Case Digest (A.C. No. 7297)
Facts:
The case of Imelda Bides-Ulaso vs. Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana arose from an administrative matter regarding the conduct of Atty. Lacsamana, who was the notary-counsel to Irene Bides. On June 23, 2003, Irene Bides amended her complaint against Imelda Bides-Ulaso, her niece, pertaining to certain claims regarding a parcel of land in San Juan, Metro Manila. The amendment included a notarized verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping dated June 18, 2003, which bore a signature above the printed name "IRENE BIDES" that resembled Atty. Lacsamana's signature as the notary. Following the identification of this discrepancy, Ulaso and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss citing this defect. On August 6, 2003, Atty. Lacsamana opposed their motion, asserting that the flawed document was merely a draft meant for instructing her new secretary on where Bides, as the affiant, should sign. Subsequent court proceedings resulted in the court ruling in favor of Bides and confirming theCase Digest (A.C. No. 7297)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- The litigation involves Imelda Bides-Ulaso as the complainant and Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana as the respondent.
- The administrative proceedings arose from the notarization of an amended verification and affidavit of non‑forum shopping that was attached to the initiatory pleading in a civil case.
- The central factual inquiry concerns whether the notarization—performed by the respondent prior to the client’s (Irene Bides’) actual signature—amounted to censurable misconduct violating notarial law.
- Civil and Criminal Proceedings Leading to the Disciplinary Action
- Irene Bides, represented by the respondent when she filed a civil action in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Pasig City against her relatives and others regarding a parcel of land.
- The amended complaint (filed June 23, 2003) sought the nullification of a deed of sale allegedly executed fraudulently by her niece, Ulaso, when Bides was absent from her residence.
- The amended pleading contained an “amended verification and affidavit of non‑forum shopping” that exhibited a signature “for IRENE BIDES” where the actual signature of the affiant was expected.
- The defective execution of the verification and affidavit led Ulaso and her co‑defendants to file a motion to dismiss on July 22, 2003.
- Bides, through the respondent’s representation, opposed the motion by claiming an inadvertent error: the document provided was merely a "sample‑draft" meant to instruct the respondent’s new secretary on where the affiant should sign.
- Bides maintained that the correct document had been executed later when she arrived, and the error was attributable to the secretary’s failure to replace the draft.
- The RTC denied the motion to dismiss, declared Ulaso and her co‑defendants in default, and ultimately ruled in favor of Bides.
- The Court of Appeals later affirmed the RTC’s judgment.
- Concurrent and subsequent legal actions were also pursued:
- Bides initiated a separate ejectment case against Ulaso and others in the Metropolitan Trial Court.
- Bides pressed charges for falsification of a public document relating to the nullified deed of sale.
- The respondent later advanced criminal prosecution against Ulaso under special authority granted by the court.
- In the midst of these proceedings, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) instituted disciplinary action:
- The IBP, through its Investigating Commissioner (Atty. Patrick M. Velez), found the respondent guilty of gross negligence and violation of the notarial law.
- The report noted that the respondent notarized the affidavit without the physical presence of Bides (the affiant) and in place of the proper signature, her own signature appeared after the word “for”, leading to a breach of notarial protocol.
- Respondent’s History and Subsequent Behavior
- Evidence indicated that this was not an isolated incident; there was a noted pattern of similar lapses in her handling of notarial duties.
- The IBP recommended disciplinary measures including suspension from law practice—initially recommended for six months—based on the gravity of the misconduct.
- The Respondent’s Defense and Motion for Reconsideration
- The respondent argued her signature on the non‑forum shopping document was not meant to mislead but to illustrate to her new secretary where the affiant should sign.
- She contended that the document in question was merely a sample draft that inadvertently became attached to the pleading.
- In her Motion for Reconsideration (filed August 29, 2006), she raised multiple defenses:
- Asserting that the suspension was repugnant since Bides herself had withdrawn her complaint in a related criminal case.
- Claiming that her long unsullied reputation should warrant a more lenient assessment, emphasizing that there was no bad faith and her actions were accidental rather than an intentional scheme to deceive.
- Arguing that the disbarment proceedings were tainted by personal vendetta, noting that the complaint was filed two years after the occurrence and in the context of unrelated litigations with Bides.
- Despite these defenses, the investigatory report detailed clear breaches of notarial duties and highlighted the significance of the physical presence requirement for proper notarization.
Issues:
- Whether the notarization of the amended verification and affidavit of non‑forum shopping, performed prior to the affiant’s (Bides’) actual signature, constitutes actionable misconduct under the notarial law.
- Did the respondent’s act of signing and notarizing a document without witnessing Bides’ signature breach the required notarial protocol?
- Was the inclusion of her own signature (following the word “for”) instead of the affiant’s an attempt to deceive the tribunal?
- Whether the respondent’s defense that the document was a sample draft meant to instruct a new secretary can excuse the notarial irregularity.
- Is the explanation of inadvertence and miscommunication sufficient to absolve the respondent from the responsibility imposed by the strict standards of notarial practice?
- The admissibility of evidence regarding the sequence of events and the lack of present corrected documents.
- Does the absence of a subsequent corrected verification invalidate the respondent’s claim of a mere clerical or drafting error?
- Whether the disciplinary action against the respondent should proceed irrespective of the withdrawal of related complaints by the complainant.
- Can disciplinary proceedings for violations of ethical and notarial standards continue even after a compromise agreement in a parallel criminal action?
- The application and limitation of statutes of limitation in disciplinary matters against members of the Bar.
- Does the lapse of time (two years) from the occurrence of the incident diminish the inherent power of the court to discipline a member of the Bar?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)