Mercedita de Jesus vs . Atty.

Juvy Mell Sanchez-Malit

A.C. No. 6470. July 8, 2014
Sereno, C.J.

Facts:

Atty. Sanchez-Malit had drafted and notarized a Real Estate Mortgage of a public
market stall that falsely named the Mercedita de Jesus as its absolute and
registered owner. As a result, the mortgagee of the market stall sued
complainant for perjury and for sum of money.

Prior thereto, respondent had also notarized two contracts that caused
complainant legal and financial problems. One contract was a lease agreement
notarized by respondent without the signature of the lessees. The other contract
was a sale over a property covered by a Certifcate of Land Ownership Award
(CLOA) which respondent did not advise complainant that the property was still
covered by the period within which it could not be alienated.

Respondent explained that the mortgage contract was prepared in the presence
of complainant and that the latter had read it before affixing her signature. With
respect to the lease agreement, respondent gave the court's copy of the
agreement to complainant to accommodate the latter's request for an extra copy.
and relied on complainant's assurance that the lessees would sign it and that it
would be returned in lieu of the original copy for the court. Complainant, however,
reneged on her promise. As regards the purchase agreement of a property
covered by a CLOA, respondent claimed that complainant was an experienced
realty broker and, therefore, needed no advice on the repercussions of that
transaction.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Sanchez-Maralit committed misconduct and grievously

violated her oath as a notary public

Ruling:

Yes. Where the notary public admittedly has personal knowledge of a false
statement or information contained in the instrument to be notarized, yet
proceeds to affix the notarial seal on it, the Court must not hesitate to discipline
the notary public accordingly as the circumstances of the case may dictate.
Otherwise, the integrity and sanctity of the notarization process may be
undermined, and public confidence in notarial documents diminished.
In this case, respondent fully knew that complainant was not the owner of the
mortgaged market stall. That complainant comprehended the provisions of the
real estate mortgage contract does not make respondent any less guilty. If at all,
it only heightens the latter's liability for tolerating a wrongful act.

As regards the lease agreement, a notary public should not notarize a document
unless the persons who signed it are the very same ones who executed it and
who personally appeared before the said notary public to attest to the contents
and truth of what are stated therein. Respondent's explanation about the
unsigned lease agreement is incredulous. If, indeed, her file copy of the
agreement bore the lessees' signatures, she could have given complainant a
certified photocopy thereof.
Redentor S. Jardin vs. Atty. Deogracias Villar, Jr.
A.C. No. 5474. August 28, 2003
Tinga, J.

Facts:

Jardin sought the disbarment of Atty. Villar, who was his counsel in a civil case,
for the latter's failure to formally offer the documentary exhibits, which failure
resulted in the dismissal of the case. The Court required the respondent to
comment on the complaint against him. Respondent, however, disregarded the
Court's order. The IBP Board of Governors found the respondent liable for
negligence and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for a
period of six (6) months.

Issue:

Whether or not failure to file formal offer of evidence constitutes inexcusable

negligence

Ruling:

Yes. Atty. Villar committed a serious transgression when he failed to exert his
utmost learning and ability and to give entire devotion to his client's cause. His
client had relied on him to file the formal offer of exhibits among other things. But
he failed him. Resulting as it did in the dismissal of the case, his failure
constitutes inexcusable default.

The failure to file formal offer of evidence is in pari materia with failure to file brief,
which as this Court held in Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. v. Saquilabon
constitutes inexcusable negligence. A line of Supreme Court cases also
punished failure to file brief and suspended lawyers from the practice of law for a
period of six (6) months.
Genaro Santiago III vs. Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. of the Thirteenth [13th]
Division, Court of Appeals
A.M. No. CA-09-47-J. February 13, 2009
Carpio-Morales, J.

Facts:

Santiago III filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a Petition for
Reconstitution of Lost/Destroyed Original Certificate of Title. The RTC granted
the petition. The Republic of the Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor
General appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals and was raffled to the 13th
division.

Respondent Justice dissented to the Majority’s report and in view of his dissent,
he requested the Raffle Committee of the Court of Appeals to designate two
associate justices to complete the composition of a Special Division of five. The
Raffle committee granted respondent’s request.

The Decision of the Special Division reversed and set aside the Decision of the
RTC. Complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was received by the
appellate court. Days after, complainant filed the present complaint.

Santiago III alleged that despite the overwhelming evidence, all corroborated by
several government agencies and adduced and offered in evidence during trial,
Associate Justice Enriquez deliberately twisted the law and existing
jurisprudence to grant the appeal, to the extreme prejudice of complainant. For
this reason, this administrative charge of GROSS IGNORANCE OF
LAW/GROSS INCOMPETENCE is now being filed against respondent Associate
Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent committed gross ignorance of the law/gross

incompetence

Ruling:

No. The principle of "judicial immunity" insulates judges, and even Justices of
superior courts, from being held to account criminally, civilly or administratively
for an erroneous decision rendered in good faith. To hold otherwise would render
judicial office untenable. No one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in
the process of administering justice could be infallible in his judgment.
It bears particular stress in the present case that the filing of charges against a
single member of a division of the appellate court is inappropriate. The Decision
was not rendered by respondent in his individual capacity. It was a product of the
consultations and deliberations by the Special Division of five. The Court of
Appeals is a collegiate court whose members reach their conclusions in
consultation and accordingly render their collective judgment after due
deliberation. Thus, we have held that a charge of violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act on the ground that a collective decision is "unjust" cannot
prosper. Consequently, the filing of charges against a single member of a
division of the appellate court is inappropriate.
Roxas G. Roxas and Santiago N. Pastor vs. Antonio de Zuzuarregi, Jr., et.
al.
G.R. Nos. 152072, 152104. July 12, 2007
Per Curiam

Facts:

In a Resolution, the Court En Banc ordered Atty. Romeo G. Roxas to explain in

writing why he should not be held in contempt of court and subjected to
disciplinary action when he, in a letter addressed to Associate Justice Minita V.
Chico-Nazario with copies thereof furnished the Chief Justice and all the other
Associate Justices, intimated that Justice Nazario decided G.R. No. 152072 and
No. 152104 on considerations other than the pure merits of the case, and called
the Supreme Court a "dispenser of injustice." Atty. Roxas stated in his letter,
particularly, that the decision did not meet the standards or adhered to the basic
characteristics of fair and just decision, such as objectivity, neutrality and
conformity to the laws and the Constitution.

In his letter of explanation, Atty. Roxas extended apologies to Justice Nazario, to

the other members of the High Court and to the High Court itself as a revered
institution and ultimate dispenser of justice. He said he was merely exercising his
right to express a legitimate grievance or articulate a bona fide and fair criticism
of the Honorable Court's ruling.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Roxas should be held in contempt

Ruling:

Yes. In the case at bar, the Court finds the statements made by Atty. Roxas to
have been made mala fides and exceeded the boundaries of decency and
propriety. By his unfair and unfounded accusation against Justice Nazario, and
his mocking of the Court for allegedly being part of a wrongdoing and being a
dispenser of injustice, he abused his liberty of speech.

It is the duty of a lawyer as an officer of the court to uphold the dignity and
authority of the courts and to promote confidence in the fair administration of
justice and in the Supreme Court as the last bulwark of justice and democracy.
Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of the judicial institution. Without
such guarantee, the institution would be resting on a very shaky foundation.
When confronted with actions and statements, from lawyers and non-lawyers
alike, that tend to promote distrust and undermine public confidence in the
judiciary, this Court will not hesitate to wield its inherent power to cite any person
in contempt. In so doing, it preserves its honor and dignity and safeguards the
morals and ethics of the legal profession.