Muntuerto v. Alberto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants charged respondent Atty. Gerardo Wilfredo L. Alberto with falsification of public documents and wilful and deliberate violations of his oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility. They averred that respondent, as counsel for Cristeto E. Dinopol, Jr. in Civil Case No. 6835, attached to the complaint a supplemental agreement and an amended joint venture agreement which he had notarized in Cavite City, but he had no notarial commission for Cavite City. The Notarial Division of the RTC in Cavite City certified that it had no record of any commission appointing respondent as a notary public. Respondent also failed to indicate his MCLE certificate of compliance number and its issue date. Realizing the complaint was defective, respondent had his client sign and file a motion to admit an amended complaint, and respondent allegedly falsified a secretary's certificate to make it appear he was the acting corporate secretary of Singtrader JV Corporation, authorizing Dinopol, Jr. as its representative. Procedural History: Upon receipt of the administrative complaint, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) directed respondent to file an answer, but he failed to comply and was declared in default. Respondent also failed to attend the mandatory conference and file his position paper despite notice. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found the charges established and recommended a five-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings and recommendation, modifying the penalty to suspension for five years and imposing a fine of ₱5,000.00 for disregarding orders. Respondent did not appeal or move for reconsideration. The Petition: The issue presented to the Court was whether the respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by (a) notarizing documents without a notarial commission, (b) allowing a non-lawyer to sign a motion filed in court, and (c) failing to indicate his MCLE compliance number in a pleading.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing documents without a notarial commission. Whether the respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by allowing a non-lawyer to sign a motion filed in court. Whether the respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to indicate his MCLE compliance number in the complaint filed in connection with a pending case.
Ruling
The Court adopted with modification the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors. Respondent Atty. Gerardo Wilfredo L. Alberto was suspended from the practice of law for five (5) years, permanently barred from being commissioned as a Notary Public, and sternly warned that a stiffer penalty would be imposed for similar offenses.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of notarizing documents without a notarial commission: The Court affirmed that respondent's act of notarizing documents without a valid commission constituted a blatant violation of the Lawyer's Oath to obey the laws, specifically the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The Court emphasized that a notarial commission is a grant of authority issued upon due application and hearing, and the office of a notary public is invested with public interest, requiring qualification and authorization. By making it appear that he was commissioned, respondent vested the documents with false evidentiary value, thereby committing dishonesty and trivializing the solemnity of notarization, which transgressed Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility against unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. On the issue of allowing a non-lawyer to sign a motion filed in court: The Court found respondent liable for assisting and abetting the unauthorized practice of law by a non-lawyer. By having a non-lawyer sign the Motion for Prior Leave of Court to Admit the Herein Attached Amended Complaint, respondent breached Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code, which prohibits delegating to unqualified persons tasks performable only by a lawyer. The Court stressed that the preparation and signing of pleadings constitute legal work, and the lawyer's signature certifies the pleading's validity and good grounds, a responsibility that cannot be undertaken by a non-lawyer. This delegation was an abdication of respondent's personal responsibility as attorney of record. On the issue of failing to indicate MCLE compliance number: The Court found respondent's non-disclosure of his MCLE certificate of compliance number and issue date in the complaint filed in Civil Case No. 6835 to be a flagrant disobedience to the resolution in Bar Matter No. 1922. This non-compliance, coupled with his apparent repeat violations noted in a previous case (A.C. No. 12131), demonstrated defiance to the MCLE requirements. The Court reiterated that such non-disclosure subjects the counsel to appropriate penalties and disciplinary action, including fines and potential discharge from the case.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who notarizes documents without a notarial commission and assists in the unauthorized practice of law violates the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, demonstrating dishonesty and lack of respect for the law, warranting severe disciplinary action.