Crisostomo v. Nazareno
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants purchased housing units from Rudex International Development Corp. (Rudex) which later exhibited inadequacies and construction defects. Complainants sought rescission of their contracts to sell before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), seeking refunds. Procedural History: Several rescission cases were filed by the complainants against Rudex. Rudex, represented by Atty. Philip Z. A. Nazareno, subsequently filed petitions for review before the HLURB assailing adverse judgments. In the certifications against forum shopping attached to these petitions, Rudex, through its President and counsel Atty. Nazareno, declared that no similar actions were pending, despite the existence of an ejectment case filed by Rudex against complainant Sioting and her husband. Further, Rudex filed another complaint for rescission and ejectment against Sps. Sioting, again with a certification against forum shopping falsely stating no similar actions were pending, which was notarized by Atty. Nazareno. Subsequently, Atty. Nazareno filed six similar complaints for rescission and ejectment against the other complainants, also with false certifications against forum shopping. The HLURB dismissed Rudex's complaints due to false statements in the certifications against forum shopping. Complainants filed the present administrative complaint against Atty. Nazareno for making false declarations and malpractice as a notary public. The Petition: The administrative complaint alleged that Atty. Nazareno made false declarations in the certifications against forum shopping attached to Rudex's pleadings, violating Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, and committed malpractice as a notary public by assigning a single document number to multiple certifications. Atty. Nazareno failed to file a comment despite notice.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Nazareno should be held administratively liable for making false declarations in the certifications against forum shopping. Whether Atty. Nazareno should be held liable for malpractice as a notary public.
Ruling
The Court found Atty. Nazareno guilty of making false declarations in the certifications against forum shopping and of malpractice as a notary public. He is suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, permanently disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public, and his notarial commission, if existing, is revoked. He is also given a stern warning against repetition of similar acts.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court affirmed the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) that Atty. Nazareno made false declarations in the certifications against forum shopping. The records clearly showed that Atty. Nazareno, as counsel for Rudex, repeatedly filed pleadings with certifications against forum shopping that failed to disclose the existence of similar or related pending cases. This included failing to disclose an ejectment case against Sps. Sioting when Rudex filed petitions for review and a complaint for rescission and ejectment, and failing to disclose the complainants' own rescission complaints when Rudex filed similar actions. The Court emphasized that the submission of false entries in a certification against forum shopping constitutes indirect contempt and subjects the erring counsel to administrative and criminal actions, violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Given the repetitive nature of these infractions and Atty. Nazareno's failure to refute the charges, the Court found him administratively liable. On Issue 2: The Court found Atty. Nazareno guilty of malpractice as a notary public. This was based on his act of assigning only one document number (Doc. No. 1968) to the certifications against forum shopping attached to six separate complaints filed on April 1, 2004. The Court reiterated the standing rule that each notarial act requires a separate entry and document number in the notarial register. Furthermore, Atty. Nazareno notarized these certifications despite having personal knowledge of the material falsehoods they contained, which is a violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court noted that knowingly notarizing a document with false statements undermines the integrity of the notarization process and public confidence. Consequently, the Court imposed penalties consistent with cases of similar malpractice, including revocation of his notarial commission and permanent disqualification.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed that making false declarations in certifications against forum shopping violates Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court and constitutes a breach of Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, subjecting the erring lawyer to administrative sanctions. Additionally, the Court found the respondent guilty of malpractice as a notary public for failing to comply with notarial rules and for knowingly notarizing documents containing false statements, leading to severe penalties including suspension and permanent disqualification.