Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 538 views

    Agadan v. Kilaan

    Uploaded by

    Gel Maulion
    1. Respondent, a notary public, is found guilty of violating the Notarial Law for failing to properly record a verification he notarized in his notarial register. Instead of recording it as a verification, he recorded it as a deed of sale. 2. Respondent is also found guilty of violating his oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility by making false statements in pleadings submitted to the IBP. He falsely claimed that one of the complainants was abroad, when an affidavit from the complainant stated he had never left the country. 3. As a result of these violations, the Supreme Court revoked respondent's notarial commission.

    Copyright:

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

    Agadan v. Kilaan

    Uploaded by

    Gel Maulion
    538 views2 pages
    1. Respondent, a notary public, is found guilty of violating the Notarial Law for failing to properly record a verification he notarized in his notarial register. Instead of recording it as a verification, he recorded it as a deed of sale. 2. Respondent is also found guilty of violating his oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility by making false statements in pleadings submitted to the IBP. He falsely claimed that one of the complainants was abroad, when an affidavit from the complainant stated he had never left the country. 3. As a result of these violations, the Supreme Court revoked respondent's notarial commission.

    Original Description:

    legal ethics

    Original Title

    agadan v. kilaan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Respondent, a notary public, is found guilty of violating the Notarial Law for failing to properly record a verification he notarized in his notarial register. Instead of recording it as a verification, he recorded it as a deed of sale. 2. Respondent is also found guilty of violating his oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility by making false statements in pleadings submitted to the IBP. He falsely claimed that one of the complainants was abroad, when an affidavit from the complainant stated he had never left the country. 3. As a result of these violations, the Supreme Court revoked respondent's notarial commission.

    Copyright:

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

    Agadan v. Kilaan

    Uploaded by

    Gel Maulion
    1. Respondent, a notary public, is found guilty of violating the Notarial Law for failing to properly record a verification he notarized in his notarial register. Instead of recording it as a verification, he recorded it as a deed of sale. 2. Respondent is also found guilty of violating his oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility by making false statements in pleadings submitted to the IBP. He falsely claimed that one of the complainants was abroad, when an affidavit from the complainant stated he had never left the country. 3. As a result of these violations, the Supreme Court revoked respondent's notarial commission.

    Copyright:

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

    Violation of Notarial Law

    MARIANO AGADAN, EDEN MOLLEJON, ARSENIO IGME, JOSE NUMBAR,


    CECILIA LANGAWAN, PABLO PALMA, JOSELITO CLAVERIA, MIGUEL FLORES,
    and ALBERT GAYDOWEN vs. ATTY. RICHARD BALTAZAR KILAAN
    [A.C. No. 9385. November 11, 2013.]
    DEL CASTILLO, J p:

    Facts:
    Complainants filed before the IBP-Baguio-Benguet Chapter a complaint against
    respondent Atty. Kilaan for falsification of documents, dishonesty and deceit. They
    alleged that respondent intercalated certain entries in the application for issuance of
    Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to operate public utility jeepney filed before the
    LTFRB-Cordillera Administrative Region and substituted the name of the applicant from
    Adasing to Batingwed; and respondent submitted false and/or insufficient documentary
    requirements in support of Batingwed's application for CPC; that respondent prepared a
    decision based on the resolution of the LTFRB Central Office which dismissed the
    Opposition filed by the complainants; and that the said Decision was adopted by the
    LTFRB-CAR.

    The IBP-Baguio-Benguet Chapter endorsed the Complaint to the IBP Commission on
    Bar Discipline (CBD) for appropriate action. Respondent denied violating the Lawyer's
    Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He claimed that Batingwed had
    decided to abandon his application hence he no longer submitted the necessary
    requirements therefor. Respondent claimed that he knew about the favorable Decision
    only when Batingwed showed him the same. He narrated that considering the
    incomplete documents, the LTFRB mistakenly approved Batingwed's application.
    He denied intercalating the entries in the application for CPC of Batingwed. He averred
    that once an application has been filed, the application and all accompanying records
    remain with the LTFRB and could no longer be retrieved by the applicant or his counsel.
    Respondent further explained that it was Adasing who paid the filing fee in behalf of
    Batingwed but the cashier erroneously indicated Adasing instead of Batingwed as
    payor.

    Complainants on the other hand, alleged that the Verification in Batingwed's application
    actually refers to a Deed of Sale and not the Verification of Batingwed's application.
    Complainants also presented an Affidavit of Adasing claiming that he never left the
    country. CIAHDT

    The Investigating Commissioner found that complainants failed to prove that Atty.
    Kilaan intercalated the entries. However, respondent was not totally absolved as he was
    found liable for violating the Notarial Law considering that the Verification of Batingwed's
    application was actually recorded as a Deed of Sale in his Notarial Register. In addition,
    respondent lied under oath when he alleged that Adasing was abroad as this was
    squarely belied by Adasing in his Affidavit.
    The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved with modification.
    Issue:
    Is respondent guilty of violating the Notarial Law, the Lawyers Oath and the Code of
    Professional Responsibility?

    Held:
    YES, respondent is guilty. It is settled that it is the notary public who is personally
    accountable for the accuracy of the entries in his Notarial Register. The Court is not
    persuaded by respondent's explanation that he is burdened with cases thus he was
    constrained to delegate the recording of his notarial acts in his Notarial Register to his
    secretary. Stated in Rule VI, Sections 1 and 2 of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice
    require a notary public to keep and maintain a Notarial Register wherein he will record
    his every notarial act. His failure to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial
    register concerning his notarial acts is a ground for revocation of his notarial
    commission. As mentioned, respondent failed to make the proper entries in his Notarial
    Register; as such, his notarial commission may be properly revoked.
    Aside from violating the Notarial Law, respondent also violated his Lawyer's Oath and
    the Code of Professional Responsibility by committing falsehood in the pleadings he
    submitted before the IBP. His claim that Adasing was abroad was proved to be
    untruthful when complainants submitted the Affidavit of Adasing insisting that he never
    left the country. Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
    expressly provides that "[a] lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing
    of any in Court; nor shall be mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice." In
    the same vein, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 mandates that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in
    unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Respondent failed to observe these
    Rules and hence must be sanctioned.

    Hence, the notarial commission of Atty. Richard Baltazar Kilaan is revoked.

    You might also like