Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TOPIC: Notarization
CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED OF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME COURT’S CASE DISPOSITION:
Pacita Caalim- RULING:
Verzonilla v. Atty.
Victoriano Pascua Atty. Pascua He violated Rule 1.02, Atty. Pascua cannot Atty. Victoriano
drafted and Canon 1 of the escape liability for Pascua is
CASE NO.: notarized an Code of making an suspended from the
A.C. No. 6655 instrument that did Professional untruthful practice of law for
not state the true Responsibility statement in a a period of two (2)
DATE OF PROMULGATION: consideration of public document years. In addition,
October 11, 2011 the sale so as to for an unlawful his present notarial
reduce the capital purpose. As the commission, if any,
PONENTE: gains and other second deed he is revoked, and he
Villarama, Jr. taxes due on the notarized indicated is disqualified from
transaction. an amount much reappointment as a
lower than the notary public for a
actual price paid period of two (2)
for the property years. He is further
sold, he abetted in warned that any
depriving the similar act or
Government of the infraction in the
right to collect the future shall be
correct taxes due. dealt with more
His act clearly severely.
violated Rule 1.02,
Canon 1 of the
Code of
Professional
Responsibility
which states that a
lawyer shall not
counsel or abet
activities aimed at
defiance of the law
or at lessening
confidence in the
legal system.
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
272
273
274
277
TOPIC: Practice of law
CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED OF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME COURT’S CASE DISPOSITION:
Rodrigo A. Molina RULING:
v. Atty. Ceferino R.
Magat Atty. Magat He violated Rule 10.01 of The practice of law Atty. Ceferino R.
misleaded the the Code of is a privilege Magat is hereby
CASE NO.: court when he filed Professional bestowed on those ordered
A.C. No. 1900 the motion to Responsibility. who show that they SUSPENDED from
dismiss the possess and the practice of law
DATE OF PROMULGATION: criminal charges continue to possess for six (6) months
June 13, 2012 on the basis of the legal with a WARNING
double jeopardy qualifications for it. that the
PONENTE: when in fact, no Indeed, lawyers are commission of the
Mendoza similar case was expected to same or similar
filed to be the basis maintain at all offense in the
of double jeopardy. times a high future would be
Atty. Magat standard of legal dealt with more
appeared as proficiency and severely.
counsel before a morality, including
trial court on at honesty, integrity
least two (2) and fair dealing.
occasions They must perform
notwithstanding their four-fold duty
the fact that he had to society, the legal
been suspended by profession, the
the Supreme Court courts and their
from the practice clients, in
of law. accordance with
the values and
norms of the legal
profession as
embodied in the
Code of
Professional
Responsibility.
Atty. Magat’s act
clearly falls short
of the standards
set by the Code of
Professional
Responsibility,
particularly Rule
10.01. the Court
agrees with the
observation of the
IBP that there was
a deliberate intent
on the part of Atty.
Magat to mislead
the court when he
filed the motion to
dismiss the
criminal charges
on the basis of
double jeopardy.
Atty. Magat should
not make any false
and untruthful
statements in his
pleadings. If it
were true that
there was a similar
case for slight
physical injuries
that was really filed
in court, all he had
to do was to secure
a certification from
that court that,
indeed, a case was
filed.
278
279