A.C. No. 11238 - ATTY. MYLENE S. YUMUL-ESPINA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. BENEDICTO D. TABAQUERO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that, upon the prodding of the parties themselves, the complaint and the counter-complaint be dismissed." [54] The IBP Board should not have dismissed the cases on the basis of the affidavits of desistance filed by the parties. We now come to the merits of the complaint and the counter-complaint. We find respondent not guilty of violations of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant cannot argue that the intention behind the falsification cases filed by respondent (as counsel of Derek) against her and Shirley, respectively, was to circumvent the constitutional prohibition on foreign ownership of lands in the Philippines. In these cases, Derek did not seek that the ownership of the lands be conveyed to him. [55] The basis of these criminal complaints is complainant's act of malking it appear that Derek was present, or participated in the execution of the affidavits. The constitutional prohibition is therefore irrelevant in these criminal complaints. However, the counter-complaint against complainant, for violation of the Notarial Law, is meritorious. The evidence on record sufficiently showed that Derek could not have appeared before complainant on October 25, 1999, the day the Affidavit of Waiver was notarized. Derek's passport entries [56] and the certification [57] from the Bureau of Immigration show that after Derek departed from the Philippines for United Kingdom on September 27, 1999, his next arrival in the Philippines was on December 17, 1999. Records show that complainant failed to address this issue in any of the pleadings she filed in the proceedings before the IBP. The failure is despite the opportunities where complainant could have refuted the allegation. [58] We note that the only instance where it appeared that complainant may have addressed this issue was when respondent referred [59] to complainant's claim in his Comment/Opposition to the Petition for Review before the Department of Justice (DOJ). [60] We further note that the Comment/Opposition was an attachment to complainant's complaint-affidavit to prove merely that respondent continued to represent Derek in the proceedings before the DOJ. [61] The relevant portion provides: x x x [A]bout the claim of [complainant] that all what she could remember is that there was a man who appeared a foreigner ( sic ) and claimed to be [Derek]. Noticeably and conformably to the Notarial Law, there is need for personal appearance, positive proofs of identity for the notarization of the document. What was presented as identification and the claim that a foreigner appeared before her is largely on the basis of a Community Tax Certificate. The Community Tax Certificate that appeared on the Affidavit of Waiver of Rights, and surprisingly obtained by a foreigner who is not qualified to have a Community Tax Certificate, not being a Filipino citizen but a visitor, is entered as having been paid for and issued on September 28, 1999. This i