Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 492 views

    Linco vs. Lacebal

    Uploaded by

    Vincent Quiña Piga
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that respondent attorney Jimmy D. Lacebal violated the Notarial Law and Code of Professional Responsibility when he notarized a deed of donation purportedly signed by deceased attorney Alberto Linco. Lacebal notarized the deed on July 30, 2003, even though Linco had died the previous day on July 29, 2003. As a result of Lacebal's actions, the title to Linco's property was transferred to another party. The Court found Lacebal guilty, revoked his notarial commission, suspended him from practicing law for one year, and warned of more severe punishment if he commits similar violations in the future.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Linco vs. Lacebal

    Uploaded by

    Vincent Quiña Piga
    492 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that respondent attorney Jimmy D. Lacebal violated the Notarial Law and Code of Professional Responsibility when he notarized a deed of donation purportedly signed by deceased attorney Alberto Linco. Lacebal notarized the deed on July 30, 2003, even though Linco had died the previous day on July 29, 2003. As a result of Lacebal's actions, the title to Linco's property was transferred to another party. The Court found Lacebal guilty, revoked his notarial commission, suspended him from practicing law for one year, and warned of more severe punishment if he commits similar violations in the future.

    Original Description:

    Linco vs. Lacebal A.C. No. 7241, 10/17/2011

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that respondent attorney Jimmy D. Lacebal violated the Notarial Law and Code of Professional Responsibility when he notarized a deed of donation purportedly signed by deceased attorney Alberto Linco. Lacebal notarized the deed on July 30, 2003, even though Linco had died the previous day on July 29, 2003. As a result of Lacebal's actions, the title to Linco's property was transferred to another party. The Court found Lacebal guilty, revoked his notarial commission, suspended him from practicing law for one year, and warned of more severe punishment if he commits similar violations in the future.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    492 views2 pages

    Linco vs. Lacebal

    Uploaded by

    Vincent Quiña Piga
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that respondent attorney Jimmy D. Lacebal violated the Notarial Law and Code of Professional Responsibility when he notarized a deed of donation purportedly signed by deceased attorney Alberto Linco. Lacebal notarized the deed on July 30, 2003, even though Linco had died the previous day on July 29, 2003. As a result of Lacebal's actions, the title to Linco's property was transferred to another party. The Court found Lacebal guilty, revoked his notarial commission, suspended him from practicing law for one year, and warned of more severe punishment if he commits similar violations in the future.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Linco vs.

    Lacebal
    A.C. No. 7241, 10/17/2011
    Facts: Complainant claimed that she is the widow of the late Atty. Alberto Linco
    (Atty. Linco), the registered owner of a parcel of land with improvements, consisting
    of 126 square meters, located at No. 8, Macopa St., Phase I-A, B, C & D, Valley View
    Executive Village, Cainta, Rizal and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
    259001.
    Complainant alleged that Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal (respondent), a notary public for
    Mandaluyong City, notarized a deed of donation 2 allegedly executed by her husband
    in favor of Alexander David T. Linco, a minor. The notarial acknowledgment thereof
    also stated that Atty. Linco and Lina P. Toledo (Toledo), mother of the donee,
    allegedly personally appeared before respondent on July 30, 2003, despite the fact
    that complainants husband died on July 29, 2003.
    Consequently, by virtue of the purported deed of donation, the Register of Deeds of
    Antipolo City cancelled TCT No. 259001 on March 28, 2005 4 and issued a new TCT
    No. 292515 in the name of Alexander David T. Linco.
    Aggrieved, complainant filed the instant complaint. She claimed that respondent's
    reprehensible act in connivance with Toledo was not only violative of her and her
    children's rights but also in violation of the law. Respondent's lack of honesty and
    candor is unbecoming of a member of the Philippine Bar.
    Issue: Did respondent violate the Notarial Law and the CPR?
    Ruling: YES.
    There is no question as to respondent's guilt. The records sufficiently established
    that Atty. Linco was already dead when respondent notarized the deed of donation
    on July 30, 2003. Respondent likewise admitted that he knew that Atty. Linco died a
    day before he notarized the deed of donation. We take note that respondent
    notarized the document after the lapse of more than 20 days from July 8, 2003,
    when he was allegedly asked to notarize the deed of donation. The sufficient lapse
    of time from the time he last saw Atty. Linco should have put him on guard and
    deterred him from proceeding with the notarization of the deed of donation.
    However, respondent chose to ignore the basics of notarial procedure in order to
    accommodate the alleged need of a colleague. The fact that respondent previously
    appeared before him in person does not justify his act of notarizing the deed of
    donation, considering the affiant's absence on the very day the document was
    notarized. In the notarial acknowledgment of the deed of donation, respondent
    attested that Atty. Linco personally came and appeared before him on July 30, 2003.
    Yet obviously, Atty. Linco could not have appeared before him on July 30, 2003,
    because the latter died on July 29, 2003. Clearly, respondent made a false

    statement and violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his
    oath as a lawyer.
    We will reiterate that faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity
    of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. 14 Respondent should not
    notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same
    persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the
    contents and truth of what are stated therein.
    WHEREFORE, for breach of the Notarial Law and Code of Professional
    Responsibility, the notarial commission of respondent ATTY. JIMMY D. LACEBAL,
    is REVOKED. He is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as Notary Public for a
    period of two years. He is also SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
    one year, effective immediately. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the
    same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. He is DIRECTED to report
    the date of receipt of this Decision in order to determine when his suspension shall
    take effect.

    You might also like