A.C. No. 10303 - Gimeno vs. Zaide

Case Summary (A.C. No. 10303)

Petitioner / Complainant

Joy A. Gimeno alleged that Atty. Zaide notarized a document dated March 29, 2002 before his admission to the Bar and before receipt of his notarial commission; that he made false and irregular entries in his notarial registers; that he appeared against her in an Ombudsman complaint (despite a prior lawyer-client relationship); and that he used abusive language, calling her a “notorious extortionist,” and disparaged opposing counsel in unrelated proceedings.

Respondent

Atty. Paul C. Zaide denied notarizing the March 29, 2002 document and asserted that his signature and stamp were superimposed on a document originally notarized by Atty. Elpedio Cabasan. He explained irregular notarial register entries by reference to multiple satellite offices and the use of several registers to accommodate clients. He also denied a lawyer-client relationship with Gimeno personally, asserting she retained the ZMZ law firm (where he once worked as an associate) and that he did not personally represent her in the annulment of title case. He denied using intemperate language.

Key Dates

Alleged notarization: March 29, 2002.
Respondent admitted to the Bar: May 2, 2002.
Respondent received notarial commission: May 9, 2002.
IBP Board of Governors resolution imposing penalty: November 19, 2011 (denied reconsideration June 21, 2013).
Supreme Court decision reviewed: April 22, 2015. Applicable constitution: 1987 Constitution.

Applicable Law and Standards

Primary rules applied: 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, July 6, 2004), Code of Professional Responsibility (Canons and Rules cited: Canon 1, Canon 8 Rule 8.01, Canon 11 Rule 11.03, Canon 15 Rule 15.03), and IBP procedures (CBD and Board resolutions). The 1987 Constitution provided the constitutional framework in force at the time of decision.

Summary of IBP Proceedings and Findings of the Investigating Commissioner

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline conducted mandatory conference, accepted position papers, and the investigating commissioner (Pedrо A. Magpayo, Jr.) found Atty. Zaide administratively liable for violating the Notarial Practice Rules by keeping multiple active registers and for using abusive language; the commissioner did not find sufficient evidence to establish usurpation of a notary’s office (i.e., notarization before Bar admission); and concluded that while Gimeno was a former client (firm retainer equated to retention of all lawyers), there was no conflict of interest because the matters were unrelated and there was no evidence of use of confidential information. The commissioner recommended suspension for three months for notarial violations and six months for abusive language.

IBP Board of Governors’ Action

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the factual findings of the investigating commissioner but imposed a more severe penalty: one-year suspension from the practice of law, revocation of any existing notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.

Supreme Court’s Review — Standard of Review and Adoption of IBP Findings

The Supreme Court reviewed the IBP resolutions and agreed with the IBP Board of Governors’ findings and penalty. The Court discussed each main issue in an orderly fashion and adopted the IBP’s conclusions as to the notarial register violations and the use of intemperate language, while rejecting the claim that the respondent had notarized the March 29, 2002 document before admission to the Bar.

Analysis — Allegation of Usurpation of Notarial Office (Notarization before Bar Admission)

The Court found insufficient evidence to prove that Atty. Zaide notarized the March 29, 2002 document prior to his Bar admission and notarial commission. Although the document bore a stamp and signature with Atty. Zaide’s personal and commission details, those details could not have existed before his admission on May 2, 2002 and commission on May 9, 2002. The document did not appear in his notarial register or yearly notarial report for 2002, and there were no witnesses to corroborate the alleged earlier notarization. Consequently, the Court concluded that the record did not establish that he had usurped a notary’s office.

Analysis — Violation for Maintaining Multiple Active Notarial Registers

The Court held that Atty. Zaide violated Section 1(a) and 1(b), Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which require a notary to keep a single chronological, permanently bound notarial register and to keep only one active register at any given time. The evidence showed irregular, non-sequential entries across documents and different books/folios and years, consistent with maintenance of multiple active registers. The Court rejected the respondent’s justification that multiple registers were necessary to serve satellite offices, emphasizing that a notary’s commission is personal, notarial acts are public functions, and the single active register rule prevents antedating and other abuses. The Court characterized the violation as more than negligence and a breach of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Analysis — Conflict of Interest / Representation of Conflicting Clients

Applying Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and relevant tests (whether new representation prevents undivided loyalty or invites suspicion of double-dealing; whether confidential information would be used against a former client), the Court agreed with the investigating commissioner that no conflict of interest existed. The prior lawyer-client relationship between respondent and Gimeno ceased when he left the law firm; the contentious matters were unrelated (annulment of title involving Gimeno’s relatives vs. Ombudsman complaint by Somontan regarding alleged mishandling of entrusted funds and corruption). There was no evidence respondent used confidential information from the prior representation, and no double-dealing was s

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 10303)

Case Caption, Procedural Posture, and Source

Reported at 759 Phil. 10, Second Division, A.C. No. 10303, decision dated April 22, 2015, penned by BRION, J.
Complainant: Joy A. Gimeno. Respondent: Atty. Paul Centillas Zaide.
The Court reviews Resolution No. XX-2011-264 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in CBD Case No. 07-2069, which imposed disciplinary penalties on Atty. Zaide for violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Nature of the Complaint and Claims Alleged by Complainant

Complaint filed with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline on August 8, 2007.
Allegations against Atty. Zaide: (1) usurpation of a notary public’s office; (2) falsification; (3) use of intemperate, offensive and abusive language; and (4) violation of lawyer-client trust.
Specific assertions:
- That Atty. Zaide notarized a partial extrajudicial partition with deed of absolute sale dated March 29, 2002, which predated his Bar admission and notarial commission.
- That Atty. Zaide made false and irregular entries in his notarial registers.
- That Gimeno was a former client of Atty. Zaide’s law firm (Zaragoza-Makabangkit-Zaide Law Offices, ZMZ) in an annulment of title case involving Gimeno’s husband and parents-in-law, and that Atty. Zaide nevertheless appeared against her in an Ombudsman complaint brought by Priscilla Somontan.
- That Atty. Zaide called Gimeno a “notorious extortionist” in the administrative complaint filed with the Ombudsman.
- That in another civil case (where Gimeno was not a party) Atty. Zaide described opposing counsel as suffering from “serious mental incompetence” in his pleadings.

Respondent’s Answer and Defenses

Answer dated September 13, 2007, by Atty. Zaide.
Denials and defenses:
- Denied notarizing the March 29, 2002 partial extrajudicial partition; contended his signature and notarial stamp were superimposed over the typewritten name of Atty. Elpedio Cabasan, the lawyer who actually notarized the document.
- Admitted that the notarial details stamped on the document (name, roll number, PTR number, IBP number, expiration date) are his true information but denied personally stamping and signing that document.
- Asserted the March 29, 2002 document never appeared in his notarial register and was not included in his 2002 notarial report; contended Gimeno falsified his signature and used his stamp.
- Explained irregular, non-sequential entries in notarial registers by his need to simultaneously use several notarial registers in separate satellite offices to serve an increasing number of clients.
- Denied personal lawyer-client relationship with Gimeno; asserted Gimeno retained the law firm ZMZ, where he had been an associate, but the actual counsel was Atty. Leo Montalban Zaragoza.
- Denied using any intemperate, offensive, or abusive language in his pleadings.

IBP Commission on Bar Discipline Proceedings and Initial Orders

IBP CBD issued an order setting the case for mandatory conference on October 4, 2007; parties required to submit position papers.
Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo, Jr. issued a Report and Recommendation dated May 18, 2010.

Investigating Commissioner’s Findings and Recommendations

Commissioner Magpayo found administrative liability for:
- Violating the Notarial Practice Rules (specifically Section 1(a) and 1(b), Rule VI) by maintaining several active notarial registers in different offices.
- Representing conflicting interests; but ultimately concluded Atty. Zaide should not be held administratively liable for usurping a notary public’s office because the evidence was insufficient to prove he notarized the March 29, 2002 document after his admission and commission.
- Using abusive and insulting language in his pleadings (calling Gimeno a “notorious extortionist”).
Legal points and reasoning by Commissioner:
- Notarial Practice Rules require a notary public to keep a chronological official register of notarial acts in a permanently bound book with numbered pages and to keep only one active notarial register at any time.
- The retainer of a law firm equates to the retainer of all its lawyers—hence Gimeno was considered a former client of Atty. Zaide by virtue of her retainer of ZMZ.
- Despite prior attorney-client relationship, no liability for conflict was recommended because the annulment of title case was unrelated to the Ombudsman complaint.
Sanctions recommended by Commissioner Magpayo:
- Three months suspension for violating the Notarial Practice Rules.
- Six months suspension for employing abusive and insulting language.

IBP Board of Governors’ Findings and Penalty

The IBP Board of Governors issued a resolution on November 19, 2011 adopting the investigating commissioner’s findings but modifying the penalty.
The Board imposed:
- One (1) year suspension from the practice of law.
- Revocation of notarial commission, if existing.
- Two (2) years suspension from being commissioned as a notary public.
Atty. Zaide’s motion for reconsideration of the Board’s November 19, 2011 resolution was denied in the Board’s June 21, 2013 resolution.

Issues Presented to the Court

The main issues identified for review by the Court:
- Whether Atty. Zaide usurped a notary public’s office by notarizing a March 29, 2002 document before his Bar admission and commission.
- Whether Atty. Zaide violated the Notarial Practice Rules by maintaining several active notarial registers and making irregular entries.
- Whether Atty. Zaide represented conflicting interests in appearing against a former client.
- Whether Atty. Zaide used intemperate, offensive and abusive language in his professional dealings, warranting discipline.

Court’s Analysis — Usurpation of a Notarial Office (March 29, 2002 Document)

Factual and evidentiary findings:
- The March 29, 2002 document originally bore the name of Atty. Elpedio Cabasan as notary public; Atty. Zaide’s signature and notarial stamp were superimposed over Atty. Cabasan’s typewritten name.
- Atty. Zaide admitted the stamped details on the document (name, roll number, PTR n
...continue reading