DIZON v. CABUCANA, JR.
A.C. No. 10185
March 12, 2014
FACTS: Complainant, Licerio
Dizon, alleged that he was one of the “would be” buyers of a parcel of land owned
by Callangan in a Civil Case filed before the MTC. On that case, a compromise
agreement was executed by the parties before respondent, Atty. Mercelino Cabucana,
Jr.
At
the hearing, the signatories regarding the compromise agreement therein
testified that they signed the instrument in the court room of MTCC but not in
the presence of Atty. Cabucana as Notary Public; hence, there was delay in the
decision of the case which caused damage and injury to the complainant. They
also alleged that Atty. Cabucana violated the Notarial Law by notarizing in the
absence of most of the signatories and uttered grave threats against him after
the hearing of the said case.
Hence,
he filed a petition against Atty. Cabucana, before the IBP, praying for the
disbarment of the latter for falsification of public document.
In
his answer, he averred that the complaint was intended to harass him for he was
the private prosecutor on a criminal case against Dizon and lack of cause of
action for he was only a “would be” buyer.
ISSUE: Whether or not he violated
a rule in the CPR through his conduct
RULING: Yes. As
a notary public, Atty. Cabucana should not notarize a document unless the
person who signs it is the same person executing it and personally appearing
before him to attest to the truth of its contents. This is to enable him to
verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to
ascertain that the document is the party's free and voluntary act and deed.
Hence,
the Court finds respondent Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. guilty of violating
Rule 1.01, Canon l of the CPR and suspends him from the practice of law for
three (3) months, and prohibits him from being commissioned as a notary public
for two (2) years with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar
offense shall be dealt with more severely.
No comments:
Post a Comment