RAMOS, Dianne Nicole L.
Basic Legal Ethics
1-C
ROLANDO T. KO, Complainant, v.
ATTY. ALMA UY-LAMPASA, Respondent
A.C. No. 11584, 06 March 2019
Caguioa, J.:
FACTS:
The complainant, Ko, alleged that the respondent had
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers (CPR)
by performing the following acts: (1) the respondent notarized
two deeds of sale between Jerry Uy the vendee of a parcel of land
and the Sultan siblings over said parcel of land despite knowing
that the two deeds of sale are false. The two documents involved
the same parties but contained different dates of notarization, in
violation of the Notarial Rules. (2) The respondent, as the counsel
of Jerry, filed a malicious case of Estafa against Ko’s son and the
Sultan siblings, grounded on the allegation that the settlement
was not published when it’s publication was evidenced by an
Affidavit of Publication. (3) Lastly, the respondent committed
perjury and filed pleadings in court without the necessary
mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance
number, attaching to his complaint several pleadings and
manifestations in support of such.
The respondent filed her answer, stating that, (1) the issue
of the deeds of sale are in a separate case pending in the court,
(2) the Estafa case is under the jurisdiction of the City
Prosecutor’s Office conducting the preliminary investigation, and
(3) she was exempted from MCLE requirements for the first up to
the third compliance periods because she was a former judge,
and the she is currently in the process of complying with the
requirement for the latest compliance period.
The Investigating Commissioner issued a Report and
Recommendation, which found the respondent guilty of Ko’s
allegations, this was adopted and approved by the IBP Board,
imposing on respondent the penalty of immediate revocation of
her notarial commission and disqualification for re-appointment
as notary public for two (2) years and to suspend the respondent
from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months (this was an
increase from the Investigating Commissioner’s recommended
penalty of a six (6) month suspension and a stern warning).
The respondent filed for a Motion for Reconsideration (MR),
which was denied by the IBP. In the MR, the respondent claimed
that the investigation was not exhaustive enough, and that the
IBP Board failed to cite the specific violation of the Notarial and
MCLE Rules. Lastly, the IBP Board increased the penalty imposed
on her without citing additional fact or basis.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not the respondent can be held liable for
violating Notarial Rules.
2. Whether or not the respondent can be held liable for
violating MCLE Rules.
3. Whether or not the IBP erred in imposing the penalties of
immediate revocation of the respondent’s notarial
commission and disqualification for re-appointment as
notary public for two (2) years and to suspend the
respondent from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months.
RULING:
1. Yes. 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 and the respondent failed to faithfully comply with
her duties as a notary public.
There were substantial differences between the two deeds,
which the respondent notarized such as the names of the
vendors and their signatures. The respondent violated
Section 6 of Rule IV of the 2004 rules on Notarial
Practice, which states:
SEC.6. Improper Instruments or Documents. – A
notary public shall not notarize:
(a) A blank or incomplete instrument or
document
The respondent clearly violated this provision when she
notarized the deeds of absolute sale despite the incomplete
signature and identification details of the vendors. The
identification given was the Community Tax Certificate (CTC)
Number for each of the vendors. And as jurisprudence holds,
one’s CTC number is not considered as competent evidence
of identity as it does not bear a photograph and the
signature of the individual concerned as required by Rule II,
Section 12 of Notarial Rules.
Making it worse, the vendors themselves claimed in their
counter-affidavits that they did not actually sign the deeds.
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. The presence of
the parties to the deed is necessary to enable the notary
public to verify the genuineness of the signature. When
respondent affixed 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.
For having violated the Notarial Rules, respondent also failed
to adhere to Cannon 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.
NOTE: the issue on the genuineness of the deeds is subject
of a pending civil case, hence, the Court did not rule on the
matter.
2. No. The Court disagrees with the Investigating Commissioner
and the IBP Board. 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”, starting from the member’s receipt
of a Notice of Non-Compliance. In this case, there is no
showing that respondent had ever been issued a Notice of
Non-Compliance; hence she cannot be declared a
delinquent. On the contrary, the records show that for the
first to third compliance periods, the respondent was
exempted for being a member of the judiciary, and that she
was able to complete the requirements for the fourth
compliance period. She also eventually completed the
required units during the pendency of this case. Thus, there
is no reason for respondent to be held liable and declared
delinquent.
3. Yes. The court affirms the penalty imposed by the IBP Board
Based on recent jurisprudence, a lawyer commissioned as a
notary public who failed to discharge his or her duties as
such is penalized with revocation of his or her notarial
commission and disqualification from being commissioned
as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. 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.
