Dela Cruz vs. Dimaano [A.C. No.

7781 September 12, 2008]

VELASCO, JR., J.
Facts:
In their complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Jose R. Dimaano, Jr., Dolores L.
Dela Cruz, Milagros L. Principe, Narcisa L. Faustino, Jorge V. Legaspi, and Juanito V. Legaspi
alleged that on July 16, 2004, respondent notarized a document denominated
as Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate with Waiver of Rights purportedly executed by them
and their sister, Zenaida V.L. Navarro. Complainants further alleged that: (1) their signatures
in this document were forged; (2) they did not appear and acknowledge the document
on July 16, 2004 before respondent, as notarizing officer; and (3) their purported community
tax certificates indicated in the document were not theirs.
According to complainants, respondent had made untruthful statements in the
acknowledgment portion of the notarized document when he made it appear, among other
things, that complainants personally came and appeared before him and that they affixed
their signatures on the document in his presence. In the process, complainants added,
respondent effectively enabled their sister, Navarro, to assume full ownership of their
deceased parents property in Tibagan, San Miguel, Bulacan, covered by Transfer Certificate
of Title No. T-303936 and sell the same to the Department of Public Works and Highways.
In his answer, respondent admitted having a hand in the preparation of the document in
question, but admitted having indeed notarized it. He explained that he notarized [the]
document in good faith relying on the representation and assurance of Zenaida Navarro that
the signatures and the community tax certificates appearing in the document were true and
correct. Navarro would not, according to respondent, lie to him having known, and being
neighbors of, each other for 30 years. Finally, respondent disclaimed liability for any damage
or injury considering that the falsified document had been revoked and canceled.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Jose R. Dimaano, Jr. violated his duties as notary public
Ruling:
Yes, Atty. Jose R. Dimaano, Jr.violated his duties as notary public
Rule II, Sec. 12 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice now requires a party to the instrument
to present competent evidence of identity.
Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties
of their offices, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public
interest. It must be remembered that notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act, for
notarization converts a private document to a public instrument, making it admissible in
evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution. A
notarized document is by law entitled to full credit upon its face and it is for this reason that
notaries public must observe the basic requirements in notarizing documents. Otherwise, the
confidence of the public on notorized documents will be eroded.

Antero J. Pobre vs. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago [A.C. No. 7399 August 25, 2009]
VELASCO, JR., J.

Facts:
In his sworn letter/complaint dated December 22, 2006, with enclosures, Antero J. Pobre
invites the Courts attention to the following excerpts of Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiagos
speech delivered on the Senate floor:
x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I
am humiliated, debased, degraded. And I am not only that, I feel like throwing up to be living
my middle years in a country of this nature. I am nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief
Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court, I am no longer interested
in the position [of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in
another environment but not in the Supreme Court of idiots x x x.
To Pobre, the foregoing statements reflected a total disrespect on the part of the speaker
towards then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and the other members of the Court and
constituted direct contempt of court. Accordingly, Pobre asks that disbarment proceedings or
other disciplinary actions be taken against the lady senator.
In her comment on the complaint dated April 25, 2007, Senator Santiago, through counsel,
does not deny making the aforequoted statements. She, however, explained that those
statements were covered by the constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity, being
part of a speech she delivered in the discharge of her duty as member of Congress or its
committee. The purpose of her speech, according to her, was to bring out in the open
controversial anomalies in governance with a view to future remedial legislation. She averred
that she wanted to expose what she believed to be an unjust act of the Judicial Bar Council
[JBC], which, after sending out public invitations for nomination to the soon to-be vacated
position of Chief Justice, would eventually inform applicants that only incumbent justices of
the Supreme Court would qualify for nomination. She felt that the JBC should have at least
given an advanced advisory that non-sitting members of the Court, like her, would not be
considered for the position of Chief Justice.
The immunity Senator Santiago claims is rooted primarily on the provision of Article VI,
Section 11 of the Constitution, which provides: A Senator or Member of the House of
Representative shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be
privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No member shall be questioned nor
be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any
committee thereof.
Issue: Whether or not Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago can be charged for her comments
towards the Judiciary
Ruling:
The Court rules in favor of the Senator.
The plea of Senator Santiago for the dismissal of the complaint for disbarment or disciplinary
action is well taken. Indeed, her privilege speech is not actionable criminally or in a
disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of Court. To the Court, the lady senator has
undoubtedly crossed the limits of decency and good professional conduct.
Canon 8, Rule 8.01.A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Canon 11.A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to the
judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.

Senator Santiago, as a member of the Bar and officer of the court, like any other, is dutybound to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court and to maintain the respect due its
members. Lawyers in public service are keepers of public faith and are burdened with the
higher degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than their brethren in private practice.
Senator Santiago should have known, as any perceptive individual, the impact her
statements would make on the peoples faith in the integrity of the courts.

CORAZON T. NEVADA vs ATTY. RODOLFO D. CASUGA [A.C. No. 7591 March 20, 2012]
VELASCO, JR., J.

Facts:
Nevada is the principal stockholder of C.T. Nevada & Sons, Inc., a family corporation which
operates the Mt. Crest Hotel located at Legarda Road, Baguio City (the Hotel).
In her affidavit-complaint[1] dated June 28, 2007, with annexes, Nevada alleges that she
and Casuga are members of the One in Jesus Christ Church, a religious group which counts
the latter as one of its elders. According to Nevada, she has allowed the use of one of the
Hotels functions rooms for church services. And in time, Casuga was able to gain her trust
and confidence.
Nevada further alleges that unbeknownst to her, Casuga, sometime in 2006, started to
represent himself as the administrator of the Hotel. In fact, on March 1, 2006, he entered
into a contract of lease with a certain Jung Jong Chul (Chul) covering an office space in the
Hotel. Notably, Casuga signed the lease contract over the printed name of one Edwin T.
Nevada and notarized the document himself.
Nevada adds that, in the course of their acquaintanceship, Casuga was able to acquire from
her several pieces of jewelry: a K diamond solitaire ring, earrings with three (3) diamonds
each and a ring with three (3) diamonds, with an aggregate value of three hundred thousand
pesos (PhP 300,000), and a solid gold Rolex watch with diamond dials valued at twelve
thousand US dollars (USD 12,000). Casuga took possession of the valuables purportedly with
the obligation of selling them and to remit any proceeds toNevada. However, despite
repeated demands by Nevada for Casuga to return the valuables or otherwise remit the
proceeds of the sale, no jewelry or money was ever returned.
Casuga submitted an Affidavit dated December 5, 2007, as comment on the administrative
complaint. In it, Casuga claims that Nevada informally instituted him as the administrator of
the Hotel in a limited capacity but denied receiving the PhP 90,000 from Chul. With regard to
the pieces of jewelry and the Rolex watch, Casuga stated that Nevada actually pawned them
in a pawnshop and that she later asked his wife to redeem them using their own money.
Thereafter,Nevada asked Casugas wife to sell the valuables and reimburse herself from the
proceeds of the sale.
Issue: Whether or not ATTY. RODOLFO D. CASUGA violated code of Professional
Responsibility
Ruling:
Yes.
Casuga is guilty of gross misconduct for misrepresenting himself. Casuga misrepresented
himself as a duly authorized representative of Nevada when in fact he was not. He never
adduced evidence showing that he was duly authorized either by Edwin or Corazon. He also
dialed to adduce evidence proving that he never received the P90k from Chul. On the
contrary, a notarized letter showed that Casuga did receive the money. His
misrepresentations constitute gross misconduct and his mere denial does not overcome the
evidence presented against him.

Casuga also violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As a lawyer It is his
duty to account for all moneys and property of his client that may come to his possession.
This is still applicable even though said property/money did not come to his possession by
virtue of a lawyer-client relationship. He failed to adduce evidence to prove his claim that
Nevada pawned said jewelries. He never presented receipts. Further, even assuming that
Nevada did pawn said items, Casuga was still duty bound to return said jewelries upon
demand by Nevada.