Lucente v. Evangelista, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Winnie C. Lucente and Alicia G. Domingo charged Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. with gross misconduct, deceit, malpractice, and crimes involving moral turpitude for falsification of public documents. They alleged that respondent issued certified true copies of a Deed of Quitclaim (May 7, 1977) and a Deed of Absolute Sale (January 7, 1972), which were notarized by his late father. Based on these certified copies, a Transfer Certificate of Title was issued. Respondent claimed he issued the certifications as a partner of the law office upon request, considering the documents were notarized by his father. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline investigated the complaint. The IBP Board of Governors recommended a reprimand with a stern warning. This Court noted the recommendation. Complainants filed a petition for review. The Petition: Complainants sought review of the IBP's recommendation, dissatisfied with a mere reprimand.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review was filed on time. Whether the respondent committed gross misconduct by certifying true copies of documents not notarized by him. Whether the doctrines of res adjudicata and prejudicial question apply to disbarment proceedings. Whether the complainants engaged in forum shopping.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. guilty of gross misconduct and ordered him SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months, with a warning against future infractions.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition: The Court noted that while one petitioner's receipt date was disputed, the period to appeal is reckoned from the receipt of the IBP Board of Governors' Resolution by the petitioners' counsel. The counsel received the resolution on June 13, 2000, making the motion for extension filed on June 22, 2000, timely. The Court emphasized that litigations should be decided on the merits, not on technicalities, and procedural rules should be liberally construed to achieve substantial justice, citing Tubiano v. Razo and A-One Feeds, Inc. v. Court of Appeals. On the commission of gross misconduct: The Court found that respondent admitted certifying true copies of the Deed of Quitclaim and Deed of Absolute Sale. However, he was not the notary public who acknowledged these documents, nor was he the custodian of the original copies. Section 245 of the Administrative Code of 1917 requires notaries public to keep a register and supply certified copies of their official acts. By certifying documents he did not notarize, respondent engaged in unlawful and deceitful conduct, violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The Court reiterated that notarization is a substantive public interest, and only qualified individuals may act as notaries public, as highlighted in Nunga v. Viray. On the applicability of res adjudicata and prejudicial question: The Court held that the doctrines of res adjudicata and prejudicial question apply only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, not to the Court's administrative powers, such as disbarment proceedings. The disbarment case concerns the lawyer's conduct as an officer of the court, distinct from the criminal case for falsification where he was proceeded against as a private individual, citing Dinsay v. Cioco. On forum shopping: The Court clarified that forum shopping, as defined in Administrative Circular No. 28-91, applies only to judicial cases or proceedings, not to disbarment proceedings. The disbarment case pertains to the respondent's act of certifying true copies, while Civil Case No. B-1250 concerned the validity of the documents themselves, thus, no forum shopping occurred.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who certifies true copies of documents not notarized by him, nor in his custody, commits gross misconduct, violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Court, and is subject to disciplinary action.