HEIR OF HERMINIGILDO* A. UNITE, notarial system.
In this light, the Court has ruled that
REPRESENTED BY HIS SOLE HEIR, FLORENTINO S.
UNITE, VS. ATTY. RAYMUND P. GUZMAN
A.C. No. 12062, July 02, 2018
FACTS:
Florentino S. Unite, the sole heir of
Herminigildo A. Unite, filed a Petition for Disbarment
against Atty. Raymund P. Guzman, for notarizing a
Deed of Self Adjudication with Sale executed by Jose
Unite Torrices (Torrices), claiming to be the sole heir
of Herminigildo, in favor of one Francisco U. Tamayo
(Tamayo), covering a parcel of land located in
Cagayan and covered by a title under Herminigildo's
name. According to Florentino, the Deed was
executed with only Torrices's community tax
certificate (CTC) as evidence of identity. He asserted
that he is the only surviving heir of his father,
Herminigildo, while Torrices is his cousin. As a result
of respondent's acts, the Deed was recorded in the
Registry of Deeds, which caused the cancellation of
his father's title and the issuance of a new one in the
name of Tamayo. Respondent denied the charges
against him and claimed that he complied with the
requirements of the Notarial Rules. Particularly, he
verified the identity of the parties to the Deed from
their current government identification documents
with pictures and CTCs.
IBP Investigating Commissioner (IBP-IC)
found respondent administratively liable for violation
of the Notarial Rules. However, in a Resolution made
by IBP Board of Governors adopted the above-
findings but reduced the recommended penalty
imposed on respondent to reprimand, "considering
that respondent personally knows the affiant and the
[CTC] then will suffice." Dissatisfied with the
resolution, the complainant moved for
reconsideration and it was denied by the IBP.
ISSUE:
Whether the IBP correctly found respondent
liable for violation of the Notarial Rules.
HELD:
The Court affirms the findings and adopts the
recommendations of the IBP with modifications.
Under Section 2 (b) (1) and (2), Rule IV of the
Notarial Rules, a notary public should not notarize a
document unless the signatory to the document is "in
the notary's presence personally at the time of the
notarization," and is "personally known to the notary
public or otherwise identified by the notary public
through competent evidence of identity." The
respondent clearly failed to faithfully observe his
duties as a notary public when he failed to confirm
the identity of Torrices through the competent
evidence of identity required by the Notarial Rules.
Jurisprudence provides that a community tax
certificate or cedula is no longer considered as a valid
and competent evidence of identity.
The Court has emphasized that the act of
notarization is impressed with public interest.. A
notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and
credence. As such, a notary public must observe with
utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of his duties in order to preserve the
confidence of the public in the integrity of the
notaries must inform themselves of the facts they
certify to; most importantly, they should not take
part or allow themselves to be part of illegal
transactions.
PENALTY: Therefore, the Court hereby finds
respondent Atty. Raymund P. Guzman guilty of
violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the
Court modified the sanction decided by the IBP into
suspension for a period of six (6) months from the
practice of law and revokes his incumbent
commission as a notary public.
LEAH B. TADAY, VS ATTY. DIONISIO B. APOYA, JR.
A.C. No. 11981, July 03, 2018
FACTS:
Leah B. Taday, the complainant, an overseas Filipino
worker (OFW) staying in Norway, asked her parents
in the Philippines, Virgilio and Natividad Taday, to
seek legal services for the nullification of her
marriage. They found respondent and contracted his
legal services. According to complainant, respondent
was informed that she was staying in Norway and
respondent assured her that this would not be an
issue as he can find ways to push for the resolution of
the case despite her absence. Respondent drafted a
Petition for Annulment of Marriage. After notarizing
the petition, respondent filed it before the Regional
Trial Court of Caloocan City (RTC). On November 17,
2011, while complainant was on vacation in the
Philippines and after paying respondent his legal fees
amounting to P14,500.00, respondent delivered a
Decision dated November 16, 2011 which granted
the annulment of complainant's marriage. The said
decision was promulgated by a certain Judge Ma.
Eliza Becamon-Angeles of RTC Branch 162.
Complainant became suspicious because the
said decision came from a different branch presided
by a different judge where the case was originally
filed. Verifications were made to ascertain the
validity of the decision. Complainant discovered that
both Branch 162 and Judge Ma. Eliza Becamon-
Angeles do not exist in the RTC. The respondent
denied all the accusations. According to IBP, the
respondent committed several violations of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and it recommended
the penalty of suspension of two (2) years from the
practice of law. However another Resolution made by
the IBP Board of Governors modified the
recommended penalty to a penalty of disbarment.
The respondent filed for reconsideration but it was
denied twice.
ISSUE:
Whether the respondent is liable for the
violation
HELD:
The Court adopts the findings of the
Commission and agrees with the recommendation of
the IBP Board to disbar respondent.
The Court finds that complainant has
established by clear, convincing and satisfactory
evidence that: (1) respondent notarized the
verification and certification of non-forum shopping
of the petition without the personal presence of
complainant; (2) respondent is the author of the fake
decision to deceive complainant that her petition for
annulment of marriage was granted; and (3)
respondent retaliated against complainant for
confronting him with the fake decision by
withdrawing the petition in the court, resulting into
the dropping of the case from the civil docket of the
court. These acts constitute violations of Canon 1,
Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Code and also violated
Section 2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice.
A member of the Bar may be penalized, even
disbarred or suspended from his office as an
attorney, for violation of the lawyer's oath and/or for
breach of the ethics of the legal profession as
embodied in the Code.
All those in the legal profession must always
conduct themselves with honesty and integrity in all
their dealings. Members of the bar took their oath to
conduct themselves according to the best of their
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as
well to the courts as to their clients and to delay no
man for money or malice. These mandates apply
especially to dealings of lawyers with their clients
considering the highly fiduciary nature of their
relationship.
PENALTY: Disbarment
JULIETA DIMAYUGA, VS ATTY. VIVIAN G. RUBIA,
A.C. No. 8854, July 03, 2018
FACTS:
Julieta Dimayuga, the complainant, averred in
her Complaint that sometime in June 2002, she and
her family engaged Atty. Vivian Rubia’s legal services
to effect the transfer of their deceased father's
property to them. Upon inquiry, Dimayuga’s family
learned that respondent paid the transfer and
donor’s tax was paid on 2007 and respondent only
entered the Amended Extrajudicial Settlement of
Estate with Waiver of Rights with the Register of
Deeds of Davao del Sur only on November 28, 2007
and re-entered on December 1, 2008. Complainant
also alleged that in June 2003, she also sought
respondent's legal services for the purchase of a real
property in Digos City. However, contrary to her
representation that the property shall be registered
in their names after one month, the title was not
transferred to them.7
Moreover, the Deed of Absolute Sale for the
purchase of a 600-square meter parcel of land
prepared by respondent, was coming from Certificate
of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 00394433
which subject to the condition that it shall not be
sold, transferred or conveyed except through
hereditary succession, or to the Government, or to
the Land Bank of the Philippines, or to other qualified
beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years, x x x.
Thus, the sale of the property was still prohibited.
Complainant averred that they merely relied on the
ability and knowledge of respondent as lawyer, who
should not have assented to the sale of the said
property due to the prohibition. Hence, complainant
prayed that respondent be administratively
disciplined for her actions. Several times, the court
asked for the respondent’s comment but the latter
failed to submit her comment.
ISSUE:
Whether the respondent is liable for
disciplinary action.
HELD:
Yes. Respondent has several opportunities to
file her comment and explain her side on the
accusations against her since 2011 but, she failed to
file the required comment. This Court cannot,
anymore, accept respondent's excuses for such
defiance. The respondent's acts or inaction for that
matter, were deliberate and manipulating, which
unreasonably delay this Court's action on the case.
These acts constitute willful disobedience of the
lawful orders of this Court which a sufficient cause
for suspension or disbarment pursuant to Section
27,25 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Such attitude
constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution.
Moreover, the respondent likewise displayed
lack of respect and made a mockery of the solemnity
of the oath in an Acknowledgment as her act of
notarizing such illegal document entitled it full faith
and credit upon its face, when it obviously does not
deserve such entitlement, considering its illegality
due to the prohibition.
It was held that a lawyer's conduct ought to
and must always be scrupulously observant of the
law and ethics. CANON 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall uphold
the Constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect
for law and legal processes. Also, Rule 15.07 thereof
mandates a lawyer to impress upon his client
compliance with the laws and principles of fairness.
PENALTY: Therefore, Atty. Vivian G. Rubia is found
guilty and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
three (3) years effective immediately and
DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary
public for a period of three (3) years.
JAIME S. DE BORJA, VS. ATTY. RAMON R. MENDEZ,
JR A.C. No. 11185, July 04, 2018
FACTS:
Jaime, as representative of the Heirs of Deceased
Augusto De Borja, engaged the legal service of Atty.
Mendez, for the reconveyance of a parcel of land.
Atty. Mendez demanded Three Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P300,000.00) for the titling of a property
situated in Pateros. However, the complaint for
reconveyance was dismissed, thus, Atty. Mendez filed
a notice of appeal. The Court of Appeals ordered the
Heirs of De Borja to file their Appellant's Brief within
forty-five (45) days from receipt of the notice.When
Jaime received the notice, he inquired with Atty.
Mendez about the letter, to which Atty. Mendez
committed that he will file the Appellant's Brief as
soon as he receives a copy of the notice.
Jaime was surprised to receive a from the
Court of Appeals dismissing the appealed case for
failure to file Appellant's Brief. He asked Atty. Mendez
the reason why they weren't able to file the required
pleading, and he was told that the firm did not
receive a copy of the notice. Jaime went to the Court
of Appeals and the Postal Office of Caloocan. He
discovered that the notice to file appellant's brief was
in fact received by one Jennifer Lastimosa, a secretary
of the firm R.R. Mendez & Associates Law Offices.
Jaime presented a copy of the Certification issued by
the Caloocan Central Post Office showing that
Lastimosa received on October 28, 2011 the notice
from the Court of Appeals. Jaime has loss of trust and
confidence due to the dismissal of their appeal, Jaime
terminated the services of Atty. Mendez, and
demanded the return of the Three Hundred
Thousand (Php300,000.00). Unable to get reply from
Atty. Mendez, Jaime filed instant administrative
complaint against the respondent for incompetence
and malpractice.

ISSUE:
Whether the respondent is liable.

HELD:
Yes. Atty. Mendez' guilt as to his failure to do
his duty to his client is undisputed. His conduct
relative to the non-filing of the appellant's brief falls
below the standards exacted upon lawyers on
dedication and commitment to their client's cause. An
attorney is bound to protect his clients' interest to
the best of his ability and with utmost diligence.
Failure to file the brief within the reglementary
period despite notice certainly constitutes
inexcusable negligence, more so if the failure resulted
in the dismissal of the appeal. As a lawyer, it is
expected of him to make certain that the appeal brief
was filed on time. Clearly, his failure to do so is
tantamount to negligence which is contrary to the
mandate prescribed in Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility enjoining lawyers
not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.
Every member of the Bar should always bear
in mind that every case that a lawyer accepts
deserves his full attention, diligence, skill and
competence, regardless of its importance and
whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.

PENALTY: Therefore, ATTY.MENDEZ, JR. is found

GUILTY of violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon
16, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of one (1) year,
effective upon receipt of this Decision. Likewise,
ORDERED to RETURN to complainant Jaime S. De
Borja the remaining balance of P160,000.00 with
legal interest,

GENE M. DOMINGO, VS. ATTY. ANASTACIO E.

REVILLA, JR., A.C. No. 5473, January 23, 2018
FACTS: