Ingram vs. Lorica IV

Facts:

On August 4, 2004 the spouses Victor Ferdinand B. Blanco and Rizza O. Blanco (spouses Blanco) executed a promissory note in favor of spouses John Ingram and Fatima S. Ingram (spouses Ingram). The promissory note was notarized by respondent. When the spouses Blanco defaulted, the spouses Ingram filed several actions: Criminal Case No. 13757 (estafa) which was dismissed for want of probable cause as purely civil, Criminal Case Nos. 21381 and 21382 (Batas Pambansa Blg. 22), and Civil Case No. U-8268 for collection.

The spouses Blanco retained respondent as counsel in those cases. In his Answer and pre-trial brief in Civil Case No. U-8268 respondent, while representing the Blancos, alleged that the promissory note was executed under coercion, threats and intimidation and invoked Article 1250 of the Civil Code on exchange-rate stipulations — but when citing Article 1250 he omitted the phrase “unless there is an agreement to the contrary.” Complainant moved to disqualify respondent from representing the Blancos and subsequently filed an administrative disbarment complaint (CBD Case No. 06-1863) and a separate administrative case for revocation of respondent’s notarial appointment.

Respondent answered the disbarment complaint, asserting that he only learned of the alleged coercion when his clients told him and that he relied in good faith on his clients’ narrative; he attached police blotters and a chronology of alleged threats and later withdrew his appearance. The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended warning respondent for knowingly misrepresenting Article 1250 but found no conflict of interest because respondent lacked prior knowledge of the alleged coercion and because complainant did not show she relied on the notarial acknowledgment. The IBP Board of Governors, however, reversed and found respondent guilty of glaring conflict of interest, suspending him (initially two years) and ordering revocation/disqualification of his notarial commission; on reconsideration the IBP modified the suspension to on...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Did respondent’s conduct in assailing the validity of a promissory note he notarized constitute a violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 (conflict of interest) of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
• Did respondent’s inconsistent positions—attesting to voluntary acknowledgment as notary then challenging voluntariness as counsel—violate Canon 7’s command to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession?
• Did respondent’s omission of the phrase “unless there is an agreement to the contrary” when citing Article 1250 of the Civil Code violate R...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)