On April 27, 2012, OCA Circular No. 35-12 informed various judicial and legal bodies about the disciplinary actions taken against Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal. He was suspended from practicing law for one year and had his notarial commission revoked due to violations of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Additionally, he is disqualified from reappointment as a Notary Public for two years. The decision was finalized after the court denied his motion for reconsideration. Atty. Lacebal was warned that any future violations could result in more severe penalties.
April 27, 2012
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 35-12
| TO | : | The Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, Regional Trial Courts, Shari'a District Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Shari'a Circuit Courts, the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor, Public Attorney's Office and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines |
| SUBJECT | : | Suspension from the Practice of Law for One (1) Year of Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal and Revocation of His Notarial Commission and Disqualification from Reappointment as Notary Public for Two (2) Years |
For your information and guidance, quoted hereunder is the dispositive portion of the Decision of the Third Division dated 17 October 2011, in Administrative Case No. 7241, entitled "Atty. Florita S. Linco vs. Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal", to wit: STIHaE
"WHEREFORE, for breach of the Notarial Law and Code of Professional Responsibility, the notarial commission of respondent ATTY. JIMMY D. LACEBAL, is REVOKED. He is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two years. He is also SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one year, effective immediately. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. He is DIRECTED to report the date of receipt of this Decision in order to determine when his suspension shall take effect."
In a Resolution dated 15 February 2012, the Court DENIED with FINALITY the respondent's motion for reconsideration thereof.
(SGD.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZCourt Administrator