Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ATTY. FLORITA S. LINCO v. ATTY. JIMMY D. LACEBAL

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AC. No. 5482 2015-02-10	JIMMY ANUDON v. ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA LEONEN, J.
In Isenhardt v. Atty. Real,[50] Linco v. Atty. Lacebal,[51] Lanuzo v. Atty. Bongon,[52] and Bautista v. Atty. Bernabe,[53] the respondent notaries were all guilty of notarizing documents without the presence of the parties. In Linco, Lanuzo, and Bautista, the respondents notarized documents even if the persons executing those documents were already dead at the time of notarization. In Bautista, the respondent, like Atty. Cefra, also allowed another individual to sign on behalf of another despite lack of authorization.[54] In these cases, this court imposed the penalty of disqualification as notaries for two (2) years and suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.
	AC. No. 7919 2014-10-08	DOMADO DISOMIMBA SULTAN v. ATTY. CASAN MACABANDING REYES, J.
The complainant in Linco v. Lacebal[36] filed an administrative case against the respondent notary public for notarizing a deed of donation despite the latter's knowledge that the purported donor had already passed away on an earlier date. For this reason, the respondent's notarial commission was revoked and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years. Furthermore, he was suspended from the practice of law for one year.
	AC. No. 8761 2014-02-12	WILBERTO C. TALISIC v. ATTY. PRIMO R. RINEN REYES, J.
"[F]aithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct."[13] "The notarization of a document carries considerable legal effect. Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a substantial degree x x x."[14]