0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
134 vues1 page
Emelita Solarte filed an administrative charge of gross misconduct against Atty. Teofilo Pugeda, alleging that he improperly notarized documents while also acting as a witness. However, the court found no evidence of misconduct. At the time, law allowed a notary public to witness documents they notarized. Additionally, Solarte provided no evidence that Atty. Pugeda was involved in the disputed property partition or employed fraud. Therefore, the court dismissed the charge as without merit.
Emelita Solarte filed an administrative charge of gross misconduct against Atty. Teofilo Pugeda, alleging that he improperly notarized documents while also acting as a witness. However, the court found no evidence of misconduct. At the time, law allowed a notary public to witness documents they notarized. Additionally, Solarte provided no evidence that Atty. Pugeda was involved in the disputed property partition or employed fraud. Therefore, the court dismissed the charge as without merit.
Emelita Solarte filed an administrative charge of gross misconduct against Atty. Teofilo Pugeda, alleging that he improperly notarized documents while also acting as a witness. However, the court found no evidence of misconduct. At the time, law allowed a notary public to witness documents they notarized. Additionally, Solarte provided no evidence that Atty. Pugeda was involved in the disputed property partition or employed fraud. Therefore, the court dismissed the charge as without merit.
A.C. No. 4751, July 31, 2000 ISSUE: W/N Atty. Pugeda should be charged with gross misconduct
FACTS: Emelita Solarte filed an administrative ch
arge of gross misconduct against Atty. Teofilo Pug RULING: NO. Nothing in law prohibits notary pu eda, a Municipal Judge in 1960s. Solarte alleges t blic from acting at the same time as witness in th hat Atty. Pugeda could not have notarized the doc e document he notarized. The only exception is w uments, to which he also acted as witness, involvi hen the document to be notarized is a will. ng the 2 deeds of sale in General Trias, Cavite. A pparently, the land belonged to Catalino Nocon. S he assails validity of the partition because one of Solarte offered no proof, but only mere allegations Nocon’s heirs, Hermina, was not a signatory theret , that Atty. Pugeda was involved in the partition o o because she was still a minor at the time. She al f the subject property, employing fraud to effect s so claims interest in the lots because she was a de uch. This grave charge against a member of th scendant of the original owner, Nocon, being her grandfather. She avers that Atty. Pugeda and his w e bar and former municipal judge needs conc ife, in administering the property, are responsible f rete substantiation to gain credence. It could or the wrongful partition. Accordingly, she claims that acts of Atty. Pugeda constitute misconduct. not prosper without adequate proof. Ultimatel y, this charge is without merit.I
For his part, Atty. Pugeda counters that he was no
longer under any obligation to provide her with t he documents she was asking for because he is no longer anotary public ex officio. He says he was willing to look for the documents he notarized so me 30 years ago, but she was impatient. He also s ays there is nothing in the law that prohibits the n otary public from signing as witness the same doc uments he notarized and that as municipal judge, he was empowered to notarize documents under th e Judiciary Act of 1948 and the Revised Administ rative Code. The documents in question were notar ized in the 1960s, which was before the SC declar ed in 1980, that an ex officio notary public can on ly notarize documents if such notarization is in co nnection with the exercise of his official functions and duties. He also denies that he or his wife was responsible for the partition.
CFI upheld the validity of the partition and the de
eds of sale.
IBP recommended that the charge be dismissed for
Atty. Pugeda cannot be faulted for failure of Nati onal Archives to provide Solarte with the copies s he asked for, that he and his wife had no hand in the partition and sale, and that there is no prohibit ion for notary public to witness.
Lorcom Thirteen (Pty) LTD V Zurich Insurance Company South Africa LTD (54 - 08) (2013) ZAWCHC 64 2013 (5) SA 42 (WCC) (2013) 4 All SA 71 (WCC) (29 April 2013)