Scribd
Upload
643 views9 pages

Flordelina Ascano

This case involves a complaint filed by Flordelina Ascano against Atty. Mario Panem. Ascano alleges that Panem notarized a deed of absolute sale without her presence as the supposed seller. When confronted, Panem offered to handle getting the property back but later filed a case not adhering to Ascano's facts. Ascano then filed an administrative case against Panem for notarization violations and failing to submit his notarial register. Panem argued Ascano signed in his presence and his records were destroyed in a flood. The court ruled Panem administratively liable for not fulfilling his duties as a lawyer according to the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Uploaded by

Emer May Ballete
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
643 views9 pages

Flordelina Ascano

This case involves a complaint filed by Flordelina Ascano against Atty. Mario Panem. Ascano alleges that Panem notarized a deed of absolute sale without her presence as the supposed seller. When confronted, Panem offered to handle getting the property back but later filed a case not adhering to Ascano's facts. Ascano then filed an administrative case against Panem for notarization violations and failing to submit his notarial register. Panem argued Ascano signed in his presence and his records were destroyed in a flood. The court ruled Panem administratively liable for not fulfilling his duties as a lawyer according to the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Uploaded by

Emer May Ballete
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 9

FLORDELINA ASCANO

VS
ATTY. MARIO V. PANEM
CASE DIGEST
FACT:
• In the complaint, Ascano alleged that Atty.
Panem notarized a dead of absolute sale in
favor of spouses Severino and Matilde
Domingo, Ilocos Sur, without her presence as
the supposed seller thereof.
Petitioner recounted that when she
confronted atty. Panem about it, he
volunteered to handle the case in order to get
the property back from spouses Guillermo.
Initially, Ascano accepted Atty. Panem’s offer,
but she later learned that the latter did not
adhere to her narration of facts when he filed
the action in court on her behalf.
As a result, petitioner filed an administrative case
against Atty. Panem for violation of the National
Rules when he notarized the deed without the
presence of one of the parties, he failed to submit
his notarial register for the period 2006-2007. She
also charged Atty. Panem with representing
conflicting interest in breach of the CPR.
In his defense, respondent countered that
petitioner, who presented his community tax
certificate as evidence of her identity, actually
signed the deed in his presence. He explained
that his notarial register and all notatrial
documents were destroyed because his law
office was flooded. He also argued that he was
not guilty of representing conflicting interests as
he only represented the petitioner in the civil
action concerning the property in question.
ISSUE:
• Whether or not Atty. Panem should be held
administratively liable for his actions?
RULLING:
• Yes, Atty. Panem should be held administratively liable for
his action.

• Under Canon III, Sec 2, Par 2 and 3, the responsible and


accountable lawyer – as an officer of the court, a lawyer
shall uphold the rule of law and conscientiously assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice.
As an advocate, a lawyer shall represent the client with
fidelity and zeal within the bounds of law and the CPRA.
In this case, the respondent should abide to what
they agreed upon with the petitioner. He should be
responsible enough as a lawyer to do his bounden
duty.

You might also like