Facts:

The case involves Imelda Bides-Ulaso as the complainant and Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana as the respondent. The events leading to this administrative proceeding began when Irene Bides, represented by Atty. Lacsamana, filed a civil action against her niece, Imelda Bides-Ulaso, and others in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City. The case, designated as Special Civil Action No. 2481, concerned the declaration of nullity of a deed of sale dated May 27, 1996, regarding a parcel of land in San Juan, Metro Manila, which Irene Bides claimed was fraudulently executed by Imelda Bides-Ulaso. On June 18, 2003, an amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping was prepared, which included a signature that appeared to be that of Atty. Lacsamana, but was actually signed "for" Irene Bides. This document was notarized by Atty. Lacsamana before Irene Bides had signed it.

Upon discovering the defect, Imelda Bides-Ulaso and her co-defendants filed a motion to dismiss ...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Complainant Imelda Bides-Ulaso filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana for notarizing an amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping without the presence or signature of the affiant, Irene Bides.
• The case arose from a civil action filed by Irene Bides (represented by Atty. Lacsamana) against Ulaso and others, seeking the nullity of a deed of sale involving a parcel of land in San Juan, Metro Manila.

Defective Notarization

• The amended complaint included an amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping dated June 18, 2003, which bore the signature of Atty. Lacsamana above the printed name "IRENE BIDES," preceded by the word "for."
• The document was notarized by Atty. Lacsamana despite the absence of Irene Bides' signature and her physical presence during notarization.

Opposition and Defense

• Ulaso and her co-defendants filed a motion to dismiss the civil case, citing the defective notarization as a ground.
• Atty. Lacsamana defended her actions, claiming the document was a "sample-draft" intended to instruct her secretary on where Bides should sign. She argued that the correct document was executed on June 23, 2003, but her secretary failed to replace the defective one.

Subsequent Proceedings

• The RTC denied the motion to dismiss and ruled in favor of Bides. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
• Ulaso filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Lacsamana, alleging gross negligence and violation of the Notarial Law.

Compromise Agreement

• Bides and Ulaso entered into a compromise agreement in a related criminal case, wherein Ulaso agreed to withdraw the disbarment complaint. However, the IBP continued the proceedings.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Violation of Notarial Law: Notarization is a solemn act requiring the physical presence of the affiant. Atty. Lacsamana's notarization of the document without the affiant's presence or signature violated the Notarial Law and undermined the integrity of the notarial process.
2. Public Interest in Disbarment Cases: Disbarment proceedings are sui generis and are not dependent on the complainant's interest. The Court has the inherent power to discipline lawyers to protect the integrity of the legal profession.
3. Mitigating Factors: The absence of bad faith, Atty. Lacsamana's long-standing unblemished record, and her health condition were considered in mitigating the penalty from suspension to a reprimand.
4. Duty of Lawyers as Notaries: Lawyers commissioned as notaries must adhere strictly to the requirements of the Notarial Law. They are held to a higher standard of conduct due to their dual role as officers of the court and public officials.