A.C. No. 11543. September 26, 2017
SUSAN BASIYO AND ANDREW WILLIAM SIMMONS, COMPLAINANTS, V. ATTY. JOSELITO C. ALISUAG, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Complainants Susan Basiyo and Andrew William Simmons engaged respondent Atty. Joselito C. Alisuag to facilitate their purchase of a 32,897-square-meter lot in Palawan. Alisuag, acting as their lawyer and notary public, prepared and notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 12, 2008, reflecting a purchase price of P1,973,820. Complainants paid him substantial sums for taxes and fees, and an additional P600,000 for an Environmental Impact Study and Wildlife Permit. However, they later discovered that Alisuag had notarized another Deed of Sale dated January 19, 2008, which indicated a purchase price of only P120,000, as published in a local newspaper. They also learned that the required estate tax was unpaid, only a fraction of the capital gains tax was remitted, and necessary approvals from the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples were not secured. The vendors confirmed receiving only P300,000. Complainants failed to obtain title, were sued by a third-party claimant, and incurred further expenses to settle with other heirs of the registered owner.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Joselito C. Alisuag violated the Code of Professional Responsibility through deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct in his notarial and professional duties.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Atty. Alisuag guilty of deceit and gross misconduct, affirming the IBP Board of Governors’ resolution. The legal logic centers on the violation of his fiduciary duty as a lawyer and his solemn obligations as a notary public. By preparing and notarizing multiple deeds of sale for the same property with drastically different consideration amounts, Alisuag engaged in deceitful conduct that prejudiced his clients. His actions facilitated a transaction where the declared price to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (P120,000) was a fraction of the amount complainants actually paid, potentially defrauding the government of taxes and exposing complainants to legal peril. As a lawyer, he breached Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibit engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. As a notary public, he violated his duty to ensure the integrity of documents and to act with utmost care, failing to ascertain the true consideration and circumstances of the transaction he notarized. His failure to secure required clearances, properly account for funds, and protect his clients’ interests constituted gross negligence and malpractice. The Court imposed a two-year suspension from the practice of law, revocation and perpetual disqualification from any notarial commission, and ordered him to render an accounting and return any unutilized funds to complainants.