G.R. No. A.C. No. 13287 (Formerly CBD No. 18-5753) June 21, 2023
Flordelina Ascaño, Complainant, vs. Atty. Mario V. Panem, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Flordelina Ascaño filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Mario V. Panem before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for alleged violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Ascaño alleged that Atty. Panem notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale involving her property in favor of Spouses Guillermo without her presence as the supposed seller. When she confronted him, Atty. Panem volunteered to handle a case to recover the property for her. Ascaño initially accepted but later learned he did not adhere to her narration of facts in the court pleading he filed on her behalf. The specific charges were: (1) notarizing the Deed without the presence of a party; (2) failing to ask for competent evidence of identity; (3) failing to submit his notarial register for 2006-2007; and (4) representing conflicting interests. In defense, Atty. Panem claimed Ascaño signed the Deed in his presence, presenting her community tax certificate as identification, and that his notarial register and documents were destroyed in a July 2006 flood in his law office. He also argued he did not represent conflicting interests as he only represented Ascaño in the civil case. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found him guilty and recommended disbarment. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but recommended a two-year suspension from law practice, immediate revocation of his notarial commission, and a two-year disqualification from reappointment as a notary public.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Mario V. Panem should be held administratively liable for his actions.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found Atty. Mario V. Panem administratively liable, modifying the IBP’s recommendations. The Court applied the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which repealed the CPR and took effect on May 29, 2023, deeming its application proper.
1. Violation of the Notarial Rules: The Court found Atty. Panem violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. First, he notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale without the personal appearance of Ascaño, who vehemently denied being present, asserting she was in Bulacan at the time. His claim of her appearance was unsupported as he failed to submit his notarial register, offering an unsubstantiated excuse of flood damage. Second, even assuming her appearance, he failed to require a competent evidence of identity; a community tax certificate is not valid as it lacks a photograph and signature. Third, he undisputedly failed to submit his notarial report and copies for the period March 17, 2006 to December 31, 2007, violating his duty to forward these to the Clerk of Court. His flood excuse was insufficient as it did not explain non-compliance for months before and after the alleged July 2006 calamity.
2. Violation of the CPRA (Fidelity): The Court held Atty. Panem liable for breach of Section 2, Canon III of the CPRA, which requires a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey laws, and promote respect for legal processes.
3. No Violation for Conflicting Interests: The Court disagreed with the IBP’s finding that Atty. Panem represented conflicting interests under Section 13, Canon III of the CPRA, as he only represented Ascaño in the civil action and no other party.
4. Liability for Untruthful Statements in a Pleading: The Court found additional liability. In the complaint for reconveyance he prepared for Ascaño, Atty. Panem made it appear she signed the Deed in his presence, contrary to her instructions and facts. He did not amend the complaint despite her demands, forcing her to hire new counsel. This was a dishonest act to clear himself of notarial misconduct, violating his duties as a lawyer.
PENALTY:
The Court imposed the following sanctions:
(a) Suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year, immediate revocation of notarial commission (if existing), and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years, for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
(b) A fine of ₱100,000.50 for making untruthful statements in a pleading filed in court.
The Court sternly warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. The suspension is effective immediately upon receipt of the Decision.