Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52930:ac-7297-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 15:50:58+00:00

Document:
IMELDA BIDES-ULASO, Complainant, v. ATTY. EDITA NOE-LACSAMANA, Respondent.
The decisive question to be resolved in this administrative proceeding is whether or not the notarization of the jurat of the amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping attached to the initiatory pleading even before the plaintiff-client has affixed her own signature amounts to censurable conduct on the part of the notary-counsel.
The respondent was the counsel of Irene Bides (Bides) when the latter filed a civil action in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Pasig City against complainant Imelda Bides-Ulaso (Ulaso), her own niece; Alan Ulaso (Ulaso's husband); Bartolome Bides (Ulaso's father and Bides' brother); the Register of Deeds of Region II, Metro Manila; and the Revenue District Office of San Juan, Metro Manila. The action was docketed as Special Civil Action (SCA) No. 2481 and raffled to Branch 167 of the RTC.
The amended complaint of Bides contained a so-called amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping dated June 18, 2003, on which was a signature preceded by the word "for" above the printed name "IRENE BIDES." The signature bore a positive resemblance to the respondent's signature as the notary on the jurat of the amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping.4 Seeing the defective execution of the amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping, Ulaso and her co-defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 22, 2003,5 citing the defect as a ground, along with another.
Bides and the respondent brought other proceedings against Ulaso. On September 26, 2003, Bides sued Ulaso and others for ejectment in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) in San Juan, Metro Manila, to evict them from the premises of Bides' property subject of the RTC case.9 She next formally charged Ulaso and two others with falsification of a public document in the Manila Prosecutor's Office for the execution of the nullified deed of sale, resulting in the criminal prosecution of Ulaso and the others before the MeTC, Branch 17, in Manila.10 The respondent actively prosecuted the criminal charge against Ulaso after being granted by the MeTC the express authority for that purpose pursuant to the Rules of Court.11 The respondent herself commenced disbarment proceedings in the IBP against Atty. Yolando Busmente, Ulaso's counsel; and proceedings for usurpation against Elizabeth de la Rosa, for appearing as Ulaso's other counsel although she had not been a member of the Philippine Bar.12 The disbarment proceedings against Atty. Busmente were docketed as CBD Case No. 05-1462.
On July 21, 2005, Bides and Ulaso entered into a compromise agreement to settle the criminal case for falsification, whereby Bides agreed to drop the criminal charge against Ulaso in exchange for, among others, Ulaso's withdrawal of the disbarment complaint against the respondent.14 The MeTC, Branch 17, in Manila approved the compromise agreement.
We are not impressed with the excuses presented by the respondent. The lapse committed by the respondent is clear based on the facts and pieces of evidence submitted in this case.
The respondent admits signing the questioned verification and there is also no dispute that she notarized the same. Even if her tale is true, the fact that she notarized her own signature is inexcusable. It cannot even be pardoned as a simple act of negligence as the standards set by notarial law are stringent enough to require all notaries public to exercise caution in order to protect the integrity and veracity of documents.
We also cannot understand the fact that all the pleadings submitted to the court do not bear the corrected verification and certification. It may be easy to convince us that she is really innocent of the charges if at least one of those documents or even that one copy furnished to the other party in that case would bear at least one such corrected verification. But no, there was none at all. This certainly militates against the position that respondent lawyer took.
"3. Atty. Lacsamana was scheduled for an out-of-town trip on Monday, June 23, 2003, thus she hurriedly notarized another prepared set of Amended Verification dated June 23, 2003, and repeatedly told me to file the amended complaint not later than that afternoon to this Honorable Court after replacing its old June 18, 2003-Amended Verification;"
"4. Irene Bides arrived only after lunch and after her niece cause her to sign the amended verification, I replaced the last page of the sets of the Amended Complaint without knowing that I missed its original copy and the copy I hurriedly sent to the counsel for the respondent."
Respondent was not around when the document was signed by the respondent's client. That is a violation of notarial law and deceitful conduct of the part of a lawyer, since he is notarizing a document which he did not actually witness being signed in his presence.
Even page 8 of the respondent's notarial register will not help her in this case. All that it shows is the alleged document no. 36, but what about document no. 35 which should appear in page 7 of Book no. 1? The second document was notarized on another page and it is incumbent on the respondent to show that the same was really not recorded as such. The failure of respondent to present such evidence should be treated as disputable presumption that the same would be detrimental to his interests if so presented. Thus, when the circumstances in proof tend to fix the liability on a party who has it in his power to offer evidence of all facts as they existed and rebut the inference which the circumstances in proof tend to establish, and he fails to offer such proof, the natural conclusion is that proof if produced, instead of rebutting, would support the inference against him, and the court is justified in acting upon that conclusion (Herrera, Remedial Law, VI, 1999 ed p. 63 citing Worcester v. Ocampo, 22 Phil. 42).
This commission feels that respondent is not being truthful with her defenses. The problem with using such unjustified excuses is that one lie will pile up over the other. Somewhere along the way, the story will leak out its sordid details exposing the excuse as a mere concocted tale and nothing more.
We have the impression that respondent is trying to mislead this Commission, which we cannot allow.
The issue in this case is really limited and focused on the signature and the notarization of the verification and certification against forum shopping for "Irene Bides". Does it constitute actionable misconduct? The other matters raised by the respondent have little bearing herein because it refers to other cases which she has against the complainant. But the causes of action are different so we will deign to entertain such other matters.
What is far worse is that the respondent has taken a habit of making such excuses for similar mistakes she committed. This Commission notes that the respondent herein is also a complainant in a different case against Atty. Yolando Busmente docketed as CBD case no. 05-1462. In that case, again no certification against non-forum shopping was made in that case, but instead of admitting the lack thereof (as it is not absolutely required in CBD cases) she went on to create a different story that her lawyer was negligent. Unfortunately said lawyer is already dead and cannot answer her accusations. She tried to pass off another set of certification which allegedly was not included with the original documents. What is however telling is that in all the seven (7) copies submitted to the CBD and that one (1) copy furnished to the respondents in that case, no such certification appears.
This unacceptable pattern of behavior compels us to recommend stricter measures to ensure that respondent lawyer is reminded of her solemn duty and obligation to be truthful and honest.
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and for notarizing a verification which she has executed, gross negligence and violation of the notarial law, Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months.
THE METED 6-MONTH SUSPENSION FROM THE LAW PRACTICE OF THE RESPONDENT IS REPUGNANT TO THE FAILURE OF THE COMPLAINANT TO SHOW PROOF OF HER ALLEGED GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND VIOLATION OF THE NOTARIAL LAW, AS EVENTUALLY SELF-MANIFESTED BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHO, ABSENT KNOWLEDGE OR INVOCATION OF THE RESPONDENT, WITHDREW HER INSTANT COMPLAINT, AS EMBODIED IN THE JULY 22, 2005-DECISION OF HON. GERMANO FRANCISCO D. LEGASPI OF BRANCH 17, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF MANILA.
The lawyer's guilt cannot be presumed. Allegation is never equivalent to proof and a bare charge cannot be equated with liability.
We affirm the findings against the respondent.
The respondent argues that this proceeding should be abated by virtue of its withdrawal by Ulaso pursuant to the compromise agreement concluded in the criminal case and approved by the trial court.
The respondent's argument is unwarranted.
The respondent next contends that we should reject the disbarment complaint because it was filed only after the lapse of two years from the occurrence of the cause; and that personal vendetta impelled its filing.
The respondent's contention cannot be upheld.
Ulaso insists that the respondent's act of signing the amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping for Bides as plaintiff-affiant violated the penal law, the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Notarial Law.
In contrast, the respondent maintains that her signature was made not to fool the trial court, but only to illustrate to her new secretary how and where Bides should sign the form; and that the amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping, merely a "sample-draft," was wrongly attached.
Investigating Commissioner Velez found that the respondent had deliberately and with malice led the trial court to believe that her signature in the amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping had been that of Bides.
We regard the finding of deliberation and malice to be unjustified. The admitted precedence by the word "for" of the signature on the amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping was an indicium that the respondent did not intend to misrepresent the signature as that of Bides. The apparent resemblance of the signature after the word "for" with the respondent's signature as the notary executing the jurat rendered improbable that the respondent had intended to deceive, considering that the respondent would have instead written the name Irene Bides or forged the signature of Bides had she wanted to pass the signature off as that of Bides.
The respondent, by notarizing the document sans the signature of Bides, was only anticipating that Bides would subsequently sign, because, after all, Bides had already signed the original verification and affidavit. Ostensibly, the amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping was intended to replace the original one attached to the initiatory pleading of Bides. Thus, bad faith did not motivate the respondent into notarizing the amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping.
Specifically, the notarial certification contained in the jurat of the amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping - "SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, on this 18th day of June 2003, affiant IRENE BIDES, showing to me her CTC Nos. 11833475 issued on November 21, 2002, in Manila"25 - indicated both the necessity for the physical presence of Bides as the affiant and the fact that the signing was done in the presence of the respondent as the notary. The physical presence of Bides was required in order to have her as the affiant swear before the respondent that she was that person and in order to enable the respondent as the notary to ascertain whether Bides had voluntarily and freely executed the affidavit.26 Thus, the respondent, by signing as notary even before Bides herself could appear before her, failed to give due observance and respect to the solemnity.
ACCORDINGLY, we modify the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines by reprimanding respondent Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana, with a warning that a similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely.
12 Id., pp. 257-258 and 265.
18 A.C. No. 2884, January 28, 1998, 285 SCRA 93, 100-101.
19 Calo, Jr. v. Degamo, A.C. No. 516, August 30, 1967, 20 SCRA 447.
21 In re: Almacen, G.R. No. L-27654, February 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 562, 600.
22 National Bureau of Investigation v. Morada, A.C. No. 321, July 31, 1961, 2 SCRA 827, 830.
23 Maligsa v. Atty. Cabanting, A.C. No. 4539, May 14, 1997, 272 SCRA 408; Vda. de Rosales v. Ramos, A.C. No. 5645, July 2, 2002, 383 SCRA 498; Joson v. Baltazar, A.C. No. 575, February 14, 1991, 194 SCRA 114, 119.
24 Social Security Commission v. Corral, A.C. No. 6249, October 14, 2004, 440 SCRA 291, 296.
26 Lopena v. Cabatos, A.C. No. 3441, August 11, 2005, 466 SCRA 419, 426.
27 Soriano v. Basco, A.C. No. 6648, September 21, 2005, 470 SCRA 423, 431.
28 Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility.
29 Alitagtag v. Garcia, A.C. No. 4738, June 10, 2003, 403 SCRA 335.
30 See respondent's Ex-Parte Motion for Early Resolution filed on February 23, 2009; rollo, pp. 370-373.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.