In Rolando T. Ko v. Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa, the Supreme Court addressed the administrative liability of a lawyer for violations of the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court found Atty. Uy-Lampasa guilty of notarizing deeds of sale with incomplete signatures and without proper verification of the signatories’ identities, thereby undermining the integrity of the notarial process and violating ethical standards for lawyers. This ruling emphasizes the critical importance of meticulous adherence to notarial rules and ethical conduct to maintain public trust in the legal profession.
When a Notary’s Seal Breaks Trust: Examining a Lawyer’s Ethical Lapses
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Rolando T. Ko against Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa, alleging multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the Rules on Notarial Practice. The allegations included notarizing spurious deeds of sale, filing a malicious estafa case, committing perjury, and failing to indicate Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance numbers in pleadings. The central issue revolved around Atty. Uy-Lampasa’s conduct as a notary public and her adherence to the ethical standards expected of lawyers.
The complainant, Rolando T. Ko, claimed that Atty. Uy-Lampasa notarized two deeds of sale between Jerry Uy and the Sultan siblings, despite knowing these deeds were spurious. These deeds, dated October 12, 2011, and October 19, 2011, covered the same property and consideration but differed in the named vendors and signatories. Ko pointed out that an Extra-judicial Settlement of Estate with Absolute Sale, executed between his son, Jason U. Ko, and all ten Sultan siblings, contrasted with the deeds notarized by Atty. Uy-Lampasa, as it contained all the siblings’ signatures and thumbmarks.
Further, Ko alleged that Atty. Uy-Lampasa, as counsel for Jerry Uy, filed a malicious case of estafa against his son and the Sultan siblings, claiming the Extra-judicial Settlement was not published, despite evidence to the contrary. He also accused Atty. Uy-Lampasa of perjury and filing pleadings without the necessary MCLE compliance number. In her defense, Atty. Uy-Lampasa argued that the validity of the deeds was under judicial review, the estafa case’s maliciousness was for the prosecutor to decide, and she was exempt from MCLE requirements due to her prior judicial service.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors initially adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation, finding Atty. Uy-Lampasa liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Bar Matter No. 850. However, the IBP Board modified the recommendation, imposing immediate revocation of her notarial commission, disqualification for reappointment as a notary public for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for six months. Atty. Uy-Lampasa filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. Despite these submissions, the Supreme Court found that the IBP’s findings lacked sufficient detail, necessitating a more thorough analysis of Atty. Uy-Lampasa’s administrative liability.
Regarding MCLE compliance, the Court disagreed with the IBP’s finding of liability. Bar Matter No. 850 mandates continuing legal education for IBP members to ensure they remain current with laws and jurisprudence, uphold professional ethics, and enhance practice standards. The Court noted that Atty. Uy-Lampasa had completed the required units within the Fourth Compliance Period and had obtained Certificates of Exemption for prior periods due to her service as a judge. Moreover, there was no evidence that Atty. Uy-Lampasa received a Notice of Non-Compliance, a prerequisite for being declared a delinquent member under B.M. 850.
However, the Court affirmed Atty. Uy-Lampasa’s liability for violating the Rules on Notarial Practice. The act of notarization carries significant public interest, requiring notaries public to exercise the highest degree of care. Atty. Uy-Lampasa failed to meet this standard by notarizing two Deeds of Absolute Sale involving the same property and substantially the same parties but with incomplete signature and identification details. Specifically, the Acknowledgments in the deeds indicated the personal appearance of all vendors, yet some did not sign, and others provided only Community Tax Certificate (CTC) numbers, which are not considered competent evidence of identity under Rule II, Section 12 of the Notarial Rules.
Moreover, several vendors claimed they did not appear before Atty. Uy-Lampasa when the deeds were supposedly notarized. This directly contravenes Rule IV, Section 2 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which prohibits a notary public from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present at the time of notarization and is not personally known or identified through competent evidence. The Court emphasized that the presence of parties is essential for verifying the genuineness of signatures. By affixing her signature and notarial seal under these circumstances, Atty. Uy-Lampasa misled the public into believing the parties personally appeared and attested to the contents of the deeds, thereby undermining the integrity of notarization.
The Supreme Court cited the Rules on Notarial Practice:
SEC. 6. Improper Instruments or Documents. — A notary public shall not notarize:
The Court also cited jurisprudence regarding competent evidence of identity:
SEC. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. — The phrase “competent evidence of identity” refers to the identification of an individual based on: (a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual xxx.
The actions of Atty. Uy-Lampasa also violated Canon 1 of the CPR, which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect for legal processes, as well as Rule 1.01, which proscribes unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct. Consequently, the Court affirmed the penalties imposed by the IBP Board, citing recent jurisprudence that penalizes notarial misconduct with revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from reappointment, and suspension from legal practice.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether Atty. Uy-Lampasa violated the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility through her actions as a notary public and as a lawyer. The Supreme Court examined her conduct in notarizing deeds of sale with irregularities and in adhering to ethical standards. |
| What is the significance of notarization? | Notarization is a crucial process that lends credibility and authenticity to documents. A notary public’s role is to verify the identities of the signatories and ensure that they are signing the document willingly, thus preventing fraud and ensuring the legal validity of the document. |
| Why was Atty. Uy-Lampasa found liable for violating the Rules on Notarial Practice? | Atty. Uy-Lampasa was found liable because she notarized deeds of sale with incomplete signatures, failed to properly verify the identities of the signatories, and did not ensure the personal presence of all parties during notarization. These actions violated specific provisions of the Rules on Notarial Practice and undermined the integrity of the notarial process. |
| What is competent evidence of identity for notarization purposes? | Competent evidence of identity refers to an identification document issued by an official agency that bears the photograph and signature of the individual. Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) are not considered competent evidence of identity because they lack both a photograph and a signature. |
| What penalties were imposed on Atty. Uy-Lampasa? | The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Uy-Lampasa from the practice of law for six months, revoked her notarial commission effective immediately, and prohibited her from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. |
| What ethical rules did Atty. Uy-Lampasa violate? | Atty. Uy-Lampasa violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws, and Rule 1.01, which proscribes unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct. |
| What is the MCLE requirement for lawyers? | The Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirement mandates that members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) undergo continuing legal education to stay current with laws, jurisprudence, and ethical standards. |
| Why was Atty. Uy-Lampasa not found liable for MCLE non-compliance in this case? | The Court found that Atty. Uy-Lampasa had completed the required MCLE units within the compliance period. She also had Certificates of Exemption for prior periods when she served as a judge. Furthermore, there was no evidence that she received a Notice of Non-Compliance, which is required before a lawyer can be declared delinquent for MCLE violations. |
| What duty does a lawyer have as a Notary Public? | A lawyer commissioned as a Notary Public must perform their duties faithfully with utmost care in compliance with the basic requirements in order to preserve the confidence of the public in the integrity of the notarial system |
This case serves as a reminder of the high ethical standards expected of lawyers, particularly when acting as notaries public. It underscores the importance of adhering to the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and public trust.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Rolando T. Ko v. Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa, A.C. No. 11584, March 06, 2019
Leave a Reply