In Re: Disciplinary Complaint against Atty. Cecilio R.
Dianco
A.C. 7751,June 13, 2018
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 219-2018
TO :THE COURT OF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN, COURT OF
TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, SHARIA’H DISTRICT COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, THE OFFICE OF THE STATE PROSECUTOR, PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AND INTEGRATED BAR (you may abbreviate).
SUBJECT :SUSPENSION OF ATTY. CECILIO R. DIANCO FROM THE
PRACTICE OF LAW FOR SIX (6) MONTHS.
For your information and guidance quoted
hereunder is the execution dated 13 June of 2018 of the Third Division in Administrative Case No. 7751, ENTITLED “ In Re: Disciplinary Complaint against Cecilio R. Dianco,” to wit:
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Cecilio R.
Dianco is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective upon finality of this Resolution, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar questioned act will be dealt with more severely. His filing of a Manifestation per the Court’s Resolution dated February 22, 2011 and September 6, 2011 is DESPENSED WITH.
Case No. 16
Romeo m. Almario vs. Atty. Dominica Llero-Agno
A.C. No. 10689, Jan. 8, 2018
FACTS:
In 2006, a Complaint for Judicial Partition with
Delivery of Certificate of Title (civil case), was instituted before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila by the herein complainant against therein defendants Angelita A. Barrameda and several other persons. It was therein alleged that complainant is the sole surviving registered owner of a parcel of land situated, Tondo, Manila and that the defendants therein are co-owners of that parcel of land by virtue of intestate succession.
Relative to the said civil case, herein respondent
lawyer, as counsel for therein defendants, notarized and acknowledged a SPA
It is complainant's contention: (l) that the said
SPA was falsified because one of the affiants therein, Mallari could not possibly have executed the same because she was in Japan at the time the SP A was executed, as certified to5 by the Bureau of Immigration (BI); (2) that this SPA was used in the said civil case to perpetrate fraud and deception against complainant resulting in the filing of Criminal Case No. 452612-CR, for violation of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (Use of Falsified Document) against Ma. Lourdes Almario Pedia, the attorney-in-fact mentioned in the SPA; (3) that respondent lawyer notarized the SPA although Mallari did not personally appear before her; and (4) that in the process of notarizing the SPA, respondent lawyer also accepted a Community Tax Certificate (CTC), which is no longer considered a competent evidence of identity pursuant to the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT VIOLATED THE 2004
RULES ON NOTARIAL PRCTICE
RULING:
The importance of the affiant's personal appearance
when a document is notarized is underscored by Section 1, Rule II and Section 2(b), Rule 1V of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (.)To wit:
SECTION 1. Acknowledgment. - 'Acknowledgment' refers to
an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public and
presents an integrally complete instrument or document;
(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary
public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and
(c) represents to the notary public that the signature
on the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that capacity. (Emphasis supplied)
Furthermore, Section 2(b), Rule 1V of the same Rules
provides that: (b) 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.
(You may omit the above underlined
portions/paragraphs)
The provisions mandate the notary public to
require the physical or personal presence of the person/s who executed a document, before notarizing the same. In other words, a document should not be notarized unless the person/s who is/are executing it is/are personally or physically present before the notary public. The personal and physical presence of the parties to the deed is necessary to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature/s of the affiant/s therein and the due execution of the document.
Notaries public are absolutely prohibited or
forbidden from notarizing a fictitious or spurious document. They are the law’s vanguards and sentinels against illegal deeds. The confidence of the public in the integrity of notarial acts would be undermined and impaired if notaries public do not observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties spelled out in the notarial law. (You may omit this underlined paragraph)
In the present case, the SPA in question was
notarized by respondent lawyer despite the absence of Mallari, one of the affiants therein. Mallari could not have personally appeared before respondent lawyer in Muntinlupa City, Philippines where the SPA was notarized on July 26, 2006 because Mallari was in Japan at that time, as certified to by the Bureau of Immigration.
ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Dominica L. Agno is
hereby SUSPENDED as Notary Public for the aforesaid infraction for two months and WARNED that the commission of a similar infraction will be dealt with more severely. (Can also be omitted)
Case No. 82
Tacorda vs. Judge Cabrera-Faler
This complaint stems from a Civil Case which was
initially pending before Judge, Branch 20, RTC, Imus, Cavite. On October 2012, Judge Felicen issued an Order requiring the parties to submit their respective pre- trial briefs and setting the pre-trial on February 2013. However, on January 2013, Judge Felicen inhibited himself from the case and the case was raffled to the sala of Judge Cabrera-Faller of Branch 90, RTC, Dasmariñas City, Cavite.
After receipt of the records of the case, Judge
Cabrera-Faller set a clarificatory hearing which was, however, rescheduled to 22 May 2013 due to a seminar attended by respondent. As the last event in the court of origin was for pre- trial, the case was set for pre-trial on 14 and 29 August 2013. However, it was found out that the case had already been referred for mediation, prompting the trial court to suspend the proceedings until receipt of the Mediator's Report. The Mediator's Report was received on 18 September 2013.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs in the civil case
belatedly filed their Pre-Trial Brief, which prompted the respondents, through their lawyer Atty. Tacorda, to file a Motion to Expunged the Pre-Trial Brief Submitted By the Plaintiffs with Manifestation on 3 September 2013.
On July 2015, almost two years after the
Motion was filed, Judge Cabrera-Faller denied the motion and set the case for pre-trial conference on October 2015 but then, was rescheduled to November 2015, because Judge Cabrera-Faller was hospitalized on October 2015.
The delay attendant in resolving the
motion prompted Atty. Tacorda and Rodrigo-Dumdum to file this complaint against Judge Cabrera-Faller and Suluen, the Officer-in-Charge (OIC)/Legal Researcher II, for the latter's failure to call the attention of Judge Cabrera-Faller on the delay.
ISSUE: WHETHER JUDGE CABREAR-FALER WILL BE HELD
ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE.
RULING:
First, as to the allegation of gross ignorance of
the law, we find that Atty. Tacorda and Rodrigo-Dumdum failed to substantiate the charges against Judge Cabrera-Faller and Suluen. To be held liable for gross ignorance of the law, it must be shown that the error must be so gross and patent as to produce an inference of bad faith. [5] Moreover, the acts complained of must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence, but should also be motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, and corruption.[6] In this case, there was no allegation or mention of any bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, and corruption committed by Judge Cabrera-Faller or Suluen. Complainants also failed to allege any gross and patent ignorance of the law which would indicate any bad faith.
Additionally, there are no allegations as to
specific acts which would constitute impropriety on the part of Judge Cabrera-Faller or Suluen, either in the course of the performance of their official functions or as private individuals. Necessarily, the complaint for gross ignorance of the law and impropriety must fail.
However, we find merit in the complaint for
gross inefficiency and delay in the administration of justice against Judge Cabrera-Faller when she failed to promptly act on the motion filed by the Spouses Dumdum.
The Constitution clearly provides that all lower
courts should decide or resolve cases or matters within three months from the date of submission.[10] Moreover, Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct provides:
Sec. 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties,
including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.
WHEREFORE, we find Judge Perla V. Cabrera-Faller of
Branch 90, Regional Trial Court, Dasmariñas City, Cavite GUILTY of Gross Inefficiency and Delay in the Administration of Justice and impose on her a FINE of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) which shall be deducted from whatever amounts may still be due her. (can be omitted).