Mamugay v. Dela Rosa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Lucrecia Q. Mamugay and Perfecto O. Saliga, Sr. were members of the Palalan CARP Farmers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, which held agricultural land under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Atty. Elmer Dela Rosa served as the cooperative's counsel. In 2015, the members discovered that Dela Rosa had orchestrated a land use conversion and sold the property to a third party, Diana G. Biron, without their consent. Crucially, Dela Rosa notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in 2010, claiming that all signatories personally appeared before him. However, two of the signatories, Alberto A. Ramos and Romana E. Palconit, had been deceased for twelve and six years, respectively, at the time of the alleged notarization. Furthermore, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City certified that the SPA was never reported to their office as required by law. Procedural History: The complainants filed a Joint Affidavit-Complaint for disbarment. The Supreme Court (SC) issued multiple resolutions (2016, 2017, and 2018) requiring Dela Rosa to comment, but he ignored all of them. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Dela Rosa liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and Notarial Law, recommending suspension and revocation of his commission. The IBP Board of Governors modified this by adding a PHP 20,000.00 fine for his repeated failure to participate in the proceedings. The Petition: The matter reached the Supreme Court for final review of the IBP's recommendation. The Court evaluated whether Dela Rosa's acts of selling client property without authority, notarizing documents for deceased persons, and failing to comply with reportorial requirements and court orders warranted the ultimate penalty of disbarment, especially considering his prior disciplinary record.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Dela Rosa violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) by selling client property without consent, demonstrating a lack of zeal and fidelity, and willfully disobeying court orders. Whether Atty. Dela Rosa violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a document for deceased signatories, failing to submit reportorial requirements, and undermining public confidence in the notarial system. What is the proper penalty for a lawyer who has already been disbarred in a previous administrative case, and how does this affect the imposition of further sanctions?
Ruling
Respondent Atty. Elmer A. Dela Rosa is found GUILTY of violating Canon II, Section 1 and Canon III, Sections 2 and 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), as well as Rule IV, Section 2(b) and Rule VI, Section 2(h) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He is ordered DISBARRED, with the penalty recorded in his personal file at the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) due to his prior disbarment. He is PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary public and ordered to PAY A FINE of PHP 35,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that Atty. Dela Rosa violated his fiduciary duties under Canon III of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA). By selling the cooperative's land without the members' consent, he acted as a 'double-dealer' and proved himself untrustworthy. His actions demonstrated a complete lack of zeal and fidelity in protecting his clients' interests. Furthermore, his repeated failure to comply with the Court's and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' (IBP) orders to file a comment constitutes 'willful and deliberate disobedience.' Under Canon VI, Section 34(c) of the CPRA, such recalcitrance is a less serious offense that warrants independent sanction. The Court emphasized that lawyers, as officers of the court, are specifically called upon to obey judicial processes. On Issue 2: Atty. Dela Rosa committed a grave violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Rule IV, Section 2(b) explicitly prohibits a notary from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's personal presence. By notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) for individuals who had been dead for years, Dela Rosa lied in a public document and undermined public confidence in the notarial system. The Court reiterated that notarization is not a routine act but one that imbues a private document with public character. His failure to submit the required monthly entries to the Clerk of Court further violated Rule VI, Section 2(h). These acts constitute serious dishonesty and fraud under the CPRA. On Issue 3: Regarding the penalty, the Court noted that Atty. Dela Rosa had already been disbarred in the case of Palalan CARP Farmers Multi-Purpose Coop v. Atty. Dela Rosa (2019). Applying the doctrine in Re: Ramon and Canon VI, Section 42 of the CPRA, the Court held that a previously disbarred lawyer cannot be physically disbarred again. Instead, the penalty of disbarment is recorded in the respondent's personal file in the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC). This record serves as a barrier to any future application for judicial clemency. Despite the prior disbarment, the Court imposed a fine of PHP 35,000.00 for his disobedience to court orders, as fines are not rendered moot by a previous disbarment.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court emphasizes that the legal profession is a privilege bestowed only upon those who possess good moral character and integrity. When a lawyer notarizes a document without the personal appearance of the signatories—especially when such signatories are deceased—they commit a serious breach of the sacred obligation to uphold the truth. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), such acts of dishonesty, coupled with the willful disobedience of court orders, warrant the ultimate penalty of disbarment. For lawyers who have already been disbarred, this subsequent penalty is recorded in their personal file at the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) to be considered should they ever seek judicial clemency.