Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 398 views

    Arrieta Vs Llosa

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Vega
    Atty. Joel Llosa was suspended from practice for six months for notarizing a deed of sale where the vendors were already deceased. The Supreme Court ruled that notarizing documents without properly verifying parties is a violation of the Notarial Law and grounds for misconduct. While the complainant moved to dismiss the case, the Court emphasized lawyers' responsibility to obey all laws and their duty to conduct due diligence in notarial processes. The ruling serves as a warning that future infractions will be dealt with more severely.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Arrieta Vs Llosa

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Vega
    398 views1 page
    Atty. Joel Llosa was suspended from practice for six months for notarizing a deed of sale where the vendors were already deceased. The Supreme Court ruled that notarizing documents without properly verifying parties is a violation of the Notarial Law and grounds for misconduct. While the complainant moved to dismiss the case, the Court emphasized lawyers' responsibility to obey all laws and their duty to conduct due diligence in notarial processes. The ruling serves as a warning that future infractions will be dealt with more severely.

    Original Title

    Arrieta vs Llosa

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Atty. Joel Llosa was suspended from practice for six months for notarizing a deed of sale where the vendors were already deceased. The Supreme Court ruled that notarizing documents without properly verifying parties is a violation of the Notarial Law and grounds for misconduct. While the complainant moved to dismiss the case, the Court emphasized lawyers' responsibility to obey all laws and their duty to conduct due diligence in notarial processes. The ruling serves as a warning that future infractions will be dealt with more severely.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    398 views1 page

    Arrieta Vs Llosa

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Vega
    Atty. Joel Llosa was suspended from practice for six months for notarizing a deed of sale where the vendors were already deceased. The Supreme Court ruled that notarizing documents without properly verifying parties is a violation of the Notarial Law and grounds for misconduct. While the complainant moved to dismiss the case, the Court emphasized lawyers' responsibility to obey all laws and their duty to conduct due diligence in notarial processes. The ruling serves as a warning that future infractions will be dealt with more severely.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    VEGA, PAOLO D.

    June 15, 2012 Case Brief

    JD1

    USLS

    Legal Research Atty. Jocelle Batapa-Sigue

    Arrieta v. Llosa, 282 SCRA 248 A.C. No. 4369, November 28, 1997

    FACTS: Complainant Pike P. Arrieta filed a disbarment case against respondent, Atty. Joel A. Llosa for notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale, wherein, the vendors were already dead prior to its execution. Respondent sought to dismiss the disbarment case having admitted that he notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale, exercising due diligence and procedural verification of parties concerned, upon the expeditious request of his clients. On September 9, 1996 the complainant moved for the dismissal of his complaint arguing that no harm was done and the disbarment case was only a product of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of some facts. The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) resolved to dismiss the case after finding no reason for such disbarment case to proceed. The Supreme Court did not agree with the IBP and ruled otherwise. ISSUE: Should Atty. Joel A. Llosa be disbarred or suspended from practice of Law? RULING: Respondent ordered SUSPENDED for six months from practice of law with a warning that another infraction will be dealt with more severely. Citing Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 also known as the Notarial law, the Supreme Court explained the importance of adherence to said law as part of the responsibility of a duly deputized authority to conduct such notarial process. Due diligence is to be observed, this being part of a lawyers professional responsibility and procedural lapse is not an excuse to cater to the convenience of clients. Any violation is tantamount to misconduct. Such misconduct is a ground for disbarment as stated by the Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the Supreme Court stressed the primordial responsibility of lawyers to obey the constitution and laws of the land as stated in Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Any deviation from such is violative of the lawyers oath and the duty they have subscribed into. PONENTE: Romero, J. Narvasa, (C.J., Chairman), Melo, Francisco, and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

    You might also like