Ascaño v. Panem
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Flordelina Ascaño (Ascaño) filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Mario V. Panem (Atty. Panem) for alleged violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Ascaño alleged that Atty. Panem notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale involving her property without her presence as the supposed seller. When confronted, Atty. Panem offered to handle the case to recover the property from the buyers, Spouses Guillermo. Ascaño later discovered that Atty. Panem did not adhere to her narration of facts when filing the action. Ascaño charged Atty. Panem with notarizing the Deed without the presence of a party, failing to require competent evidence of identity, and failing to submit his notarial register for 2006-2007. She also accused him of representing conflicting interests. Atty. Panem countered that Ascaño signed the Deed in his presence and presented her community tax certificate as proof of identity. He claimed his notarial register and documents were destroyed by flooding in July 2006. He denied representing conflicting interests, stating he only represented Ascaño in the civil action. Procedural History: The Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Panem guilty of violating the Notarial Rules and CPR, recommending disbarment. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but recommended suspension for two years, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as notary public for two years. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for resolution on whether Atty. Panem should be held administratively liable.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Panem should be held administratively liable for violating the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, including making untruthful statements in pleadings. Whether Atty. Panem committed the offense of representing conflicting interests.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Panem guilty of violating the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), and the Revised Lawyer's Oath. It imposed penalties of suspension from the practice of law for one year, revocation of his notarial commission (if existing), disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and a fine of P100,000.50 for making untruthful statements.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice and the CPRA, and making untruthful statements: The Court affirmed the IBP's findings that Atty. Panem violated the Notarial Rules. Section 1, Rule II of the Notarial Rules requires the personal appearance of the affiant and the notary public's examination of competent evidence of identity. Ascaño vehemently denied appearing before Atty. Panem, and Atty. Panem failed to submit his notarial register to prove his defense. The Court gave no credence to his excuse of a lost register due to flooding, as it was unsubstantiated and did not explain his failure to submit reports before and after the alleged calamity. Furthermore, even if Ascaño had appeared, her community tax certificate was not competent evidence of identity as it lacked a photograph and signature. The Court also found Atty. Panem liable for failing to submit his notarial report and copies of documents for the period of March 17, 2006, to December 31, 2007, a clear violation of Section 2, Rule VI of the Notarial Rules. These violations constitute a breach of Section 2, Canon III of the CPRA, which mandates lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey laws, and advance the honor and integrity of the legal profession. The Court noted that the CPRA, which repealed the CPR, applies to pending cases. The Court also found Atty. Panem liable for making untruthful statements in the pleading he prepared for Ascaño, making it appear that she signed the Deed in his presence. Despite Ascaño's demands, he did not amend the complaint to reflect her narration of facts, forcing her to hire another counsel. The Court concluded that Atty. Panem acted for his own selfish interests by including false statements to clear himself of wrongdoing. This conduct violated Section 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, and Section 6, Canon III, as well as Section 1, Canon IV of the CPRA, and breached his duties under the Revised Lawyer's Oath to promote the rule of law and do no falsehood. On the alleged representation of conflicting interests: The Court disagreed with the IBP that Atty. Panem was guilty of representing conflicting interests under Section 13, Canon III of the CPRA. The Court clarified that lawyers represent conflicting interests when their duty to one client requires them to oppose another client, typically involving present and/or former clients. Atty. Panem correctly argued that he only represented Ascaño in the civil action and no one else, thus not falling under this proscription.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who notarizes a document without the personal appearance of a signatory, fails to require competent evidence of identity, and fails to submit notarial reports violates the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. Making untruthful statements in pleadings constitutes a serious offense, warranting suspension, revocation of notarial commission, disqualification, and a fine.