Case Digest (A.C. No. 10303)
Facts:
Joy A. Gimeno v. Atty. Paul Centillas Zaide, A.C. No. 10303; 759 Phil. 10; 112 O.G. No. 2, 134 (January 11, 2016), Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Joy A. Gimeno filed a complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ Commission on Bar Discipline on August 8, 2007, accusing respondent Atty. Paul Centillas Zaide of (1) usurpation of a notary public’s office, (2) falsification of notarial entries, (3) use of intemperate, offensive and abusive language, and (4) violation of lawyer-client trust/conflict of interest. Gimeno alleged that Atty. Zaide notarized a partial extrajudicial partition with deed of absolute sale dated March 29, 2002 — before his admission to the Bar on May 2, 2002 and before his receipt of a notarial commission on May 9, 2002 — and that he made false and irregular entries in his notarial registers. She also claimed he appeared against her as counsel for another client (Priscilla Somontan) in an Ombudsman complaint despite their prior lawyer-client relationship through the Zaragoza-Makabangkit-Zaide Law Offices (ZMZ), and that he called her a “notorious extortionist” and used demeaning language against opposing counsel.
In his September 13, 2007 answer Atty. Zaide denied notarizing the March 29, 2002 document, saying his signature and stamp were superimposed over Atty. Elpedio Cabasan’s name and that the document did not appear in his notarial register or annual notarial report for 2002. He explained apparent irregularities in his notarial registers by reference to multiple satellite offices and the use of several registers to serve clients, denied that Gimeno personally retained him (she retained ZMZ where he had been an associate), and denied using abusive language.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline held a mandatory conference (Oct. 4, 2007) and, after position papers, Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo, Jr. issued a report and recommendation (May 18, 2010) finding Atty. Zaide administratively liable for violating the Notarial Practice Rules, representing conflicting interests, and using abusive language, but not guilty of usurping a notarial office because Gimeno failed to prove the March 29, 2002 notarization. Commissioner Magpayo recommended suspension totaling nine months (three months for Notarial Practice Rules violations and six months for abusive language), while noting that the firm retainer bound all lawyers in ZMZ but that the Ombudsman matter was unrelated to the prior annulment-of-title engagement.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the investigative findings but increased the penalty in its November 19, 2011 resolution to one-year suspension from the practice of law, revocation of any existing n...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Atty. Zaide usurp a notary public’s office by notarizing the March 29, 2002 document before his admission to the Bar and receipt of his notarial commission?
- Did Atty. Zaide violate the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by maintaining different active notarial registers in separate offices and making irregular entries?
- Did Atty. Zaide represent conflicting interests when he appeared against Gimeno, a former client of his former firm?
- Did Atty. Zaide use intemperate, offensive, and abusive language in ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)