TARLAC STATE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW

Individual Report in

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Prepared by:

Mary Anne Garcia

JD 3

Prepared for:

Atty. Leslie Taruc- Orencia

Professor

1
 II. LAWYER’S OATH

I, _______ do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegianceto the Republic of the
Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal
orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent
to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same. I will delay
no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the
best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to
my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

2
Case # 1

BENJAMIN Q. ONG VS. ATTY. WILLIAM F. DELOS SANTOS

Facts:

In January 2008, complainant Benjamin Ong was introduced to respondent Atty. William
F. Delos Santos and after several calls and personal interactions between them, Ong and
Atty. Delos Santos became friends.

According to Ong, Atty. Delos Santos asked him to encash his postdated check inasmuch
as he was in dire need of cash. To reassure Ong that the check would be funded upon
maturity, Atty. Delos Santos bragged about his lucrative practice and his good paying
clients. Convinced of Atty. Delos Santos’ financial stability, Ong handed to Atty. Delos
Santos on January 29, 2008 the amount of P100,000.00 in exchange for the latter’s
postdated check dated February 29, 2008.

However, the check was dishonored upon presentment for the reason that the account was
closed. Ong relayed the matter of the dishonor to Atty. Delos Santos, and demanded
immediate payment, but the latter just ignored him. When efforts to collect remained
futile, Ong brought a criminal complaint for estafa and for violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 against Atty. Delos Santos. Ong also brought this disbarment complaint against
Atty. Delos Santos in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Delos Santos violate Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility forissuing a worthless check.

Ruling:

Every lawyer is an officer of the Court. He has the duty and responsibility to maintain his
good moral character. In this regard, good moral character is not only a condition
precedent relating to his admission into the practice of law, but is a continuing imposition
in order for him to maintain his membership in the Philippine Bar. The Court
unwaveringly demands of him to remain a competent, honorable, and reliable individual
in whom the public may repose confidence. Any gross misconduct that puts his moral
character in serious doubt renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law.

The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the private interests of the
parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at
large. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury
to the public.

3
Case # 2

“ A LAWYER SHALL NOT, FOR ANY CORRUPT MOTIVE OR INTEREST,

ENCOURAGE ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING OR DELAY ANY MAN’S CAUSE
“

JUDGE MADRID VS ATTY. DE ALCA

A.C. No. 7474, 9 September 2014

Facts:
The complainant hired the services of Atty. Juan S. Dealca as his counsel in collaboration
with Atty. Ronando L. Gerona in a pending case docketed at the Court of Appeals
wherein the complainant was the plaintiff-appellant.

The parties agreed upon PhP 15,000.00 as attorney’s fees with the following breakdown:
50% payable upon acceptance of the case; and the remaining balance upon termination of
the case. Complainant paid the respondent PhP 7,500.00. Prior to preparing the
appellant’s brief, respondent demanded payment of PhP 4,000.00. The complainant
obliged though it was contrary to the original agreement. Before filing the appellant's
brief, respondent demanded payment of the balance amounting to PhP 3,500.00. When
complainant was unable to do so, respondent withdraw his appearance as complaint’s
counsel without informing the complainant. Thus, the complainant charged the
respondent with misconduct and praying the respondent be “sternly dealt with
administratively.”

Issue:
Whether or not respondent committed misconduct and violated the provisions of the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Held:

The Supreme Court find the respondent violated Canon 22 of the CPR for withdrawing
from the complainant’s case without a good cause. Respondent also violated Rule 20.4,
Canon 20 of the CPR for demanding full payment before submission of the complainant-
appellant’s brief even though they have an agreement that final payment will be given
upon termination of the case.

The Supreme Court reprimanded the respondent.

4
Case # 3:

SALABAO VS VILLARUEL
A.C. No. 8084. August 24, 2015.

Facts :

In 1995, Patrocinia Salabao (complainant) filed a case against Elmer Lumberio for his
deceitful or fraudulent conduct of taking her precious real property situated in Taguig
City. After hearing, the RTC Branch 162 of Pasig City ruled in her favor in 2002. Atty.
Andres Villaruel, Jr. became the counsel for Lumberio. From then on, Salabao
complained that Villaruel had made her suffer because of his abuse of processes and
disregard for her rights as a litigant.
She narrates as follows:
In 2002, the RTC Branch 162 of Pasig City which tried the case issued its resolution in
her favor. In order to delay the case, Villaruel brought the case on appeal to CA, which
also decided in her favor. Respondent then again filed an appeal before the SC. Lumberio
lost and the case became final and executory. Undeterred, Villaruel tried to defer the
execution of the decision of the RTC Branch 162 by bringing to CA a Petition for
Annulment of Judgment. When rebuffed, he again appealed to the SC sans a clear or new
argument other than what he had presented before the CA. Still respondent filed a new
complaint before the RTC of Mauban, Quezon. Villaruel also filed several Motion,
Inhibition, and Contempt that were meant to delay the resolution of the case. Salabao
then complained that Villaruel had done more than enough to suppress her rights as a
winning litigant and filed this case for abuse of process pursuant to Rule 10.03 and Rule
10.02 of Canon 10 and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of CPR. The Investigating Commissioner
stated that Respondent is found to have violated Canon 12, Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of
the CPR.

Issue:
Whether or not there was a violation of Canons 10 and 12 of CPR

Held:

Yes. While it is true that lawyers owe "entire devotion" to the cause of their clients, it
cannot be emphasized enough that their first and primary duty is "not to the client but to
the administration of justice." Canon 12 of the Co de of Professional Responsibility states
that "A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice." Thus, in the use of Court processes, the lawyer's zeal
to win must be tempered by the paramount consideration that justice be done to all parties
involved, and the lawyer for the losing party should not stand in the way of the execution
of a valid judgment.

5
Case #4:

GUILTY OF MORAL TURPITUDE

NOTES : A lawyer is required to observe the law and be mindful of his or her actions
whether acting in a public or private capacity. Any transgression of this duty on his part
would not only diminish his reputation as a lawyer but would also erode the public's faith
in the legal profession as a whole. In this case, respondent's conduct fell short of the
exacting standards expected of him as a member of the bar, for which he must suffer the
necessary consequences.

NULADA V PAULMA

Facts :

Complainant alleged that on September 30, 2005, respondent issued in his favor a check
in the amount of P650,000.00 adopting and approving with modification the IBP's Report
and Recommendation dated June 26, 2013, suspending respondent from the practice of
law for a period of two (2) years for having violated the lawyer's oath and the CPR, as
well as for having been found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude.
Unfortunately, when he presented the check for payment, it was dishonored due to
insufficient funds. Respondent failed to make good the amount of the check despite
notice of dishonor and repeated demands, prompting complainant to file a criminal
complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 22.
On appeal, the RTC affirmed in toto the ruling of the MTC.
Complainant also filed an administrative complaint before the Court, through the Office
of the Bar Confidant. In his defense, respondent denied that he committed dishonesty
against complainant, as prior to September 30, 2005, he informed the latter that there
were insufficient funds to cover the amount of the check. Respondent claimed that he
merely issued the check in order to accommodate a friend in whose favor he obtained the
loan, stressing that he did not personally benefit from the proceeds
thereof. Unfortunately, said friend had died and respondent had no means by which to
pay for the amount of the check. He also claimed that complainant threatened him and
used his unfunded check to the latter's personal advantage.
After conducting mandatory conferences, the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of
the IBP issued a Report and Recommendation dated June 26, 2013, recommending that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months for
violation of the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), as well
as for having been found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent is found that the offense for which respondent was found
guilty of violation of BP 22, moral turpitude, and that he violated his lawyer's oath and
the CPR when he committed the said offense.

6
RULING :

The Court sustains the findings and conclusions of the CBD of the IBP, as approved,
adopted, and modified by the IBP Board of Governors.

As a final word, it should be emphasized that membership in the legal profession is a

privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer is required to observe the law and be
mindful of his or her actions whether acting in a public or private capacity. Any
transgression of this duty on his part would not only diminish his reputation as a lawyer
but would also erode the public's faith in the legal profession as a whole. In this case,
respondent's conduct fell short of the exacting standards expected of him as a member of
the bar, for which he must suffer the necessary consequences.

LEGAL BASIS : Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court

Canon 1 of the CPR (RULE 1.01)
[BP] 22 has been enacted in order to safeguard the interest of the banking system and the
legitimate public checking account users. The gravamen of the offense defined and
punished by [BP] 22 [x x x] is the act of making and issuing a worthless check, or any
check that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment and putting it in circulation.

7
Case #5:

JUTTA KRURSEL vs. ATTY. LORENZA A. ABION

Facts:
Krursel, a German national, charged respondent Atty. Abion with forgery, swindling, and
falsification of a public document. She asks that respondent be disbarred.

Complainant alleges that she engaged the services of respondent to assist her in filing a
case against Robinsons Savings Bank - Ermita Branch (RSB) and its officers, in relation
to the bank's illegal withholding/blocking of her account. Respondent then filed a
complaint against RSB and its officers before the Monetary Board (MB) of the BSP.

Without complainant's knowledge, respondent withdrew the complaint with prejudice

through a letter addressed to the MB. Complainant claims that respondent forged her
signature and that of a certain William Randeli Coleman in the letter. She adds that she
never authorized nor acceded to respondent's withdrawal of the complaint.

Complainant was further surprised to discover two SPAs which appear to have her and
Coleman's signature as principals. Complainant claims that the signatures were forged.
She denies ever having executed any SPA for respondent.

Complainant further alleges that respondent filed before the SC a Complaint for "Writ of
Preliminary Prohibitive and Mandatory Injunction with Damages."

Respondent failed to account for these amounts despite complainant's demands for a
receipt but instead allegedly presented complainant a document purporting to be an Order
from the SC’s First Division, resolving the case in complainant's favor. The Order was
purportedly signed by Atty. Virginia; R. Soriano, "Division Clerk of the First Division of
the SC. Atty. Soriano denied the authenticity of the signature and the Order.

Finally, complainant alleges that while she was sick and in the hospital, respondent asked
for complainant's German passport to secure its renewal from the German Embassy. For
this service, respondent asked for the total amount of P440,000.00 to cover the expenses.

These sums were allegedly not properly accounted for. Respondent eventually presented
a purportedly renewed German passport, which complainant rejected because it was fake.

The Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be disbarred for

fabricating and forging SPAs and an order from the SC, coupled with her exaction
of money from complainant without receipt or accounting despite demands.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the findings and recommendations
of the Investigating Commissioner.

Issue:

8
Whether or not respondent should be disbarred for committing forgery, falsification,
and swindling.

Ruling:
Respondent committed serious acts of deceit in withdrawing the complaint with
prejudice, without the knowledge and consent of complainant, forging complainant's
signature or causing her signature to be forged in the letter, thus making it appear that
complainant conformed to the withdrawal of the complaint, and also of the forging of the
Order purportedly coming from the SC’s First Division, and the Respondent’s willful
behavior has effectively hindered the Court’s process service and unduly prolonged
the case. This evasive attitude is unbecoming of a lawyer, an officer of the court
who swore to “obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities.”

Respondent’s acts amount to deceit, malpractice, or gross misconduct in office as

an attorney. She violated her oath to “do no falsehood” and to “conduct herself
as a lawyer .  .  . with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to her clients.”
She also violated the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.

CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND

DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF
THE INTEGRATED BAR

CANON 15. A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND

LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.

CANON 17. A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND
HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

CANON 18. A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND
DILIGENCE.
Respondent’s unethical and unscrupulous conduct proves her unworthy of the
public’s trust and confidence. She shamelessly transgressed all the things she swore
to uphold, which makes her unfit to continue as a member of the bar.

The SC finds respondent Atty. Lorenza A. Abion GUILTY of gross misconduct in

violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. She is hereby
DISBARRED from the practice of law. The Office of the Bar Confidant is DIRECTED
to remove the name of Lorenza A. Abion from the Roll of Attorneys

III. DUTY OF THE LAWYER TO THE SOCIETY

9
A. Duty to Uphold the Constitution and Obey the Laws of the Land

Case #1:

JIMENEZ V ATTY VERANO, JR

AC No. 8108, July 15, 2014

Facts:
Brodett and Tecson (“Alabang Boys”) were accused in cases filed by the PDEA for
illegal sale and use of dangerous drugs, but the charges against them were dropped for
lack of probable cause. Because of the failure of the prosecutor to ask clarificatory
questions during the evaluation of the case, several media outlets reported on incidents of
bribery and “cover up” allegedly prevalent on investigations of drug trade. This
prompted the House Committee on Illegal Drugs to conduct its own congressional
hearings and it was revealed during one of the hearings that respondent Verano Jr.
prepared the release order of his three clients using the letterhead of the DOJ and the
stationery of then Sec. Raul Gonzales.
Jimenez and Vizconde, in their capacity as founders of Volunteers Against Crime and
Corruption (VACC) sent a letter of complaint to CJ Puno. They stated that respondent
had admitted to drafting the release order, hence he committed a highly irregular and
unethical act. They argue further that he had no authority to use the DOJ letterhead and
should be penalized for acts unbecoming a member of the bar.
Atty. Lozano also filed a case and anchored his Complaint on respondent’s alleged
violation of Canon 1 of the CPR. Atty. Lozano contended that respondent showed
disrespect for the law and legal processes in drafting the said order and sending it to a
high-ranking public official, even though he was not a government prosecutor. Lozano,
however, withdrew his Complaint on the ground that a similar action had been filed by
Dante Jimenez.
Respondent reasoned that the Joint Inquest Resolution dropped his clients from the
charges against them, and the said resolution also ordered the immediate release of
“Alabang Boys”. He admits that he was over-zealous, yet if approved by the Sec. of
DOJ, then it may be expedited, and since it was not signed then the draft release order
remained “a mere scrap of paper with no effect at all”.
Issue:
Whether or not Verano violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling:
Yes. He violated Rule 1.02 and 15.07, in relation to Canon 13 of the CPR. A lawyer shall
rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to
influence , or gives the appearance of influencing the court. The way respondent
conducted himself manifested a clear intent to gain special treatment and consideration
from a government agency. The primary duty of lawyers is not to their clients but to the
administration of justice. To that end, their client’s success is wholly subordinate. Zeal
and persistence in advancing a client’s cause must always be within the bounds of the

10
law. (Suspended for 6 months, and warned for a more severe penalty if repeated)

Case #2:

FOSTER VS AGTANG

11
A.C. No. 10579 – Legal Ethics – Borrowing From Clients Not Appropriate

FACTS: In 2009, Erlinda Foster engaged the services of Atty. Jaime Agtang in a realty
dispute in Ilocos Norte. Agtang’s acceptance fee was P20,000.00 plus P5,000.00 for
incidental expenses.
For the case, Agtang collected P150,000.00 from Foster as filing fee. He also advised
Foster to shell out a total of P50,000.00 for them to bribe the judge and get a favorable
decision. Although reluctant, Foster gave in to Agtang’s demands.
On various occasions, Agtang borrowed money from Foster for his personal use, i.e., car
repair. Such loan amounted to P122,000.00. Foster, being prudent, asked for receipts for
all funds she handed over to Agtang.
Later however, Foster learned that she lost the case due to Agtang’s negligence and
incompetence in drafting the complaint. She also found out that the filing fee therefor
was only P22,410 (not P150k). Further, it turned out that Agtang was once the lawyer of
the opposing party. When she asked Agtang to return her the balance, the said lawyer
failed to do so hence, she filed an administrative complaint against Agtang.
The IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) eventually ordered Agtang to return the balance
of the filing fee (P127,590.00) as well as the money he borrowed from Foster
(P122,000.00). It was also recommended that Agtang be suspended for three months
only.
Issue: 
Whether or not the recommendation by the IBP-BOG is proper.

Held: 
No. The recommended penalty of 3 months suspension is too light. Agtang
was disbarred by the Supreme Court.
Rule 1.0, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, provides that “a lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”
In this case, Agtang is guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct, both in his
professional and private capacity. As a lawyer, he clearly misled Foster into believing
that the filing fees for her case were worth more than the prescribed amount in the rules,
due to feigned reasons such as the high value of the land involved and the extra expenses
to be incurred by court employees. In other words, he resorted to overpricing, an act
customarily related to depravity and dishonesty.
When asked to return the balance, he failed and refused to do so and even had the
temerity that it was all the client’s idea. . A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the
funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has
appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his
client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. It
impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.

12
It is clear that Agtang failed to fulfill this duty. He received various amounts from Foster
but he could not account for all of them. Worse, he could not deny the authenticity of the
receipts presented by Foster.
Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “a lawyer
shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected by
the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a
client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a
legal matter he is handling for the client.”
In the first place, Agtang should have never borrowed from Foster, his client. Second, his
refusal to pay reflects his baseness. Deliberate failure to pay just debts constitutes gross
misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of
law. Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal
system. They are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency, but also a high standard
of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the people’s faith and confidence in
the judicial system is ensured. They must, at all times, faithfully perform their duties to
society, to the bar, the courts and their clients, which include prompt payment of financial
obligations.
SIDE ISSUE: May the Court order Agtang to return the money he borrowed from
Foster?
No. The Court held that it cannot order the lawyer to return money to complainant if he
or she acted in a private capacity because its findings in administrative cases have no
bearing on liabilities which have no intrinsic link to the lawyer’s professional
engagement. In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the
officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. The only
concern of the Court is the determination of respondent’s administrative liability. Its
findings have no material bearing on other judicial actions which the parties may choose
against each other. To rule otherwise would in effect deprive respondent of his right to
appeal since administrative cases are filed directly with the Court.

Case #3:

CHAMELYN A. AGOT v. ATTY. LUIS P. RIVERA

13
Note : Deception is not only unacceptable, disgraceful, and dishonorable to the legal
profession but also revealing a basic moral flaw that makes a person unfit to practice law.

Facts:

Chamelyn A. Agot claimed that she was invited as maid of honor in herbest
friend’swedding at the United States of America. To facilitate the issuance of her United
States (US) visa, Agot sought the services of Atty. Luis Rivera who
represented himself as an immigration lawyer. Agot paid Atty. Rivera the amount of
P350,000.00 as downpayment and agreed to to pay the balance of P350,000.00 after the
issuance of the US visa. However, Atty. Rivera failed to perform his undertaking within
the agreed period. Worse, Agot was not even scheduled for interview in the US Embassy.
It was later found that Atty. Rivera did not specialize in immigration law but merely had
a contact with a purportedly US consul who was supposed to process the US visa
applications for him. Failure to refund the downpayment, Agot filed a criminal complaint
for estafa and the instant administrative complaint against Atty. Rivera.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Rivera violated the Code of Professional Responsibility for
mispresenting himself as an immigration lawyer.

Ruling:
Yes, Atty. Rivera was found guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rules
16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Also, the relationship between a lawyer and his client is
highly fiduciary and prescribes on a lawyer a great fidelity and good faith. The highly
fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for the
money or property collected or received for or from his client. Thus, a lawyer’s failure to
return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client, as in this case,gives
rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use inviolation of
the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as
well as of professional ethics.

Case #4:

14
A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC, January 21, 2015

RE: VIOLATION OF RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE

DECISION

MENDOZA, J.:

This case stemmed from three (3) letter-complaints for Violation of Rules on Notarial
Practice endorsed to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for appropriate action. The
first letter-complaint,dated March 2, 2009, was filed by the commissioned notaries public
within and for the jurisdiction of Lingayen, Pangasinan, namely, Atty. Butch Cardinal
Torio, Atty. Nepthalie Pasiliao, Atty. Dominique Evangelista, and Atty. Elizabeth C.
Tugade (complainants) before the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court,
Lingayen, Pangasinan (RTC-Lingayen) against Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. (Atty. Siapno)
for notarizing documents without a commission.

In their letter, complainants alleged that Atty. Siapno was maintaining a notarial office
along Alvear Street East, Lingayen, Pangasinan, and was performing notarial acts and
practices in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City without the requisite notarial
commission. They asserted that Atty. Siapno was never commissioned as Notary Public
for and within the jurisdiction of Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City. Instead, he
applied and was commissioned to perform notarial functions by Executive Judge
Anthony Sison of the RTC, San Carlos City, Pangasinan from March 22, 2007 to
December 31, 2008. His notarial commission, however, was never renewed upon
expiration. Complainants presented evidence supporting their allegations such as the
pictures of Atty. Siapno’s law office in Lingayen, Pangasinan; and documents to prove
that Atty. Siapno performed acts of notarization in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan
City, to wit: (1) Addendum to Loan and Mortgage Agreement2 showing that the
Promissory Note was notarized before Atty. Siapno in Lingayen, Pangasinan in 2007; (2)
Deed of Absolute Sale, dated January 24, 2008, notarized in Natividad, Pangasinan; (3)
Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons Re: Given Name and Date of Birth, dated
January 6, 2009, notarized in Dagupan City; and (4) Acknowledgement of Debt, dated
January 24, 2008, notarized in Dagupan City.

Complainants also averred that Atty. Siapno had delegated his notarial authority to his
secretaries, Mina Bautista (Bautista) and Mary Ann Arenas (Arenas), who wrote legal
instruments and signed the documents on his behalf.

On March 17, 2009, the RTC-Lingayen forwarded the said letter-complaint to the Office
of the Court Administrator (OCA) which, in turn, indorsed the same to the OBC.

The second letter-complaint was filed by Audy B. Espelita (Espelita) against Atty. Pedro
L. Santos (Atty. Santos). It alleged that in 2008, Espelita lost his driver’s license and he
executed an affidavit of loss which was notarized by Atty. Santos. The said affidavit,
however, was denied for authentication when presented before the Notarial Section in

15
Manila because Atty. Santos was not commissioned to perform notarial commission
within the City of Manila.

The third letter-complaint came from a concerned citizen reporting that a certain Atty.
Evelyn who was holding office at Room 402 Leyba Bldg., 381 Dasmariñas Street, Sta.
Cruz, Manila, had been notarizing and signing documents for and on behalf of several
lawyers.

In its Resolution, dated June 9, 2009, the Court directed the Executive Judge of the RTC-
Lingayen to conduct a formal investigation on the complaint against Atty. Siapno and
Executive Judge Reynaldo G. Ros (Judge Ros) of the RTC-Manila to conduct a formal
investigation on the alleged violation of the Notarial Law by Atty. Santos, and the illegal
activities of a certain Atty. Evelyn, and thereafter, to submit a report and recommendation
thereon.

Re: Complaint against Atty. Siapno

With regard to the complaint against Atty. Siapno, the Executive Judge conducted a
hearing wherein the complainants affirmed the allegations in their letter-complaint. For
his part, Atty. Siapno denied the accusations and averred that the law office in Lingayen,
Pangasinan, was not his and that Bautista and Arenas were not his secretaries.

In her Report and Recommendation, the Executive Judge found that Atty. Siapno was
issued a notarial commission within the jurisdiction of Lingayen, Pangasinan, from
January 20, 2003 to December 31, 2004 and February 8, 2005 to December 3, 2006. His
commission, however, was cancelled on June 8, 2006 and he was not issued another
commission thereafter. The Executive Judge found Atty. Siapno to have violated the
2004 Rules on Notarial Commission when he performed notarial functions without
commission and recommended that he be fined in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00).

The Court agrees with the findings of the Executive Judge but not to the recommended
penalty.

A review of the records and evidence presented by complainants shows that Atty. Siapno
indeed maintained a law office in Lingayen, Pangasinan, just beside the law office of one
of the complainants, Atty. Elizabeth Tugade. It was also proven that Atty. Siapno
notarized several instruments with an expired notarial commission outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the commissioning court. Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice provides that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Jurisdiction and Term – A person commissioned as notary public may
perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the
commissioning court for a period of two (2) years commencing the first
day of January of the year in which the commissioning is made, unless
earlier revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the
Rules of Court.

16
Under the rule, only persons who are commissioned as notary public may perform
notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the court which granted the commission.
Clearly, Atty. Siapno could not perform notarial functions in Lingayen, Natividad and
Dagupan City of the Province of Pangasinan since he was not commissioned in the said
places to perform such act.

****Time and again, this Court has stressed that notarization is not an empty,
meaningless and routine act. It is invested with substantive public interest that only those
who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. 12 It must be emphasized that
the act of notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public
document making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of
authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face,
and for this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements
in the performance of their duties.****

****By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission from the court, Atty.
Siapno violated not only his oath to obey the laws particularly the Rules on Notarial
Practice but also Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
proscribes all lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct and directs them to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, at all
times.***

In a plethora of cases, the Court has subjected lawyers to disciplinary action for
notarizing documents outside their territorial jurisdiction or with an expired commission.
Considering that Atty. Siapno has been proven to have performed notarial work in
Ligayen, Natividad and Dagupan City in the province of Pangasinan without the requisite
commission, the Court finds the recommended penalty insufficient. Instead, Atty. Siapno
must be barred from being commissioned as notary public permanently and suspended
from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.

Re: Complaints against Atty. Santos and Atty. Evelyn

In a letter, dated July 29, 2013, Judge Ros informed the Court that he could not have
complied with the June 9, 2009 and August 4, 2009 orders of the Court because he was
no longer the Executive Judge of the RTC-Manila at that time. To date, no formal
investigation has been conducted on the alleged violation of Atty. Santos and the reported
illegal activities of a certain Atty. Evelyn.

With respect to the complaints against Atty. Santos and a certain Atty. Evelyn, the Clerk
of Court is ordered to RE-DOCKET the same as separate administrative cases.

The incumbent Executive Judge of the RTC-Manila, whether permanent or in acting

capacity, is ordered to conduct a formal investigation on the matter and to submit his
Report and Recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of copy of this decision.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the

17
practice of law for two (2) years and BARRED PERMANENTLY from being
commissioned as Notary Public, effective upon his receipt of a copy of this decision.

With respect to the complaints against Atty. Pedro L. Santos and a certain Atty. Evelyn,
the Clerk of Court is ordered to RE-DOCKET them as separate administrative cases.
The Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Manila, is ordered to conduct a formal
investigation on the matter and to submit his Report and Recommendation within sixty
(60) days from receipt of a copy of this decision.

18