5. Joy A. Gimeno vs Atty.

Paul Centillas Zaide

A.C. No. 10303, April 22, 2015

Facts:

In her complaint, Gimeno alleged that even before Atty. Zaide’s admission to the Bar and receipt
of his notarial commission, he had notarized a partial extrajudicial partition. She accused Atty. Zaide of
making false and irregular entries in his notarial registers.

Gimeno further submitted that she was Atty. Zaide’s former client. She engaged the services of
his law firm Zaragoza-Makabangkit-Zaide Law Offices (ZMZ). Despite their previous lawyer-client
relationship, Atty. Zaide still appeared against her in case filed by one Priscilla Somontan. She posited
that appearing as the opposed counsel is a violation of the prohibition against the representation of
conflicting clients’ interest.

Lastly, Gimeno contended that Atty. Zaide called her a “notorious extortionist” in the same
administrative complaint filed by Somontan. In another civil case, Gimone noted that Atty. Zaide
referred to his opposing counsel as someone suffering from “serious mental incompetence” in one of his
pleadings. Both of these actions constitute intemperate, offensive and abusive language.

On the other hand, Atty. Zaide argued that he did not notarize the partial extrajudicial partition.
His notarial stamp and falsified signature were superimposed over the typewritten name of Atty.
Elpedio Cabasan, the lawyer who actually notarized the document. As per the alleged falsification of his
notarial entries, Atty. Zaide contended that he uses several notarial registers in separate offices
therefore explaining the non-sequential notarial entries.

Atty. Zaide argued that Gimeno was never his client since she did not personally hire him as her
counsel. Gimeno engaged the services of ZMZ, where he previously worked as an associate. The real
counsel of Gimeno was Atty. Leo Zaragoza. On this basis, Atty. Zaide should not be held liable for
representing conflicting clients’ interest. Atty. Zaide denied that he used any intemperate, offensive and
abusive language in pleadings.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Zaide acted in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Notarial
Practice Rules

Held:

Yes. Section 1(a), Rule VI of the Notarial Practice Rules provides that "a notary public shall keep,
maintain, protect and provide for lawful inspection as provided in these Rules, a chronological official
notarial register of notarial acts consisting of a permanently bound book with numbered pages." The
same section further provides that "a notary public shall keep only one active notarial register at any
given time.“ On this basis, Atty. Zaide's act of simultaneously keeping several active notarial registers is a
blatant violation of Section 1, Rule VI.

The Notarial Practice Rules strictly requires a notary public to maintain only one active notarial
register and ensure that the entries in it are chronologically arranged. The "one active notarial register"
rule is in place to deter a notary public from assigning several notarial registers to different offices
manned by assistants who perform notarial services on his behalf.

Atty. Zaide should have been acutely aware of the requirements of his notarial commission. His
flagrant violation of Section 1, Rule VI of the Notarial Practice Rules is not merely a simple and excusable
negligence. It amounts to a clear violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
provides that "a lawyer [should] uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for law and legal processes."

As shown in the record, Atty. Zaide,in the reply that he drafted in the Ombudsman case, called
Gimeno a "notorious extortionist.“ And in another case, Gimeno observed that Atty. Zaide used the
following demeaning and immoderate language in presenting his comment against his opposing
counsel. This clearly confirms Atty. Zaide's lack of restraint in the use and choice of his words - a conduct
unbecoming of an officer of the court.

While a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not
justify the use of offensive and abusive language.

6. Bernard N. Jandoquile vs Atty. Quirino Revilla Jr.

A.C. No. 9514, April 10, 2013

Facts:

Atty. Revilla, Jr. notarized a complaint-affidavit signed by Heneraline L. Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa
and Elmer L. Alvarado. Heneraline Brosas is a sister of Heizel Wynda Bajrosas Revilla, Atty. Revilla, Jr.'s
wife. Jandoquile complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. is disqualified to perform the notarial act per Section 3(
c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice which reads as follows:

SEC. 3. Disqualifications. – A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he:

xxxx

(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or

consanguinity of the principal4 within the fourth civil degree.

Jandoquile also complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not require the three affiants in the complaint-
affidavit to show their valid identification cards.

Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not deny but admitted Jandoquile’s material allegations. The issue,
according to Atty. Revilla, Jr., is whether the single act of notarizing the complaint-affidavit of relatives
within the fourth civil degree of affinity and, at the same time, not requiring them to present valid
identification cards is a ground for disbarment. Atty. Revilla, Jr. submits that his act is not a ground for
disbarment. He also says that he acts as counsel of the three affiants; thus, he should be considered
more as counsel than as a notary public when he notarized their complaint-affidavit. He did not require
the affiants to present valid identification cards since he knows them personally. Heneraline Brosas and
Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa are sisters-in-law while Elmer Alvarado is the live-in houseboy of the Brosas
family.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Revilla violated Section3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice

Held:

Yes. Indeed, Atty. Revilla, Jr. violated the disqualification rule under Section 3(c), Rule IV of the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. We agree with him, however, that his violation is not a sufficient ground
for disbarment.

Atty. Revilla, Jr.’s violation of the aforesaid disqualification rule is beyond dispute. Atty. Revilla,
Jr. readily admitted that he notarized the complaint-affidavit signed by his relatives within the fourth
civil degree of affinity. Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly disqualifies him
from notarizing the complaint-affidavit, from performing the notarial act, since two of the affiants or
principals are his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity.

Let it be impressed that Atty. Revilla, Jr. was clearly disqualified to notarize the complaint-
affidavit of his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. While he has a valid defense as to the
second charge, it does not exempt him from liability for violating the disqualification rule.

Considering the attendant circumstances and the single violation committed by Atty. Revilla, Jr.,
we are in agreement that a punishment less severe than disbarment would suffice.

Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr., was reprimanded and disqualified from being commissioned as a
notary public, or from performing any notarial act if he is presently commissioned as a notary public, for
a period of three (3) months.