[ A.C. No. 13287 (Formerly CBD No. 18-5753).

June 21, 2023 ]

FLORDELINA ASCAÑO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MARIO V. PANEM,

RESPONDENT.

DECISION

INTING, J.:

1
The Court resolves the administrative complaint that Flordelina Ascaño
2
(Ascaño) filed against respondent Atty. Mario V. Panem (Atty. Panem) before
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for alleged violations of
Administrative Matter No. 02-8-13-SC, or the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
(Notarial Rules), and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

The Antecedents

In the complaint, Ascaño alleged that Atty. Panem notarized a Deed of

Absolute Sale (Deed) in favor of Spouses Severino and Matilde Guillermo
(Spouses Guillermo) involving a property she owned in Sto. Domingo, Ilocos
Sur, without her presence as the supposed seller thereof. Ascaño recounted
that when she confronted Atty. Panem about it, he volunteered to handle the
case in order to get the property back from Spouses Guillermo. Initially,
Ascaño accepted Atty. Panem's offer, but she later learned that the latter did
not adhere to her narration of facts when he filed the action in court on her
3
behalf.

As a result, Ascaño filed the present administrative case against Atty.

Panem for violation of the Notarial Rules when he: (1) notarized the Deed
without the presence of one of the parties; (2) failed to ask for a competent
evidence of identity before notarizing the document; and (3) failed to submit
his notarial register for the period 2006-2007. She also charged Atty. Panem
4
with representing conflicting interests in breach of the CPR.

In his defense, Atty. Panem countered that Ascaño, who presented her
community tax certificate as evidence of her identity, actually signed the Deed
in his presence. He explained that his notarial register and all notarial
documents were destroyed because his law office was flooded in July 2006.
Finally, he argued that he was not guilty of representing conflicting interests
considering that he only represented Ascaño in the civil action concerning
5
the property in question.

Report and Recommendation of the IBP

6
In the Report and Recommendation dated June 28, 2019, the
Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Panem guilty of violating the Notarial
Rules and the CPR and recommended that he be disbarred from the practice
7
of law.

8
Then, in the Resolution No. CBD-2021-05-11 dated May 8, 2021, the IBP
Board of Governors adopted the findings of the Investigating Commissioner,
but it recommended the following penalties instead of disbarment: (a)
suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years; (b) immediate
revocation of notarial commission, if still subsisting; and (c) disqualification
from reappointment as a notary public for two (2) years. 1aшphi1

The Issue

The issue for the Court's resolution is whether Atty. Panem should be held
administratively liable for his actions.

The Court's Ruling

After a careful review, the Court adopts and approves the findings and
recommendations of the IBP with modifications as to the designation of the
offenses committed by Atty. Panem and the penalty to be imposed upon him,
in view of A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC, or the Code of Professional Responsibility
and Accountability (CPRA), which repealed the CPR and took effect on May
9
29, 2023.

To note, Section 1 of the General Provisions of the CPRA provides for the
Code's applicability to all pending and future cases, except in instances
where "in the opinion of the Supreme Court, its retroactive application would
not be feasible or would work injustice, in which case, the procedure under
which the cases were filed shall govern." Here, the Court deems the
application of the CPRA, in conjunction with the Notarial Rules, to be proper
in determining the administrative liabilities of Atty. Panem.

Section 1, Rule II of the Notarial Rules requires the affiant's personal

appearance and the notary public's examination of his or her competent
evidence of identity in relation to the notarization of a document, viz.:

Section. 1. Acknowledgment. - "Acknowledgment" refers to an

act in which an individual on a single occasion:

(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an

integrally complete instrument or document;

(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or

identified by the notary public through competent evidence of
identity as defined by these Rules; and

(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the

instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the
purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that
he has executed the instrument or document as his free and
voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular
representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in
that capacity. (Italics supplied.)

10
Moreover, Section 12, Rule II of the Notarial Rules defines a "competent
evidence of identity" as follows:

Section 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. - The phrase

“competent evidence of identity" refers to the identification of an
individual based on:

(a) at least one current identification document

issued by an official agency bearing the
photograph and signature of the individual,
such as but not limited to, passport. driver's
license, Professional Regulations Commission
ID, National Bureau of Investigation clearance,
police clearance, postal ID, voter's ID,
Barangay certification, Government Service
and Insurance System (GSIS) e-card, Social
 Security System (SSS) card, Philhealth card,
senior citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare
Administration (OWWA) ID, OFW ID, seaman's
book, alien certificate of registration/immigrant
certificate of registration, government office
ID, certification from the National Council for
the Welfare of Disabled Persons (NCWDP),
Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD) certification; or

(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness

not privy to the instrument, document or
transaction who is personally known to the
notary public and who personally knows the
individual, or of two credible witnesses neither
of whom is privy to the instrument, document
or transaction who each personally knows the
individual and shows to the notary public
documentary identification. (Italics supplied.)

Thus, a notary public is prohibited from notarizing a document if the

person involved as a signatory thereto is: (i) not present at the time of
notarization; and/or (ii) not personally known to or otherwise identified by the
11
notary public through a competent evidence of identity as defined above.

In the case, Ascaño vehemently denied ever appearing before Atty. Panem
during the questioned notarial act in Ilocos Sur, asserting that she was
12
staying with her daughter in Bulacan at the time. On this point, the
Investigating Commissioner noted that Atty. Panem did not submit his
notarial register in order to prove his defense that Ascaño actually appeared
before him to have the Deed notarized. While Atty. Panem tried to explain that
his notarial register was lost because of flooding in his law office in July
13
2006, the Court simply cannot give any credence to this excuse because of
the lack of sufficient evidence to support it.

Indeed, "[i]f the document or instrument does not appear in the notarial
records and there is no copy of it therein, doubt is engendered that the
document or instrument was not really notarized, so that it is not a public
14
document and cannot bolster any claim made based on this document."

Even assuming arguendo that Ascaño truly appeared before Atty. Panem,
the record shows that the latter failed to require her to present a competent
evidence of identity for the notarization of the contested Deed. In particular,
the document shows that Ascaño supposedly presented her community tax
certificate to Atty. Panem, which is not considered as a valid and competent
evidence of identity as it does not bear the photograph and signature of the
15
individual.

It is also undisputed that Atty. Panem did not submit his notarial report
and copies of all notarial documents for the period March 17, 2006 to
16
December 31, 2007 per the Certification dated December 5, 2017 from the
Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur.
This, too, constitutes as a clear violation of Section 2, Rule VI of the Notarial
Rules, viz.:

Section 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. - x x x x

xxxx

(h) A certified copy of each month's entries and a duplicate

original copy of any instrument acknowledged before the
notary public shall, within the first ten (10) days of the month
following, be forwarded to the Clerk of Court and shall be
under the responsibility of such officer. If there is no entry to
certify for the month, the notary shall forward a statement to
this effect in lieu of certified copies herein required. (Italics
supplied.)

As earlier mentioned, the Court finds no merit in Atty. Panem's assertion

that a strong typhoon in July 2006 caused the flooding in his law office,
which, in turn, destroyed his notarial register and all notarial documents. Not
only is this unsubstantiated by evidence, but also, it does not explain Atty.
Panem's failure to comply with his duty to submit his notarial report for the
months prior to and after the supposed calamity that hit Narvacan, Ilocos Sur
in 2006.
 In view of the above-mentioned violations of the Notarial Rules, the Court
likewise holds Atty. Panem liable for breach of Section 2, Canon III of the
17
CPRA, viz.:

CANON III

Fidelity pertains to a lawyer’s duty to uphold the Constitution

and the laws of the land, to assist in the administration of justice
as an officer of the court, and to advance or defend a client's
cause, with full devotion, genuine interest, and zeal in the pursuit
of truth and justice.

xxxx

Section 2. The responsible and accountable lawyer. - A lawyer

shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, promote
respect for laws and legal processes, safeguard human rights,
and at all times advance the honor and integrity of the legal
profession.

The Court, however, disagrees with the IBP that Atty. Panem is guilty of
18
representing conflicting interests in violation of Section 13, Canon III of the
CPRA. After all, ''lawyers are deemed to represent conflicting interests when,
in behalf of one client, it is their duty to contend for that which duty to another
19
client requires them to oppose." Essentially, this proscription applies to a
situation where opposing parties are the lawyer's present and/or former
clients. Here, Atty. Panem is correct that he cannot be held administratively
liable for violation of Section 13 because he only represented Ascaño in the
civil action and no one else.1aшphi1

This is not to say that Atty. Panem is without any administrative liability in
20
this regard. The records show that in the complaint for reconveyance that
he prepared for Ascaño, Atty. Panem made it appear that the latter had signed
21
the Deed in his presence before he notarized the document. Despite
Ascaño's demands, Atty. Panem did not amend the complaint in order to
adhere to his client's narration of facts. As such, Ascaño was constrained to
 22
hire another counsel who, in turn, filed an amended complaint on her
behalf.

More than that, Atty. Panem clearly acted for his own selfish interests by
stating in the pleading that Ascaño personally appeared before him to have
the Deed notarized. As the Investigating Commissioner aptly observed, Atty.
Panem only offered to represent Ascaño in the civil action to recover the
property because he was aware of the mistake he made when he notarized the
document in the absence of the seller. Indeed, Atty. Panem's dishonest
conduct is evinced by the fact that he changed the narrative against his
client's wishes in an obvious attempt to clear himself of any wrongdoing.

By knowingly making untruthful statements in a pleading filed in court,

Atty. Panem clearly violated Section 2, paragraphs 2 and 3 and Section 6,
Canon III as well as Section 1, Canon IV of the CPRA, which provide:

CANON III

Section 2. The responsible and accountable lawyer. – x x x

As an officer of the court, a lawyer shall uphold the rule of law

and conscientiously assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice.

As an advocate, a lawyer shall represent the client with fidelity

and zeal within the bounds of law and the CPRA.

Section 6. Fiduciary duty of a lawyer. – A lawyer shall be

mindful of the trust and confidence reposed by the client. x x x

CANON IV

A lawyer professionally handling a client's cause shall, to the

best of his or her ability, observe competence, diligence,
commitment, and skill consistent with the fiduciary nature of the
lawyer-client relationship, regardless of the nature of the legal
matter or issues involved, and whether for a fee or pro bono.

Section 1. Competent, efficient and conscientious service. – A

lawyer shall provide legal service that is competent, efficient, and
conscientious. A lawyer shall be thorough in research,
 preparation, and application of the legal knowledge and skills
necessary for an engagement.

Moreover, Atty. Panem likewise breached his duties under the Revised
Lawyer's Oath to promote the rule of law and a regime of truth and justice and
to do no falsehood both in and out of court.

The Proper Penalties

It is settled that a notary public who violates the Notarial Rules is meted
out with the following penalties: one, revocation of notarial commission, if
existing; two, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public;
and three, suspension from the practice of law. Notably, the period of
23
suspension varies depending on the circumstances of each case.

Under Section 33(b) and (p), Canon VI of the CPRA, making untruthful
statements and violating the Notarial Rules in bad faith, with the exception of
reportorial requirements, are both considered as serious offenses and
sanctioned under Section 37 (a) of the same Canon as follows:

Section 37. Sanctions. –

(a) If the respondent is found guilty of a serious offense, any

of the following sanctions, or a combination thereof, shall be
imposed:

(1) Disbarment;

(2) Suspension from the practice of law for a period exceeding six
(6) months;

(3) Revocation of notarial commission and disqualification as

notary public for not less than two (2) years; or

(4) A fine exceeding Php100,000.00.

In relation thereto, Sections 39 and 40, Canon VI of the CPRA provides:

Section 39. Manner of imposition. - If one (1) or more

aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances are
present, the Supreme Court may impose the penalties of
suspension or fine for a period or amount not exceeding double
 of the maximum prescribed under this Rule. The Supreme Court
may, in its discretion, impose the penalty of disbarment
depending on the number and gravity of the aggravating
circumstances.

If one (1) or more mitigating circumstances and no

aggravating circumstances are present, the Supreme Court may
impose the penalties of suspension or fine for a period or amount
not less than half of the minimum prescribed under the CPRA.

If there are both aggravating and mitigating circumstances

present, the Supreme Court may offset each other. (Italics
supplied.)

Section 40. Penalty for multiple offenses. –

If the respondent is found liable for more than one (1) offense
arising from separate acts or omissions in a single administrative
proceeding, the Court shall impose separate penalties for each
offense. Should the aggregate of the imposed penalties exceed
five (5) years of suspension from the practice of law or
₱1,000,000.00 in fines, the respondent may, in the discretion of
the Supreme Court, be meted with the penalty of disbarment.

If a single act or omission gives rise to more than one (1)

offense, the respondent shall still be found liable for all such
offenses, but shall, nonetheless, only be meted with the
appropriate penalty for the most serious offense. (Italics
supplied.)

24
Notably, in Ong v. Bijis, the Court found the respondent lawyer
administratively liable for notarizing a document without the presence of the
affiants and, at the same time, failing to require the parties who actually
appeared before him to provide a competent evidence of their identities.
Consequently, the Court revoked his notarial commission, disqualified him
from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years, and suspended
him from the practice of law for six (6) months.

25
Then, in Lopez v. Mata, et al., the Court held that one of the respondent
lawyers failed to comply with his duty as a notary public to submit his notarial
report as the Notarial Rules mandated for which he was sanctioned with: (a)
suspension from the practice of law for (6) six months; (b) revocation of his
incumbent notarial commission; and (c) disqualification from being
commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.

Given the factual milieu of the case as well as Atty. Panem's apparent lack
of remorse for his actions, he is hereby meted out with the following penalties
for each offense he committed pursuant to the above-mentioned provisions of
the CPRA:

(a) For violating the Notarial Rules in bad faith, which is bolstered by his
feeble attempts to cover it up after the fact, the Court suspends Atty.
Panem from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, revokes his
notarial commission, if existing, and disqualifies him from being
commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years; and

(b) For making untruthful statements, the Court imposes against Atty. Panem
a fine in the amount of ₱100,000.50.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Mario V. Panem GUILTY of

violating A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, or the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, A.M. No.
22-09-01-SC, or the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability,
and the Revised Lawyer’s Oath. Accordingly, the Court imposes the following
sanctions against him:

(a) Suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, revocation
of notarial commission, if existing, and disqualification from being
commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years, effective
immediately, for violation of the 2006 Rules on Notarial Practice; and

(b) A fine in the amount of ₱100,000.50 for making untruthful statements in a

pleading filed in court.

The Court likewise STERNLY WARNS respondent Atty. Mario V. Panem

that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more
severely.

The suspension from the practice of law shall take effect immediately
upon receipt of respondent Atty. Mario V. Panem of this Decision. He is
DIRECTED to immediately file a Manifestation to the Court that his
suspension has started, copy furnished all courts and quasi-judicial bodies
where he has entered his appearance as counsel.
 Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant
to be appended to the personal record of respondent Atty. Mario V. Panem as
an attorney; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its information and
guidance; and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all
courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.