ANITAC.PENAv.ATTY.CHRISTINAC.

PATERNO
A.C.No.4191,10June2013,(PerCuriam)

Facts:ComplainantwastheownerofaparceloflandcoveredbyaTCTwithanapartmentconstructedthereon.Shepersonallyknew
Atty.Paterno,asshewasherlawyerinalegalseparationcase.TheTCT,however,waswiththeGSISsincecomplainanthada
balanceonherpreviousloanwiththeformer.ThetitlewasreleasedwhenAtty.Paternolentsomemoneytocomplainanttopaythe
loan.That,sometimein1986,shegaveAtty.PaternoherownersduplicateofsaidTCTuponinsistencebyrespondentthatshe
(complainant)shouldapplyforaloanfromabankandusetheTCTascollateraltofinancetheconstructionoftownhousesonher
propertyforsaletointerestedbuyers.Becauseofherassurances,complainantdidnotbothertocheckonherproperty,relyingonAtty.
Paterno'swordsthatshewouldhandlespeedilythepreparationofherapplicationforloan.Later,in1994,complainantdiscoveredthat
herapartmentwasalreadydemolishedandthatfourresidentialhouseswereconstructedthereon.Whenaskedaboutthis,Atty.Paterno
justignoredher.Afterverification,complainantlearnedthatherpropertywassoldonNovember1986toKrisbuiltTradersCompany,
Ltd.,andAtty.PaternowastheNotaryPublicbeforewhomthesalewasacknowledged.Complainantallegedthatshedidnotsellher
propertytoKrisbuiltandthatsheneithersignedanydeedofsaleinitsfavornorappearedbeforeAtty.Paternotoacknowledgethe
sale.SheallegedthatAtty.PaternomanipulatedthesaleofherpropertytoKrisbuiltusinghertrustedemployee,EstrellaD.Kraus,as
theinstrumentinthesale,andthathersignaturewasforged,asshedidnotsignanydeedsellingherpropertytoanyone.
Atty.Paterno,inherdefense,beliedtheallegationsofcomplainantarguingthatitwascomplainantwhorequestedhertosecurebank
loansfortheconstructionoftownhousesonherpropertyandthatitwasherwhonegotiatedthesaleofthepropertywiththeSpouses
Kraus(ownersofKrisbuilt).ComplainantallegedlytoldAtty.Paternothatshewouldinformrespondentwhenthetransactionwas
completed so that the deed ofsale couldbe recorded in the Notarial Book.Thereafter, Atty. Paterno claimed that she had no
knowledgeofwhattranspiredbetweencomplainantandtheSpousesKraus.Atty.Paternostatedthatshewasneverentrustedwith
complainant'scertificateoftitle.
Issue:WONAtty.PaternoisadministrativelyliableforviolationoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityandtheNotarialLaw.
Held:Yes.TheInvestigatingCommissionergavecredencetocomplainant'stestimonythatshegaverespondentherowner'scopyof
thecertificateoftitletoherpropertyasrespondentwouldapplyforabankloanincomplainant'sbehalf,usingthesubjectpropertyas
collateral.RespondentadmittedinherAnswerthatsheexecutedtheDeedofSalepertherequestoftheSpousesKraus.ThesaidDeed
ofSalewasnotarizedbyrespondentasevidencedbyEntryNo.15032237incomplainant'stitle.AstheDeedofSalecouldnotbe
presentedinevidence,throughnofaultofthecomplainant,nonetheless,theconsequencethereofisfailureofcomplainanttoproveher
allegationthathersignaturethereinwasforgedandthatrespondentdefraudedcomplainantbyfacilitatingthesaleofthepropertyto
KrisbuiltTradersCompany,Ltd.withoutcomplainant'sapproval.However,complainantprovedthatrespondentdidnotsubmittothe
ClerkofCourtoftheRTCofManila,NationalCapitalRegionherNotarialReportforthemonthofNovember1986,whentheDeed
ofSalewasexecuted.
TheClerkofCourtoftheRTCofManilaissuedaCertificationstatingthatrespondentwasdulyappointedasaNotaryPublicforthe
CityofManilafortheyear1986,andthatrespondenthasnotyetforwardedtotheClerkofCourt'sOfficeherNotarialReportforthe
monthofNovember1986,whentheDeedofSalewasexecutedandnotarizedbyher.Thefailureofrespondenttofulfillherdutyas
notarypublictosubmithernotarialregisterforthemonthofNovember1986andacopyofthesaidDeedofSalethatwasnotarized
byheronthesamemonthiscauseforrevocationofhercommissionunderSection249oftheNotarialLaw.
ThefailureofrespondenttosubmittotheproperRTCClerkofCourtherNotarialRegister/ReportforthemonthofNovember1986
andacopyoftheDeedofSale,whichwasnotarizedbyherwithinthatmonth,hasfarreachingimplicationsandgraveconsequences,
asitineffectsuppressedevidenceontheveracityofthesaidDeedofSaleandshowedthedeceitfulconductofrespondenttowithhold
thetruthaboutitsauthenticity.
PursuanttoSection27,Rule138oftheRulesofCourt,alawyermayberemovedorsuspendedforanydeceitordishonestact.Forthe
aforementioneddeceitfulconduct,respondentisdisbarredfromthepracticeoflaw.Asamemberofthebar,respondentfailedtolive
uptothestandardsembodiedintheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,particularlythefollowingCanons:
CANON1Alawyershallupholdtheconstitution,obeythelawsofthelandandpromoterespectforlawandforlegalprocesses.
Rule1.01Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,dishonest,immoralordeceitfulconduct.
Rule1.02Alawyershallnotcounselorabetactivitiesaimedatdefianceofthelaworatlesseningconfidenceinthelegalsystem.
CANON7Alawyershallatalltimesupholdtheintegrityanddignityofthelegalprofession,andsupporttheactivitiesoftheIntegrated
Bar.
Rule7.03Alawyershallnotengageinconductthatadverselyreflectsonhisfitnesstopracticelaw,norshouldhe,whetherinpublicor
privatelife,behaveinascandalousmannertothediscreditofthelegalprofession.

Atty.Paternowasdisbarredfromthepracticeoflawandhernotarialcommissionwasperpetuallyrevoked.