SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 11584. March 6, 2019.]

(Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3604)

ROLANDO T. KO , complainant, vs. ATTY. ALMA UY-LAMPASA ,

respondent.

DECISION

CAGUIOA , J : p

Before the Court is an administrative complaint 1 for disbarment led by Rolando

T. Ko (complainant) against Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa (respondent) with the Commission
on Bar Discipline (CBD), Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). 2
Complaint
In his Complaint dated October 2, 2012, complainant alleged that respondent
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers (CPR). First , he claimed
that respondent notarized two purported deeds of sale between Jerry Uy (Jerry) and
the Sultan siblings (heirs of a certain Pablo Sultan) over a parcel of land despite
knowing that the two deeds of sale were spurious. From the records, it appears that the
Sultan siblings are: Pablito, Anicieto, Cristita, Juanito, Felix, Leonardo, Crispen, 3 Lilia,
Victoriano and Lucita. 4
The Deeds of Absolute Sale dated October 12, 2011 5 and October 19, 2011, 6
are similar in the following respects: the vendee, the property covered, and the
consideration. However, the two deeds differ as regards the name of the vendors. For
the Deed dated October 12, the vendors named were Juanito, Felix, Leonardo, Crispen,
Lilia, Pablito, Victoriano and Lucita, but only Leonardo, Lilia and Victoriano signed the
deed. For the Deed dated October 19, Victorian and Lucita were not included in the
vendors and among those named, i.e., Juanito, Felix, Leonardo, Crispen, Pablito, and
Lilia, Pablito did not sign the deed. It is noted that only eight of the ten Sultan siblings
are involved, as Anicieto and Cristita do not appear in either of the deeds.
In this regard, complainant claimed that an Extra-judicial Settlement of Estate
with Absolute Sale 7 (Extra-judicial Settlement) covering the same property was
executed on October 20, 2011 between his son, Jason U. Ko (Jason), and all ten of the
Sultan siblings. Complainant calls the attention of the Court to the fact that in contrast
with the deeds of sale notarized by respondent, this Extra-judicial Settlement contains
the signatures and thumbmarks of all the Sultan siblings.
Second , complainant also claimed that respondent, as counsel for Jerry (the
vendee in the abovementioned Deeds of Sale), led a malicious case of Estafa against
his son Jason and the Sultan siblings, grounded on the allegation that the Extra-judicial
Settlement was not published when in fact, it was published as evidenced by an
Affidavit of Publication. 8
Lastly , complainant averred that respondent also committed perjury and has
led pleadings in court without the necessary Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(MCLE) compliance number, attaching to his complaint several pleadings and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 manifestations in support of such. 9
Answer
In her Answer 1 0 dated November 10, 2012, respondent countered that she has
not violated any provision of the CPR, arguing that: (1) the matter of whether the deeds
of sale were spurious is now the subject of separate cases pending in court and with
the City Prosecutor's O ce of Catbalogan City, Western Samar; (2) the determination
of whether the estafa case is malicious is within the jurisdiction of the City Prosecutor's
O ce conducting the preliminary investigation; and (3) she was exempted from MCLE
requirements for the rst up to the third compliance period because she was a former
judge, and that she is currently in the process of complying with the requirement for the
latest compliance period. 1 1 aScITE

Subsequently, the parties submitted their Reply 1 2 and Rejoinders 1 3 before the
CBD in support of their arguments and counter-arguments. A mandatory conference
was held on September 19, 2013 and upon its termination, both parties submitted their
respective position papers. 1 4

Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner

On December 18, 2013, the Investigating Commissioner of the CBD issued a

Report and Recommendation, 1 5 the pertinent portions of which are reproduced below:
x x x Stripped of the non-essentials, a scrutiny of the records would show
that respondent has, indeed, notarized two (2) documents of sale involving the
same parties but containing different dates of notarization. Respondent has
never denied notarizing the subject documents in her veri ed answer and in her
subsequent pleadings led before the CBD. Very clearly, this alone is a violation
of the notarial law. Moreover, there is su cient evidence to prove that
respondent failed to indicate her MCLE Compliance Certi cate Number in
various pleadings led before the courts and the Prosecutors O ce of
Catbalogan City, Western Samar. Her argument that she was on the process of
obtaining her MCLE certi cate for the latest compliance period does not, in any
way, exempt her from the mandate of the circular. Prudence dictates that
respondent should have refrained from signing pleadings while her MCLE
certificate is being processed. Unfortunately, however, she failed to do so.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED , it is recommended that
respondent shall be suspended as a Notary Public for a period of SIX (6)
MONTHS with a stern warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt
with more severely. 1 6 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors
In a Resolution 1 7 dated October 11, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP
Board) adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner, nding the same to be fully supported by the evidence on record and
applicable laws. The IBP Board found that respondent indeed violated the 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice and Bar Matter No. (B.M.) 850. However, the IBP Board modified
the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and imposed on respondent
the penalty of immediate revocation of her notarial commission and
disquali cation for re-appointment as notary public for two (2) years , not six
months as recommended by the Investigating Commissioner. In addition, the IBP
Board also suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of six
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 (6) months .
Respondent led a Motion for Reconsideration 1 8 (MR), which was denied by the
IBP Board in a Resolution 1 9 dated February 25, 2016. HEITAD

The Court notes that in respondent's MR before the IBP Board, she argued that
the latter merely adopted the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner, which was likewise not exhaustive enough in its ndings and
conclusions. Moreover, respondent claimed that the IBP Board failed to cite any
speci c violation of the Notarial and MCLE Rules. Lastly, respondent argued that the
IBP Board increased the penalty imposed on her without citing any additional fact or
basis.
Indeed, despite the numerous submissions of the parties, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner as well as the Resolutions of the
IBP Board leave much to be desired. Thus, the Court shall expound on respondent's
administrative liability.
Ruling of the Court
Non-compliance with the
MCLE Requirements

On the issue of compliance with the MCLE, the Court disagrees with the
Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board.
B.M. 850 requires members of the IBP to undergo continuing legal education "to
ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence,
maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law."
2 0 The First Compliance Period for the MCLE requirement was from 15 April 2001 to 14
April 2004; the Second Compliance Period was from 15 April 2004 to 14 April 2007;
and the Third Compliance Period was from 15 April 2007 to 14 April 2010; and the
Fourth Compliance Period was from 15 April 2010 to 14 April 2013. 2 1
Here, complainant alleged that in several pleadings led by respondent, the latter
did not indicate her MCLE compliance number. He cited ve pleadings led by
respondent which were dated December 7, 2011, 2 2 February 25, 2012, 2 3 March 8,
2012, 2 4 and two pleadings dated March 27, 2012, 2 5 thus falling under the Fourth
Compliance Period.
For her part, respondent explained that she was exempted from MCLE
compliance for the First, Second, and Third Compliance Periods, until she resigned as a
judge on March 2010. After which, she endeavored to comply with the Fourth
Compliance Period while also in the process of requesting copies of her certi cate of
exemption. 2 6
The Court notes that respondent eventually completed the required units on May
19, 2012, which is still within the Fourth Compliance Period. Likewise, she was also
issued Certi cates of Exemption 2 7 on September 4, 2012 for the First, Second, and
Third Compliance Periods. 2 8
Moreover, respondent manifested that the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) where the cases involved were pending required her to submit her Certi cates of
Compliance. When respondent received said certi cates, she immediately submitted
the same to the trial court. 2 9
In nding respondent administratively liable, the IBP Board merely stated that
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 she violated B.M. 850. The relevant provisions thereof are Rules 12 and 13, which
provide: ATICcS

RULE 12
Non-Compliance Procedures
xxx xxx xxx
SECTION 2. Non-compliance Notice and 60-day Period to Attain
Compliance. — Members failing to comply will receive a Non-Compliance
Notice stating the speci c de ciency and will be given sixty (60) days
from the date of noti cation to le a response clarifying the
de ciency or otherwise showing compliance with the requirements . x x
x
xxx xxx xxx
Members given sixty (60) days to respond to a Non-Compliance
Notice may use this period to attain the adequate number of credit
units for compliance. x x x
RULE 13
Consequences of Non-Compliance
SECTION 1. Non-compliance Fee. — A member who, for whatever
reason, is in non-compliance at the end of the compliance period shall pay a
non-compliance fee .
SECTION 2. Listing as Delinquent Member. — A member who fails
to comply with the requirements after the sixty (60)-day period for
compliance has expired , shall be listed as a delinquent member of the
IBP upon the recommendation of the MCLE Committee . The investigation
of a member for non-compliance shall be conducted by the IBP's Commission
on Bar Discipline as a fact- nding arm of the MCLE Committee. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied) ETHIDa

Based on the rules, an IBP member shall only be declared delinquent for failure to
comply with the education requirements "after the sixty (60)-day period for compliance
has expired." This 60-day period shall commence from the time such member received
a notice of non-compliance. Without the notice of compliance, a member who believes
that the units he or she had taken already amounts to full compliance may be declared
delinquent without being made aware of such lack of units and with no chance to rectify
the same. 3 0
In the instant case, there is no showing that respondent had ever been issued a
Notice of Non-Compliance. On the contrary, the records show that for the rst to third
compliance periods, she was exempted for being a member of the judiciary, and that
she was able to complete the requirements for the fourth compliance period. The Court
also notes that when complainant led the disbarment case on October 12, 2012,
respondent still had until April 14, 2013 to comply with the fourth compliance period.
She eventually completed the required units on May 19, 2012. Thus, there is no reason
for respondent to be held liable and declared delinquent under B.M. 850.
Violation of the Notarial Rules
Despite the foregoing, the Court agrees with the IBP Board that respondent can
be held liable for violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice.
The act of notarization is impressed with public interest. As such, a notary public
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 must observe the highest degree of care in complying with the basic requirements in
the performance of his or her duties in order to preserve the con dence of the public in
the integrity of the notarial system. 3 1 In this case, respondent failed to faithfully
comply with her duties as a notary public.
It appears that respondent notarized two Deeds of Absolute Sale covering the
same property and involving substantially the same parties. In the October 12, 2011
Deed of Absolute Sale, the Acknowledgement reads in part:
BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for and in the Province of Samar,
personally appeared JUANITO A. SULTAN, FELIX A. SULTAN, LEONARDO A.
SULTAN, CRISPEN A. SULTAN, LILIA A. SULTAN, PABLITO A. SULTAN,
VICTORIANO A. SULTAN, LUCITA S. UY and JERRY I. UY, exhibiting to me
their Community Tax Certi cate numbers , known to me to be the same
persons who executed the foregoing instrument, which they acknowledged to
me as their free and voluntary act and deed. 3 2 (Emphasis supplied)
However, among the vendors, only Leonardo, Lilia, and Victoriano actually signed
the deed. Details of the Community Tax Certi cate (CTC) of Juanito, Felix, and Crispen
were provided, but they did not sign the deed. As for Pablito and Lucita, the space for
the signature and identification details was left blank.
Likewise, in the October 19, 2011 Deed of Absolute Sale, the Acknowledgement
reads in part: cSEDTC

BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for and in the Province of Samar,

personally appeared JUANITO A. SULTAN, FELIX A. SULTAN, LEONARDO A.
SULTAN, CRISPEN A. SULTAN, LILIA A. SULTAN, PABLITO A. SULTAN, and
JERRY I. UY, exhibiting to me their Community Tax Certi cate numbers ,
known to me to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument,
which they acknowledged to me as their free and voluntary act and deed. 3 3
(Emphasis supplied)
As compared with the earlier deed, this latter deed no longer contains the names
of Victoriano and Lucita as vendors. Also, while Juanito, Felix, Leonardo, Crispen, and
Lilia appear to have signed, there was no signature for Pablito even though he was
listed as a vendor.
In this regard, the Court notes that complainant submitted a copy of another
deed of sale involving the same property, speci cally the Extra-judicial Settlement
between his son Jason and all the Sultan siblings. In contrast with the Deeds of Sale
notarized by respondent, this Extra-judicial Settlement contains the names of all the
Sultan siblings, along with their signatures and thumbprints a xed on all pages of the
said document. Nonetheless, the issue on the genuineness of these deeds is subject of
a pending civil case; hence, the Court will not rule on the matter. The instant resolution
will focus on respondent's administrative liability.
Section 6 of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice states:
SEC. 6. Improper Instruments or Documents. — A notary public shall
not notarize :
(a) a blank or incomplete instrument or document; or
(b) an instrument or document without appropriate notarial
certification.
Here, respondent clearly violated this provision when she notarized the deeds of
absolute sale despite the incomplete signature and identi cation details of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 vendors. Moreover, when the identi cation details were indeed provided in the deeds,
the proof of identity indicated for all of them was the CTC Number. Jurisprudence 3 4
already holds that a CTC is not considered as competent evidence of identity as it does
not bear a photograph and a signature of the individual concerned, as required in Rule II,
Section 12 of the Notarial Rules. 3 5
Worse, while there are some signatures that do appear on the instruments, the
vendors therein claimed that they did not actually sign the deeds. In support of this,
complainant attached in his Complaint the counter-a davits of some of the Sultan
siblings in the estafa case led by Jerry (the vendee in the assailed deeds of sale), with
respondent as counsel. The pertinent portions of the counter-a davits are reproduced
below:
In Victoriano Sultan's Counter-Affidavit, 3 6 he stated that:
18. Later[,] I was surprised unpleasantly that the deed [of absolute
sale] had already been signed by my other siblings, by the witnesses[,] and
subscribed to before the notary public, which, on my part, I did not
appear before her , x x x 3 7 (Emphasis supplied). SDAaTC

Similarly, Crispin Sultan stated in his Counter-Affidavit 3 8 the following:

15. Later[,] I was surprised to know that I supposedly appeared,
signed and acknowledged the deed before a notary public on 19
October 2011 , the truth of the matter being that on such date I was in Bacolod
City discharging my duties as security guard[.] 3 9 (Emphasis supplied).
Also, in Felix Sultan's Counter-Affidavit, 4 0 he stipulated that:
19. It is noteworthy that I did not appear before a notary public
in Catbalogan City supposedly to execute and sign any deed of
conveyance in the month of October 2011 ; and speci cally[,] I did not
receive the amount of P500,000.00 from complainant[.] 4 1 (Emphasis supplied)
Lastly, Juanito Sultan made a similar statement as Felix's in his Counter-A davit:
42

22. It is noteworthy that I did not appear before a notary public

in Catbalogan City supposedly to execute and sign any deed of
conveyance in the month of October 2011 ; and speci cally[,] I did not
receive the amount of P500,000.00 from complainant[.] 4 3 (Emphasis supplied)
This is also in clear violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule IV, Section 2
of which provides:
SEC. 2. Prohibitions. — x x x
xxx xxx xxx
(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 de ned by these Rules. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
The Notarial Rules clearly mandate that before notarizing a document, the notary
public should require the presence of the very person who executed the same. Thus, he
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 or she certi es that it was the same person who executed and personally appeared
before him to attest to the contents and truth of what were stated therein. The
presence of the parties to the deed is necessary to enable the notary public to verify the
genuineness of the signature. 4 4
When respondent a xed her signature and notarial seal on the deeds of sale, she
led the public to believe that the parties personally appeared before her and attested to
the truth and veracity of the contents thereof when in fact, they deny doing so.
Respondent's conduct is laden with dangerous possibilities, bearing in mind the
conclusiveness accorded to the due execution of a document. Her conduct did not only
jeopardize the rights of the parties to the instrument; it also undermined the integrity of
a notary public and degraded the function of notarization. Thus, respondent should be
liable for such act, not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.
acEHCD

For having violated the Notarial Rules, respondent also failed to adhere to Canon
1 of the CPR, which requires every lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of
the land, and promote respect for the law and legal processes. She also violated Rule
1.01 of the CPR which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest,
immoral, and deceitful conduct.
Based on recent jurisprudence, a lawyer commissioned as a notary public who
fails to discharge his or her duties as such is penalized with revocation of his or her
notarial commission and disquali cation from being commissioned as a notary public
for a period of two (2) years. 4 5 In addition, he or she may also be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of six (6) months for notarizing a document without the
appearance of the parties. 4 6 Thus, the Court a rms the penalty imposed by the IBP
Board.
WHEREFORE , nding Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa GUILTY of violating the Rules on
Notarial Practice and Rule 1.01 and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
the Court hereby SUSPENDS her from the practice of law for six (6) months;
REVOKES her notarial commission, effective immediately; and PROHIBITS her from
being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. She is further WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the O ce of the Bar Con dant, to be
appended to the respondent's personal record as attorney. Likewise, copies shall be
furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for their
information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, J.C. Reyes, Jr. and Hernando, ** JJ., concur.
Perlas-Bernabe, * J., is on wellness leave.

Footnotes

* On wellness leave.
** Designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2630 dated December 18, 2018.
1. Rollo, pp. 2-9.
2. CBD Case No. 12-3604, id. at 2.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 3. Spelled as "Crispin" in some parts of the rollo.
4. Rollo, pp. 40 and 44.

5. Id. at 12-14.
6. Id. at 15-17.
7. Id. at 44-46.
8. Id. at 55.
9. Id. at 5-6.

10. Id. at 78-83.

11. Id. at 78-82, 194.
12. Id. at 91-97.
13. Id. at 109-112, 121-129.

14. Id. at 303.

15. Id. at 194-195.
16. Id. at 195.
17. Id. at 193-193-a.
18. Id. at 196-210.

19. Id. at 298-299.

20. B.M. 850, Rule I, Sec. 1.
21. Arnado v. Atty. Adaza, 767 Phil. 696, 704 (2015).
22. Rollo, p. 43.
23. Id. at 66.

24. Id. at 58.

25. Id. at 65 and 68.
26. Id. at 80.
27. Id. at 212-214.

28. Id. at 80, 212-215.

29. Id. at 203.
30. See Strongbuilt Property Holdings, Inc. v. Belmi, A.C. No. 11014, February 15, 2016, pp. 2-3
(Unsigned Resolution).
31. Atty. Bartolome v. Atty. Basilio, 771 Phil. 1, 5 (2015).
32. Rollo, p. 14.
33. Id. at 17.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 34. Baylon v. Almo, 578 Phil. 238 (2008).
35. SEC. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity . — The phrase "competent evidence of identity"
refers to the identification of an individual based on: (a) at least one current
identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and
signature of the individual x x x.

36. Rollo, pp. 18-21.

37. Id. at 20.
38. Id. at 22-25.
39. Id. at 24.
40. Id. at 29-31.

41. Id. at 31.

42. Id. at 34-36.
43. Id. at 36.
44. Ferguson v. Ramos, A.C. No. 9209, April 18, 2017, 823 SCRA 59, 65.
45. Baysac v. Atty. Aceron-Papa, 792 Phil. 635, 646-647 (2016).

46. Ferguson v. Ramos, supra note 44, at 67, citing Ocampo-Ingcoco v. Atty. Yrreverre, Jr., 458
Phil. 803, 814 (2003).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com