Title
Yumul-Espina vs. Tabaquero
Case
A.C. No. 11238
Decision Date
Sep 21, 2016
Shirley Atkinson mortgaged properties using a notarized affidavit allegedly signed by Derek, who claimed he was abroad. Derek’s lawyer filed falsification cases; complainant notary violated Notarial Law. Disbarment case dismissed against lawyer; notary suspended.
A

Case Summary (A.C. No. 11238)

Facts Summary

Shirley Atkinson, a foreign spouse of British citizen Derek Atkinson, sought to mortgage two properties. To facilitate this, Derek signed an Affidavit of Waiver of Rights before the complainant, who was acting as a notary public. However, Derek claimed he was out of the country on the date of the affidavit and filed criminal charges against both Shirley and complainant for falsification. Subsequently, the complainant initiated disbarment proceedings against the respondent, who represented Derek in the criminal actions, arguing it breached the CPR by disregarding the constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership of land in the Philippines.

Respondent's Position

Respondent Tabaquero countered that he was retained as counsel after the property acquisition and that he took action strictly at Derek's instructions regarding the alleged falsifications. He asserted that the issues raised by the complainant were similar to those in an annulment case involving another defendant but maintained that no ethical violations occurred.

Investigation and Hearings

The investigation proceeded with mandatory conferences where both parties submitted briefs. The complainant reiterated her assertions, while Tabaquero included a counter-complaint against Yumul-Espina for violations of the Notarial Law. The investigation revealed contradictions regarding Derek’s presence during the notarization, leading to testimonies and document submissions, including travel records, that depicted Derek’s absence from the Philippines.

Affidavits of Desistance

While proceedings were ongoing, both parties executed affidavits of desistance, withdrawing their allegations and counter-allegations. The Investigating Commissioner recommended the case be dismissed based upon these developments, suggesting no compelling reason for further action.

Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court disagreed with the IBP Board’s dismissal, emphasizing that disbarment proceedings serve a public interest that should not hinge on individual desires or settlements. The Court asserted that the fundamental issues regarding professional conduct and fitness to practice law must remain under scrutiny even if complaints are withdrawn.

Findings and Penalties

While the respondent was found not guilty of violating CPR, the complainant was held accountable for her role in nota

...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.