Title
Gimeno vs. Zaide
Case
A.C. No. 10303
Decision Date
Apr 22, 2015
A lawyer faced allegations of notarial misconduct, conflict of interest, and use of offensive language; found guilty of maintaining multiple notarial registers and intemperate language, resulting in suspension and disqualification.
violation
offensive language
revocation

Case Summary (A.C. No. 10303)

Factual Background

The complaint alleged that before his admission to the Bar and before the issuance of his notarial commission, Atty. Paul Centillas Zaide had notarized a partial extrajudicial partition with deed of absolute sale dated March 29, 2002, and that he made false and irregular entries in his notarial registers. The complainant also asserted that she had been a client of respondent’s former firm, Zaragoza-Makabangkit-Zaide Law Offices, and that respondent later appeared against her in an Ombudsman complaint, thereby representing conflicting interests. The complainant further alleged that respondent used intemperate and abusive language in pleadings, referring to her as a “notorious extortionist” and disparaging an opposing counsel as suffering from “serious mental incompetence.”

Respondent’s Answer and Defenses

Respondent denied notarizing the March 29, 2002 document and claimed that his signature and stamp had been superimposed over the typewritten name of another lawyer, Atty. Elpedio Cabasan. He also contended that irregular entries in his notarial registers resulted from his need to maintain several active notarial registers in different satellite offices to meet client demand. Respondent denied a lawyer-client relationship with Gimeno personally, asserting that she had retained the law firm and that he had been an associate at the time. He likewise denied using abusive or offensive language in his pleadings.

IBP Proceedings and Investigating Commissioner’s Findings

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline conducted a mandatory conference and required position papers. Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo, Jr. issued a report and recommendation finding respondent administratively liable for violating the Notarial Practice Rules by keeping multiple active notarial registers and for using abusive language in pleadings. The investigating commissioner recommended suspension for three months for the notarial violations and six months for the abusive language. The commissioner declined to find respondent guilty of usurping a notary public’s office because the evidence did not prove that respondent personally notarized the March 29, 2002 document.

IBP Board of Governors’ Resolution

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the investigative findings but increased the penalty. By Resolution No. XX-2011-264 dated November 19, 2011, the Board suspended respondent from the practice of law for one year, revoked his notarial commission if existing, and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. The Board denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration on June 21, 2013.

Issues Presented to the Court

The Court reviewed whether respondent: (1) usurped a notary public’s office by notarizing a document dated March 29, 2002, before his admission and notarial commission; (2) violated the Notarial Practice Rules by maintaining multiple active notarial registers and making irregular entries; (3) represented conflicting interests in appearing against a former client; and (4) used intemperate, offensive, and abusive language in his professional dealings in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Court’s Analysis — Usurpation of Notarial Office

The Court agreed with the investigating commissioner that the record did not establish that respondent personally notarized the March 29, 2002 document before his admission and receipt of a notarial commission. The Court observed that respondent’s Bar roll number, PTR number, IBP number, and commission expiration date that appeared on the stamp could not have been available prior to his Bar admission on May 2, 2002, and his commission on May 9, 2002. The document did not appear in respondent’s notarial register or annual notarial report for 2002. In these circumstances, the Court concluded that respondent could not have notarized the document on March 29, 2002, and that the evidence did not sustain a charge of usurpation of a notarial office.

Court’s Analysis — Maintenance of Multiple Notarial Registers

The Court found that respondent violated Section 1(a) and 1(b), Rule VI of the Notarial Practice Rules by keeping several active notarial registers in different offices and by failing to keep a single chronological permanently bound register. The Court identified multiple notarized entries that demonstrated irregular numbering and non-sequential entries. The Court held that the “one active notarial register” rule exists to prevent antedating and to ensure that notarial acts are personally administered by the commissioned notary public, because a notarial commission is personal and the duties are impressed with public interest. The Court rejected respondent’s explanation that multiple registers were necessary to service clients, and concluded that the violation implicated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and required discipline.

Court’s Analysis — Representation of Conflicting Interests

Applying Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and the tests established in prior decisions, the Court determined that respondent did not represent conflicting interests when he appeared against Gimeno. The Court found that the lawyer-client relation between respondent and Gimeno ceased when respondent left the law firm, that the prior engagement at ZMZ concerned an annulment of title unrelated to the Ombudsman complaint, and that nothing in the record showed use of con

...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.

About Privacy Terms