Facts:
Sylvia Rivera, after the RTC’s dismissal of their case against Felipe Pecache regarding a land dispute and the subsequent affirmation by the Court of Appeals (CA), sought Atty. Bayani Dalangin’s legal assistance for a motion for reconsideration. Atty. Dalangin, who allegedly acted without consideration, secured a favorable amendment from the CA for Sylvia and Nicasio. Later, Sylvia discovered a transaction, an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication with Sale, involving the disputed land facilitated by Nicasio and sold to Spouses Wy for P100,000, notably notarized by Atty. Dalangin. Upon discovery, Sylvia attempted to reclaim the property, also filing an annulment case against the involved parties and lodging a complaint against Atty. Dalangin for deceit and dishonesty before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP, after deliberation, recommended Atty. Dalangin’s suspension and revocation of his notarial commission due to violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules on Notarial Practice. The Supreme Court was approached after an appeal regarding the IBP’s recommendation.
Issues:
1. Whether Atty. Dalangin represented Sylvia Rivera in the legal proceedings against Felipe Pecache, hence establishing an attorney-client relationship.
2. Whether Atty. Dalangin exhibited deceit by notarizing the deed of absolute sale disregarding Sylvia Rivera’s legal interest.
3. Whether Atty. Dalangin’s action violated the professional and ethical standards expected from lawyers, particularly in upholding the dignity of the legal profession and compliance with the rules on notarial practice.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court found Atty. Dalangin guilty of violation of Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and specific rules of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. It was established that Atty. Dalangin represented both Sylvia and Nicasio, evidenced by his undiscriminating actions in filing motions as their counsel, hence misleading by denying representation of Sylvia. His notarization of the deed of absolute sale violated the principle of succession, specifically ignoring Sylvia’s legal rights as a widow. Furthermore, failure to submit timely notarial reports was also noted. However, allegations of antedating the deed of absolute sale were not proven. The penalty included immediate revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for six months.
Doctrine:
The decision reiterates the imperative standard for lawyers to live by the law, emphasizing honesty, integrity, and compliance with legal procedures, as enshrined in the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules on Notarial Practice.
Class Notes:
– Essential elements in legal ethics cases: establishment of attorney-client relationship, adherence to legal ethics in conduct and practice, timely compliance with procedural requirements.
– Key Legal Provisions: Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (specifically Rule IV, Section 4, and Rule VI, Section 2(h)).
– Lawyers are bound by duty not only to their clients but to the legal system, warranting honesty, integrity, and diligence.
– Notaries public must exercise discernment in notarizing documents, especially involving parties they represent, ensuring transactions do not contravene legal rights of interested parties.
Historical Background:
The case underscores the significant ethical responsibility lawyers and notaries public hold within the Philippine legal system. It reflects ongoing efforts to uphold integrity and professionalism in legal practice, serving as a deterrent against misconduct and reinforcing the essential values every lawyer must embody.
Leave a Reply