Linco Vs Lacebal

A.C. No.
7241
Case No. 05-1506]
October 17, 2011 [Formerly CBD
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.
ATTY. FLORITA S. LINCO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. JIMMY

D. LACEBAL, Respondent.
In his Answer,6 respondent admitted having notarized and

acknowledged a deed of donation executed by the donor, Atty.
Linco, in favor of his son, Alexander David T. Linco, as
represented by Lina P. Toledo.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
1
The instant case stemmed from an Administrative Complaint

dated June 6, 2005 filed by Atty. Florita S. Linco (complainant)
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty.
Jimmy D. Lacebal for disciplinary action for his failure to
perform his duty as a notary public, which resulted in the
violation of their rights over their property.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
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
donation2 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, 2003.3
Consequently, by virtue of the purported deed of donation, the
Register of Deeds of Antipolo City cancelled TCT No. 259001 on
March 28, 20054 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
Respondent narrated that on July 8, 2003, he was invited by

Atty. Linco, through an emissary in the person of Claire JueleAlgodon (Algodon), to see him at his residence located at
Guenventille II D-31-B, Libertad Street, Mandaluyong City.
Respondent was then informed that Atty. Linco was sick and
wanted to discuss something with him.
Respondent pointed out that Atty. Linco appeared to be
physically weak and sickly, but was articulate and in full control
of his faculties. Atty. Linco showed him a deed of donation and
the TCT of the property subject of the donation. Respondent
claimed that Atty. Linco asked him a favor of notarizing the
deed of donation in his presence along with the witnesses.
However, respondent explained that since he had no idea that
he would be notarizing a document, he did not bring his notarial
book and seal with him. Thus, he instead told Algodon and
Toledo to bring to his office the signed deed of donation
anytime at their convenience so that he could formally notarize
and acknowledge the same.
On July 30, 2003, respondent claimed that Toledo and Algodon
went to his law office and informed him that Atty. Linco had
passed away on July 29, 2003. Respondent was then asked to
notarize the deed of donation. Respondent admitted to have
consented as he found it to be his commitment to a fellow
lawyer. Thus, he notarized the subject deed of donation, which
was actually signed in his presence on July 8, 2003.
During the mandatory conference/hearing on September 7,
2005, it was established that indeed the deed of donation was
presented to respondent on July 8, 2003.7 Respondent,
likewise, admitted that while he was not the one who prepared
the deed of donation, he, however, performed the notarization
of the deed of donation only on July 30, 2003, a day after Atty.
Linco died.81avvphi1
On November 23, 2005, in its Report and Recommendation,9
the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found
respondent guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
The IBP-CBD observed that respondent wanted it to appear that
because the donor appeared before him and signed the deed of
donation on July 8, 2003, it was just ministerial duty on his part
to notarize the deed of donation on July 30, 2003, a day after
Atty. Linco died. The IBP-CBD pointed out that respondent
should know that the parties who signed the deed of donation
on July 8, 2003, binds only the signatories to the deed and it
was not yet a public instrument. Moreover, since the deed of
donation was notarized only on July 30, 2003, a day after Atty.
Linco died, the acknowledgement portion of the said deed of
donation where respondent acknowledged that Atty. Linco
"personally came and appeared before me" is false. This act of
respondent is also violative of the Attorney's Oath "to obey the
laws" and "do no falsehood."
The IBP-CBD, thus, recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year,
and that his notarial commission be revoked and he be
disqualified from re-appointment as notary public for a period
of two (2) years.
On April 27, 2006, in Resolution No. XVII-2006-215,10 the IBPBoard of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the report
and recommendation of the IBP-CBD.
Respondent moved for reconsideration, but was denied.11
On July 29, 2009, considering respondent's petition for review
dated May 19, 2009 of IBP Resolution No. XVII-2006-215 dated
April 27, 2006 and IBP Resolution No. XVIII-2008-678 dated
December 11, 2008, denying complainant's motion for
reconsideration and affirming the assailed resolution, the Court
resolved to require complainant to file her comment.12
In her Compliance,13 complainant maintained that respondent
has not stated anything new in his motion for reconsideration

that would warrant the reversal of the recommendation of the
IBP. She maintained that respondent violated the Notarial Law
and is unfit to continue being commissioned as notary public;
thus, should be sanctioned for his infractions.
On August 16, 2011, in view of the denial of respondent's
motion for reconsideration, the Office of the Bar Confidant,
Supreme Court, recommended that the instant complaint is
now ripe for judicial adjudication.
RULING
The findings and recommendations of the IBP are well taken.
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.15
Time and again, we have repeatedly reminded notaries public
of the importance attached to the act of notarization.
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is
invested with substantive public interest, such that only those
who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.
Notarization converts a private document into a public
document; thus, making that document admissible in evidence
without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is
by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts,
administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to
rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and
appended to a private instrument.16
For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care
the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.
Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this
form of conveyance would be undermined.17 Hence, again, a
notary public 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.
This responsibility is more pronounced when the notary public
is a lawyer. A graver responsibility is placed upon him by
reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no
falsehood or consent to the doing of any. He is mandated to the
sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties, being
dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.18
Respondent's failure to perform his duty as a notary public
resulted not only in damaging complainant's rights over the
property subject of the donation but also in undermining the
integrity of a notary public. He should, therefore, be held liable
for his acts, not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.
In Lanuzo v. Atty. Bongon,19 respondent having failed to
discharge his duties as a notary public, the revocation of his
notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned
as a notary public for a period of two years and suspension
from the practice of law for one year were imposed. We deem it
proper to impose the same penalty.

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.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all courts
all over the country. Let a copy of this Decision likewise be
attached to the personal records of the respondent.
SO ORDERED.

Linco Vs Lacebal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Linco Vs Lacebal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Linco Vs Lacebal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.C. No.

October 17, 2011 [Formerly CBD

ATTY. FLORITA S. LINCO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. JIMMY

In his Answer,6 respondent admitted having notarized and

The instant case stemmed from an Administrative Complaint

Respondent narrated that on July 8, 2003, he was invited by

has not stated anything new in his motion for reconsideration

sacrosanct.14 Respondent should not notarize a document

proper to impose the same penalty.

You might also like