Guerrero v. Hernando
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case involves a disbarment complaint filed by Mercedes R. Vda. de Guerrero against Atty. Harold M. Hernando. The complaint stemmed from two main allegations: first, that Atty. Hernando improperly included several individuals as plaintiffs in a partition case without their authorization, and second, that he misrepresented information regarding a residence certificate in the jurat of a tenancy contract presented in that same partition case. 2. Procedural History: The disbarment complaint was initiated by Mrs. Guerrero against Atty. Hernando. Following the filing of the complaint, Atty. Hernando provided an explanation for his actions regarding the inclusion of plaintiffs, stating he acted at the behest of Mateo H. Reyes and later amended the complaint to reflect the plaintiffs' wishes. Regarding the residence certificate, Atty. Hernando claimed it was a clerical error. The Solicitor General reviewed the explanation and recommended dismissal of the malpractice charge related to the plaintiffs. However, the court found Atty. Hernando guilty of misconduct as a notary concerning the residence certificate misrepresentation. 3. The Petition: While the input text does not explicitly detail a petition to the Supreme Court in the traditional sense (as this is an administrative case originating from a complaint), the core of the matter brought before the Court was the disbarment complaint filed by Mrs. Guerrero. The arguments presented revolved around Atty. Hernando's professional conduct, specifically his alleged malpractice in handling the partition case and his misrepresentation as a notary. The Court's resolution addresses these allegations, ultimately dismissing the malpractice charge concerning the plaintiffs but censuring Atty. Hernando for the notary misconduct and suspending him from acting as a notary public for one year.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Hernando committed malpractice in including certain individuals as plaintiffs in a partition case without their express authorization. Whether Atty. Hernando committed misconduct as a notary public by misrepresenting the exhibition of a residence certificate in a jurat.
Ruling
The charge of malpractice for including plaintiffs without authorization is dismissed. Atty. Hernando is found guilty of misconduct as a notary public for the misrepresentation regarding the residence certificate. He is severely censured and suspended from acting as a notary public for one year.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of malpractice for including plaintiffs without authorization: The Court dismissed this charge, giving credence to Atty. Hernando's explanation that he was engaged by Mateo H. Reyes to file the partition complaint and was directed by Mateo to include his nephews and nieces as co-plaintiffs. The Court noted that four of these individuals had executed a special power of attorney designating Mateo as their representative in the litigation. Furthermore, in a partition action, all co-owners should be joined as parties, which supports the initial inclusion of these individuals. The fact that they later revoked their authority and were subsequently dropped as plaintiffs and impleaded as defendants further supports the finding that Atty. Hernando acted in good faith and not with professional misconduct in the initial filing. On the charge of misconduct as a notary public for misrepresentation regarding the residence certificate: The Court found Atty. Hernando guilty of misconduct. It was incontrovertible that he made it appear in the jurat of a tenancy contract that Tranquilino Bernardo exhibited a specific residence certificate, when records indicated that certificate was issued to Antonio Raymundo. Atty. Hernando's defense of a "clerical or typographical error" was not sustained, as Bernardo did not testify to support the claim, and the testimony of Mateo H. Reyes regarding the certificate was deemed fabricated. The Court emphasized that the exhibition of a residence certificate is a requirement for acknowledgment before a notary to ascertain identity and unmask impostors. Making such a misrepresentation violates the attorney's oath to "obey the laws" and "do no falsehood," justifying disciplinary action. The Court distinguished this case from Samonte vs. Rodrigo, Jr. where a notary acted in good faith, whereas here, the misrepresentation was censurable.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer acting as a notary public commits misconduct by making a false statement in the jurat regarding the exhibition of a residence certificate, even if claimed as a typographical error, as it violates the mandate to obey the laws and do no falsehood. Such misrepresentation warrants disciplinary action.