Title
Bides-Ulaso vs. Noe-Lacsamana
Case
A.C. No. 7297
Decision Date
Sep 29, 2009
Atty. Lacsamana notarized a document without the affiant's presence or signature, violating the Notarial Law. Despite a withdrawn complaint, the Supreme Court reprimanded her, emphasizing public interest and her unblemished record.
A

Case Summary (A.C. No. 7297)

Antecedents of the Case

The respondent, Atty. Noe-Lacsamana, represented Irene Bides in Special Civil Action No. 2481 before the Regional Trial Court in Pasig City, which involved allegations of fraudulent property transfer against Imelda Bides-Ulaso and others. An amended complaint filed by Irene on June 23, 2003, sought to declare null the deed of sale executed by Irene, claiming it was fraudulent.

Notarization Issues

The amended complaint included an amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping that had Atty. Noe-Lacsamana's signature, written before Irene Bides-Ulaso had signed it. This premature notarization raised issues of gross negligence and violations of the Notarial Law, as the integrity and legality of notarized documents require the notary to be present during the signing by the affiant.

Subsequent Legal Actions

Following the filing of the amended complaint, Ulaso and her co-defendants filed a motion to dismiss citing the defect in the notarization of the affidavit. The RTC denied this motion, and eventually, ruled in favor of Irene Bides. An appeal affirmed this decision. Additional proceedings, including a criminal case for falsification, were initiated against Imelda Bides-Ulaso by Irene with Atty. Noe-Lacsamana representing her.

Disbarment Proceedings Initiated

Ulaso filed for the disbarment of Atty. Noe-Lacsamana based on her improper notarization of the amended verification. Although a compromise agreement was reached in the related criminal case, the disbarment proceedings continued. The IBP conducted hearings, leading to findings against Atty. Noe-Lacsamana, indicating her gross negligence.

Investigating Commission Findings

The Investigating Commissioner’s report articulated that Atty. Noe-Lacsamana's actions indicated clear neglect of the stringent standards that govern notarial conduct. Her admission to signing her own jurat without the client being present was deemed a fundamental breach of the notarial oath and responsibilities, endangering the trust required in legal practices.

Disciplinary Recommendations

The IBP Board of Governors upheld the recommendation for a six-month suspension of Atty. Noe-Lacsamana, emphasizing adherence to the Notarial Law and acknowledging the negative impact that such negligence has on public confidence in legal professionals.

Motion for Reconsideration

Respondent Atty. Noe-Lacsamana petitioned the court to overturn the IBP resolution, arguing that the complainant had not provided adequate evidence of her alleged misconduct and questioning the integrity of the investigation. She suggested that her actions, claimed as error rather than intent to deceive, did not warrant the penalties imposed.

Court Ruling Affirmati

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.