5/11/23, 12:02 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

THIRD DIVISION

[ A.C. No. 10306. September 16, 2020 ]

FATIMA S. INGRAM, PETITIONER, V. ATTY. JOSE Q. LORICA IV,

RESPONDENT,

DECISION

GAERLAN, J.:

Before Us is an administrative complaint[1] for disbarment filed by Fatima S. Ingram

(complainant) against Atty. Jose Q. Lorica IV (respondent).

Facts

The records show that on August 4, 2004, the spouses Victor Ferdinand B. Blanco and
Rizza O. Blanco (spouses Blanco) executed a promissory note[2] in favor of the spouses
John Ingram and complainant (collectively, spouses Ingram). The promissory note was
notarized by respondent.[3]

When the spouses Blanco defaulted in payment, the spouses Ingram instituted the
following actions:

a) Criminal Case No. 13757 for Estafa, which was dismissed for want of
probable cause, the case being purely civil in nature and not criminal;

b) Criminal Case Nos. 21381 and 21382 for violation of Batas Pambama
Bilang 22; and,

c) Civil Case No. U-8268 for collection of sum of money with damages.[4]

The spouses Blanco then engaged the legal services of respondent to represent them in
the foregoing cases.[5]

The instant controversy arose when respondent, as counsel of the spouses Blanco, filed
an Answer[6] to the civil complaint, wherein the validity of the promissory note was
raised as an issue. Paragraph 3 thereof alleged that the execution of the subject
promissory note was attended with coercion, threats, intimidation and the like, viz.:

3. That paragraphs 3 and 4 are DENIED, the truth of the matter being that
there should be an accounting to be made by both parties to arrive at an
actual obligation of herein defendants. The rest of the allegations are
likewise DENIED for lack of knowledge and information sufficient to form a

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66706 1/9
5/11/23, 12:02 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

belief thereon. The execution of the alleged promissory note was

without due regard to the defendants' pleas at the time as they were
subjected to coercion, threats, intimidation and the like, thus
defendant Victor Ferdinand Blanco was forced to sign the same[.]
xxx[7]

Along the same line, the pre-trial brief[8] filed by respondent in behalf of the spouses
Blanco stated, among others:

5. Whether or not plaintiffs were made aware of the financial situation [of]
herein defendants and requested the restructuring of their agreement so as
for them to be able to settle their obligation unto the plaintiffs but the latter
denied such request and instead, sent coercive and threatening
communications unto the defendants, who were forced to execute
the subject promissory notef.[.][9]

The spouses Ingram were thus prompted to move for the disqualification of the
respondent to act as counsel for the spouses Blanco in Civil Case No. U-8268.[10]

Thereafter, complainant filed the instant complaint for disbarment,[11] docketed as CBD
Case No 06-1863. Complainant posits that respondent, as the person who notarized the
promissory note, is estopped from assailing the validity thereof inasmuch as he
certified that the maker thereof acknowledged before him that the instrument is the
latter's own free will and voluntary act and deed. Complainant also filed an
administrative case, docketed as Administrative Case No. U-22.1, for the revocation of
respondent's notarial appointment before the office of the Executive Judge of the
Regional Trial Court, Urdaneta City.[12]

Later, in her position paper[13] in this disbarment case, complainant likewise accused
respondent of committing acts of dishonesty and deceit. According to the complainant,
paragraph 2(d) of the promissory note provides:

d) Any and all payments should be made in Australian Currency as described

in paragraphs 1 and 2 and as such, the exchange rate will not affect the
aforecited payment. Should it become necessary to bank any of the cheques
for collection, we shall be held liable for any difference between the current
rate at the time of banking and the current rate of P38.00 per Australian
Dollar as used in the drawing of cheques.[14]

To assail the above stipulation, respondent cited Article 1250 of the Civil Code in his
clients' Answer in Civil Case No. U-8268 in the following manner:

14. That relative to the stipulation on the exchange rate on the subject
promissory note, it is but imperative that the pertinent provisions of Article
1250 of the Civil Code of the Philippines be noted herein, to wit:

In case of an extraordinary inflation or deflation of the currency stipulated

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66706 2/9
5/11/23, 12:02 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

should supervene, the value of the currency at the time of the establishment
of the obligation shall be the basis of [the] payment[.][15]

Similarly, in the Pre-Trial Brief he prepared for the spouses Blanco, he stated:

II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES

xxxx

6. Whether or not it is but imperative that the pertinent provisions of Article

1250 of the Civil Code of the Philippines be noted relative to the stipulation
on the exchange rate on the subject promissory note, that is, "In case of an
extraordinary inflation or deflation of the currency stipulated should
supervene, the value of the currency at the time of the establishment of the
obligation shall be the basis of [the] payment[.]"[16]

Meanwhile, Article 1250 of the Civil Code in its entirety reads:

Article 1250. In case an extraordinary inflation or deflation of the currency

stipulated should supervene, the value of the currency at the time of the
establishment of the obligation shall be the basis of the payment, unless
there is an agreement to the contrary.

According to the complainant, respondent intentionally and deliberately omitted the

phrase "unless there is an agreement to the contrary,'"' in an attempt to put in
issue the stipulated exchange rate in the promissory note and to mislead the
complainant as to the complete thought provided in Article 1250 of the Civil Code.

On the other hand, in his Verified Answer[17] to the disbarment complaint, the
respondent claims that it was only at the time when he prepared the Answer in Civil
Case No. U-8268 that he learned that the spouses Ingram employed coercion, threats
and intimidation upon his clients before, during and after the execution of the
promissory note. He attached copies of: the Police Blotter[18] dated March 1, 2005,
stating that the spouses Ingram "allegedly threatened [Mr. Blanco] to be killed, putting
him into great fear and mental anguish;" the document denominated as "Chronological
Events of Grave Threats issued by Sps. John and Fatima Ingram against Victor Blanco"
[19] listing the alleged incidents from November 21, 2004 to February 28, 2005, when

the spouses Ingram threatened the lives of the spouses Blanco; and, the Police
Blotter[20] dated August 13, 2005, stating that the complainant allegedly threatened to
drive his business bankrupt and remarked in an angry voice "umalis kayudtan ta awan
ti kiiarta da ditan." According to respondent, he committed no dishonesty in the
preparation of the answer in the civil case and simply relied in good faith on the
narration of facts of his clients. As a lawyer, he deemed it imperative to raise the
foregoing defenses in order to protect his clients' interest. He likewise asserts that, in
any case, he had already withdrawn his appearance from the civil case with the
conformity of the spouses Blanco.

Findings and Recommendation

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66706 3/9
5/11/23, 12:02 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

In a Report and Recommendation[21] dated 3 August 2009, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found that respondent did not commit a
violation when he represented the spouses Blanco in Civil Case No. U-8268 and
assailed the validity of the promissory note that he himself notarized. He opined that
complainant cannot validly invoke the doctrine of estoppel against respondent, since
the latter had no knowledge of the alleged threat, coercion and intimidation when he
notarized the promissory note, and since complainant failed to show that she relied on
the respondent's notarial acknowledgment before dealing with the spouses Blanco.[22]

Nonetheless, the Investigating Commissioner found that respondent violated Rule

10.02, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) when he omitted the
phrase "unless there is an agreement to the contrary''' in citing Article 1250 of the Civil
Code because the phrase would weaken his clients' case.[23] Thus, Commissioner
recommended as follows:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, in view of the foregoing facts and circumstances,

there being substantial evidence to show that respondent Jose Q. Lorica IV
knowingly misrepresented Article 1250 of the Civil Code, it is recommended
that he be warned that the commission of the same act in the future [will]
be dealt with more severely.

Respectfully submitted.[24]

In Resolution No. XX-2011-300[25] dated December 10, 2011, the IBP Board of
Governors found respondent guilty of glaring conflict of interest and thus, resolved to
reverse the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, viz.:

RESOLVED to REVERSE as it is hereby unanimously REVERSED the Report

and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-
entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A" and finding
Respondent's [sic] guilty of glaring conflict of interest, Atty. Jose Q. Lorica IV
is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years
and Revocation of his Notarial Commission if presently existing and
SUSPENDED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of five
(5) years.[26]

Feeling aggrieved, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration.[27]

On June 21, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XX-2013-736,[28]
denying respondent's motion for reconsideration, but modifying the penalty imposed,
viz.:

RESOLVED to unanimously DENY Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration,

there being no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the Commission and
it being a mere reiteration of the matters which had already been threshed
out and taken into consideration. Thus, Resolution No. XX-2011-300 dated
December 10, 2011 is hereby AFFIRMED, with modification, instead Atty.
Jose Q. Lorica IV is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1)

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66706 4/9
5/11/23, 12:02 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

year, and his "Notarial Commission REVOKED immediately. Further, he is

DISQUALIFIED from re-appointment as Notary Public for two (2) years.

Ruling

The Court deviates with the finding of the IBP Board of Governors. Rule 15.03 of the
CPR reads:

Canon 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his
dealings and transactions with his clients.

Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by

written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining whether a violation of the above
rule is present in a given case. One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for
an issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for
the other client. Thus, if a lawyer's argument for one client has to be opposed by that
same lawyer in arguing for the other client, there is a violation of the rule. Another test
of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent
the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. Still
another test is whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use
against a former client any confidential information acquired through their connection
or previous employment.[29]

At first glance, it would indeed appear that respondent is guilty of glaring conflict of
interest under the first test. By handling the defense of the spouses Blanco in Civil Case
No. U-8268 and raising for them the defense that the execution of the promissory note
that he himself notarized was attended by coercion, threats and intimidation,
respondent clearly took up a position that was inconsistent with his own attestation in
the notarial acknowledgment thereof that the instrument was Mr. Blanco's own free will
and voluntary act and deed.

However, the rule on conflict of interests presupposes a lawyer-client relationship. This

is because the purpose of the rule is precisely to protect the fiduciary nature of the ties
between an attorney and his client.[30] The relationship between a lawyer and his/her
client should ideally be imbued with the highest level of trust and confidence. This is
the standard of confidentiality that must prevail to promote a full disclosure of the
client's most confidential information to his/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange of
information between them. Needless to state, a client can only entrust confidential
information to his/her lawyer based on an expectation from the lawyer of utmost
secrecy and discretion; the lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound to observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with the client. Part of the
lawyer's duty in this regard is to avoid representing conflicting interests.[31]

Conversely, a lawyer may not be precluded from accepting and representing other
clients on the ground of conflict of interests, if the lawyer-client relationship does not

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66706 5/9
5/11/23, 12:02 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

exist in favor of a party in the first place.[32] Suffice it to state, the proscription against
representing conflicting interests finds no application, unless it serves the foregoing
purpose.

In this case, the record is devoid of any allegation, much less proof, that a lawyer-client
relationship exists between respondent and the spouses Ingram. An attorney-client
relationship is said to exist when a lawyer acquiesces or voluntarily permits the
consultation of a person, who in respect to a business or trouble of any kind, consults a
lawyer with a view of obtaining professional advice or assistance.[33] Here,
respondent's mere act of notarizing the subject promissory note and nothing more,
hardly gave rise to an attorney-client relationship between the notary public and the
payees of the said note, the spouses Ingram. There is, in fact, no showing that
respondent and the spouses Ingram ever dealt with each other, as it was only the
spouses Blanco, as the makers and signatories of the instrument, who appeared before
him to acknowledge their execution thereof. For this reason, We hold that the
respondent did not violate the rule on conflict of interests.

The foregoing notwithstanding, respondent is far from being scot-free. There is

definitely something amiss with his actuation, such that while it may not come within
the purview of "conflict of interest" as contemplated in this jurisdiction, a "conflict" in
the general sense of the word, is extant. To reiterate, respondent clearly took up
inconsistent positions when, on one hand, he attested in the notarial acknowledgment
of the promissory note that the instrument was Mr. Blanco's own free will and voluntary
act and deed, while on the other hand, he assailed the due execution thereof by putting
up the defenses of coercion, threats and intimidation allegedly employed by the
spouses Ingram that forced the spouses Blanco to execute the same.

It must be underscored that notarization by a notary public converts a private

document into a public document, making that document admissible in evidence
without further proof of its authenticity.[34] Thus, respondent's attempt to nullify the
promissory note on the ground that it was not duly executed, defeated the very
purpose of his own notarial act. By his conduct, he made a clear mockery of the
integrity of a notary public and degraded the function of notarization.

Time and again, We have held that notarization of a document is not an empty act or
routine. It is invested with substantive public interest for its function is to convert a
private document into a public document, thus rendering a notarial document entitled
to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at
large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and
appended to a private instrument.[35] Hence, a notary public cannot simply disavow the
contents of his notarial acknowledgment, otherwise, the confidence of the public in the
integrity of public instruments and the integrity of the notarial practice and the legal
profession, in general, would be undermined.

In this light, respondent should be held liable for his indiscretion not only as a notary
public but also as a lawyer. His disavowal of the contents of his notarial
acknowledgment—which, in good taste, he is called upon to honor and uphold; and
which the public should be able to rely upon—constitutes a violation of his obligation
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66706 6/9
5/11/23, 12:02 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

under Canon 7 of the CPR, which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

Considering, however, that respondent's infraction does not amount to representation

of conflicting interests, which deserves a more severe penalty, and considering,
furthermore, that respondent eventually withdrew as counsel of the spouses Blanco, We
deem the penalty of suspension for a period of six months from the practice of law to
be commensurate with the extent of respondent's violation. Nonetheless, We sustain
the IBP Board of Governor's imposition of the penalties of immediate revocation of his
Notarial Commission and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public
for a period of two years.

Finally, We adopt the finding of the Investigating Commissioner that respondent is

guilty of misquoting Article 1250 of the Civil Code when he omitted the phrase "unless
there is an agreement to the contrary,"'' in citing the said provision. Indeed, while the
evidence on record fell short in establishing that the omission was an "act of lying or
cheating" that would constitute a "dishonest act," it clearly contravened Rule 10.02 of
the CPR, which provides:

Rule 10.02. A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the

contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or
the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision
already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact
that which has not been proved.

For this infraction, respondent deserves to be admonished.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Atty. Jose Q. Lorica IV is hereby found GUILTY of

violation of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for which he is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. He is likewise
meted the penalties of immediate REVOCATION of his Notarial Commission if presently
existing and DISQUALIFICATION from being commissioned as a Notary Public for a
period of two (2) years. He is likewise hereby found GUILTY of violation of Rule 10.02
of the Code of Professional Responsibility for which he is hereby ADMONISHED. The
penalties herein imposed come with a STERN WARNING that the repetition of similar
violations will be dealt with even more severely.

Let copies of this Decision be attached to the personal records of respondent as

attorney, and be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator for proper dissemination to all
courts throughout the country.

SO ORDERED.

Leonen, J., (Chairperson), Gesmundo, Carandang, Zalameda, and Gaerlan, JJ. concur.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66706 7/9
5/11/23, 12:02 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

[1] Rollo,pp. 13-22.

[2] Id. at 28-29. 35-36.

[3] Id. at 36.

[4] Id. at 23-26.

[5] Id. at 10.

[6] Id. at 39-46.

[7] Id. at 39.

[8] Id. at 44-46.

[9] Id. ai 44.

[10] Id. at 47-50.

[11] Id. at 9-12.

[12] Id. at 75-76.

[13] Id. at 90-103.

[14] Id. at 28.

[15] Id. at 41.

[16] Id. at 44.

[17] Id. at 73-78.

[18] Id. at 84.

[19] Id. at 86.

[20] Id. at 85.

[21] Id. at 187-194.

[22] Id. at 90-91.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66706 8/9
5/11/23, 12:02 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

[23] Id. at 192-193.

[24] Id. at 194.

[25] Id. at 186.

[27] Id. at 195-202.

[28] Id. at 276-277.

[29] Aninon v. Atty. Sabitscma, Jr., 685 Phil. 322. 327 (2012).

[30] Jimenez v. Ally. Francisco, 749 Phil. 55 1, 570 (2014).

[31] Id. at 572-573.

[32] Id. at 570.

[33] Virgo v, Atty. Amorin. 597 Phil. 182, 191 (2009).

[34] Atty. Angeles, Jr. v. Atly. Bagay, 749 Phil. I 14, 123 (2014).

[35] Fabay v. Any. Resuena, 719 Phil. 151, 158 (2016).

Source: Supreme Court E-Library

This page was dynamically generated
by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66706 9/9