Case No.

13
In Re: Disciplinary Complaint against Atty. Cecilio R.
Dianco

A.C. 7751,June 13, 2018

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 219-2018

TO :THE COURT OF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN, COURT OF

TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, SHARIA’H
DISTRICT COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL
COURTS, THE OFFICE OF THE STATE PROSECUTOR,
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AND INTEGRATED BAR (you
may abbreviate).
SUBJECT :SUSPENSION OF ATTY. CECILIO R. DIANCO FROM THE
PRACTICE OF LAW FOR SIX (6) MONTHS.

For your information and guidance quoted

hereunder is the execution dated 13 June of
2018 of the Third Division in Administrative
Case No. 7751, ENTITLED “ In Re: Disciplinary
Complaint against Cecilio R. Dianco,” to wit:

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Cecilio R.

Dianco is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
six (6) months effective upon finality of this
Resolution, with a warning that a repetition of
the same or similar questioned act will be dealt
with more severely.
 His filing of a Manifestation per the
Court’s Resolution dated February 22, 2011 and
September 6, 2011 is DESPENSED WITH.

Case No. 16
Romeo m. Almario vs. Atty. Dominica Llero-Agno

A.C. No. 10689, Jan. 8, 2018

FACTS:

In 2006, a Complaint for Judicial Partition with

Delivery of Certificate of Title (civil case), was
instituted before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Manila by the herein complainant against therein
defendants Angelita A. Barrameda and several other
persons. It was therein alleged that complainant is the
sole surviving registered owner of a parcel of land
situated, Tondo, Manila and that the defendants therein
are co-owners of that parcel of land by virtue of
intestate succession.

Relative to the said civil case, herein respondent

lawyer, as counsel for therein defendants, notarized and
acknowledged a SPA

It is complainant's contention: (l) that the said

SPA was falsified because one of the affiants therein,
Mallari could not possibly have executed the same
because she was in Japan at the time the SP A was
executed, as certified to5 by the Bureau of Immigration
(BI); (2) that this SPA was used in the said civil case
to perpetrate fraud and deception against complainant
resulting in the filing of Criminal Case No. 452612-CR,
for violation of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code
(Use of Falsified Document) against Ma. Lourdes Almario
Pedia, the attorney-in-fact mentioned in the SPA; (3)
that respondent lawyer notarized the SPA although Mallari
did not personally appear before her; and (4) that in the
process of notarizing the SPA, respondent lawyer also
accepted a Community Tax Certificate (CTC), which is no
longer considered a competent evidence of identity
pursuant to the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT VIOLATED THE 2004 RULES

ON NOTARIAL PRCTICE

RULING:

The importance of the affiant's personal appearance

when a document is notarized is underscored by Section
1, Rule II and Section 2(b), Rule 1V of the 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice (.)To wit:

SECTION 1. Acknowledgment. - 'Acknowledgment' refers to

an act in which an individual on a single occasion:

(a) appears in person before the notary public and

presents an integrally complete instrument or document;

(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary

public or identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules;
and

(c) represents to the notary public that the signature

on the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by
him for the purposes stated in the instrument or
document, declares that he has executed the instrument
or document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and,
if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that
he has the authority to sign in that capacity. (Emphasis
supplied)

Furthermore, Section 2(b), Rule 1V of the same Rules

provides that:
(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.

(You may omit the above underlined

portions/paragraphs)

The provisions mandate the notary public to require

the physical or personal presence of the person/s who
executed a document, before notarizing the same. In other
words, a document should not be notarized unless the
person/s who is/are executing it is/are personally or
physically present before the notary public. The personal
and physical presence of the parties to the deed is
necessary to enable the notary public to verify the
genuineness of the signature/s of the affiant/s therein
and the due execution of the document.

Notaries public are absolutely prohibited or

forbidden from notarizing a fictitious or spurious
document. They are the law’s vanguards and sentinels
against illegal deeds. The confidence of the public in
the integrity of notarial acts would be undermined and
impaired if notaries public do not observe with utmost
care the basic requirements in the performance of their
duties spelled out in the notarial law. (You may omit
this underlined paragraph)

In the present case, the SPA in question was

notarized by respondent lawyer despite the absence of
Mallari, one of the affiants therein. Mallari could not
have personally appeared before respondent lawyer in
Muntinlupa City, Philippines where the SPA was notarized
on July 26, 2006 because Mallari was in Japan at that
time, as certified to by the Bureau of Immigration.

ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Dominica L. Agno is

hereby SUSPENDED as Notary Public for the aforesaid
infraction for two months and WARNED that the commission
of a similar infraction will be dealt with more severely.
(Can also be omitted)

Case No. 82
Tacorda vs. Judge Cabrera-Faler

This complaint stems from a Civil Case which was

initially pending before Judge, Branch 20, RTC, Imus,
Cavite. On October 2012, Judge Felicen issued an Order
requiring the parties to submit their respective pre-
trial briefs and setting the pre-trial on February 2013.
However, on January 2013, Judge Felicen inhibited himself
from the case and the case was raffled to the sala of
Judge Cabrera-Faller of Branch 90, RTC, Dasmariñas City,
Cavite.

After receipt of the records of the case, Judge

Cabrera-Faller set a clarificatory hearing which was,
however, rescheduled to 22 May 2013 due to a seminar
attended by respondent.
As the last event in the court of origin was for pre-
trial, the case was set for pre-trial on 14 and 29 August
2013. However, it was found out that the case had already
been referred for mediation, prompting the trial court
to suspend the proceedings until receipt of the
Mediator's Report. The Mediator's Report was received on
18 September 2013.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs in the civil case

belatedly filed their Pre-Trial Brief, which prompted the
respondents, through their lawyer Atty. Tacorda, to file
a Motion to Expunged the Pre-Trial Brief Submitted By the
Plaintiffs with Manifestation on 3 September 2013.

On July 2015, almost two years after the

Motion was filed, Judge Cabrera-Faller denied the motion
and set the case for pre-trial conference on October 2015
but then, was rescheduled to November 2015, because Judge
Cabrera-Faller was hospitalized on October 2015.

The delay attendant in resolving the motion

prompted Atty. Tacorda and Rodrigo-Dumdum to file this
complaint against Judge Cabrera-Faller and Suluen, the
Officer-in-Charge (OIC)/Legal Researcher II, for the
latter's failure to call the attention of Judge Cabrera-
Faller on the delay.

ISSUE: WHETHER JUDGE CABREAR-FALER WILL BE HELD

ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE.

RULING:

First, as to the allegation of gross ignorance of

the law, we find that Atty. Tacorda and Rodrigo-Dumdum
failed to substantiate the charges against Judge Cabrera-
Faller and Suluen.

To be held liable for gross ignorance of the law,

it must be shown that the error must be so gross and
patent as to produce an inference of bad
faith.[5] Moreover, the acts complained of must not only
be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence, but should
also be motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, and
corruption.[6] In this case, there was no allegation or
mention of any bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, and
corruption committed by Judge Cabrera-Faller or Suluen.
Complainants also failed to allege any gross and patent
ignorance of the law which would indicate any bad faith.

Additionally, there are no allegations as to

specific acts which would constitute impropriety on the
part of Judge Cabrera-Faller or Suluen, either in the
course of the performance of their official functions or
as private individuals. Necessarily, the complaint for
gross ignorance of the law and impropriety must fail.

However, we find merit in the complaint for gross

inefficiency and delay in the administration of justice
against Judge Cabrera-Faller when she failed to promptly
act on the motion filed by the Spouses Dumdum.

The Constitution clearly provides that all lower

courts should decide or resolve cases or matters within
three months from the date of submission.[10] Moreover,
Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct provides:

Sec. 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties,

including the delivery of reserved decisions,
efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.

WHEREFORE, we find Judge Perla V. Cabrera-Faller of

Branch 90, Regional Trial Court, Dasmariñas City,
Cavite GUILTY of Gross Inefficiency and Delay in the
Administration of Justice and impose on her a FINE of
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) which shall be
deducted from whatever amounts may still be due her. (can
be omitted).