A.C. No. 7241 - Linco vs. Lacebal

A complainant, Atty. Florita S. Linco, filed an administrative complaint dated June 6, 2005 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against respondent Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal for disciplinary action.
The complaint stemmed from respondent’s alleged failure to perform his duty as a notary public, which complainant claimed resulted in a violation of her and her family’s rights over property.

Complainant alleged she was the widow of the late Atty. Alberto Linco, who was the registered owner of a parcel of land with improvements consisting of 126 square meters at No. 8, Macopa St., Phase I-A, B, C & D, Valley View Executive Village, Cainta, Rizal, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 259001.
The subject transaction involved a deed of donation allegedly executed by the late Atty. Linco in favor of Alexander David T. Linco, a minor.

Complainant alleged that respondent, a notary public for Mandaluyong City, notarized a deed of donation allegedly executed by Atty. Linco in favor of the minor donee.
Complainant alleged that the notarial acknowledgment falsely stated that Atty. Linco and Lina P. Toledo (Toledo), the mother of the donee, “personally appeared” before respondent on July 30, 2003.
Complainant asserted that Atty. Linco died on July 29, 2003.
Based on these facts, complainant claimed respondent’s act violated the law and showed lack of honesty and candor unbecoming of a member of the Philippine Bar.

Complainant alleged that by virtue of the purported deed of donation, the Register of Deeds of Antipolo City canceled TCT No. 259001 on March 28, 2005.
The Register of Deeds issued a new title, TCT No. 29251, in the name of Alexander David T. Linco.

In his Answer, respondent admitted that he notarized and acknowledged a deed of donation executed by Atty. Linco in favor of his son, Alexander David T. Linco, as represented by Toledo.
Respondent narrated that on July 8, 2003, he was invited by Atty. Linco through an emissary, Claire Juele-Algodon (Algodon), to his residence at Guenventille II D-31-B, Libertad Street, Mandaluyong City.
Respondent stated that Atty. Linco appeared physically weak and sickly but was articulate and in full control of his faculties.
Respondent claimed that Atty. Linco showed him a deed of donation and the TCT of the property subject of the donation.
Respondent asserted that Atty. Linco asked him a favor of notarizing the deed of donation in his presence along with the witnesses.
Respondent explained that he did not bring his notarial book and seal because he had no idea that he would be notarizing the document.
Respondent stated that he instead told Algodon and Toledo to bring the signed deed of donation to his office anytime so that he could formally notarize and acknowledge it.
Respondent claimed that on July 30, 2003, Toledo and Algodon went to his law office and informed him that Atty. Linco had passed away on July 29, 2003.
Respondent admitted consent to notarize as a commitment to a fellow lawyer.
Respondent stated that he notarized the deed of donation, which he claimed was actually signed in his presence on July 8, 2003.

During the mandatory conference/hearing on September 7, 2005, the parties established that the deed of donation was presented to respondent on July 8, 2003.
Respondent admitted he was not the one who prepared the deed of donation.
Respondent admitted that he performed the notarization only on July 30, 2003, which was a day after Atty. Linco died.

On November 23, 2005, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) issued a Report and Recommendation finding respondent guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The IBP-CBD observed that respondent wanted it to appear that because the donor appeared before him and signed the deed of donation on July 8, 2003, notarization on July 30, 2003 was ministerial.
The IBP-CBD held that the signatories’ act on July 8, 2003 bound only the signatories and did not yet make the deed a public instrument.
The IBP-CBD found that bec...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether respondent committed a violation of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing and acknowledging the deed of donation despite the donor’s death prior to the notarization

Whether the acknowledgment falsely stated that Atty. Linco personally came and appeared before respondent on July 30, 2003, when Atty. Linco died on July 29, 2003.
Whether respondent’s conduct evidenced disregard of the basic requirements of notarial procedure, despite respondent’s claim that the deed was signed in his presence on July 8, 2003.

Whether respondent’s acts also constituted a breach of his Attorney’s Oath and warranted disciplinary sanctions as an attorney and notary public

Whether respondent violated the oath “to obey the laws” and “do no falsehood.”
Whether respondent violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

(Subscriber-Only)