Mariano v. Abrajano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants, including Spouses Oscar L. Mariano and Lolita Maliwat-Mariano, Ricardo M. Maliwat, and Atty. Jesus B. Bautista, filed a disbarment complaint against respondents Atty. Roberto C. Abrajano and Atty. Jorico F. Bayaua. The respondents were accused of unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct in connection with the preparation and filing of a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. The complainants were the attorneys-in-fact of Lany Maliwat Mariano and her son, Jerwin Calbang, who were the parties in the nullity case. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the case against Atty. Abrajano due to his death prior to the filing of the complaint and a two-month suspension for Atty. Bayaua. The IBP Board of Governors initially adopted this recommendation but later increased Atty. Bayaua's suspension to six months. Upon motion for reconsideration, the IBP Board of Governors dismissed the case against Atty. Bayaua, finding no clear and convincing evidence of conspiracy and stating that he merely notarized the verification and certification, relying on the affiant's oath. Complainants' motion for reconsideration was denied, leading them to file a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. The Petition: The complainants alleged that respondents, acting in conspiracy, committed deceitful acts, including falsely indicating George Calbang's address to establish venue, falsely stating Lany's residence, untruthfully alleging no properties were acquired during the marriage due to Lany's fault, making it appear summons were personally served to Lany by a non-existent sibling, pretending to furnish Lany copies of pleadings at fake addresses, and presenting George's false testimony. They also claimed respondents engaged in the unauthorized practice of law as they were MMDA employees.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents should be held administratively liable. Whether Atty. Bayaua violated Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. Whether Atty. Bayaua engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
Ruling
The administrative complaint against Atty. Roberto C. Abrajano was dismissed due to his death prior to the filing of the complaint. The administrative complaint against Atty. Jorico F. Bayaua was found to have substantial evidence, and he was found guilty of violating Section 3, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. He was reprimanded and sternly warned that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the administrative liability of Atty. Abrajano and Atty. Bayaua: The Court dismissed the complaint against Atty. Abrajano because he died before the disbarment complaint was filed. This is a procedural bar to continuing the administrative proceedings against him, as disciplinary actions are personal in nature and cannot be continued against a deceased respondent. The Court found Atty. Bayaua's contentions untenable. He admitted to signing the succeeding pleadings in Civil Case No. 4595-MN, thereby confirming his status as the counsel on record. His responsibility as counsel is governed by Section 3, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that a lawyer's signature on a pleading constitutes a certification that he has read it, knows it to be meritorious, and it is not interposed for delay. By his own admission, Atty. Bayaua did not verify the contents of the pleadings prepared by Atty. Abrajano, thus violating this rule. This violation constitutes an act of falsehood before the courts, which is a ground for disciplinary action. On Atty. Bayaua's violation of Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court and the proper penalty: The Court focused on Atty. Bayaua's direct violation of Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court through his own signature on the pleadings. The Court found substantial evidence to hold Atty. Bayaua administratively liable for his violation of the certification rule. The Court reiterated that disbarment is the most severe penalty and should be exercised with great caution. While Atty. Bayaua's offense was a violation of his duty as counsel, it was not deemed so gross as to warrant disbarment. The Court opted for a less severe punishment, a reprimand and stern warning, to reform the errant lawyer and to serve as a forewarning to other members of the Bar to be more diligent and cautious in their professional practice. On the alleged conspiracy and unauthorized practice of law: While the IBP initially considered conspiracy, the Court did not explicitly rule on the conspiracy or unauthorized practice of law as separate grounds for Atty. Bayaua's liability, but rather on his direct certification of the pleadings he signed. The Court noted that his signature gave the pleadings legal effect, elevating them from mere scraps of paper to court documents.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who signs a pleading is deemed to have certified that he has read it, knows it to be meritorious, and that it is not interposed for delay. Signing a pleading without verifying its contents constitutes an act of falsehood before the courts and is a violation of Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, subjecting the lawyer to disciplinary action.