View full case

IMELDA BIDES-ULASO v. ATTY. EDITA NOE-LACSAMANA

FACTS:

The respondent, Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana, admitted to signing and notarizing the questioned verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping. However, notarizing her own signature is unacceptable even if her explanation is true. Notaries public are required to exercise caution in protecting the integrity and veracity of documents. The fact that all the pleadings submitted to the court did not bear the corrected verification and certification weakens the respondent's position.

The respondent cannot invoke good faith or blame her secretary for the error. The Supreme Court has previously held that a notary public may still be admonished for failing to verify the identity of the person who acknowledged the instrument if the document turns out to be falsified. The respondent may have been grossly negligent in allowing her secretary to commit the error. Moreover, the document was pre-notarized without the respondent being present, which violates notarial law and constitutes deceitful conduct on the part of the lawyer.

The respondent's notarial register does not support her case. Document number 35 should have been recorded on page 7 but was notarized on another page. The respondent's failure to present evidence that the second document was not recorded properly raises a disputable presumption against her. It is also noted that the respondent is not being truthful with her defenses and may be attempting to mislead the Commission.

ISSUES:

  1. Does the signature and notarization of the verification and certification against forum shopping constitute actionable misconduct?

  2. Is the respondent guilty of dishonesty and/or gross negligence?

  3. Did the complainant withdraw her complaint against the respondent?

  4. Whether the withdrawal of the disbarment case by the complainant abated the jurisdiction of the IBP and the Court of Appeals to continue the administrative proceeding against the respondent.

  5. Whether the lapse of time from the occurrence of the cause and the complainant's personal vendetta affect the Court's inherent power to discipline a member of the Bar.

  6. Whether the respondent's act of signing the amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping violated the penal law, the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Notarial Law.

  7. Whether the respondent notary public complied with the requirements of the Notarial Law in notarizing the document.

  8. Whether the respondent should be penalized for her failure to comply with the requirements of the Notarial Law.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the signature and notarization of the verification and certification against forum shopping constitute actionable misconduct. The respondent's unjustified excuses and lack of proof support the inference that the signature and notarization were indeed improper.

  2. Yes, the respondent is guilty of dishonesty and/or gross negligence. The respondent's pattern of making excuses for similar mistakes, as well as her attempt to mislead the commission, demonstrate her lack of candor, integrity, and professional decorum.

  3. No information regarding the withdrawal of the complaint by the complainant is mentioned in the partial digest.

  4. The withdrawal of the disbarment case by the complainant did not terminate or abate the jurisdiction of the IBP and the Court of Appeals to continue the administrative proceeding against the respondent. The complainant's withdrawal or desistance does not exonerate the respondent and a case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of the complainant's interest or lack thereof. The IBP and the Court have the authority to discipline a member of the Bar based on the facts proven on record.

  5. The lapse of time from the occurrence of the cause and the complainant's personal vendetta do not diminish the Court's inherent power to discipline a member of the Bar whenever appropriate. Disbarment or suspension proceedings against members of the Bar are not subject to ordinary statutes of limitations and are not akin to trials of actions or suits. The Court may initiate such proceedings even motu proprio for the purpose of ensuring the proper administration of justice and determining the fitness of a member of the Bar to retain their membership and privileges.

  6. While the respondent did not intend to deceive the trial court by signing the amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping, her actions still constituted a clear breach of notarial protocol and were highly censurable. Notarizing the document without the signature of the affiant violated the requirements of the Notarial Law. The lack of bad faith does not absolve the respondent from the breach of professional and ethical standards as a lawyer.

  7. The respondent notary public failed to comply with the requirements of the Notarial Law in notarizing the document. The notarial certification indicated the necessity for the physical presence of the affiant, as well as the fact that the signing was done in the presence of the notary. However, the respondent signed as notary before the affiant could appear before her, disregarding the solemnity required by the law.

  8. The respondent should be reprimanded for her failure to comply with the requirements of the Notarial Law. While notarization is not an empty, routinary act, the absence of bad faith on the part of the respondent and the fact that it was her first infraction in her long years of membership in the Bar, as well as her health condition, warranted a reprimand instead of a suspension from the practice of law.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions.

  • Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, morality, and the rules of the legal profession are required for lawyers to remain in good standing.

  • Any breach of these conditions renders a lawyer unworthy of trust and unfit to continue practicing law.

  • Allegation is not equivalent to proof; a bare charge does not equate to liability.

  • The withdrawal or desistance of the complainant does not exonerate a respondent in a disbarment or suspension proceeding. The case may proceed based on the facts proven on record.

  • Disbarment or suspension proceedings against members of the Bar are not subject to ordinary statutes of limitations and may be initiated by the Court even motu proprio in the interest of the proper administration of justice.

  • Lawyers are expected to adhere to professional and ethical standards, including notarial protocols, in the performance of their duties. Breach of such standards may be subject to disciplinary action.

  • Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act but a solemn act imbued with legal solemnity.

  • Lawyers commissioned as notary publics are mandated to discharge with fidelity the sacred duties appertaining to their notarial office.

  • Lawyers commissioned as notary publics are expected to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes.

  • The solemnity and requirements of the Notarial Law should be observed in order to give due respect to the legal process.

  • In imposing the penalty for notary publics who fail to comply with the requirements of the Notarial Law, the absence of bad faith, first infraction, and personal circumstances may be considered in determining the appropriate penalty.