VICTORINA BAUTISTA vs. ATTY. SERGIO E. BERNABE, A.C. No.

6963 February 9, 2006

FACTS: Complainant alleged that on January 3, 1998, respondent prepared and notarized a Magkasanib
na Salaysay purportedly executed by Donato Salonga and complainants mother, Basilia de la Cruz. Both
affiants declared that a certain parcel of land in Bigte, Norzagaray, Bulacan, was being occupied by
Rodolfo Lucas and his family for more than 30 years. Complainant claimed that her mother could not have
executed the joint affidavit on January 3, 1998 because she has been dead since January 28, 1961.

In his Answer, respondent denied that he falsified the Magkasanib na Salaysay. He disclaimed
any knowledge about Basilias death. He alleged that before he notarized the document, he requested for
Basilias presence and in her absence, he allowed a certain Pronebo, allegedly a son-in-law of Basilia, to
sign above the name of the latter as shown by the word byon top of the name of Basilia. Respondent
maintained that there was no forgery since the signature appearing on top of Basilias name was the
signature of Pronebo.

ISSUE: Can a notarized document be signed by?

Ruling: A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the
very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of
what are stated therein. The presence of the parties to the deed will enable the notary public to verify the
genuineness of the signature of the affiant.
GARRIDO v. GARRIDO
FRIAZ v. BAUTISTA LOZADA

FACTS: Respondent Atty. Carmelita Bautista-Lozada was formerly found

guilty of violating Rules 15.03 and 16.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and of willfully disobeying a final and executory decision
of the Court of Appeals. She was suspended from the practice of law
for two years.

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of the Court,

contending that, pursuant to Rule VIII of the Rules of Procedure of the
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), the complaint against her was already barred by
prescription. She also asserts that her December 7, 1990 loan
agreement with complainant complied with Rule 16.04 because the
interest of complainant was fully protected.

ISSUES: a. Whether or not the administrative complaint is barred by

prescription?

b. Whether or not Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure

of the CBD-IBP is valid?

RULING: a. Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the CBD-IBP

provides:

SECTION 1. Prescription. A complaint for disbarment, suspension or

discipline of attorneys prescribes in two (2) years from the date of the
professional misconduct.

However, as early as 1967, the Court has held that the defense of
prescription does not lie in administrative proceedings against lawyers.
And in the 2004 case of Heck v. Santos, the Court declared that an
administrative complaint against a member of the bar does not
prescribe.

Moreover, assuming that prescription is a valid defense,

respondent raised it only at this late stage. We presume she was
familiar with that rule yet she failed to invoke it at the earliest
opportunity. Instead she opted to insist on her innocence.

b. Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the CBD-IBP which

provides for a prescriptive period for the filing of administrative
complaints against lawyers runs afoul of the settled ruling of the Court.
It should therefore be struck down as void and of no legal effect for
being ultra vires.

Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar

Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is hereby declared
null and void.

TAN VS. ip

Sometime in January of 2002, petitioner Tomas G. Tan (petitioner

Tan), stockholder and director of co-petitioner CST Enterprises, Inc. (CST),
discovered that two parcels of land owned by the corporation were used to
obtain loans from Philippine Business Bank (PBB), with the real estate
mortgage annotated at the back of the titles covering the properties. Upon
verification, he learned that a certain John Dennis Chua, representing CST,
mortgaged the properties. Chua was purportedly authorized by the Board of
Directors of the corporation as shown by the Corporate Secretarys
Certificate dated 04 April 2001 signed by Atty. Jaime N. Soriano
(respondent).
On 28 May 2002, petitioner Tan filed in his personal capacity and as
minority stockholder of CST under a derivative action, a letter-complaint
with the IBP charging respondent of deceit, malpractice, falsification of
public documents, gross misconduct and violation of oath of office.
According to petitioners, respondent has never been elected as corporate
secretary nor acted as such for CST, and in fact no board meeting was held
on 30 March 2001 to so authorize John Dennis Chua because on the said
date two of three directors, petitioner Tan and Felipe Chua, were out of the
country. Furthermore, John Dennis Chua has never been connected in any
capacity with CST, petitioners aver. Respondents claim that petitioners
breached the rule that proceedings against attorneys should be kept private
and confidential.

ISSUE: Are disciplinary cases against lawyers should e kept in private?

HELD: Disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer are private and

confidential until its final determination. The confidential nature of the
proceedings has a three-fold purpose, to wit: (i) to enable the court and the
investigator to make the investigation free from any extraneous influence or
interference; (ii) to protect the personal and professional reputation of
attorneys from baseless charges of disgruntled, vindictive and irresponsible
persons or clients by prohibiting the publication of such charges pending
their resolution; and (iii) to deter the press from publishing the charges or
proceedings based thereon.