Ko v. Uy-Lampasa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Rolando T. Ko filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa, alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). - First Allegation: Respondent notarized two purported deeds of sale between Jerry Uy and the Sultan siblings over a parcel of land, despite allegedly knowing the deeds were spurious. The deeds involved different sets of vendors and had incomplete signatures and identification details. - Second Allegation: Respondent, as counsel for Jerry Uy, filed a malicious Estafa case against complainant's son, Jason U. Ko, and the Sultan siblings, based on an allegedly unpublished Extra-judicial Settlement. - Third Allegation: Respondent committed perjury and filed pleadings without Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance numbers. Procedural History: The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the complaint. The Investigating Commissioner recommended a six-month suspension as a Notary Public. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but modified the penalty to immediate revocation of notarial commission, disqualification for re-appointment for two years, and a six-month suspension from the practice of law. Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for review of the IBP's resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent violated the MCLE requirements. Whether respondent violated the Rules on Notarial Practice. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa GUILTY of violating the Rules on Notarial Practice and Rule 1.01 and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court SUSPENDED her from the practice of law for six (6) months; REVOKED her notarial commission, effective immediately; and PROHIBITED her from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. She was further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of MCLE Compliance: The Court disagreed with the IBP Board and found no basis to hold respondent liable for non-compliance with MCLE requirements. The Court noted that respondent was exempted from the first three compliance periods due to her prior judicial service. For the fourth compliance period, she completed the required units within the period, and there was no showing that she received a Notice of Non-Compliance. Therefore, she could not be declared delinquent under Bar Matter (B.M.) 850. On the issue of Violation of Notarial Rules: The Court agreed with the IBP Board that respondent violated the Rules on Notarial Practice. She notarized two Deeds of Absolute Sale involving the same property and substantially the same parties, but with different vendors and incomplete signatures and identification details. Specifically, the Court found that the Community Tax Certificate (CTC) numbers used as identification were not competent evidence of identity as they lacked photographs and signatures. Furthermore, several vendors claimed they did not personally appear before the respondent notary public at the time of notarization, which is a direct violation of Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the Notarial Rules. This act of notarizing documents without the personal appearance of the signatories and without proper identification undermines the integrity of the notarial system and the legal profession. On the issue of Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court held that by violating the Notarial Rules, respondent also failed to adhere to Canon 1 of the CPR, which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey laws, and promote respect for the law. She also violated Rule 1.01 of the CPR, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. The Court reiterated that a lawyer commissioned as a notary public who fails to discharge duties is subject to disciplinary action, including revocation of commission and suspension from practice.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer commissioned as a notary public who fails to discharge duties is subject to revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from reappointment, and suspension from the practice of law. Notarizing documents without the personal appearance of the signatories and without competent evidence of identity violates the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.