Adm. Case No. 6475; January 30, 2013
Fe A. Ylaya, Complainant, vs. Atty. Glenn Carlos Gacott, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Fe Ylaya and her late husband owned land subject to expropriation by the Puerto Princesa City Government, with just compensation fixed by the RTC at ₱6,000,000. Respondent Atty. Glenn Gacott briefly represented them in that case. Ylaya alleged that Gacott deceived them into signing a “preparatory” deed of sale with blanks for the buyer and price, misrepresenting it as necessary for a future sale to the city. Instead, Gacott allegedly converted it into a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 4, 2001, selling the property to his relatives, Reynold and Sylvia So, for only ₱200,000, which was never paid. Ylaya further accused Gacott of notarizing the deed despite the buyers being his close relatives.
Gacott denied all allegations, claiming the sale was the spouses’ voluntary transaction to sell Laurentino Ylaya’s share to a co-owner, and that he merely ratified an already-completed document. He argued the complaint was motivated by greed for the higher expropriation compensation. During the IBP proceedings, Ylaya filed a motion to withdraw her complaint and later executed an affidavit affirming the deed’s genuineness, which Gacott submitted in his favor.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Glenn Carlos Gacott should be held administratively liable for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Rules.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent administratively liable and suspended him from the practice of law for two years. The Court upheld the IBP Board of Governors’ modified resolution. The withdrawal of the complaint and the subsequent affidavit did not divest the Court of its disciplinary authority, as disbarment cases are of public concern. The core issue was the credibility of the conflicting narratives.
The Court found the complainant’s version more credible. The gross disparity between the ₱200,000 sale price and the ₱6,000,000 expropriation value made the alleged sale highly improbable, casting doubt on its legitimacy. Gacott’s act of notarizing a document where the buyers were his uncle and aunt constituted a clear violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC), which prohibits a notary public from performing a notarial act for a spouse or relative within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. This violation, coupled with the finding of deceitful conduct in facilitating a disadvantageous and suspicious transaction for his clients, demonstrated a breach of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (prohibiting dishonest or deceitful conduct) and Canon 16 (requiring a lawyer to hold client property in trust) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The imposed penalty of suspension was deemed appropriate to preserve the integrity of the legal profession.