ARTURO L. SICAT vs. ATTY. GREGORIO E. ARIOLA, JR.

FACTS: The Municipality of Cainta entered into a contract with J.C. Benitez Architect and Technical Management, represented by Benitez, for the construction of low-cost houses. For the services of the consultants, the Municipality of Cainta issued a check dated January 10, 2001 in the amount of P3,700,000, payable to J.C. Benitez Architects and Technical Management and/or Cesar Goco. The check was received and encashed by the latter by virtue of the authority of the SPA notarized by respondent Ariola. Arturo L. Sicat, a Board Member of the Sangguniang Panglalawigan of Rizal, charged respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola, the Municipal Administrator of Cainta, Rizal, with violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility by committing fraud, deceit and falsehood in his dealings, particularly the notarization of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly executed by a one Juanito C. Benitez. According to complainant, respondent made it appear that Benitez executed the said document on January 4, 2001 when in fact the latter had already died on October 25, 2000. Complainant further charged respondent with the crime of falsification penalized under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code by making it appear that certain persons participated in an act or proceeding when in fact they did not. respondent explained that, as early as May 12, 2000, Benitez had already signed the SPA but due to inadvertence, it was only on January 4, 2001 that he was able to notarize it. Nevertheless, the SPA notarized by him on January 4, 2001 was not at all necessary because Benitez had signed a similar SPA in favor of Goco sometime before his death, on May 12, 2000. Because it was no longer necessary, the SPA was cancelled the same day he notarized it, hence, legally, there was no public document that existed. The IBP recommended to the Court that respondent s notarial commission be revoked and that he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year. RULING: In the case at bar, the records show that Benitez died on October 25, 2000. However, respondent notarized the SPA, purportedly bearing the signature of Benitez, on January 4, 2001 or more than two months after the latter s death. The notarial acknowledgement of respondent declared that Benitez appeared before him and acknowledged that the instrument was his free and voluntary act. Clearly, respondent lied and intentionally perpetuated an untruthful statement. Notarization is [13] not an empty, meaningless and routinary act. It converts a private document into a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its [14] authenticity and due execution. Neither will respondent s defense that the SPA in question was superfluous and unnecessary, and prejudiced no one, exonerate him of accountability. His assertion of falsehood in a public document contravened one of the most cherished tenets of the legal profession and potentially cast suspicion on the truthfulness of every notarial act. As the Municipal Administrator of Cainta, he should have been aware of his great responsibility not only as a notary public but as a public officer as well. A public office is a public trust. Respondent should not have caused disservice to his constituents by consciously performing an act that would deceive them and the Municipality of Cainta. Without the fraudulent SPA, the erring parties in the construction project could not have encashed the check amounting to P3,700,000 and could not have foisted on the public a spurious contract all to

the extreme prejudice of the very Municipality of which he was the Administrator.

Victorina Bautista vs Atty. Sergio Bernabe

FACTS: On January 3, 1998, respondent prepared and notarized 3 a Magkasanib na Salaysay purportedly executed by Donato 4 Salonga and complainant s mother, Basilia de la Cruz. Both affiants declared that a certain parcel of land in Bigte, Norzagaray, Bulacan, was being occupied by Rodolfo Lucas and his family for more than 30 years. Complainant claimed that her mother could not have executed the joint affidavit on January 3, 1998 because 5 she has been dead since January 28, 1961. Victoririna Bautista filed before the commission on Bar Discipline a complaint against Atty. Bernabe which prayed for the suspension or disbarment due to malpractice and unethical conduct in the performance of his duties as a notary and a lawyer. Respondent denied that he falsified the Magkasanib na Salaysay. He disclaimed any knowledge about Basilia s death. He alleged that before he notarized the document, he requested for Basilia s presence and in her absence, he allowed a certain Pronebo, allegedly a son-in-law of Basilia, to sign above the name of the latter as shown by the word "by" on top of the name of Basilia. Respondent maintained that there was no forgery since the signature appearing on top of Basilia s name was the signature of Pronebo. On April 4, 2005, respondent filed a manifestation attaching 8 thereto the affidavit of desistance of complainant. In a resolution dated October 22, 2005, the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner with modification that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and his notarial commission be revoked and that he be disqualified for reappointment as notary public for two years. RULING: Respondent s alleged lack of knowledge of Basilia s death does not excuse him. It was his duty to require the personal appearance of the affiant before affixing his notarial seal and signature on the instrument. 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 11 genuineness of the signature of the affiant. Respondent s act of notarizing the Magkasanib na Salaysay in the 12 absence of one of the affiants is in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial 13 Law. By affixing his signature and notarial seal on the instrument, he led us to believe that Basilia personally appeared before him and attested to the truth and veracity of the contents of the affidavit when in fact it was a certain Pronebo who signed the document. Respondent s conduct is fraught with dangerous possibilities considering the conclusiveness on the due execution of a document that our courts and the public accord on notarized documents. Respondent has clearly failed to exercise utmost diligence in the performance of his function as a notary public and 14 to comply with the mandates of the law.
7

Respondent was also remiss in his duty when he allowed Pronebo to sign in behalf of Basilia. A member of the bar who performs an act as 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. Otherwise, their representative s name should appear in the said documents as the one who executed the same. That is the only time the representative can affix his signature and personally appear before the notary public for notarization of the said document. Complainant s desistance or withdrawal of the complaint does not exonerate respondent or put an end to the administrative proceedings. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings which involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. WHEREFORE, for breach of the Notarial Law and Code of Professional Responsibility, the notarial commission of respondent Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe, is REVOKED. He is DISQUALIFIEDfrom reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two years. He is also SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one year, effective immediately. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. He is DIRECTED to report the date of receipt of this Decision in order to determine when his suspension shall take effect.

MARY JANE D. VELASCO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CHARLIE DOROIN AND ATTY. HECTOR CENTENO, RESPONDENTS.

A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients require in the attorney a high standard and appreciation of his duty to his clients, his profession, the courts and the public. To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession. It bears stressing that membership in the bar is a privilege

FACTS: Mary jane Velasco, complainant, was appointed as Administratrix of the Estate of the Late Eduardo Doroin, Monina E. Doroin. The deceased, Eduardo Doroin, died on 21 January 1996, in Papua New Guinea. In this Special Proceedings case, respondents were collaborating counsels for Oppositor, Josephine Abarquez. On 21 March 1996, Atty. Doroin fooled complainant by deceitful means into making her sign an Extra-Judicial Settlement and Deed of Partition, giving the paramour of complainant's father, Josephine Abarquez and two (2) alleged illegitimate brothers and an alleged illegitimate sister a share believing that such sharing is in accordance with law. But no share was assigned to complainant's mother, who was the legal wife of Dr. Eduardo Doroin. To partially satisfy complainant's share, Atty. Doroin required complainant to sign a paper which was an alleged Confirmation of Authority to Sell the property of complainant's father located at Kingspoint subdivision but she was not able to sign the said Confirmation because complainant's lawyer, Atty. Marapao, failed to confer and negotiate with Atty. Doroin regarding the same.

burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law during good behaviour and can only be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard has afforded him. Without invading any constitutional privilege or right, and attorney's right to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to suspend or disbar him, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to exercise the duties and responsibilities of an attorney. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof generally rests upon the complainant, and for the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be [22] established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. The complained actuations of the respondent lawyers constitute a blatant violation of the lawyer's oath to uphold the law and the basic tenets of the Code of Professional Responsibility that no lawyer shall engage in dishonest conduct The guilt of the respondent lawyers is beyond dispute. They failed to answer the complaint filed against them. Hence, the claims and allegations of the complainant remainuncontroverted. The Court is mindful that disbarment is a grave penalty. Considering that the license to practice law, though it is not a property right, sustains a lawyer's primary means of livelihood and to strip someone of such license amounts to stripping one of a career and a means to keep himself alive, we agree with the modification submitted by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines that an indefinite suspension would be the more appropriate penalty on Atty. Charlie Doroin. However, we cannot be as lenient with Atty. Hector Centeno who, aside from committing a dishonest act by depriving a person of her rightful inheritance, also committed a criminal offense when he falsificated a public document and thereafter absconded from the criminal proceeding against him after having posted bail.
[21]

When complainant visited the lot on January 1999, there was already a four-door townhouse constructed. Complainant learned that the property was sold by Atty. Doroin to Evangeline ReyesYonemura by forging the signature of complainant's late father. Atty. Hector B. Centeno, a Notary Public of Quezon City, knowing that complainant's father was already dead, made it appear in the said Deed of Absolute Sale, that complainant's father appeared before him in Quezon City on 17 January 1997. A case for Falsification of Public Document was filed against respondent Atty. Hector Centeno. Such was arraigned and pleaded "not guilty. After the arraignment, Atty. Centeno did not [14] anymore appeared [sic] in court and jumped bail. A disbarment complaint was filed by Mary Jane D. Velasco against respondent lawyers for forgery and falsification constitutive of malpractice. The counsel for respondents filed a Motion for Extension to File Comment which was granted by the court. However, no comment was ever filed by them. Resolutions of the court were returned unserved. RULING: Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their clients or the public at large,
[18]

IN VIEW WHEREOF, Atty. Charlie Doroin is suspended indefinitely, and Atty. Hector Centeno is hereby DISBARRED.

and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal

[19]

profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.