Maddela v. Dallong-Galicinao
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
1. The Antecedents: Complainant Benilda Maddela, a Clerk of Court, alleged that respondent Atty. Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao, also a Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff, engaged in acts unbecoming a public servant and lawyer, grave misconduct, and slander. The dispute stemmed from a loan Maddela took from Dallong-Galicinao, involving alleged unauthorized encashment of a cash gift check and demands for a portion of Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) checks. Additionally, a separate complaint alleged Dallong-Galicinao notarized documents outside her commissioned area and continued to claim her deceased husband's salary and benefits. 2. Procedural History: The complainant filed an affidavit-complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for disbarment and a separate administrative complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The OCA referred its complaint for investigation. The IBP Commissioner recommended suspension for six months due to notarizing outside her commission and obtaining JDF checks. The IBP Board of Governors, however, annulled this, dismissed the JDF check charge, and imposed a reprimand for notarizing outside her commission. This Court affirmed the dismissal of the JDF check charge and noted that the respondent was already reprimanded by the OCA for simple misconduct related to the loan dispute, including replacing a broken table. 3. The Petition: The remaining issue before the Supreme Court was the respondent's liability for notarizing documents outside her commissioned area. Although not initially part of the complainant's affidavit-complaint, the respondent admitted to the act. The Court found the IBP's recommended penalty of reprimand too light. Considering the misconduct occurred before the respondent was admitted to the Bar, the Court modified the IBP's resolution, imposing a fine of P10,000 for misconduct as a notary public, rather than disciplinary action as a lawyer.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent committed misconduct by collecting loan payments from the complainant's JDF checks and cash gifts. Whether the respondent committed misconduct by notarizing documents outside the area of her notarial commission. Whether the respondent committed misconduct by continuing to receive her deceased husband's salary checks and claiming higher tax deductions.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the IBP resolution. It affirmed the dismissal of the administrative complaint concerning the collection of loan payments from JDF checks and cash gifts. The Court imposed a fine of ₱10,000 on respondent Atty. Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao for misconduct as a notary public, modifying the IBP's penalty of reprimand, which was deemed too light.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of collecting loan payments from JDF checks and cash gifts: The Court affirmed the IBP's dismissal of this charge. The respondent presented evidence, including an affidavit from the creditor and an authorization from the complainant, to support her claim that she merely acted as a guarantor for the loan and that there was a verbal agreement and subsequent written authorization for the collection of JDF checks as loan installments. The Court found that the respondent had promptly informed the OCA of her husband's death and adjusted her tax status, refuting the allegations of unlawfully claiming her husband's salary and higher tax deductions. Therefore, the evidence did not sufficiently establish gross misconduct or violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 27-2001 regarding the collection of loan payments. On the issue of notarizing documents outside the area of her commission: The Court found the respondent liable for this act, despite it not being an original ground in the complainant's affidavit-complaint, due to the respondent's admission. The Court emphasized that notarization is a substantive act invested with public interest, and only qualified individuals may act as notaries public. The Court rejected the respondent's explanation that she acted as a favor to relatives without profit, stating that the fact of notarizing outside the commission area was sufficient misconduct. However, considering that this misconduct occurred before she was admitted to the Bar, the Court ruled that she could not be disciplined as a lawyer for this specific act but rather as a notary public. The penalty of reprimand recommended by the IBP was considered too light, and a fine was deemed a more appropriate sanction for this misconduct as a notary public. On the issue of receiving deceased husband's salary checks and tax deductions: The Court found no sufficient evidence to support these allegations. The respondent presented a letter to the OCA informing them of her husband's death and requesting the cessation of checks in his name. She also submitted her 1998 Income Tax Return, showing she declared herself as a 'head of the family' and not as a married individual, and that she had informed the OCA of this change in status. These pieces of evidence effectively refuted the claims of continued receipt of her husband's salary and improper tax deductions.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who commits misconduct as a notary public before admission to the Bar may be disciplined as a notary public, and the penalty should be appropriate for that role. The act of notarizing documents outside the area of one's notarial commission constitutes misconduct, regardless of whether profit was derived.