Ko Vs Uy Digest

ROLAND T. KO vs. ATTY.
ALMA UY-LAMPASA
SUSPEND 6M; REVOKES her notarial commission, effective immediately; and PROHIBITS her from being

commissioned as a notary public for 2 years.
FACTS:
This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Rolando T. Ko against Atty. Alma
Uy-Lampasa (respondent) with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), IBP alleging that Atty. Alma Uy-
Lampasa violated the CPR for Lawyers (CPR).
He claimed that respondent notarized two purported deeds of sale between Jerry Uy and the Sultan siblings
(heirs of a certain Pablo Sultan) over a parcel of land despite knowing that the two deeds of sale were
spurious. There are 10 Sultan siblings but only 8 of them appeared as vendors in the said deed of sale. The
Deeds of Absolute Sale dated October 12, 2011 and October 19, 2011, are similar in the following respects:
the vendee, the property covered, and the consideration. However, the two deeds differ as regards the name
of the vendors. For 1st deed, there were 8 vendors but only 3 of them signed the deed. For 2nd deed, 2
vendors were not included, while one of the vendors did not sign the deed. It is noted that only eight of the
ten Sultan siblings are involved, as Anicieto and Cristita do not appear in either of the deeds.
In short, respondent notarized two (2) documents of sale involving the same parties but containing different
dates of notarization
Ko also claimed that an Extra-judicial Settlement of Estate with Absolute Sale covering the same property
was executed between his son, Jason and all ten of the Sultan siblings. He claimed that in contrast with the
deeds of sale notarized by respondent, this Extra-judicial Settlement contains the signatures and
thumbmarks of all the Sultan siblings.
Jerry, the vendee in the said Deeds of Sale filed a malicious case of Estafa against Ko’s son Jason and the
Sultan siblings, grounded on the allegation that the Extra-judicial Settlement was not published when in
fact, it was published as evidenced by an Affidavit of Publication.
RULING
Investigating commissioner recommended that respondent shall be suspended as a Notary Public for a period of
SIX (6) MONTHS with a stern warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely.
IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of IC. It modified the
recommendation of the IC. In violation of notarial rules, IBP imposed on respondent the penalty of immediate
revocation of her notarial commission and disqualification for re-appointment as notary public for 2 years,
not six months as recommended by the IC. In addition, the IBP Board also suspended respondent from the
practice of law for a period of 6 months.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT VIOLATED THE NOTARIAL RULES.
HELD: YES
Under Section 6 of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
A notary public shall not notarize:(a) a blank or incomplete instrument or document; or (b) an instrument or

document without appropriate notarial certification.
In relation to that, SEC. 2 provides the “Prohibitions that (b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the
person involved as signatory to the instrument or document — (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at
the time of the notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the
notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
Before notarizing a document, the notary public should require the presence of the very person who executed the
same. Thus, he or she certifies that it was the same person who executed and personally appeared before him to
attest to the contents and truth of what were stated therein. The presence of the parties to the deed is necessary to
enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature.
In this case, respondent clearly violated this provision when she notarized the deeds of absolute sale despite the
incomplete signature and identification details of the vendors. Jurisprudence already holds that a CTC is not
considered as competent evidence of identity as it does not bear a photograph and a signature of the
individual concerned, as required in Rule II, Section 12 of the Notarial Rules.
Worse, while there are some signatures that do appear on the instruments, the vendors therein claimed that they
did not actually sign the deeds.
Based on recent jurisprudence, a lawyer commissioned as a notary public who fails to discharge his or her duties as
such is penalized with revocation of his or her notarial commission and disqualification from being commissioned as
a notary public for a period of 2 years. In addition, he or she may also be suspended from the practice of law for a
period of 6 months for notarizing a document without the appearance of the parties. Thus, the Court affirms the
penalty imposed by the IBP Board. Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa is found GUILTY of violating the Rules on Notarial
Practice and Rule 1.01 and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court hereby SUSPENDS her
from the practice of law for six (6) months; REVOKES her notarial commission, effective immediately;
and PROHIBITS her from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. She is further WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
The act of notarization is impressed with public interest. As such, a notary public must observe the highest degree of
care in complying with the basic requirements in the performance of his or her duties in order to preserve the
confidence of the public in the integrity of the notarial system. In this case, respondent failed to faithfully comply with
her duties as a notary public.

Ko Vs Uy Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ko Vs Uy Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ko Vs Uy Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROLAND T. KO vs. ATTY.

SUSPEND 6M; REVOKES her notarial commission, effective immediately; and PROHIBITS her from being

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT VIOLATED THE NOTARIAL RULES.

Under Section 6 of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice

A notary public shall not notarize:(a) a blank or incomplete instrument or document; or (b) an instrument or

You might also like