No Conflict of Interest is Involved in Notarization as It is Different from

Representation
Malabed vs Atty. De la Pena
AC 7594 Feb 9, 2016
Facts:
In an administrative case, Atty. De la Pena was charged with dishonesty and gross
misconduct for misrepresenting that he submitted a certificate to file action when there
was none, conflict of interest for notarizing a deed of donation executed by complainants
family when eventually he is a counsel for those opposing parties in a case where
complainants family is involved, and for violation of prohibition in employment in
government office after his dismissal as a judge. In his pleadings before the IBP, Atty. De
la Pena called the counsel of the complainant a silahis by nature and complexion and
also accused complainant of cohabiting with a married man before the wife of that
married man died. The IBP found that Atty. De la Pena is guilty of dishonesty and gross
misconduct, and also noted the offensive language used by the lawyer. One-year
suspension from the practice of law was recommended. The Supreme Court increased it
to 2-year suspension for repeated gross misconduct.
Issue 1: W/N there is a conflict of interest involved in the notarization of documents
by a lawyer
No. Notarization is different from representation. A notary public simply performs the
notarial acts authorized by the Rules on Notarial Practice, namely, acknowledgments,
oaths and affirmations, jurats, signature witnessings, and copy certifications. Legal
representation, on the other hand, refers to the act of assisting a party as counsel in a court
action.
Issue 2: W/N the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification on reemployment
in any government agencies and GOCCs also apply to temporary designations
Yes. The prohibition on reemployment does not distinguish between permanent and
temporary appointments. Hence, that his designation was only temporary does not
absolve him from liability. Further, furnishing a copy of his designation to the OBC and
MCLE office does not in any way extinguish his permanent disqualification from
reemployment in a government office. Neither does the fact that complainant in his
previous administrative case did not object to his petition for judicial clemency.
In view of his disqualification from reemployment in any government office, respondent
should have declined from accepting the designation and desisted from performing the
functions of such positions. Clearly, Atty. De la Pena knowingly defied the prohibition on
reemployment in a public office imposed upon him by the Court.
Issue 3: W/N the lawyers use of offensive language violates the ethics of the
profession
Yes. For using improper language in his pleadings, respondent violated Rule 8.01 of
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that a lawyer shall not,
in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper. While respondent is entitled and very much expected to defend himself with
vigor, he must refrain from using improper language in his pleadings. ##