FACTS:

Atty. James Joseph Gupana filed a petition for review against Resolution Nos. XVII-2005-141 and XVIII-2008-698 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors. The Board found Atty. Gupana administratively liable and imposed a one-year suspension from the practice of law, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as a notary public for two years. The case was initiated by an affidavit-complaint filed by Carlito Ang against Atty. Gupana, alleging his direct participation in forgeries and falsifications in relation to a Deed of Absolute Sale and an Affidavit of Loss. These led to the transfer and issuance of new Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) in the names of other individuals. Ang also claimed that Atty. Gupana acted as attorney-in-fact and sold a parcel of land involved in a civil case despite its pendency. However, Atty. Gupana denied any wrongdoing and argued that Ang filed the complaint to pressure the defendants in the civil case to comply with his demands. The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Gupana liable for allowing the disposal of the subject property through a deed of sale amid its ongoing court case and for delegating notarial functions to unqualified personnel. The Investigating Commissioner recommended a three-month suspension, but the Board modified it to a one-year suspension, revocation of Atty. Gupana's notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as a notary public for two years. Atty. Gupana filed a motion for reconsideration.

ISSUES:

1. Whether respondent Atty. James Joseph Gupana is administratively liable for his alleged participation in the commission of forgeries and falsifications.

2. Whether respondent's act of allowing himself to be an instrument in the disposal of the subject property through a deed of sale, despite the pending litigation, constitutes an unethical act.

RULING:

1. Yes. The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines found respondent administratively liable for his direct participation in the commission of forgeries and falsifications. Thus, he was imposed a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one year and the revocation of his notarial commission with disqualification from reappointment as a notary public for two years.

2. Yes. The Investigating Commissioner and the Board of Governors found respondent's act of allowing himself to be an instrument in the disposal of the subject property through a deed of sale, despite the pending litigation, to be an unethical act. As a result, he was imposed a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one year.

PRINCIPLES:

• A notary public should personally ensure the authenticity of the document and should not delegate the performance of any task which may only be performed by a member of the bar. (Rule 9.01, Code of Professional Responsibility)

• It is illegal and unethical for a lawyer to accept appointment as attorney-in-fact to sell a property involved in a pending litigation.