Apolinar-Petilo v. Maramot
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute centers on a deed of donation prepared and notarized by respondent Atty. Aristedes A. Maramot. The complainant, Marjorie A. Apolinar-Petilo, alleges that the respondent knowingly falsified the document by stating that the donees, Princess Anne Apolinar-Petilo and Ma. Mommayda V. Apolinar, were of legal age when they were, in fact, minors (12 and 16 1/2 years old, respectively). The respondent, who was also Mommayda's counsel in an adoption case, allegedly used this falsified deed as evidence in that proceeding. Marjorie contends this violated the Lawyer's Oath and professional responsibility rules. 2. Procedural History: The complainant filed a disbarment complaint against the respondent with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The respondent, in his defense, explained the circumstances surrounding the deed's preparation, including the donor's persistence and his advice regarding the minors' representation. The IBP Commissioner recommended the respondent's suspension from notarial practice for one year for violating the Notarial Law, while dismissing other complaints. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this, but modified the penalty to immediate revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification from reappointment for two years, alongside a one-year suspension from the practice of law. The respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied. He then filed a comment with the Supreme Court, which was treated as a petition for review. 3. The Petition: The respondent, through his comment treated as a petition for review, sought to overturn the IBP's resolutions. He argued that he did not employ falsity as only the donor attested to the deed's execution and that it was inconsequential if Princess Anne signed elsewhere. He also contended that the donation was valid and that the subsequent judicial partition ratified the deed. He pleaded for leniency, citing good faith and his role as a sole breadwinner. The complainant, in her comment, opposed the respondent's prayer and urged the Court to uphold the IBP's findings. The Supreme Court ultimately found the respondent guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and professional responsibility rules, but modified the penalty to a six-month suspension from the practice of law, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as a notary public for two years.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Aristedes A. Maramot violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by preparing and notarizing a deed of donation that falsely stated the donees were of legal age when they were minors. Whether respondent Atty. Aristedes A. Maramot violated the Notarial Law by improperly notarizing the deed of donation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolutions of the IBP Board of Governors, finding respondent Atty. Aristedes A. Maramot guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Rules on Notarial Practice. He was suspended from the practice of law for six months, with revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification from reappointment as Notary Public for two years. He was warned of a more stringent penalty upon repetition of the offense.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court held that the respondent violated his oath and the cited rules by preparing a deed of donation that falsely stated the donees, Princess Anne and Mommayda, were of legal age when he knew they were minors. His claim that he advised parental representation did not absolve him, as he proceeded to make the false statement. The ages of the donees were material facts bearing on their capacity to render the donation efficacious. His justification that the donor's persistence prevailed upon him was insufficient to excuse his dishonest conduct. The Court reiterated that truthfulness and honesty are paramount for attorneys, and good faith or good intentions cannot excuse a lawyer from discharging their obligation to be truthful and honest in professional actions. The respondent's submission of a simulated birth certificate in the adoption case was found not to be his direct act of misrepresentation, as the petition itself did not misrepresent Mommayda as the biological daughter, and the respondent was not shown to have provided the false details to the Local Civil Registrar. On the violation of the Notarial Law: The Court found that the respondent violated the Notarial Law by improperly notarizing the deed of donation. While the respondent claimed he did not employ falsity, the deed was not complete as Princess Anne and Mommayda, the donees, should have been included in the notarial acknowledgment, along with their parents or legal guardians due to their minority. The deed was not an integrally complete instrument when notarized, as required by the Rules on Notarial Practice. The IBP Commissioner's observation that Princess Anne signed not in the presence of the notary public was noted, but the primary issue was the incompleteness of the acknowledgment itself concerning the donees. The Court found the respondent's actions undermined public confidence in notarial documents.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who prepares a deed of donation indicating that the donees are of legal age when they are, in fact, minors, violates the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility for engaging in dishonest conduct. Furthermore, a notary public who improperly notarizes a document without the personal appearance and acknowledgment of all parties, especially when their ages are material, violates the Notarial Law and undermines public confidence in notarial documents.