GIMENO - v -ZAIDE
SECOND DIVISION, A.C. No. 10303, April 22, 2015,
BRION, J.
Facts:
Joy A. Gimeno (Cimeno) filed a
complaint with the IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline, charging Atty.
Zaide with: (1) usurpation of a notary
public's office; (2) falsification; (3) use of intemperate, offensive and
abusive language; and (4) violation of lawyer-client trust. Gimeno alleged
that even before Atty. Zaide's admission to the Bar and receipt of his notarial
commission, he had notarized a partial extrajudicial partition with deed of
absolute sale on March 29, 2002. She also accused Atty. Zaide of making
false and irregular entries in his notarial registers. Gimeno further submitted
that she was Atty. Zaide's former client. Despite their previous lawyer-client
relationship, Atty. Zaide still appeared against her in the complaint for
estafa and violation of RA 3019 that one Priscilla Somontan (Somontan)
filed against her with the Ombudsman. Gimeno contended that Atty. Zaide’s statements
constitute intemperate, offensive and abusive language, which a lawyer is
proscribed from using in his dealings.
In his answer, Atty. Zaide argued that he
did not notarize the March 29, 2002 partial extrajudicial partition. As it
appeared on the notarial page of this document, his notarial stamp and
falsified signature were superimposed over the typewritten name of Atty.
Elpedio Cabasan, the lawyer who actually notarized this document. Atty. Zaide
claimed that Gimeno falsified his signature to make it appear that he notarized
it before his admission to the Bar. On the alleged falsification of his
notarial entries, Atty. Zaide contended that he needed to simultaneously use
several notarial registers in his separate satellite offices in order to better
cater to the needs of his clients and accommodate their growing number. This
explains the irregular and non-sequential entries in his notarial registers. Atty.
Zaide argued that Gimeno was never his client since she did not personally hire
him as her counsel. Gimeno engaged the services of ZMZ where he previously
worked as an associate. The real counsel of Gimeno and her relatives in their
annulment of title case was Atty. Leo Montalban Zaragoza, one of ZMZ's
partners. He denied that he used any intemperate, offensive, and abusive
language in his pleadings.
Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo, Jr.
(Commissioner Magpayo) found Atty. Zaide administratively liable for violating
the Notarial Practice Rules, representing conflicting interests, and using
abusive and insulting language in his pleadings. The IBP Board of Governors
(Board) modified the recommended penalty and imposed instead the penalty of one
year suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, if
existing, and two years suspension from being commissioned as a notary
public.Atty. Zaide sought for the reconsideration of the Board's
resolution but this was also denied in its subsequent resolution.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Zaide should be
administratively liable.
Ruling: The Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors'
findings and recommended penalty, and accordingly confirms them.
Violation of the Notarial Practice Rules
a.
Usurpation of a notarial office
This
Court notes that at the time the document was purportedly notarized, Atty.
Zaide's details as a lawyer and as a notary public had not yet existed. He was
admitted to the Bar only on May 2, 2002; thus, he could not have obtained and
used the exact figures pertaining to his roll number, PTR number, IBP number
and the expiration date of his notarial commission, prior to this date,
particularly on March 29, 2002. Atty. Zaide could not have notarized the
document before his Bar admission and receipt of his notarial commission.
b.
Maintaining different notarial registers in separate notarial offices
We
find that Atty. Zaide violated the Notarial Practice Rules by maintaining
different notarial registers in several offices. Section
1(a), Rule VI of the Notarial Practice Rules provides that "a notary
public shall keep, maintain, protect and provide for lawful inspection as
provided in these Rules, a chronological official notarial register of notarial
acts consisting of a permanently bound book with numbered pages." The same
section further provides that "a notary public shall keep only one active
notarial register at any given time." On this basis, Atty.
Zaide's act of simultaneously keeping several active notarial registers is a
blatant violation of Section 1, Rule VI. The Notarial Practice Rules strictly
requires a notary public to maintain only one active notarial register and
ensure that the entries in it are chronologically arranged. The "one active notarial register" rule
is in place to deter a notary public from assigning several notarial registers
to different offices manned by assistants who perform notarial services on his
behalf.
Representing
conflicting interests
One of these tests is whether the acceptance of a new relation
would prevent the full discharge of a lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and
loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing
in the performance of that duty. Another
test is whether a lawyer would be
called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any confidential
information acquired through their connection or previous employment. Applying
these tests, we find no conflict of interest when Atty. Zaide appeared against
Gimeno, his former law firm's client. The lawyer-client relationship between
Atty. Zaide and Gimeno ceased when Atty. Zaide left ZMZ. Moreover, the case
where Gimeno engaged ZMZ's services is an entirely different subject matter and
is not in any way connected to the complaint that Somontan filed against Gimeno
with the Ombudsman.
Use of intemperate, offensive and abusive
language in professional dealings
As shown in the record, Atty. Zaide,in
the reply that he drafted in the Ombudsman case, called Gimeno a
"notorious extortionist." And in another case, Gimeno observed
that Atty. Zaide used the following demeaning and immoderate language in
presenting his comment against his opposing counsel: Her declaration in Public
put a shame, DISGRACE, INDIGNITY AND HUMILIATION in the whole Justice System x
x x This clearly confirms Atty. Zaide's lack of restraint in the use and choice
of his words - a conduct unbecoming of an officer of the court. While a lawyer is entitled to present his
case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of
offensive and abusive language. Language abounds with countless
possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not
derogatory, and illuminating but not offensive.
Atty. Zaide is found GUILTY of violating
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and for using intemperate, offensive and,
abusive language in violation of Rule 8.01, Canon 8 and Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.