercantile Law questionnaire after the
afternoon examination.
On the same day, Padilla reported Tiongsons actions to Deputy Clerk of
Court and Bar Confidant Atty. Ma. Cristina B. Layusa, who immediately
investigated the report. Padilla, Puruganan and Padre subsequently executed
separate affidavits confirming Tiongsons actions. Upon demand by the OBC
to explain, Tiongson admitted that he brought his digital camera inside the
bar examination room. He explained that he did not surrender his new digital
camera to the badge counter personnel because the counter personnel
might be negligent in handling his camera.
In a Memorandum dated 16 November 2011 addressed to the CA Clerk of
Court Atty. Teresita R. Marigomen, the OBC revoked and cancelled Tiongsons
designation as head watcher for the remaining Sundays of the bar
examinations.

CASES IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JOAN B. BUENO

In a Resolution dated 10 April 2012, the Court, upon recommendation of the

Committee on Continuing Legal Education and Bar Matters, required
Tiongson to file his comment. In his Comment dated 25 May 2012, Tiongson
restated his admission that he brought his digital camera inside the bar
examination room. Tiongson reiterated his explanation for bringing his
camera and apologized for his infraction.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Tiongson is liable for misconduct?
HELD:
The Court held that in administrative proceedings, substantial evidence is
the quantum of proof required for a finding of guilt, and this requirement is
satisfied if there is reasonable ground to believe that the employee is
responsible for the misconduct. Misconduct means transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior
or gross negligence by an employee. Any transgression or deviation from the
established norm of conduct, work related or not, amounts to a misconduct.
In this case, there was substantial evidence to prove that Tiongson
committed a misconduct. Tiongson was held liable for simple misconduct
only, because the elements of grave misconduct were not proven with
substantial evidence, and Tiongson admitted his infraction before the Office
of the Bar Confidant. As a CA employee, Tiongson disregarded his duty to
uphold the strict standards required of every court employee, that is, to be
an example of integrity, uprightness and obedience to the judiciary.

CASES IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JOAN B. BUENO

NESTOR FIGUERAS AND BIENVENIDO VICTORIA, JR.

DIOSDADO B. JIMENEZ,A.C. NO. 9116, MARCH 12, 2014.

V.

ATTY.

FACTS:
Congressional Village Homeowners Association, Inc. is the entity in charge of
the affairs of the homeowners of Congressional Village in Quezon City. On
January 7, 1993, the Spouses Federico and Victoria Santander filed a civil suit
for damages against the Association and Ely Mabanag 8 before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 104 for building a concrete wall
which abutted their property and denied them of their right of way. The
spouses Santander likewise alleged that said concrete wall was built in
violation of Quezon City Ordinance No. 8633, S-71 which prohibits the
closing, obstructing, preventing or otherwise refusing to the public or
vehicular traffic the use of or free access to any subdivision or community
street.9 The Law Firm of Gonzalez Sinense Jimenez and Associates was the
legal counsel for the Association, with respondent as the counsel of record
and handling lawyer. After trial and hearing, the RTC rendered a decision 10 on
October 4, 1996 in favor of the Spouses Santander. The Association,
represented by said law firm, appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On
February 5, 1999, the CA issued a Resolution 11 in CA-G.R. CV No. 55577
dismissing the appeal on the ground that the original period to file the
appellants brief had expired 95 days even before the first motion for
extension of time to file said brief was filed. The CA also stated that the
grounds adduced for the said motion as well as the six subsequent motions
for extension of time to file brief were not meritorious. The CA resolution
became final.

CASES IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JOAN B. BUENO

Eight years later or on April 11, 2007, complainants Nestor Figueras and
Bienvenido Victoria, Jr., as members of the Association, filed a Complaint 12 for
Disbarment against respondent before the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline
(CBD) for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly
Rule 12.03, Canon 12; Canon 17; and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 thereof for his
negligence in handling the appeal and willful violation of his duties as an
officer of the court.
In his Verified Answer with Counter Complaint, 13 respondent denied
administrative liability. He claimed that although his law firm represented the
homeowners association in CA-G.R. CV No. 55577, the case was actually
handled by an associate lawyer in his law office. As the partner in charge of
the case, he exercised general supervision over the handling counsel and
signed the pleadings prepared by said handling lawyer. Upon discovery of
the omissions of the handling lawyer, appropriate sanctions were imposed on
the handling lawyer and he thereafter personally took responsibility and
spent personal funds to negotiate a settlement with Federico Santander at
no cost to the Association. No damage whatsoever was caused to the
Association.
Respondent likewise alleged that after he defeated complainant Figueras in
the election for President of the homeowners association in 1996, Figueras
and his compadre, complainant Victoria, stopped paying their association
dues and other assessments. Complainants and other delinquent members
of the association were sanctioned by the Board of Directors and were sued
by the association before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB). In retaliation, complainants filed the present disbarment case
against him and several other cases against him and other officers of the
association before the HLURB to question, among others, the legitimacy of
the Association, the election of its officers, and the sanctions imposed by the
Association. Thus, he concluded that the disbarment case was filed to harass
him. Respondent added that complainants have no personality to file the
disbarment complaint as they were not his clients; hence, there was likewise
no jurisdiction over the complaint on the part of the IBP-CBD.

ISSUE:
.Whether or not the procedural requirement observed in ordinary civil
proceedings that only the real party-in-interest must initiate the suit does
applies in disbarment cases.
HELD:

CASES IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JOAN B. BUENO

The Supreme Court held that the complainants have personality to file the
disbarment case. In Heck v. Judge Santos, the Court held that [a]ny
interested person or the court motu proprio may initiate disciplinary
proceedings. The right to institute disbarment proceedings is not confined
to clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from
the alleged wrongdoing. The procedural requirement observed in ordinary
civil proceedings that only the real party-in-interest must initiate the suit
does not apply in disbarment cases. Disbarment proceedings are matters of
public interest and the only basis for the judgment is the proof or failure of
proof of the charges. Further, the Supreme Court held that a lawyer engaged
to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the
latters interest with utmost diligence. In failing to file the appellants brief on
behalf of his client, Atty. Jimenez had fallen far short of his duties as counsel
as set forth in Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which exhorts every member of the Bar not to unduly delay a case and to
exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice. However, the Supreme Court only
suspended Atty. Jimenez from the practice of law for one

WILBERTO C. TALISIC V. ATTY. PRIMO R. RINEN, A.C. NO. 8761,

FEBRUARY 12, 2014.
FACTS:
Wilberto claimed that his mother Aurora died on May 7, 1987, leaving behind
as heirs her spouse, Celedonio Talisic, and their three children, namely:
Arlene Talisic Villarazo, Wilberto and Alvin Corpuz Talisic. It was only after his
fathers death on November 2, 2000 that Wilberto and his siblings knew of
the transfer of the subject parcel via the subject deed. While Wilberto
believed that his fathers signature on the deed was authentic, his and his

CASES IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JOAN B. BUENO

siblings supposed signatures were merely forged. Wilberto also pointed out
that even his name was erroneously indicated in the deed as "Wilfredo".
For his defense, Atty. Rinen denied the charge against him and explained
that it was only on April 7, 1994 that he came to know of the transaction
between the Spouses Durante and the Talisics, when they approached him in
his office as the then Presiding Judge of the Municipal
Trial Court, Real, Quezon, to have the subject deed prepared and notarized.
His clerk of court prepared the deed and upon its completion, ushered the
parties to his office for the administration of oath. 6 The deed contained his
certification that at the time of the documents execution, "no notary public
was available to expedite the transaction of the parties." Notarial fees paid
by the parties were also covered by a receipt issued by the Treasurer of the
Municipality of Real, Quezon.7
After due proceedings, Investigating Commissioner Felimon C. Abelita III
(Commissioner Abelita) issued the Report and Recommendation 8 dated
November 20, 2012 for the cancellation of Atty. Rinens notarial commission
and his suspension from notarial practice for a period of one year. 9 The report
indicated that per Atty. Rinens admission, the subject deed was prepared in
his office and acknowledged before him. Although there was no evidence of
forgery on his part, he was negligent in not requiring from the parties to the
deed their presentation of documents as proof of identity. Atty. Rinens failure
to properly satisfy his duties as a notary public was also shown by the
inconsistencies in the dates that appear on the deed, to wit: "1994 as to the
execution; 1995 when notarized; [and] entered as Series of 1992 in the
notarial book x x x."
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Rinen be disqualified from being commissioned as a
notary public?

HELD:
The Court said yes.

CASES IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JOAN B. BUENO

In Bautista v. Atty. Bernabe, the Court held that [a] notary public should not
notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very
same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to
the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The presence of the
parties to the deed will enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of
the signature of the affiant. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless,
routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only
those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. It converts
a private document into a public one, making it admissible in court without
further proof of its authenticity. Thus, notaries public must observe with
utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.
Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of public instruments
would be undermined.
In this case, Atty. Rinen did not deny his failure to personally verify the
identity of all parties who purportedly signed the subject document and
whom, as he claimed, appeared before him on April 7, 1994. Such failure was
further shown by the fact that the pertinent details of the community tax
certificates of Wilberto and his sister, as proof of their identity, remained
unspecified in the deeds acknowledgment portion. Clearly, there was a
failure on the part of Atty. Rinen to exercise the due diligence that was
required of him as a notary public exofficio. Thus, Atty. Rinens notarial
commission as revoked and he were disqualified from being commissioned
as a notary public for one year.

CASES IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JOAN B. BUENO

CASES IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JOAN B. BUENO

CARLITO ANG V. ATTY. JAMES JOSEPH GUPANA, A.C. NO. 4545.

FEBRUARY 5, 2014.
FACTS:
The case stemmed from an affidavit-complaint 3 filed by complainant Carlito
Ang against respondent. Ang alleged that on May 31, 1991, he and the other
heirs of the late Candelaria Magpayo, namely Purificacion Diamante and
William Magpayo, executed an Extra-judicial Declaration of Heirs and
Partition4 involving Lot No. 2066-B-2-B which had an area of 6,258 square
meters and was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. (T-22409)6433. He was given his share of 2,003 square meters designated as Lot No.
2066-B-2-B-4, together with all the improvements thereon. 5 However, when
he tried to secure a TCT in his name, he found out that said TCT No. (T22409)-6433 had already been cancelled and in lieu thereof, new TCTs 6 had
been issued in the names of William Magpayo, Antonio Diamante, Patricia
Diamante, Lolita D. Canque, Gregorio Diamante, Jr. and Fe D. Montero.
Ang alleged that there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent had a
direct participation in the commission of forgeries and falsifications because
he was the one who prepared and notarized the Affidavit of Loss 7 and Deed
of Absolute Sale8 that led to the transfer and issuance of the new TCTs. Ang
pointed out that the Deed of Absolute Sale which was allegedly executed by
Candelaria Magpayo on April 17, 1989, was antedated and Candelaria
Magpayos signature was forged as clearly shown by the Certification 9 issued
by the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu.
Further, the certified true copy of page 37, Book No. XII, Series of 1989 of
respondents Notarial Report indubitably showed that Doc. No. 181 did not
refer to the Deed of Absolute Sale, but to an affidavit. As to the Affidavit of
Loss, which was allegedly executed by the late Candelaria Magpayo on April
29, 1994, it could not have been executed by her as she Diedthree years
prior to the execution of the said affidavit of loss.
Ang further alleged that on September 22, 1995, respondent made himself
the attorney-in-fact of William Magpayo, Antonio Diamante, Patricia
Diamante, Lolita Canque, Gregorio Diamante, Jr. and Fe D. Montero, and
pursuant to the Special Power of Attorney in his favor, executed a Deed of
Sale selling Lot No. 2066-B-2-B-4 to Lim Kim So Mercantile Co. on October 10,
1995. Ang complained that the sale was made even though a civil case

CASES IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JOAN B. BUENO

involving the said parcel of land was pending before the RTC of Mandaue
City, Cebu.
In his Comment, respondent denied any wrongdoing and argued that Ang is
merely using the present administrative complaint as a tool to force the
defendants in a pending civil case and their counsel, herein respondent, to
accede to his wishes.
Investigating Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro of the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline, to whom the case was referred for investigation, report and
recommendation, submitted her Report and Recommendation finding
respondent administratively liable. She recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for three months. She held that
respondent committed an unethical act when he allowed himself to be an
instrument in the disposal of the subject property through a deed of sale
executed between him as attorney-in-fact of his client and Lim Kim So
Mercantile Co. despite his knowledge that said property is the subject of a
pending litigation before the RTC of Mandaue City, Cebu.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Gupana is disqualified from being commissioned as a
notary public?

HELD:
Under the law, the party acknowledging must appear before the notary
public or any other person authorized to take acknowledgments of
instruments or documents. In this case, the jurat of the Affidavit of Loss
stated that Candelaria subscribed to the affidavit before Atty. Gupana on
April 29, 1994, at Mandaue City. Candelaria, however, was already dead
since March 26, 1991. Hence, it is clear that the jurat was made in violation
of the notarial law. The notarization of a document is not an empty act or
routine. A notary publics function should not be trivialized and a notary
public must discharge his powers and duties which are impressed with public
interest, with accuracy and fidelity. As a lawyer commissioned as notary
public, Atty. Gupana is mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties

CASES IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JOAN B. BUENO

appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy

impressed with public interest. Thus, the Supreme Court held that Atty.
Gupanas revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being
commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years and suspension
from the practice of law for one year are in order.

FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD: