Gimeno V Atty. Zaide
Gimeno V Atty. Zaide
Facts:
Joy A. Gimeno (Cimeno) filed a complaint with the IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline, charging Atty. Zaide
with: (1) usurpation of a notary public's office; (2) falsification; (3) use of intemperate, offensive and abusive
language; and (4) violation of lawyer-client trust. Gimeno alleged that even before Atty. Zaide's
admissionhttps://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/apr2015/ac_10303_2015.html - fnt4 to the Bar and receipt of
his notarial commission, he had notarized a partial extrajudicial partition with deed of absolute sale on March 29,
2002. She also accused Atty. Zaide of making false and irregular entries in his notarial registers. Gimeno further
submitted that she was Atty. Zaide's former client. Despite their previous lawyer-client relationship, Atty. Zaide still
appeared against her in the complaint for estafa and violation of RA 3019 that one Priscilla Somontan (Somontan)
filed against her with the Ombudsman. Gimeno contended that Atty. Zaide’s statements constitute intemperate,
offensive and abusive language, which a lawyer is proscribed from using in his dealings.
In his answer, Atty. Zaide argued that he did not notarize the March 29, 2002 partial extrajudicial
partition. As it appeared on the notarial page of this document, his notarial stamp and falsified signature were
superimposed over the typewritten name of Atty. Elpedio Cabasan, the lawyer who actually notarized this
document. Atty. Zaide claimed that Gimeno falsified his signature to make it appear that he notarized it before his
admission to the Bar. On the alleged falsification of his notarial entries, Atty. Zaide contended that he needed to
simultaneously use several notarial registers in his separate satellite offices in order to better cater to the needs of
his clients and accommodate their growing number. This explains the irregular and non-sequential entries in his
notarial registers. Atty. Zaide argued that Gimeno was never his client since she did not personally hire him as her
counsel. Gimeno engaged the services of ZMZ where he previously worked as an associate. The real counsel of
Gimeno and her relatives in their annulment of title case was Atty. Leo Montalban Zaragoza, one of ZMZ's
partners. He denied that he used any intemperate, offensive, and abusive language in his pleadings.
Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo, Jr. (Commissioner Magpayo) found Atty. Zaide administratively liable
for violating the Notarial Practice Rules, representing conflicting interests, and using abusive and insulting language
in his pleadings. The IBP Board of Governors (Board) modified the recommended penalty and imposed instead the
penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, if existing, and two
years suspension from being commissioned as a notary public.Atty. Zaide sought for the reconsideration of the
Board's resolution but this was also denied in its subsequent resolution.
Ruling: The Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors' findings and recommended penalty, and accordingly
confirms them.
1
Applying these tests, we find no conflict of interest when Atty. Zaide appeared against Gimeno, his former law
firm's client. The lawyer-client relationship between Atty. Zaide and Gimeno ceased when Atty. Zaide left ZMZ.
Moreover, the case where Gimeno engaged ZMZ's services is an entirely different subject matter and is not in any
way connected to the complaint that Somontan filed against Gimeno with the Ombudsman.
Atty. Zaide is found GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and for using intemperate,
offensive and, abusive language in violation of Rule 8.01, Canon 8 and Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.