Case Digest (A.C. No. 7297)
Facts:
Imelda Bides-Ulaso v. Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana, A.C. No. 7297, September 29, 2009, Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.The respondent, Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana, represented Irene Bides in a civil action (Special Civil Action No. 2481, RTC, Branch 167, Pasig City) against, among others, her niece Imelda Bides-Ulaso. On June 23, 2003, Irene Bides filed an amended complaint seeking nullification of a 1996 deed of sale. Attached to that pleading was an amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping dated June 18, 2003, bearing a signature preceded by the word “for” above the printed name “IRENE BIDES.” The signature resembled respondent’s notarial signature on the jurat.
Seeing the apparent defect in the verification, Ulaso and co-defendants moved to dismiss on July 22, 2003. Respondent, speaking for her client, opposed the motion on August 6, 2003, explaining that the June 18 document was a “sample-draft” meant to show respondent’s new secretary where the affiant should sign and that the correct verification was executed only on June 23, 2003 when Bides arrived. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss, declared the defendants in default, and ultimately ruled for Bides; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
After judgment, Bides and respondent pursued additional proceedings: an ejectment action in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) and criminal charges for falsification that led to a MeTC prosecution. Respondent also initiated IBP disciplinary and usurpation complaints against opposing counsel. In response, on March 2, 2005, Ulaso filed an administrative complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) seeking respondent’s disbarment for signing the amended verification and notarizing the jurat before Bides herself had signed or appeared.
Investigating Commissioner Patrick M. Velez, after hearings, found the respondent liable for having notarized a document she did not witness signed and recommended suspension from practice. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report with modification and suspended respondent for six months. Respondent moved for reconsideration before the Court, arguing amon...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the compromise and withdrawal of criminal charges by parties in a related case abate or terminate the IBP administrative proceeding against a lawyer?
- Does the lapse of time between the alleged misconduct and filing of the administrative complaint, or the complainant’s alleged improper motive, bar disciplinary action?
- Did notarizing the jurat of the amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping before the affiant appeared and signed constitute ac...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)