Javier v. Rivera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Lazaro G. Javier, Jr. (Javier) filed a Complaint-Affidavit against Atty. Carlos P. Rivera (Atty. Rivera) for performing notarial work without a commission. Javier alleged that between 2005 and 2006, Atty. Rivera notarized eight documents in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. To support this, Javier presented a Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court (OCC-RTC) of Tuguegarao City, stating that Atty. Rivera held no notarial commission for the years 2005 to 2007. Procedural History: The Supreme Court (SC) repeatedly directed Atty. Rivera to file a Comment, which he ignored for years, leading to two separate fines of P1,000.00 each and a threat of arrest by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). He finally filed a Comment in 2011, which did not deny the lack of commission but claimed the complaint was mere leverage for other cases. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal based on the Best Evidence Rule, noting that only machine copies were provided. However, the IBP Board of Governors (BOG) reversed this, recommending suspension and disqualification. The Petition: The matter reached the Supreme Court En Banc for final adjudication. The Court noted that during the pendency of these proceedings, Atty. Rivera had already been disbarred in 2017 in the case of Madria v. Atty. Rivera for simulating court documents, and had been previously sanctioned in 2006 and 2020 for other notarial and professional misconduct. The primary issue was whether the current infraction warranted a penalty despite the existing disbarment.
Issue(s)
Whether the machine copies of the notarized documents and the OCC-RTC Certification are sufficient to prove the charges against Atty. Rivera. Whether, despite a prior disbarment, a penalty should be adjudged for new infractions, considering Atty. Rivera's violation of the Lawyer's Oath and CPR, his recalcitrance, and the purpose of disciplinary proceedings.
Ruling
The Supreme Court finds Atty. Rivera GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). He is DISBARRED, but since he has already been previously disbarred, the penalty is adjudged for the sole purpose of recording it in his personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC).
Ratio Decidendi
On the Admissibility of Evidence: The Court ruled that the Investigating Commissioner erred in applying the Best Evidence Rule (now the Original Document Rule) to dismiss the case. While the rule generally requires the production of the original document, it must be timely invoked through a proper objection. In this case, Atty. Rivera failed to question the admissibility or authenticity of the photocopies in his Comment and did not deny notarizing the documents without a commission. Consequently, the evidence was deemed admitted and accorded probative value. The Court emphasized that administrative proceedings are not strictly bound by technical rules of evidence, and the uncontroverted photocopies sufficiently established the violation. On the Adjudication of Penalty Despite Prior Disbarment, and Related Violations: The Court reiterated that there is no double or multiple disbarment in the Philippines. However, applying the rule in Judge Dumlao, Jr. v. Atty. Camacho, the Court held that it is necessary to adjudge the penalty for new, distinct infractions to maintain a complete personal record in the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC). By notarizing documents without a commission, Atty. Rivera engaged in deliberate falsehood, violating the Lawyer's Oath and Canons 1 and 7 of the CPR. The Court also noted Atty. Rivera's 'brazen disregard' for the proceedings as an aggravating circumstance. The Court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings are intended to protect the public and the administration of justice. The adjudication of disbarment in this case, though physically impossible to execute, serves to purge the profession's records.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court maintains that there is no double or multiple disbarment in the Philippines. Once a lawyer is disbarred, the privilege to practice law is already revoked; however, if a subsequent and different infraction is committed, the Court must still adjudge the corresponding penalty for the sole purpose of recording it in the respondent's personal file in the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC). This ensures the Court is fully informed of the lawyer's total record of misconduct should they eventually petition for reinstatement. Additionally, the performance of notarial acts without a commission is a violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), as it involves indulging in deliberate falsehood and unlawful conduct.