TAXATION II CLASS (A.Y.

2014-2015)

JANUARY 2014

1. A.C. No. 5581 January 14, 2014

ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG, Complainant, vs. ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA,
Respondent.

Legal Ethics: Rule 1.01, Canon 7; Rule 7.03

FACTS:

Rose Bunagan-Bansig filed a complaint against respondent Atty. Rogelio Juan A. Celera for
Gross Immoral Conduct.

On May 8, 1997, Atty. Celera and Gracemarie R. Bunagan (Bunagan), entered into a contract
of marriage, as evidenced by a certified xerox copy of the certificate of marriage issued by
the City Civil Registry of Manila. Bansig is the sister of Gracemarie, legal wife of respondent.
However, Atty. Celera contracted another marriage on January 8, 1998 with a certain Ma.
Cielo Paz Torres Alba, as evidenced by a certified xerox copy of the certificate of marriage
issued by the City Registration Officer of San Juan, Manila.

Bansig stressed that the marriage between Atty. Celera and Bunagan was still valid and in
full legal existence when he contracted his second marriage with Alba, and that the first
marriage had never been annulled or rendered void by any lawful authority.

Despite repeated summons and resolutions issued by the Court, Atty. Celera failed to
properly answer the complaint. The complaint dragged on for over a decade.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Celera is guilty of grossly immoral conduct and willful disobedience of
lawful orders.

RULING:

Yes. In the instant case, there is a preponderance of evidence that respondent contracted a
second marriage despite the existence of his first marriage.

The certified xerox copies of the marriage contracts, issued by a public officer in custody
thereof, are admissible as the best evidence of their contents, as provided for under Section
7 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

For purposes of this disbarment proceeding, these Marriage Certificates bearing the name
of respondent are competent and convincing evidence to prove that he committed bigamy,
which renders him unfit to continue as a member of the Bar.
1. A.C. No. 4545 February 5, 2014
CARLITO ANG, Complainant, vs. ATTY. JAMES JOSEPH GUPANA, Respondent.

Legal Ethics: Rule 9.01, Canon 7; Rule 9.01, Canon 9

FACTS:

The case stemmed from an affidavit-complaint filed by complainant Carlito Ang against
respondent. Ang alleged that he and the other heirs of the late Candelaria Magpayo, namely
Purificacion Diamante and William Magpayo, executed an Extra-judicial Declaration of
Heirs and Partition involving a land which was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
(T-22409)-6433. He was given his share of 2,003 square meters designated as Lot No.
2066-B-2-B-4, together with all the improvements thereon.

However, when he tried to secure a TCT in his name, he found out that said TCT number
had already been cancelled and in lieu thereof, new TCTs had been issued in the names of
William Magpayo, Antonio Diamante, Patricia Diamante, Lolita D. Canque, Gregorio
Diamante, Jr. and Fe D. Montero.

Ang alleged that there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent had a direct
participation in the commission of forgeries and falsifications because he was the one who
prepared and notarized the Affidavit of Loss and Deed of Absolute Sale that led to the
transfer and issuance of the new TCTs. Ang pointed out that the Deed of Absolute Sale
which was allegedly executed by Candelaria Magpayo on April 17, 1989, was antedated and
Candelaria Magpayo’s signature was forged as clearly shown by the Certification issued by
the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu since the Notarial
Report indubitably showed that the document executed was an affidavit, not a Deed of
Absolute Sale.

As to the Affidavit of Loss, which was allegedly executed by the late Candelaria Magpayo on
April 29, 1994, it could not have been executed by her as she Died three years prior to the
execution of the said affidavit of loss.

Ang further alleged that respondent made himself the attorney-in-fact and executed a Deed
of Sale selling the lot to Lim Kim So Mecantile Co even though a civil case was pending
before the RTC of Mandaue City, Cebu.

Respondent denied any wrongdoing. According to the respondent, in the pending civil case
Ang anchored his claim on the Extra-judicial Declaration of Heirs and Partition and sought
to annul the deed of sale and prayed for reconveyance of the subject parcel of land.
However, because of Ang’s admission that he is not an heir of late Candelaria Magpayo, the
notice of lis pendens annotated in the title of land were ordered cancelled and the land
became available for disposition. Respondent surmised that these developments in Civil
Case No. Man-2202 meant that Ang would lose his case so Ang resorted to the filing of the
present administrative complaint. Thus, respondent prayed for the dismissal of the case for
being devoid of any factual or legal basis, or in the alternative, holding resolution of the
instant case in abeyance pending resolution of civil case.

Investigating Commissioner Navarro of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found that
respondent is administratively liable. She recommended that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for three months. She held that respondent committed an
unethical act when he allowed himself to be an instrument in the disposal of the subject
property through a deed of sale executed between him as attorney-in-fact of his client and
Lim Kim So Mercantile Co. despite his knowledge that said property is the subject of a
pending litigation before the RTC of Mandaue City, Cebu.
The Investigating Commissioner additionally found that respondent "delegated the notarial
functions to the clerical staff of their office before being brought to him for his signature."
This, according to the commissioner, "must have been the reason for the forged signatures
of the parties in the questioned document…as well as the erroneous entry in his notarial
register. Respondent should not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any
task which by law may only be performed by a member of the bar in accordance with Rule
9.0117 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

ISSUE:

WON the respondent is administratively liable for violating the notarial law and the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

The Court finds respondent administratively liable for violation of his notarial duties when
he failed to require the personal presence of Candelaria Magpayo. it is clear that the party
acknowledging must appear before the notary public or any other person authorized to
take acknowledgments of instruments or documents.23 In the case at bar, the jurat of the

Affidavit of Loss stated that Candelaria subscribed to the affidavit before respondent on
April 29, 1994, at Mandaue City. Candelaria, however, was already dead since March 26,
1991. Hence, it is clear that the jurat was made in violation of the notarial law.

As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent is mandated to subscribe to the

sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy
impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal
solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. The Code of
Professional Responsibility also commands him not to engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct and to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession.
Respondent likewise violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9, of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which provides that "[a] lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in
good standing."

in notarizing an affidavit executed by a dead person, respondent is liable for misconduct.

Under the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 are in order.