Bides-Ulaso v. Noe-Lacsamana
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Imelda Bides-Ulaso filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana, her counsel's wife, for allegedly notarizing an amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping attached to an initiatory pleading before the plaintiff-client, Irene Bides, affixed her signature. The respondent was the counsel for Irene Bides in a civil action filed against Ulaso. The amended complaint sought the nullity of a deed of sale concerning a parcel of land registered in Bides' name, alleging fraudulent execution of the deed by Ulaso. Procedural History: The amended complaint contained a defective amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping, where the signature preceding the printed name "IRENE BIDES" bore a resemblance to the respondent's signature as notary. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on this defect. The respondent, as counsel for Bides, claimed it was an inadvertent mistake and a "sample-draft" for a new secretary, and that the correct document was executed later. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion to dismiss and later decided in favor of Bides. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's judgment. The Petition: Ulaso initiated the disbarment proceeding against the respondent, alleging that her act of signing and notarizing the amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping without the signature of Bides and despite Bides' non-appearance before her constituted misconduct. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found the respondent guilty of gross negligence and violation of the Notarial Law, recommending suspension for six months. The IBP Board of Governors approved this with modification. The respondent sought reconsideration.
Issue(s)
Whether the withdrawal of the disbarment complaint by the complainant pursuant to a compromise agreement abates the administrative proceeding. Whether the lapse of time from the occurrence of the cause or the motivation for filing the complaint diminishes the Court's inherent power to discipline a member of the Bar. Whether the respondent's act of notarizing an amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping, which was not yet signed by the affiant and before the affiant appeared before her, constitutes censurable conduct. Whether the respondent acted in bad faith or with malice in notarizing the defective document, and the appropriate penalty to be imposed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings against the respondent, modifying the penalty recommended by the IBP. The Court reprimanded Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana instead of suspending her from the practice of law for six months, with a warning that similar infractions in the future would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the abatement of the administrative proceeding by withdrawal of the complaint: The Court held that an affidavit of withdrawal of a disbarment case does not abate the administrative proceeding. A case for suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of the complainant's interest or lack thereof, as the primary objective is the investigation into the conduct of the member of the Bar and the protection of the public interest. The Court emphasized that the complainant is not a party to the proceeding and has no interest in the outcome beyond that of all good citizens in the proper administration of justice. Therefore, the respondent's argument that the proceeding should be abated was unwarranted. On the effect of lapse of time or motivation for filing: The Court ruled that neither the lapse of time from the occurrence of the cause nor the motivation for filing the complaint diminishes the Court's inherent power to discipline a member of the Bar. Disbarment or suspension proceedings are sui generis and are not subject to ordinary statutes of limitation. These proceedings are investigations into the conduct of members of the Bar, initiated by the Supreme Court in the exercise of its constitutional power to regulate the practice of law, with public interest as the primary objective. The Court can even initiate such proceedings motu proprio. On the censurable conduct of notarizing a defective document: The Court concurred with the findings that the respondent's notarizing of the amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping in the absence of the affiant, Irene Bides, constituted a clear breach of notarial protocol and was highly censurable. The jurat, which certifies that the instrument is sworn to before the notary, is essential and requires the physical presence of the affiant to swear and for the notary to ascertain voluntary execution. By signing as notary before Bides appeared, the respondent failed to give due observance and respect to the solemnity of the oath, violating notarial protocol. On the presence of bad faith or malice, and the penalty imposed: The Court found the Investigating Commissioner's finding of deliberation and malice to be unjustified. The presence of the word "for" before the signature on the document indicated that the respondent did not intend to misrepresent the signature as that of Bides. The resemblance to the respondent's own signature as notary also made deception improbable. The Court noted that the respondent was likely anticipating Bides' subsequent signature, as Bides had already signed the original verification. Thus, while the act was censurable, bad faith did not motivate the respondent's actions. Despite the absence of bad faith, the Court opted to reprimand the respondent instead of suspending her. This decision was based on the absence of bad faith, the fact that this was the first infraction in her long years of practice, and her recuperation from a debilitating stroke. The Court issued a warning that similar infractions in the future would be dealt with more severely, modifying the IBP's recommendation of a six-month suspension.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer commissioned as a notary public must discharge with fidelity the sacred duties appertaining to her notarial office, as dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. Failure to observe the requirements and solemnities of the Notarial Law, such as notarizing a document without the affiant's physical presence and signature, constitutes censurable conduct, even in the absence of bad faith.