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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 74 views

    5 Zoreto V Simpliciano

    Uploaded by

    Bea Crisostomo
    This case involves a complaint filed against attorney Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano for notarizing several documents in 2002 after his commission as a notary public had expired. The complainant alleged that Simpliciano notarized documents used in a civil case despite not having a valid notary commission that year. An investigation found that Simpliciano did not renew his notary commission for Quezon City for 2002. The Supreme Court ruled that Simpliciano was not a duly commissioned notary for 2002 and suspended him from practice for two years for violating the Notarial Law and legal ethics.

    Copyright:

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

    5 Zoreto V Simpliciano

    Uploaded by

    Bea Crisostomo
    74 views1 page
    This case involves a complaint filed against attorney Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano for notarizing several documents in 2002 after his commission as a notary public had expired. The complainant alleged that Simpliciano notarized documents used in a civil case despite not having a valid notary commission that year. An investigation found that Simpliciano did not renew his notary commission for Quezon City for 2002. The Supreme Court ruled that Simpliciano was not a duly commissioned notary for 2002 and suspended him from practice for two years for violating the Notarial Law and legal ethics.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    5 Zoreto v Simpliciano

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a complaint filed against attorney Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano for notarizing several documents in 2002 after his commission as a notary public had expired. The complainant alleged that Simpliciano notarized documents used in a civil case despite not having a valid notary commission that year. An investigation found that Simpliciano did not renew his notary commission for Quezon City for 2002. The Supreme Court ruled that Simpliciano was not a duly commissioned notary for 2002 and suspended him from practice for two years for violating the Notarial Law and legal ethics.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    74 views1 page

    5 Zoreto V Simpliciano

    Uploaded by

    Bea Crisostomo
    This case involves a complaint filed against attorney Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano for notarizing several documents in 2002 after his commission as a notary public had expired. The complainant alleged that Simpliciano notarized documents used in a civil case despite not having a valid notary commission that year. An investigation found that Simpliciano did not renew his notary commission for Quezon City for 2002. The Supreme Court ruled that Simpliciano was not a duly commissioned notary for 2002 and suspended him from practice for two years for violating the Notarial Law and legal ethics.

    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 1

    LEGAL ETHICS | DIGESTS | 1D

    Case No. <5>: <Zoreta vs. Simpliciano>


    A.C. No. 6492. November 18, 2004.

    FACTS:
    This case is a complaint for disbarment filed against Atty. Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano
    for allegedly notarizing several documents during the year 2002 after his commission as notary
    public had expired.
    Complainant Melanio L. Zoreta alleged that he filed before the Regional Trial Court
    (RTC) of Antipolo City, a complaint for Breach of Contract and Damages against Security Pacific
    Assurance Corporation (SPAC) due to the latter’s failure to honor SPAC’s Commercial Vehicle
    Policy, where respondent Simpliciano was the latter’s counsel. Respondent Simpliciano who
    was not a duly commissioned Notary Public in 2002 performed several acts of notarization.
    Complainant submitted eight (8) notarized documents for the year 2002 consisting of affidavits
    of merit, certifications and verifications against non-forum shopping, and affidavits of service,
    were used and presented in the RTC of Antipolo City and in respondent’s petition for certiorari
    filed in the Court of Appeals. A certification issued by the Clerk of Court of RTC Quezon City
    showed that as per records on file with their office respondent was commissioned notary public
    for and in Quezon City from January 14, 2000 to December 31, 2001 and for the year 2002 and
    2003 he did not apply for notarial commission for Quezon City.
    Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro submitted her report and recommendation stating that
    respondent was in violation of the Notarial Law; for having notarized the 590 documents after
    the expiration of his commission as notary public without having renewed said commission
    amounting to gross misconduct as a member of the legal profession. The Board of Governors
    ordered his suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months to a suspension
    of six (6) months upon the recommendation of Commissioner Navarro.

    ISSUE:
    Whether respondent Simpliciano is not a duly commissioned Notary Public for and in
    Quezon City for the year 2002.

    PETITIONER (NAME): RESPONDENT (NAME):

    SC RULING:
    Yes, respondent Simpliciano is not a duly commissioned Notary Public for and in
    Quezon City for the year 2002.
    The requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public must not be treated
    as a mere casual formality. The Court has characterized a lawyer’s act of notarizing documents
    without the requisite commission therefore as “reprehensible, constituting as it does not only
    malpractice but also x x x the crime of falsification of public documents.” For one, performing a
    notarial without such commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws, more
    specifically, the Notarial Law. Also, the act of making it appear that he is duly commissioned
    when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which
    the lawyer’s oath similarly proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of
    Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: “A lawyer
    shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”
    By such misconduct as a notary public, the lawyer likewise violates Canon 7 of the same
    Code, which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal
    profession.
    The Court adopts the findings of Investigating Commissioner Navarro, which the Board
    of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted and approved, but hereby
    MODIFIES the penalty recommended by the Board of Governors. As modified, respondent is
    BARRED PERMANENTLY from being commissioned as Notary Public. He is furthermore
    SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years.

    You might also like