G.R. No. A.C. No. 11584. March 6, 2019. ROLAND T. KO, Complainant vs. ATTY. ALMA UY-LAMPASA, Respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Rolando T. Ko filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). He alleged that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing two purported Deeds of Absolute Sale in October 2011 between Jerry Uy and some heirs of Pablo Sultan, despite knowing these deeds were spurious. The deeds covered the same property and consideration but involved different sets of vendors from among the ten Sultan siblings, with not all named vendors signing. Complainant contrasted this with a later Extra-judicial Settlement of Estate with Absolute Sale executed by all ten siblings in favor of his son. He further accused respondent of filing a malicious estafa case grounded on the false allegation that this settlement was unpublished and of filing pleadings without the required MCLE compliance number.
In her Answer, respondent countered that the issues on the deeds’ authenticity and the estafa case’s merit were for the regular courts and prosecutor’s office to resolve. She also claimed exemption from MCLE requirements for certain periods as a former judge and stated she was processing her compliance for the latest period. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent violated the notarial law and MCLE rules, recommending a six-month suspension as a Notary Public. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but modified the penalty to revocation of her notarial commission with a two-year disqualification and a six-month suspension from the practice of law.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa is administratively liable for violations of the notarial rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP Board’s findings and penalty. On the notarial violations, the Court found respondent grossly negligent in notarizing the two deeds. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice mandate that a notary public must ensure the physical presence of the signatories and require competent evidence of identity. The deeds showed glaring irregularities: they pertained to the same property and vendee but were executed a week apart with different vendor lists, and several named vendors did not sign. Respondent’s failure to verify these discrepancies and ensure all parties’ presence constituted a breach of her notarial duties, violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct.
Regarding the MCLE violations, the Court rejected respondent’s excuse. Her claim of being a former judge exempted her only for specific past periods. For the relevant compliance period, she admitted her certificate was still being processed. Prudence dictated she should have refrained from filing pleadings until fully compliant. Her act of filing without the required MCLE number was a clear violation of Bar Matter No. 850. The penalty of a six-month suspension from law practice, immediate revocation of her notarial commission, and a two-year disqualification from reappointment is appropriate, as it aligns with precedents for notarizing documents without the parties’ appearance and for MCLE non-compliance.