Topic # 9

Further, complainant averred that Atty. Resuena,

Fabay vs Resuena as counsel of the plainfiffs, participated in the
A.C. No. 8723 barangay conciliations which is prohibited under
the law. Atty. Resuena explained that although it
FACTS: was just Remedios Perez who signed the SPA on
A Complaint for Disbarment filed by Gregory behalf of Amador Perez, Valentino Perez, Gloria
Fabay (Fabay) against respondent Atty. Rex A. Perez and Gracia Perez, there was no
Resuena for Gross Misconduct due to the misrepresentation since Remedios Perez is the
unauthorized notarization of documents. spouse of Amador Perez and she was likewise
Virginia Perez, Marcella Perez, Amador Perez, previously authorized by the other co-owners,
Gloria Perez, Gracia Perez and Valentino Perez Gloria Perez and Gracia Perez, to represent
(plaintiffs) filed a complaint for them.
ejectment/forcible entry against Gregory Fabay
with respondent Atty. Resuena as their counsel. Atty. Resuena denied that he participated in the
barangay conciliations and presented the
Atty. Resuena notarized a special power of certificate issued by the barangay captain
attorney (SPA) with plaintiffs as grantors, in showing that there was no record of his
favor of Apolo D. Perez. However, it appeared attendance during the confrontations of the
that it was only Remedios Perez who actually parties before the barangay.
signed the SPA in behalf of Amador Perez,
Valentino Perez, Gloria Perez and Gracia Perez. IBP-CBD found Atty. Resuena to have violated
the provisions of the notarial law. The IBP-CBD
The ejectment case was later on decided in favor recommended that his notarial commission be
of the client of Atty. Resuena. On appeal, the revoked and that he be disqualified to be
RTC ordered the case to be remanded to the commissioned as notary public for one (1) year.
court a quo to try the case on the merits. The
trial court noted that both Amador Perez and ISSUE:
Valentino Perez have already died. WON Atty. Resuena was guilty of Gross
Misconduct due to the unauthorized notarization
Complainant alleged that Atty. Resuena violated of documents.
the provisions of the Notarial Law by notarizing
a special power of attorney notwithstanding the HELD:
fact that two of the principals therein were YES.
already dead long before the execution of the
SPA. RATIO:
Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on
Complainant added that Atty. Resuena likewise Notarial Practice stresses the necessity of the
notarized a complaint for ejectment in 2003 affiant’s personal appearance before the notary
where Apolo Perez was made to appear as public:
attorney-in-fact of Amador Perez and Valentino xxxx
Perez when again the latter could not have (b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if
possibly authorized him as they were already the person involved as signatory to the
dead. instrument or document –
(1) is not in the notary’s presence personally at 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
the time of the notarization; and Responsibility. Accordingly, he is DISBARRED
(2) is not personally known to the notary public from the practice of law and likewise
or otherwise identified by the notary public PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from being
through competent evidence of identity as commissioned as a notary public.
defined by these Rules.
In the instant case, it is undisputed that Atty. Japitana vs. Parado
Resuena violated not only the notarial law but A.C. No. 10859
also his oath as a lawyer when he notarized the
subject SPA without all the affiant’s personal FACTS:
appearance. In June 2006 respondent Atty. Parado notarized
A notary public should not notarize a document the real estate mortgage over a parcel of land on
unless the persons who signed the same are the which family home was constituted. The
very same persons who executed and personally mortgage was between RC Lending Investors,
appeared before him to attest to the contents and Inc. as mortgagee and the petitioner’s sisters as
truth of what are stated therein. The purpose of mortgagors. Respondent Parado also notarized
this requirement is to enable the notary public to the affidavit allegedly executed by the
verify the genuineness of the signature of the mortgagors. RC Lending eventually filed a
acknowledging party and to ascertain that the petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the real
document is the party’s free act and deed. estate mortgage, which was granted.

A graver responsibility is placed upon Atty. Petitioner Fatima Japitana then filed a
Resuena by reason of his solemn oath to obey complaint, which was endorsed to the Integrated
the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the Bar of the Philippines. The complaint assailed
doing of any. The Code of Professional that the signatures in the real estate mortgage as
Responsibility (Rule 1.01 of Canon 1) also well as the affidavit were forgeries. She alleged
commands lawyers not to engage in unlawful, that:
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and to 1) Parado did not require the persons before him
uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of to present any valid identification;
the legal profession. 2) her sister Theresa Japitana was a
schizophrenic; and
Moreover, the Notarial Law and the 2004 Rules 3) Parado had no notarial authority.
on Notarial Practice require a duly-
commissioned notary public to make the proper The IBP investigating commissioner noted that
entries in his Notarial Register and to refrain Parado had previously testified in court that the
from committing any dereliction or act which mortgagors and the witnesses personally
constitutes good cause for the revocation of appeared before him and there was no proof that
commission or imposition of administrative he lied before the court. However, he was found
sanction. Unfortunately, Atty. Resuena failed in to be dishonest when he testified that he was
both respects. issued a notarial commission effective until
2008. This claim was belied by the certification
DISPOSITION: Atty. Rex A. Resuena is found issued by the Clerk of Court of RTC of Cebu
GUILTY of malpractice as a notary public, and City. The IBP resolved to revoke the notarial
of violating the lawyer’s oath as well as Rule commission of respondent if presently
commissioned. He was also disqualified from document or transaction, who is
being commissioned as Notary Public for two personally known to the notary public
(2) years and suspended from the practice of law and who personally knows the
for six (6) years. individual, or of two credible witnesses
neither of whom is privy to the
ISSUE: instrument, document or transaction
Whether or not respondent Parado is liable for who each personally knows the
notarizing documents without notarial individual and shows to the notary
commission? public a documentary identification.
Apparently, CTCs are not competent evidence of
HELD: identity.
Yes. Under the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice, Atty. Parado is suspended from the practice of
a person commissioned as a notary public may law for 2 years and permanently disqualified
perform notarial acts in any place within the from being
territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning commissioned as a Notary Public.
court for a period of two (2) years commencing
the first day of January of the year in which the Sistual vs. Ogena
commissioning is made. Commission either A.C. No. 9807
means the grant of authority to perform notarial
or the written evidence of authority. FACTS:
Without a commission, a lawyer is unauthorized
to perform any of the notarial acts. Atty. Parado - Complainants alleged Atty. Ogena, who
knowingly performed notarial acts in 2006 in was the legal counsel of their late father,
spite of the absence of a notarial commission for Manuel A. Sistual, wilfully, unlawfully
the said period. Atty. Parado’s misdeed run and feloniously falsified several
afoul of his duties and responsibilities, both as a documents by making it appear that all
lawyer and a notary public. He was remiss in his the children of Manuel and their mother
professional duties and responsibilities. executed the documents.
- As a result, TCT registered in the name
Even if Atty. Parado had a valid notarial of “Heirs of Martin Sistual, represented
commission, he should have required the by Manuel Sistual”, was cancelled and
presentation of competent evidence of identity was subdivided into several lots and that
instead of merely relying on the Certificate of these lots were sold.
Community Tax (CTC). - Atty Ogena: denied allegations. He
alleged that he was engaged by Manuel
Section 12, Rule II of the Rules of Notarial to represent the heirs of Martin in a
Practice defines competent evidence of identity complaint for recovery of possession.
as: Lot 464 was awarded to the heirs of
1) At least one current identification Martin. When Manuel died, the heirs of
document issued by an official agency Martin Sistual executed and SPA
bearing the photograph and signature of designating Bienvenido as their attorney
the individual; or in fact. Erlinda, wife of Manuel,
2) The oath or affirmation of one credible manifested her desire to represent the
witness not privy to the instrument, heirs of Martin so her two children also
 executed and SPA. Atty. Ogena wrote Atty. Ogena should be liable for such
the names of complainants but they did negligence, not only as a notary public but also
not sign it. as a lawyer. (Suspended for 2 yrs from practice
- Atty Ogena: denied that the and forever banned from NP)
aformentioned documents were falsified
as they were actually executed and duly
signed by all the parties; and that all the Mariano vs. Echanez
signatures of complainants apearing in A.C. No. 10373
the aformentioned documents were
identical; that the deeds of donation FACTS:
were duly attested to by Barangay - Complaint for disbarment by Flora
Captain andd kagawads. Mariano against Att. Anselmo Echanez
- IBP: found several irregularities in the for violation of the Notarial Law by
documents notarized by Atty. Ogena performing notarial acts on documents
- 1. In the SPA, the signatures of without a notarial commission.
Flordelisa and Isidro Sistual were absent - Mariano: Atty. Echanez is unauthorized
and Community Tax Certs. Were not to perform notarial services. She
indicated. submitted the Cert. of lack of Authority
- 2. In the Extrajudicial Settlement of for a Notarial Act issued by Exec. Judge
Estate of Manuel, only the CTC of Anghad showing that Atty. Echanez has
Erlinda and Flodelisa were indicated. not been commissioned as a NP for and
- 3. In the Affidavit, the CTC of Solfia within the jurisdiction of the RTC,
Maribago was absent Santiago City. She also attached Cert
- IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. issued by EJ Cacatian enumerating those
Ogena’s notarial commission be lawyers who have been commissioned
revoked and that he be permanently as notary public withinn and for the
disqualified from reappointment as territorial jurisdiction of Santiago City
Notary Public and be suspended from which does not include Atty. Echanez’s
practice of law for 1 yr. (IBP governors name.
deleted penalty of suspension) - IBP-CBD: Atty. Echanez liable for
- Atty. Ogena file for MR malpractice for notarizing documents
without a notarial commission. He also
ISSUE: WON Atty Ogena violated the Rules on ignored the processes of the
Notarial Practice Commission. Suspended from PL for 2
yrs and permanently barred from as NP.
HELD: Yes. Specifically Rule IV, Sec 2b. He
failed to require the personal presence of the ISSUE: WON Echanez violated the Rules on NP
signatories of the documents and proceeded to
notarize the aforementioned documents without HELD: Yes. In the instant case, it is
the signatures of all the parties. Likewise, he undisputable that Atty. Echanez performed
failed to comply with the most basic function notarial acts on several documents without a
that a notary public must do -- to required the valid notarial commission.[16] The fact of his
parties to present their residence certificates or lack of notarial commission at the time of the
any other document to prove their identities. unauthorized notarizations was likewise
sufficiently established by the certifications same with the Citystate Savings Bank, Inc. for
issued by the Executive Judges in the territory the amount of P29,945.50, as shown in the
where Atty. Echanez performed the Promissory Note with Deed of Pledge.
unauthorized notarial acts. Likewise, Atty. Respondent lawyer appropriated the proceeds of
Echanez' conduct in the course of proceedings the pledge to his personal use. In order to
before the IBP is also a matter of concern. Atty. facilitate the redemption of the said jewelry,
Echanez, despite notices, did not even attempt to respondent lawyer issued to complainant,
present any defense on the complaint against Citystate Savings Bank Check. Upon
him. He did not even attend the mandatory presentment, however, complainant was shocked
conference set by the IBP. He ignored the IBP's to learn that the check was dishonored for the
directive to file his answer and position paper reason, “Account Closed.” Complainant
which resulted in the years of delay in the immediately notified respondent lawyer of the
resolution of this case. Clearly, this conduct runs dishonor of the check.
counter to the precepts of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and violates the Complainant demanded for the refund of the
lawyers oath which imposes upon every member acceptance fees received by respondent lawyer
of the Bar the duty to delay no man for money prior to the “abandonment” of the cases and the
or malice. Atty. Echanez's failure to attend the payment of the value of the jewelry, but to no
mandatory conference and to submit his Answer avail.
and Position paper without any valid explanation
is enough reason to make him administratively For his failure to heed the repeated demands, a
liable since he is duty-bound to comply with all criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa
the lawful directives of the IBP, not only Blg. 22 was filed with the Office of the City
because he is a member thereof but more so Prosecutor against him.
because IBP is the Court-designated investigator
of this case.[24] As an officer of the Court, Atty. A verified complaint was filed with the IBP
Echanez is expected to know that a resolution of Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD),
this Court is not a mere request but an order where complainant prayed for the disbarment of
which should be complied with promptly and respondent lawyer on account of grave
completely. This is also true of the orders of the misconduct, conduct unbecoming of a lawyer
IBP.[25] and commission of acts in violation of the
lawyer’s oath. The IBP-CBD required
Topic #10 respondent lawyer to submit his answer to the
complaint. Despite having been duly served with
Yu vs. Dela Cruz a copy of the complaint and the order to file his
A.C. No. 10912 answer, as shown in a certification issued by the
Post Master of the Las Piñas Central Post Office,
It appears from the records that respondent respondent still failed to file an answer.
lawyer agreed to represent Paulina T. Yu
(complainant) in several cases after having Issue: WON respondent violated CPR?
received various amounts as acceptance fees.
While the lawyer-client relationship was Held:
subsisting, respondent lawyer borrowed pieces
of jewelry from complainant and pledged the
The complaint stemmed from the use by The Court does not harbor any doubt in favor of
respondent lawyer of his client’s property. He respondent lawyer. Obviously, his unfulfilled
had, indeed, come into possession of valuable promise to facilitate the redemption of the
pieces of jewelry which he presented as security jewelry and his act of issuing a worthless check
in a contract of pledge. Complainant voluntarily constitute grave violations of the CPR and the
and willingly delivered her jewelry worth lawyer’s oath. These shortcomings on his part
P135,000.00 to respondent lawyer who meant to have seriously breached the highly fiduciary
borrow it and pawn it thereafter. This act alone relationship between lawyers and clients.
shows respondent lawyer’s blatant disregard of Specifically, his act of issuing worthless checks
Rule 16.04. Complainant’s acquiescence to the patently violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the
“pawning” of her jewelry becomes immaterial CPR which requires that “[a] lawyer shall not
considering that the CPR is clear in that lawyers engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
are proscribed from borrowing money or deceitful conduct.” This indicates a lawyer’s
property from clients, unless the latter’s interests unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on
are fully protected by the nature of the case or him, shows such lack of personal honesty and
by independent advice. Here, respondent good moral character as to render him unworthy
lawyer’s act of borrowing does not constitute an of public confidence, and constitutes a ground
exception. Respondent lawyer used his client’s for disciplinary action, and thus seriously and
jewelry in order to obtain, and then appropriate irreparably tarnishes the image of the profession.
for himself, the proceeds from the pledge. In so Such conduct, while already off-putting when
doing, he had abused the trust and confidence attributed to an ordinary person, is much more
reposed upon him by his client. That he might abhorrent when exhibited by a member of the
have intended to subsequently pay his client the Bar. In this case, respondent lawyer turned his
value of the jewelry is inconsequential. What back from the promise that he once made upon
deserves detestation was the very act of his admission to the Bar. As “vanguards of the law
exercising influence and persuasion over his and the legal system, lawyers must at all times
client in order to gain undue benefits from the conduct themselves, especially in their dealings
latter’s property. The Court has repeatedly with their clients and the public at large, with
emphasized that the relationship between a honesty and integrity in a manner beyond
lawyer and his client is one imbued with trust reproach.”
and confidence. And as true as any natural
tendency goes, this “trust and confidence” is Sison, Jr. vs Camacho
prone to abuse. The rule against borrowing of A.C. No. 10910
money by a lawyer from his client is intended to
prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his FACTS:
influence over his client. The rule presumes that - Atty. Sison, president of Marsman-
the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s Drysdale Agribusiness Holdings Inc.,
ability to use all the legal maneuverings to charged Atty. Camacho with violation
renege on his obligation. Suffice it to say, the of the CPR Rule 1.01 for dishonestly
borrowing of money or property from a client entering into a compromise agreement
outside the limits laid down in the CPR is an without authorization, and Rule 16.01,
unethical act that warrants sanction. for failure to render an accounting of
funds which were supposed to be paid as
additional docket fees.
 - Atty. Sison: Respondent was the counsel "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
of MDAHI in an insurance claim against dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
Paramount. Respondent met with Atty. Members of the Bar must always conduct
Dimaano, corpo secretary of MDAHI, themselves in a way that promotes public
and proposed to increase their claim by confidence in the integrity of the legal
taking into account the interests profession.
imposed. Respondent clarified that the
increase in the claim would require Delving into the substance of the allegation, the
additional docket fees. MDAHI agreed. Court rules that Atty. Camacho indeed violated
They paid him but respondent did not Rule 16.01 of the CPR. When Atty. Camacho
issue receipt. Respondent sent a letter to personally requested MDAHI for additional
MDAHI recommending a settlement docket fees, the latter obediently granted the
with Paramount. MDAHI refused. amount of P1,288,260.00 to the former.
Respondent filed the Satisfaction of Certainly, it was understood that such amount
Judgment even without conformity of was necessary for the payment of supposed
MDAHI. Sison asked Camacho if he additional docket fees in Civil Case No. 05-655.
paid the additional docket fees, but he Yet, when Atty. Sison confronted Atty.
simply gave it to the clerk of court as Camacho regarding the said amount, the latter
the payment period had lapsed. replied that he simply gave it to the clerk of
- Atty Camacho: Denied all allegations. court as the payment period had lapsed. Whether
He stressed that he had the authority to the said amount was pocketed by him or
enter into the compromise agreement. improperly given to the clerk of court as a form
Moreover, the alleged docket fees given of bribery, it was unmistakably clear that Atty.
to him by MDAHI formed part of his Camacho did not apply the amount given to him
attorney's fees. He further stated in his by his client for its intended legal purpose.
position paper[11] that the judgment
debt was paid and accepted by MDAHI Atty. Camacho did not even deny making that
without any objection, as duly request to MDAHI for additional docket fees
evidenced by an acknowledgment and receiving such amount from his client.
receipt.[12] Thus, there was no Rather, he set up a defense that the said amount
irregularity in the compromise formed part of his attorney's fees.
agreement.
- IBP-CBD: Atty. Camacho to have Moreover, Atty. Camacho failed to issue a
violated the provisions of Rule 1.01 and receipt to MDAHI from the moment he received
Rule 16.01 of the CPR and the said amount. Pursuant to Rule 16.01 of the
recommending the imposition of the CPR, a lawyer must be aware that he is
penalty of one (1) year suspension from accountable for the money entrusted to him by
the practice of law against him. the clients, and that his only means of ensuring
ISSUE: WON Atty. Camacho violated the CPR? accountability is by issuing and keeping receipts.

HELD: Yes. Rules 1.01 and 16.01. For entering Worse, on May 26, 2011, the RTC already
into a compromise agreement without the rendered its decision in Civil Case No. 05-655,
written authority of his client, Atty. Camacho adjudging MDAHI entitled to an insurance
violated Rule 1.01 of the CPR, which states that claim in the amount of approximately
P65,000,000.00. From that date on, there was no
more need for additional docket fees.
Apparently, still unaware of the judgment,
MDAHI subsequently released the money for
additional docket fees to Atty. Dimaano, who
handed it to Atty. Camacho on May 27, 2011.
Despite a decision having been rendered, Atty.
Camacho did not reject the said amount or return
it to his client upon receipt. Instead, he
unilaterally withheld the said amount by
capriciously invoking the payment of his
attorney's fees.

The fiduciary nature of the relationship between

the counsel and his client imposes on the lawyer
the duty to account for the money or property
collected or received for or from his client.
Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific
purpose but not used for the purpose should be
immediately returned. A lawyer's failure, to
return upon demand, the funds held by him on
behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption
that he has appropriated the same for his own
use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his
client. Such act is a gross violation of general
morality as well as of professional ethics. It
impairs public confidence in the legal profession
and deserves punishment.[30]