ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG vs. ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A.

CELERA
A.C. No. 5581. January 14, 2014.
PER CURIAM

Facts:

Bansig, sister of Bunagan narrated that, respondent and Grace Marie R. Bunagan, entered into
a contract of marriage. However, notwithstanding respondent’s marriage with Bunagan,
respondent contracted another marriage with a certain Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba, as evidenced
by a certified xerox copy of the certificate of marriage.

Bansig stressed that the marriage between respondent and Bunagan was still valid and in full
legal existence when he contracted his second marriage with Alba, and that the first marriage
had never been annulled or rendered void by any lawful authority.

Bansig alleged that respondent’s act of contracting marriage with Alba, while his marriage is still
subsisting, constitutes grossly immoral and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar, which
renders him unfit to continue his membership in the Bar.

Despite repeated summons and resolutions issued by the Court, Atty. Celera failed to properly
answer the complaint. The complaint dragged on for over a decade.

Issue:

Whether respondent is still fit to continue to be an officer of the court in the dispensation of
justice.

Ruling:

For purposes of this disbarment proceeding, these Marriage Certificates bearing the name of
respondent are competent and convincing evidence to prove that he committed bigamy, which
renders him unfit to continue as a member of the Bar

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and
support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.

Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member
of the Bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.
His act of contracting a second marriage while his first marriage is subsisting constituted grossly
immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised
Rules of Court.

Considering respondent's propensity to disregard not only the laws of the land but also the
lawful orders of the Court, it only shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity
and good demeanor. He is, thus, unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.

ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA, guilty of grossly immoral conduct and willful
disobedience of lawful orders rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the
legal profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name
stricken of the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.

SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR. vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS

A.C No. 4749. January 20, 2000.
MENDOZA, J.

Facts:

This is a complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues filed
against respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas. In a letter-complaint to this Court dated February
8, 1997, complainant Soliman M. Santos, Jr., himself a member of the bar, alleged that Atty.
Llamas, who for a number of years now, has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP OR Nos.
and data in his pleadings. If at all, he only indicated IBP Rizal 259060 but he has been using
this for at least 3 years already. On the other hand, respondent, who is now of age, averred that
he is only engaged in a limited practice of law and under RA 7432, as a senior citizen, he is
exempted from payment of income taxes and included in this exemption, is the payment of
membership dues.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent has misled the court about his standing in the IBP by using the
same IBP O.R. number in his pleadings of at least 6 years and therefore liable for his actions.

Whether or not the respondent is exempt from paying his membership dues owing to limited
practice of law and for being a senior citizen.

Ruling:

Yes. By indicating "IBP-Rizal 259060" in his pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to the public
and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of
violating the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His act is also a violation of Rule
10.01 which provides that: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any
in court; nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.

No. Rule 139-A requires that every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay annual dues and
default thereof for six months shall warrant suspension of membership and if nonpayment
covers a period of 1-year, default shall be a ground for removal of the delinquent’s name from
the Roll of Attorneys. It does not matter whether or not respondent is only engaged in “limited”
practice of law. Moreover, While it is true that R.A. No. 7432, grants senior citizens "exemption
from the payment of individual income taxes: provided, that their annual taxable income does
not exceed the poverty level as determined by the National Economic and Development
Authority (NEDA) for that year," the exemption however does not include payment of
membership or association dues.

Respondent's failure to pay his IBP dues and his misrepresentation in the pleadings he filed in
court indeed merit the most severe penalty. However, in view of respondent's advanced age, his
express willingness to pay his dues and plea for a more temperate application of the law, we
believe the penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law or until he has paid
his IBP dues, whichever is later, is appropriate. Respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR, or until he has paid his IBP
dues, whichever is later.

JIMMY ANUDON and JUANITA ANUDON vs ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA

A.C. No. 5482. February 10, 2015.
LEONEN, J.

Facts:

Complainants Jimmy Anudon and Juanita Anudon are brother- and sister-in-law. Complainants,
along with Jimmy’s brothers and sister, co-own a 4,446 square meter parcel of land located in
Sison, Pangasinan. Atty. Cefra notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale over a land owned by the
complainants. The names of petitioners appeared as vendors, while the name of Celino Paran,
Jr. appeared as the vendee. The complainants claimed that the Deed of Absolute Sale was
falsified. They alleged that they did not sign it before Atty. Cefra. The National Bureau of
Investigation’s Questioned Documents Division certified that Jimmy and Juanita’s signatures
were forged. This was contrary to Atty. Cefra’s acknowledgment over the document. Moreover,
it was physically impossible for Jimmy’s brothers and sister to have signed the document
because they were somewhere else at that time. Due to the forgery of the Deed of Absolute
Sale, the Assistant Prosecutor, with Jimmy and Juanita as witness, filed a case of falsification of
public document against Atty. Cefra and Paran.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent guilty of violating the Notarial Law and Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Ruling:

Respondent Atty. Arturo B. Cefra violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional
Responsibility in notarizing a document without requiring the presence of the affiants.

The notarization of documents ensures the authenticity and reliability of a document. As this
court previously explained:

Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders it
admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies and
the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public
and appended to a private instrument. Notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it
engages public interest in a substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires
preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing
upon the public and the courts and administrative offices generally.
Atty. Cefra claims that Jimmy and Juanita wanted to sell their land. Even if this is true, Jimmy
and Juanita, as vendors, were not able to review the document given for notarization. The Deed
of Absolute Sale was brought to Atty. Cefra by Paran’s representatives, who merely informed
Atty. Cefra that the vendors signed the document. Atty. Cefra should have exercised vigilance
and not just relied on the representations of the vendee.

Aside from Atty. Cefra’s violation of his duty as a notary public, Atty. Cefra is also guilty of
violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This canon requires "[a] lawyer [to]
uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
processes." He contumaciously delayed compliance with this court’s order to file a Comment.

The act of disobeying a court order constitutes violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to "observe and maintain the respect due to the courts"

WHEREFORE, this court finds respondent Atty. Arturo B. Cefra GUILTY of notarizing the
Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 12, 1998 in the absence of the affiants, as well as
failure to comply with an order from this court. Accordingly, this court SUSPENDS him
from the practice of law for two (2) years, REVOKES his incumbent notarial commission,
if any, and PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as a notary
public. Respondent is also STERNLY WARNED that more severe penalties will be
imposed for any further breach of the Canons in the Code of Professional Responsibility.

LICERIO DIZON vs ATTY. MARCELINO CABUCANA, JR.

A.C. No. 10185. March 12, 2014.
MENDOZA, J.

Facts:

On May 14, 2004, complainant Licerio Dizon (complainant) filed a petition against Atty.
Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. (Atty. Cabucana), before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), praying for the disbarment of the latter for falsification of public document.

In his petition, Dizon alleged that he was one of the would-be-buyers of a parcel of land owned
by the heirs of the late Florentino Callangan, namely, Susana, Jun and Angeleta, all surnamed
Callangan, a compromise agreement was executed by the parties in the said case and
notarized before Atty. Cabucana on the same date it was signed at the MTCC; that at the
hearing conducted on December 11, 2003 regarding the due execution and the veracity of the
compromise agreement, the signatories therein testified that they signed the instrument in the
court room of MTCC but not in the presence of Atty. Cabucana as Notary Public; that because
of the irregularity in the due execution of the Compromise Agreement, there was undue delay in
the resolution/decision of Civil Case No. 1-689 which caused damage and injury to complainant;
that Atty. Cabucana violated the Notarial Law in notarizing the document in the absence of most
of the signatories/affiants; and that he should be sanctioned in accordance with Rule 138,
Section 27 of the Rules of Code and Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant further
alleged that Atty. Cabucana uttered grave threats against him after the hearing of the said case
in MTCC.

In his Answer, Atty. Cabucana averred that the complaint was intended to harass him because
he was the private prosecutor in a criminal case filed against complainant before the MTCC;
that complainant had no cause of action as his right was not violated because he was just a
"would be" buyer and not a party to the compromise agreement; and that complainant would not
suffer any damage by the pendency of the case or by any defects obtaining in the notarization
of the compromise agreement.

Issue:

Is the respondent guilty in violation of the Notarial Law for notarizingthe docu%ents without the
presence of all the parties therein

Ruling:

Section 1, Public Act No. 2103, otherwise known as the Notarial Law states:

The acknowledgment shall be before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the
country to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place where the act is
done. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person
acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who
executed it, acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made
under the official seal, if he is required by law to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so
state.

The requirement of affiant's personal appearance was further emphasized in Section 2 (b) of
Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 which provides that:

A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or
document –

(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and

(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public
through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.

As a notary public, Atty. Cabucana should not notarize a document unless the person who signs
it is the same person executing it and personally appearing before him to attest to the truth of its
contents. This is to enable him to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging
party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free and voluntary act and deed.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. GUILTY of
violating Rule 1.01, Canon l of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the
Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for three (3) months, REVOKES his
incumbent notarial commission, if any, and PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as
a notary public for two (2) years, effective immediately, with a stern WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
 NESTOR FELIPE, ALBERTO V. FELIPE, AURORA FELIPE-ORANTE, ASUNCION FELIPE-
DOMINGO, MILAGROS FELIPE CABIGTING, and RODOLFO V. FELIPE
vs.
ATTY. CIRIACO A. MACAPAGAL
A.C. No. 4549. December 2, 2013.
DEL CASTILLO, J.

Facts:

Petition for disbarment was filed against respondent Atty. Ciriaco A. Macapagal.

In A Resolution dated June 19, 1996, we required respondent to comment. Respondent

received a copy of the Resolution on July 16, 1996.3 On August 15, 1996, respondent filed an
Urgent Ex-Parte Motion For Extension Of Time To File Comment. He requested for additional
period of 30 days within which to file his comment citing numerous professional commitments.
We granted said request in our October 2, 1996 Resolution. The extended deadline passed
sans respondent’s comment. Thus on January 29, 1997, complainants file an Urgent Motion To
Submit The Administrative Case For Resolution Without Comment Of Respondent claiming the
respondent is deemed to have waived his right to file comment.
It took 11 years, more particularly on February 26, 2010, before the IBP, thru Investigating
Commissioner Agustinus V. Gonzaga, submitted its Report and Recommendation.

In his Report, the Investigating Commissioner quoted verbatim the allegations in the Petition; he
then narrated the proceedings undertaken by the IBP. Unfortunately, no discussion was made
regarding the merits of the complaint. However, it was recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for one (1) month. In their Petition, complainants alleged
that they are co-plaintiffs while respondent is the counsel for the defendants therein; that
respondent committed dishonesty when he stated in the defendants' Answer that the parties
therein are strangers to each other despite knowing that the defendants are half-brothers and
half-sisters of complainants; and that they filed a criminal case for Perjury [against the
defendants pending before Branch 36 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila.
Complainants also alleged that respondent introduced a falsified Certificate of Marriage as part
of his evidence; and that they filed another Perjury charge. Complainants insisted that by the
foregoing actuations, respondent violated his duty as a lawyer and prayed that he be disbarred
and ordered to pay complainants the amount of ₱500,000 representing the damages that they
suffered.

Issue:

Ruling:

Respondent's unjustified disregard of the lawful orders of this Court and the IBP is not only
irresponsible, but also constitutes utter disrespect for the judiciary and his fellow lawyers. His
conduct is unbecoming of a lawyer, for lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders
and processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives being
themselves officers of the court. As an officer of the court, respondent is expected to know that
a resolution of this Court is not a mere request but an order which should be complied with
promptly and completely. This is also true of the orders of the IBP as the investigating arm of
the Court in administrative cases against lawyers.
Under the circumstances, we deem a reprimand with warning commensurate to the infraction
committed by the respondent.

ACCORDINGLY , respondent Atty. Ciriaco A. Macapagal is REPRIMANDED for failing to

give due respect to the Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. He is WARNED
that commission of a similar infraction will be dealt with more severely. Resolution No.
XX-2011-246 dated November 19, 2011 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is SET
ASIDE. A.C. No. 4549 is DISMISSED without prejudice. Let a copy of this Resolution be
entered in the personal records of respondent as a member of the Bar, and copies
furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the
Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. THE HONORABLE JUANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR.,

HONORABLE CAESAR A. CASANOVA, HONORABLE CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA, AS
ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION, COURT OF TAX APPEALS;
and MYRNA M. GARCIA AND CUSTODIO MENDOZA VESTIDAS, JR.
G.R. No. 208290. December 11, 2013.
PER CURIAM.

Facts:
Issue:
Ruling: