A.C. No. 10306. September 16, 2020
Fatima S. Ingram, Complainant, v. Atty. Jose Q. Lorica IV, Respondent.

FACTS

The complainant, Fatima S. Ingram, and her spouse were the creditors under a promissory note executed by the spouses Blanco on August 4, 2004, which was notarized by the respondent, Atty. Jose Q. Lorica IV. Upon the Blanco spouses’ default, the Ingrams filed civil and criminal cases. The respondent, who had notarized the note, subsequently entered his appearance as the legal counsel for the Blanco spouses in these cases. In the civil case for collection, the respondent, on behalf of his clients, filed an Answer and a Pre-Trial Brief alleging that the execution of the promissory note was attended by “coercion, threats, intimidation and the like.” This prompted the complainant to seek his disqualification as counsel and to file this disbarment complaint.
The complainant further accused the respondent of dishonesty. She alleged that in the same Answer and Pre-Trial Brief, the respondent cited Article 1250 of the Civil Code regarding currency revaluation but deliberately omitted the concluding phrase “unless there is an agreement to the contrary.” This omission was intended to mislead the court by suppressing the fact that the promissory note contained a specific contrary agreement on the exchange rate. The respondent defended his actions, claiming he relied in good faith on his clients’ narration of coercion, supported by police blotters, and that the omission in the legal citation was not malicious.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing clients in a case involving a document he notarized and by misquoting a provision of law.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found the respondent guilty of violating Canon 7 of the CPR for failing to uphold the integrity of the notarial process. By notarizing the promissory note, he certified that the parties acknowledged the instrument as their free and voluntary act. His subsequent act, as counsel for the makers, of assailing the very validity of the document by alleging coercion and intimidation created a conflict with his notarial certification. This conduct undermined the sanctity of the notarial oath and betrayed public confidence in notarized documents. Lawyers must avoid any act that creates an impression of impropriety or diminishes trust in notarial acts.
Furthermore, the Court found the respondent guilty of violating Rule 10.02 of the CPR. While the evidence did not conclusively prove a dishonest intent to lie, his act of citing Article 1250 of the Civil Code while omitting the qualifying phrase “unless there is an agreement to the contrary” constituted a knowing misrepresentation of the contents of a legal authority. This was a misquotation that distorted the provision’s complete meaning, especially since a contrary agreement existed in the promissory note itself. For these infractions, the Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for six months, revoked his notarial commission, disqualified him from being a notary public for two years, and admonished him for the violation of Rule 10.02.