Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    Vs. ATTY. GREGORIO E. ARIOLA, JR., Respondent

    Uploaded by

    Ronniel
    Respondent notarized a Special Power of Attorney dated January 4, 2001 that authorized Cesar Goco to receive payment for construction work from the Municipality of Cainta. However, the person whose signature was notarized, Juanito Benitez, had died on October 25, 2000, over two months prior to the notarization. Respondent claimed inadvertence but it was evident the document was part of a scheme to defraud the municipality. Therefore, the IBP recommended revoking respondent's notary commission and suspending him from practicing law for one year. The Supreme Court agreed and disbarred respondent, finding his actions violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and constituted gross misconduct.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Vs. ATTY. GREGORIO E. ARIOLA, JR., Respondent

    Uploaded by

    Ronniel
    71 views2 pages
    Respondent notarized a Special Power of Attorney dated January 4, 2001 that authorized Cesar Goco to receive payment for construction work from the Municipality of Cainta. However, the person whose signature was notarized, Juanito Benitez, had died on October 25, 2000, over two months prior to the notarization. Respondent claimed inadvertence but it was evident the document was part of a scheme to defraud the municipality. Therefore, the IBP recommended revoking respondent's notary commission and suspending him from practicing law for one year. The Supreme Court agreed and disbarred respondent, finding his actions violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and constituted gross misconduct.

    Original Description:

    ethics

    Original Title

    Sicat v Ariola

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondent notarized a Special Power of Attorney dated January 4, 2001 that authorized Cesar Goco to receive payment for construction work from the Municipality of Cainta. However, the person whose signature was notarized, Juanito Benitez, had died on October 25, 2000, over two months prior to the notarization. Respondent claimed inadvertence but it was evident the document was part of a scheme to defraud the municipality. Therefore, the IBP recommended revoking respondent's notary commission and suspending him from practicing law for one year. The Supreme Court agreed and disbarred respondent, finding his actions violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and constituted gross misconduct.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    71 views2 pages

    Vs. ATTY. GREGORIO E. ARIOLA, JR., Respondent

    Uploaded by

    Ronniel
    Respondent notarized a Special Power of Attorney dated January 4, 2001 that authorized Cesar Goco to receive payment for construction work from the Municipality of Cainta. However, the person whose signature was notarized, Juanito Benitez, had died on October 25, 2000, over two months prior to the notarization. Respondent claimed inadvertence but it was evident the document was part of a scheme to defraud the municipality. Therefore, the IBP recommended revoking respondent's notary commission and suspending him from practicing law for one year. The Supreme Court agreed and disbarred respondent, finding his actions violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and constituted gross misconduct.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    ARTURO L.

    SICAT, complainant,
    vs. ATTY. GREGORIO E. ARIOLA, JR., respondent.

    FACTS:
    The Municipality of Cainta had entered into a contract with J.C. Benitez Architect and Technical
    Management, represented by Benitez, for the construction of low-cost houses.

     The architectural and engineering designs with two consultants amounted


    to P11,000,000
     The Municipality of Cainta issued a check dated January 10, 2001 in the amount
    of P3,700,000, payable to J.C. Benitez Architects and Technical Management and/or
    Cesar Goco.
    The check was received and encashed by the latter by virtue of the authority of the SPA
    notarized by respondent Ariola.

    However, the SPA notarized by Atty. Ariola was falsified by making it appear that certain
    persons participated in an act or proceeding when in fact they did not.

     Respondent notarized the SPA dated January 4, 2001 purportedly executed by


    Juanito Benitez.
     The SPA was notarized with a notarial acknowledgement of Ariola that Benitez
    appeared before him.
     But Benitez died on Oct 25, 2000. Which is more than two months prior to the
    notarization of the said document.
    Arturo L. Sicat, a Board Member of the Sangguniang Panglalawigan of Rizal, charged
    respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola, the Municipal Administrator of Cainta, Rizal, with violation
    of the Code of Professional Responsibility by committing fraud, deceit and falsehood in his
    dealings, particularly the notarization of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly
    executed by a one Juanito C. Benitez

    RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:
    He claimed that due to inadvertence, it was only on January 4, 2001 that he was able to
    notarize it. Nevertheless, the SPA notarized by him on January 4, 2001 was not at all necessary
    because Benitez had signed a similar SPA in favor of Goco sometime before his death,
    on May 12, 2000. He prayed that the complaint be dismissed on the ground of forum-shopping
    since similar charges had been filed with the Civil Service Commission and the Office of the
    Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. Since complaints were already dismissed.
    IBP’S RECOMMENDATION:
    It is evident that the Special Power of Attorney dated 4 January 2001 was part of a scheme of
    individuals to defraud the Municipality of Cainta of money which was allegedly due them, and
    that respondent by notarizing said Special Power of Attorney helped said parties succeed in
    their plans.

    Therefore, respondents notarial commission be revoked and that he be suspended from


    the practice of law for a period of one year.

    ISSUE: WON respondent should be disbarred on the ground of gross misconduct


    HELD: YES. His act was a serious breach of the sacred obligation imposed upon him by
    the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, which
    prohibited him from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. As a
    lawyer and as an officer of the court, it was his duty to serve the ends of justice, not to
    corrupt it. Oath-bound, he was expected to act at all times in accordance with law and ethics,
    and if he did not, he would not only injure himself and the public but also bring reproach upon an
    honorable profession.
    Notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routinary act.[13] It converts a private document
    into a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary
    proof of its authenticity and due execution.
    As the Municipal Administrator of Cainta, he should have been aware of his great responsibility
    not only as a notary public but as a public officer as well. A public office is a public trust.
    WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola, Jr., is found guilty of gross misconduct
    and is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law
    -smp

    You might also like