Gimeno V Atty. Zaide
JOY A. GIMENO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. PAUL CENTILLAS ZAIDE, Respondent.
SECOND DIVISION, A.C. No. 10303, April 22, 2015, BRION, J.
Facts:
Joy A. Gimeno (Cimeno) filed a complaint with the IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline, charging Atty. Zaide
with: (1) usurpation of a notary public's office; (2) falsification; (3) use of intemperate, offensive and abusive
language; and (4) violation of lawyer-client trust. Gimeno alleged that even before Atty. Zaide's
admissionhttps://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/apr2015/ac_10303_2015.html - fnt4 to the Bar and receipt of
his notarial commission, he had notarized a partial extrajudicial partition with deed of absolute sale on March 29,
2002. She also accused Atty. Zaide of making false and irregular entries in his notarial registers. Gimeno further
submitted that she was Atty. Zaide's former client. Despite their previous lawyer-client relationship, Atty. Zaide still
appeared against her in the complaint for estafa and violation of RA 3019 that one Priscilla Somontan (Somontan)
filed against her with the Ombudsman. Gimeno contended that Atty. Zaide’s statements constitute intemperate,
offensive and abusive language, which a lawyer is proscribed from using in his dealings.
In his answer, Atty. Zaide argued that he did not notarize the March 29, 2002 partial extrajudicial
partition. As it appeared on the notarial page of this document, his notarial stamp and falsified signature were
superimposed over the typewritten name of Atty. Elpedio Cabasan, the lawyer who actually notarized this
document. Atty. Zaide claimed that Gimeno falsified his signature to make it appear that he notarized it before his
admission to the Bar. On the alleged falsification of his notarial entries, Atty. Zaide contended that he needed to
simultaneously use several notarial registers in his separate satellite offices in order to better cater to the needs of
his clients and accommodate their growing number. This explains the irregular and non-sequential entries in his
notarial registers. Atty. Zaide argued that Gimeno was never his client since she did not personally hire him as her
counsel. Gimeno engaged the services of ZMZ where he previously worked as an associate. The real counsel of
Gimeno and her relatives in their annulment of title case was Atty. Leo Montalban Zaragoza, one of ZMZ's
partners. He denied that he used any intemperate, offensive, and abusive language in his pleadings.
Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo, Jr. (Commissioner Magpayo) found Atty. Zaide administratively liable
for violating the Notarial Practice Rules, representing conflicting interests, and using abusive and insulting language
in his pleadings. The IBP Board of Governors (Board) modified the recommended penalty and imposed instead the
penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, if existing, and two
years suspension from being commissioned as a notary public.Atty. Zaide sought for the reconsideration of the
Board's resolution but this was also denied in its subsequent resolution.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Zaide should be administratively liable.
Ruling: The Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors' findings and recommended penalty, and accordingly
confirms them.
Violation of the Notarial Practice Rules
a. Usurpation of a notarial office
This Court notes that at the time the document was purportedly notarized, Atty. Zaide's details as a lawyer and as
a notary public had not yet existed. He was admitted to the Bar only on May 2, 2002; thus, he could not have
obtained and used the exact figures pertaining to his roll number, PTR number, IBP number and the expiration
date of his notarial commission, prior to this date, particularly on March 29, 2002. Atty. Zaide could not have
notarized the document before his Bar admission and receipt of his notarial commission.
b. Maintaining different notarial registers in separate notarial offices
We find that Atty. Zaide violated the Notarial Practice Rules by maintaining different notarial registers in several
offices. Section 1(a), Rule VI of the Notarial Practice Rules provides that "a notary public shall keep, maintain,
protect and provide for lawful inspection as provided in these Rules, a chronological official notarial register of
notarial acts consisting of a permanently bound book with numbered pages." The same section further provides
that "a notary public shall keep only one active notarial register at any given time." On this basis, Atty. Zaide's act
of simultaneously keeping several active notarial registers is a blatant violation of Section 1, Rule VI. The Notarial
Practice Rules strictly requires a notary public to maintain only one active notarial register and ensure that the
entries in it are chronologically arranged. The "one active notarial register" rule is in place to deter a notary public
from assigning several notarial registers to different offices manned by assistants who perform notarial services on
his behalf.
Representing conflicting interests
One of these tests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of a
lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in
the performance of that duty. Another test is whether a lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use
against a former client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment.
1
Applying these tests, we find no conflict of interest when Atty. Zaide appeared against Gimeno, his former law
firm's client. The lawyer-client relationship between Atty. Zaide and Gimeno ceased when Atty. Zaide left ZMZ.
Moreover, the case where Gimeno engaged ZMZ's services is an entirely different subject matter and is not in any
way connected to the complaint that Somontan filed against Gimeno with the Ombudsman.
Use of intemperate, offensive and abusive language in professional dealings
As shown in the record, Atty. Zaide,in the reply that he drafted in the Ombudsman case, called Gimeno a
"notorious extortionist." And in another case, Gimeno observed that Atty. Zaide used the following demeaning and
immoderate language in presenting his comment against his opposing counsel: Her declaration in Public put a
shame, DISGRACE, INDIGNITY AND HUMILIATION in the whole Justice System x x x This clearly confirms Atty.
Zaide's lack of restraint in the use and choice of his words - a conduct unbecoming of an officer of the court. While
a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of
offensive and abusive language. Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but
respectful, convincing but not derogatory, and illuminating but not offensive.
Atty. Zaide is found GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and for using intemperate,
offensive and, abusive language in violation of Rule 8.01, Canon 8 and Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
