became skeptical as the said decision seemed to come
EN BANC too soon and was poorly crafted.
[ A.C. No. 11981, July 03, 2018 ]
LEAH B. TADAY, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.
DIONISIO B. APOYA, JR., RESPONDENT.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Before this Court is a Verified Complaint-
Affidavit[1] filed before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr.
(respondent) for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility (Code) in authoring a fake decision of a
court.
Sometime in 2011, Leah B. Taday (complainant), an
overseas Filipino worker (OFW) staying in Norway,
asked her parents in the Philippines, Virgilio and
Natividad Taday, to seek legal services for the
nullification of her marriage. Complainant's parents
found respondent and contracted his legal services. On
April 17, 2011, a Retainer Agreement[2] was executed
between respondent and complainant's parents
indicating that respondent's acceptance fee was
P140,000.00, to be paid on a staggered basis.
According to complainant, respondent was informed
that she was staying in Norway and respondent
assured her that this would not be an issue as he can
find ways to push for the resolution of the case despite
her absence.
Respondent drafted a Petition for Annulment of
Marriage[3] (petition) dated April 20, 2011, which he
allegedly sent to complainant for her signature. After
notarizing the petition, respondent filed it before the
Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City (RTC). The case
was then raffled to Branch 131, docketed as Civil Case
No. C-22813.
On November 17, 2011, while complainant was on
vacation in the Philippines[4] and after paying
respondent his legal fees amounting to
P14,500.00,[5] respondent delivered a IBP Report and Recommendation
Decision[6] dated November 16, 2011 which granted
the annulment of complainant's marriage. The said
decision was promulgated by a certain Judge Ma. Eliza
Becamon-Angeles of RTC Branch 162. Complainant
became suspicious as the said decision came from a
different branch presided by a different judge where
the case was originally filed. Complainant's family
Confused with the turn of events, verifications were
made to ascertain the validity of the decision.
Complainant discovered that both Branch 162 and
Judge Ma. Eliza Becamon-Angeles do not exist in the
RTC. Frustrated with the incident, complainant,
through her parents, sought the withdrawal
of respondent as her counsel from the case.
However, instead of withdrawing as counsel,
respondent filed an urgent motion to withdraw the
petition. In its Order[7] dated June 25, 2012, the RTC
Branch 131 granted the said motion and the case was
dropped from the civil docket of the court.
Complainant and her parents sought the legal services
of Atty. Alexander M. Verzosa (Atty. Verzosa) of the
Verzosa Lauengco Jimenez and Abesames Law Offices
for their predicament. Atty. Verzosa sent a
Letter[8] dated February 26, 2013, to respondent
calling his attention regarding the payment of his
attorney's fees and the purported fake decision of RTC
Branch 162.
In his Answer,[9] respondent denied being informed
that complainant was an OFW and claimed that he was
made to believe that she was merely in the Bicol
province, hence, he agreed to draft the petition and
gave it to complainant's parents for her signature. The
petition was returned to respondent with
complainant's signature so he notarized and filed it
before the court.
Respondent denied delivering any decision relative to
the annulment case of complainant. He asserted that
the said decision was only a product of her
imagination. Respondent likewise denied that he filed
an urgent motion to withdraw the petition in the RTC,
Branch 131. He claimed that he merely drafted the
said motion and gave it to complainant's parents but
he never signed it.
After the parties submitted their respective position
papers, the case was submitted for decision.
In its Report and Recommendation,[10] the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline (Commission) found
that respondent committed several violations of the
Code, particularly, Rules 1.01, 1.02 and Canon 1. The
Commission held that respondent notarized the
Verification and Certification of Non Forum
Shopping[11] of the petition, even though complainant
was not personally present as she was then in Norway.
The Commission also found that respondent authored
a fake decision. It opined that the said decision was
fake because it bore the same format and grammatical
errors as that of the petition prepared by respondent.
The Commission disregarded the defense of
respondent that it was complainant's parents who
made the fake decision. It stressed that any reasonable
mind would know that a fake decision would not
benefit complainant. Moreover, complainant's parents
continuously paid the legal fees of respondent, which
would show their lack of intent to create the fabricated
decision.
The Commission further underscored that when
respondent was confronted with the fake decision, he
filed an urgent motion to withdraw the petition before
RTC Branch 131. It highlighted that when the new
counsel of complainant questioned respondent
regarding these irregularities, he did not respond.
Based on these circumstances, the Commission
concluded that the fake decision originated from
respondent and that he violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02,
Canon I of the Code. It recommended the penalty of
suspension of two (2) years from the practice of law.
In its Resolution No. XXI-2015-100[12]dated January
31, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors (Board)
modified the recommended penalty of two (2) years
suspension to a penalty of disbarment.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but it
was denied by the IBP Board in its Resolution No. XXII-
2016-508[13] dated September 23, 2016.
Respondent filed a second motion for reconsideration
but it was also denied by the Board in its Resolution
No. XXII-2017-951[14] dated April 19, 2017.
The Court's Ruling
The Court adopts the findings of the Commission and
agrees with the recommendation of the IBP Board to
disbar respondent.
All those in the legal profession must always conduct
themselves with honesty and integrity in all their
dealings. Members of the bar took their oath to
conduct themselves according to the best of their
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well
to the courts as to their clients and to delay no man for
money or malice. These mandates apply especially to
dealings of lawyers with their clients considering the
highly fiduciary nature of their relationship.[15]
It bears stressing that membership in the bar is a
privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the
privilege and right to practice law during good
behavior and can only be deprived of it for misconduct
ascertained and declared by judgment of the court
after opportunity to be heard has afforded him.
Without invading any constitutional privilege or right,
and attorney's right to practice law may be resolved
by a proceeding to suspend or disbar him, based on
conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to
exercise the duties and responsibilities of an
attomey.[16] In disbarment proceedings, the burden of
proof rests upon the complainant, and for the court to
exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the
respondent must be established by clear, convincing
and satisfactory proof.[17]
In this case, the Court finds that respondent violated
Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code and the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice.
Respondent notarized the petition even though the
affiant was not present
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless and
routinary act. It is imbued with public interest and
only those who are qualified and authorized may act
as notaries public.[18] Notarization converts a private
document to a public document, making it admissible
in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A
notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and
credit upon its face. For this reason, notaries public
must observe with utmost care the basic requirements
in the performance of their duties.[19]
The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a
notary public should not notarize a document unless
the signatory to the document personally appeared
before the notary public at the time of the notarization,
and personally known to the notary public or
otherwise identified through competent evidence of
identity. At the time of notarization, the signatory shall
sign or affix with a thumb or other mark in the notary
public's notarial register. The purpose of these
requirements is to enable the notary public to verify
the genuineness of the signature and to ascertain that
the document is the signatory's free act and deed. If
the signatory is not acting on his or her own free will,
a notary public is mandated to refuse to perform a
notarial act. A notary public is also prohibited from
affixing an official signature or seal on a notarial
certificate that is incomplete.[20]
In this case, on April 20, 2011, respondent notarized
the verification and certification of non forum
shopping in the petition filed before RTC Branch 131
supposedly executed by complainant as the affiant. At
that time, however, complaint was not in the
Philippines because she was still in Norway working
as an OFW. Undoubtedly, respondent violated the
notarial rules when he notarized a document without
the personal presence of the affiant.
Respondent gave a flimsy excuse that he was not
informed that complainant was not in the Philippines
when he notarized the verification and certification on
non forum shopping. Assuming arguendo that this is
true, he should have refrained from notarizing such
document until complainant personally appear before
him. In addition, respondent should have explained to
complainant and her parents that he can only notarize
and file the petition before the court once complainant
returns to the Philippines. Lamentably, instead of
informing his client about the rules of notarization,
respondent proceeded with the notarization of the
document and gave a false assurance that the case of
complainant would still continue even in her absence.
In Gaddi v. Atty. Velasco,[21] the Court held that for
notarizing a document without ascertaining the
identity and voluntariness of the signatory to the
document, for affixing his signature in an incomplete
notarial certificate, and for dishonesty in his
pleadings, the lawyer failed to discharge his duties as
notary public and breached Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of
the Code.
Similarly, in Ferguson v. Atty. Ramos[22] the Court held
that when a lawyer affixes his signature and notarial
seal on a deed of sale, he leads the public to believe
that the parties personally appeared before him and
attested to the truth and veracity of the contents
thereof. The act of notarizing a document without the
presence of the parties is fraught with dangerous
possibilities considering the conclusiveness on the
due execution of a document that the courts and the
public accord to notarized documents.
Here, respondent notarized the verification and
certification of non forum shopping even though
complainant did not personally appear before him.
Not only did he violate the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice, he also violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the
Code.
Respondent authored a fake decision and delivered it to
his client
Aside from improperly notarizing a petition,
respondent committed an even graver transgression
by drafting a fake decision and delivering it to his
client in guise of a genuine decision.
In this case, respondent delivered a decision dated
November 16, 2011, to complainant, which
purportedly granted the petition for annulment of
marriage in her favor. This decision is marred by
numerous and serious irregularities that point to
respondent as the author thereof.
First, the decision came from a certain Judge Ma. Eliza
Becamon Angeles of RTC Branch 162. Yet, a
verification from the RTC revealed that the said judge
and the branch were non-existent.
Second, the fake decision is starkly the same as the
petition prepared and filed by respondent. A reading
of the fake decision shows that the statement of facts,
issues and the rationale therein are strikingly similar,
if not exactly alike, with the petition. Even the
grammatical errors in both documents are similar.
The fake decision was so poorly crafted because it
merely copied the petition filed by respondent.
Moreover, the font and spacing in the caption of the
petition and the fake decision are one and the same.
Glaringly, respondent did not give any credible
explanation regarding the similarity of the fake
decision and the petition he drafted.
Third, when respondent was confronted by
complainant and her parents about the fake decision,
respondent immediately filed an urgent motion to
withdraw the petition before RTC Branch 131.
Respondent provided a poor excuse that he merely
prepared the said motion but did not file it. However,
it is clear from the order dated June 25, 2012 of RTC
Branch 131 that the motion was filed by respondent
and the case was indeed withdrawn.[23]
Lastly, when complainant's case was dropped from the
civil docket of RTC Branch 131 at the instance of
respondent, complainant and her parents sought the
assistance of another lawyer. Atty. Verzosa, through a
letter dated February 26, 2013, confronted
respondent regarding the payment of attorney's fees
and the fake decision which respondent gave to
complainant. However, respondent neither answered
nor denied the allegation of complainant's new
counsel.
In his last ditch attempt to escape liability, respondent
argued that the fake decision was drafted by
complainant's parents. The Court finds this
completely absurd. On November 17, 2011,
complainant's parents had just paid respondent's
staggering acceptance fee as evidenced by a
Receipt.[24] On the other hand, the fake decision was
dated November 16, 2011. Thus, it is illogical for
complainant's parents to draft a fake decision when
they regularly paid for the services of respondent to
legally and rightfully represent their daughter's case.
As opined by the Commission, any reasonable mind
would know that a fake decision would not benefit
complainant, thus, complainant's parents have
nothing to gain from it.
Based on the foregoing circumstances, the Court
concludes that respondent indeed authored the fake
decision in order to deceive complainant that he won
the legal battle in her favor. Fortunately, complainant
was prudent in protecting her rights and discovered
that the decision given to her by respondent was fake.
Surely, respondent's acts resulted to complainant's
injuries and has tarnished the noble image of legal
profession.
Proper penalty
The Court finds that complainant has established by
clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence that: (1)
respondent notarized the verification and certification
of non forum shopping of the petition without the
personal presence of complainant; (2) respondent is
the author of the fake decision to deceive complainant
that her petition for annulment of marriage was
granted; and (3) respondent retaliated against
complainant for confronting him with the fake
decision by withdrawing the petition in the court,
resulting into the dropping of the case from the civil
docket of the court. These acts constitute violations of
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Code, to wit:
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution,
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law
and for legal processes.
RULE 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
RULE 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence
in the legal system.
Respondent also violated Section 2, Rule IV of the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which states that:
SECTION 2. Prohibitions. - x x x
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the
person involved as signatory to the instrument or
document –
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the
time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or
otherwise identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined by these
Rules.
A member of the Bar may be penalized, even disbarred
or suspended from his office as an attorney, for
violation of the lawyer's oath and/or for breach of the
ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code.
For the practice of law is a profession, a form of public
trust, the performance of which is entrusted to those
who are qualified and who possess good moral
character. The appropriate penalty for an errant
lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial
discretion based on the surrounding facts.[25]
In Krursel v. Atty. Abion,[26] the lawyer therein drafted
a fake order from this Court in order to deceive her
client. The Court stated that she made a mockery of the
judicial system. Her conduct degraded the
administration of justice and weakened the people's
faith in the judicial system. She inexorably besmirched
the entire legal profession. The penalty of disbarment
was imposed against the lawyer.
Similarly, in Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v.
Atty. Naldoza,[27] the penalty of disbarment was
imposed against the lawyer who falsified an official
receipt from the Court to cover up his misdeeds. The
Court stated that since the lawyer clearly failed the
standards of his noble profession, he did not deserve
to continue as a member of the bar.
In this case, respondent committed unlawful,
dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct, and
lessened the confidence of the public in the legal
system. Instead of being an advocate of justice, he
became a perpetrator of injustice. His reprehensible
acts do not merit him to remain in the rolls of the legal
profession. Thus, the ultimate penalty of disbarment
must be imposed upon him.
WHEREFORE, the Court adopts the recommendation
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of
Govenwrs and finds Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya,
Jr. GUILTY of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule
1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Section 2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice. He is DISBARRED from the practice of law
and his name ordered stricken off the Roll of
Attorneys, effective immediately.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office
of the Bar Confidant to be entered into Atty. Dionisio
B. Apoya, Jr.'s records. Copies shall likewise be
furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and
the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation
to all courts concerned.
SO ORDERED.
EN BANC
[ AC. No. 12467, Apr 10, 2019 ]
SPS. PEPITO AND PRESCILA FRIAS v. ATTY. NELLY
E. ABAO +
RESOLUTION
PERALTA, J.:
Before us is a Complaint[1] for Disciplinary Action
dated September 1, 2016 filed by the spouses Pepito
Frias and Prescila Chavez Frias (Spouses Frias) against
respondent Atty. Nelly E. Abao (Atty. Abao) for
violation of Rule 1.01 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and of the Notarial Law.
The facts are as follows:
Complainant Pepito Frias, married to Prescila Chavez,
is the registered owner of a parcel of land known as
Lot No. 3270-A, Psd-06-000781, situated at Barangay
Malonoy, Dao, Capiz, covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. T-14354 (subject property).
The Spouses Frias narrated that in early 1900s, Susana
Frias, their daughter, was enduring a heart disease.
Because of financial difficulties, they accepted the
offer of one of their daughters who was then residing
in Mindanao, to bring Susana to Davao for treatment.
Before they left, the Spouses Frias asked Rodrigo
Arbiz, and his wife, Maria, the parents of Jermehilda
Escutin, if they could lend them money to cover for
their transportation to Mindanao and the medical
expenses of Susana. Although the Spouses Arbiz
agreed to lend them some money, they demanded that
the Spouses Frias secure the loan with the subject
property, for twenty years.
Because the Spouses Frias were unsure of their
capacity to pay back the loan in time, and were afraid
they might lose the subject property if they failed to
settle the loan, they allegedly offered instead to lease
the property to the Spouses Arbiz, instead of
mortgaging it to them.
Rodrigo Arbis allegedly accepted the offer to lease the
subject property, and gave them the amount of
P340,000,00. Both parties agreed that: (1) the Spouses
Frias would not have any obligation to give back the
amount of P340,000.00 to Rodrigo Arbiz; (2) Rodrigo
Arbiz and his wife would possess the subject property
for twenty years, that is from January 16, 1995 to
January 16, 2015, and enjoy the use and produce of the
land; (3) Rodrigo Arbiz and his wife would be
responsible to pay for the real estate taxes due on the
property because it would be difficult for the Spouses
Frias to pay them while they were in Mindanao; (4) the
Spouses Frias would not disturb Rodrigo Arbiz and his
wife's possession of the property until after the
expiration of twenty years; and (5) the Spouses Frias
would entrust the original owner's duplicate copy of
TCT No. T-14354 that covers the subject property to
Rodrigo Arbiz and his wife. These agreements,
however, were not put into writing as it was the usual
practice those days.
On January 16, 1995, the Spouses Frias left for South
Cotabato, leaving whatever they owned in Capiz.
Despite all medical treatments they could afford with
their savings, Susana died in 2000 in South Cotabato.
Sometime in 2000, the Spouses Frias learned that
Rodrigo Arbiz died. Later, in 2005, they also learned
that Rodrigo Arbiz's wife, Maria, also died. They
discovered that the heirs of the Spouses Arbiz,
Jermehilda Escutin and Danilo Escutin, took
possession of the subject property.
The Spouses Frias alleged that even after the death of
the Spouses Arbiz, they could not return to Dao, Capiz
because they respected the alleged lease agreement.
After the expiration of the lease contract, they decided
to return to Capiz, and claim the subject property as
they believed to be entitled thereto. However, the
Spouses Escutin refused to turnover the possession of
the subject property. Thus, the Spouses Frias filed a
complaint for ejectment against the Spouses Escutin.
In their Answer, the Spouses Escutin argued that the
subject property was sold to their parents by the
Spouses Frias. They attached a copy of the Deed of
Absolute Sale dated July 11, 1995 purportedly
executed by complainants in favor of the parents of the
Spouses Escutin.[2]
The Deed of Absolute Sale was notarized by herein
respondent Atty. Abao on July 11, 1995, as document
no. 106, found on page 23, Book No. LVIX.[3] However,
the Spouses Frias insisted that they did not execute
any document of conveyance of the said parcel of land
to anybody. They claimed that it was impossible for
them to execute the said Deed of Absolute Sale on July
11, 1995 because at that time they already left for
Mindanao and never came back to Dao, Capiz, until
April 4, 2015.
The Spouses Frias then searched for an original copy
of the deed of absolute sale with the Clerk of Court of
Roxas City. The Clerk of Court of Roxas City, Atty. Jelou
F. Almalbis-Laguna, issued a Certification[4] dated
November 3, 2015 stating that the deed of absolute
sale executed by Pepito Frias and Prescila Frias in
favor of Rodrigo Arbiz and Maria L. Arbiz under Doc.
No. 106, Page 23, Book No. LVIX dated July 11, 1995
and notarized by Atty. Abao does not exist. It further
certified that respondent Atty. Abao was never
commissioned as Notary Public in the City of Roxas,
Province of Capiz for the year 1995 and had no
notarial files on record for the same year.[5]
The Spouses Frias, likewise, lamented that while Atty.
Abao admitted that she notarized the Deed of Absolute
Sale purportedly executed by them, she, however,
made false statements in her Judicial Affidavit[6] dated
July 28, 2016 wherein she alleged that: (1) Pepito Frias
was present when she notarized the said document;
(2) Prescila Frias was present when she notarized the
Deed of Absolute Sale; and (3) Pepito Frias and
Prescila Frias affixed their signatures in the said Deed
of Absolute Sale.[7]
Thus, the instant administrative complaint against
Atty. Abao for violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and
Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).
On October 3, 2016, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-
CBD) ordered Atty. Abao to submit her answer to the
complaint against her.[8]
In her Answer[9] dated November 14, 2016, Atty. Abao
admitted that she notarized the subject Deed of
Absolute Sale without the necessary notarial
commission to do so. She offered no valid excuse for
her unauthorized notarial act. She denied having
notarized a fictitious deed of absolute sale, and
maintained that complainants personally appeared
and signed the subject Deed of Absolute Sale before
her.
Meanwhile, on November 29, 2016, the complaint for
unlawful detainer filed by the Spouses Frias against
the Spouses Escutin, docketed as Civil Case No. V-376,
was dismissed.[10]
In its Report and Recommendation[11] dated
September 19, 2017, the IBP-CBD found Atty. Abao
liable for notarizing documents without a notarial
commission and for executing an untruthful judicial
affidavit. For notarizing a document without
commission, the IBP-CBD recommended that Atty.
Abao be suspended from the practice of law for six (6)
months, and that if she is presently commissioned as
notary public, she be disqualified from being
commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2)
years. Further, for executing an untruthful judicial
affidavit and testifying thereon, the IBP-CBD, likewise,
recommended a penalty of suspension from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
In a Resolution[12] dated June 29, 2018, the IBP-Board
of Governors adopted and approved the Report and
Recommendation of the IBP-CBD on the
recommended penalty.
RULING
We agree with the findings of the IBP-CBD, except as
to use recommended penalty.
Time and again, this Court has stressed that
notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routine
act. It is invested with substantive public interest that
only those who are qualified or authorized may act as
notaries public.[13] It must be emphasized that the act
of notarization by a notary public converts a private
document into a public document making that
document admissible in evidence without further
proof of authenticity. A notarial document is by law
entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for
this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost
care the basic requirements in the performance of
their duties.
In the present case, it is undisputable that Atty. Abao
performed notarial acts on the subject deed of
absolute sale knowing fully well that; she was without
a valid notarial commission. Her lack of notarial
commission at the time of the unauthorized
notarization was likewise sufficiently established by
the Certification issued by Atty. Jelou F. Almalbis-
Laguna, Clerk of Court VI of the Office of the Clerk of
Court, Regional Trial Court, 6th Judicial Region, Roxas
City in the territory where Atty. Abao performed the
unauthorized notarial act.[14] Clearly, Atty. Abao could
not perform notarial functions in Dao, Capiz, since she
was not commissioned in the places to perform such
act in the year 1995.
Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a person
commissioned as a notary public may perform
notarial acts in any place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of
two (2) years commencing the first day of January of
the year in which the commissioning is made.
Commission either means the grant of authority to
perform notarial or the written evidence of
authority.[15] Without a commission, a lawyer is
unauthorized to perform any of the notarial acts.
Clearly, for misrepresenting in the subject Deed of
Absolute Sale that she was a notary public for and in
Dao, Capiz, when in fact she was not, Atty. Abao further
committed a form of falsehood which is undoubtedly
anathema to the lawyer's oath. Atty. Abao's misdeeds
run afoul of her duties and responsibilities, both as a
lawyer and a notary public.
By performing notarial acts without the necessary
commission from the court, Atty. Abao violated not
only her oath to obey the laws, particularly the Rules
on Notarial Practice, but also Canons 1 and 7 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes
all lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct and directs them to
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, at all times.[16]
In the case of Nunga v. Atty. Viray,[17] the Court
appropriately held that where the notarization of a
document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar
at a time when he has no authorization or commission
to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary
action. For one, performing a notarial [act] without
such commission is a violation of the lawyer's oath to
obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law.
Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly
commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents
and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which
the lawyer's oath similarly proscribes. These
violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule
1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides: "A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct."[18]
In a number of cases, the Court has subjected lawyers
to disciplinary action for notarizing documents
outside their territorial jurisdiction or with an expired
commission. In Zoreta v. Atty. Simpliciano,[19] the
respondent was, likewise, suspended from the
practice of law for a period of two (2) years and was
permanently barred from being commissioned as a
notary public for notarizing several documents after
the expiration of his commission. In the case of Judge
Laquindanum v. Atty. Quintana,[20] the Court
suspended a lawyer for six (6) months and was
disqualified from being commissioned as notary
public for a period of two (2) years, because he
notarized documents outside the area of his
commission, and with an expired commission. In the
more recent case of Japitana v. Atty.
Parado,[21] following the Court's pronouncements
in Re: Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice,[22] the
lawyer was suspended for two (2) years from the
practice of law and forever barred from becoming a
notary public when he notarized documents with no
existing notarial commission.
Considering that Atty. Abao has been proven to nave
performed notarial work in Dao, Capiz, without the
requisite commission, the Court finds the
recommended penalty insufficient. Likewise, Atty.
Abao's assertion of old age and sickness fails to
convince, considering that at the time of the
commission of the unauthorized act of notarizing, she
was only fifty-four (54) years old. Instead, Atty. Abao
must be barred from being commissioned as notary
public permanently and suspended from the practice
of law for a period of two (2) years.[23]
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Nelly E. Abao is
found GUILTY of malpractice as a notary public, and
violating the lawyer's oath as well as Rule 1.01, Canon
1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, she is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for two (2) years and BARRED
PERMANENTLY from being commissioned as Notary
Public, effective upon her receipt of a copy of this
Decision.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished all the courts
of the land through the Office of the Court
Administrator, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
the Office of the Bar Confidant, and be recorded in the
personal files of Atty. Abao.
SO ORDERED

EN BANC
[ A.C. No. 12174, August 28, 2018 ]
ALFRED LEHNERT, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY.
DENNIS L. DIÑO, RESPONDENT.
RESOLUTION
LEONEN, J.:
Complainant Alfred Lehnert (Lehnert) filed this
administrative Complaint[1] before the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines on November 11, 2015. He prayed
that respondent Atty. Dennis L. Diño (Atty. Diño) be
permanently disbarred for violating the lawyer's oath,
as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility,
when he committed two (2) violations of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22.
In his Complaint, Lehnert narrated that an
Information against Atty. Diño was filed with Branch
34, Metropolitan Trial Court, Quezon City, charging
him with two (2) counts of violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22. A Warrant of Arrest[2] was then
issued for Atty. Diño's arrest. Members of the
Philippine National Police and National Bureau of
Investigation attempted to serve the warrant on Atty.
Diño. However, despite their exhaustive efforts, they
were unable to locate him at his residential addresses
in Bulacan, Quezon City, San Lazaro, and Sta. Cruz, or
even at his office address in Intramuros,
Manila.[3] Thus, considering that Atty. Diño was hiding
to evade arrest, Lehnert prayed for his immediate
disbarment.[4]
In a Notice of Mandatory Conference dated March 4,
2016, Atty. Diño and Lehnert were directed to submit
their respective mandatory conference briefs, and to
appear before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines on April 29,
2016.[5]However, Atty. Diño did not appear or submit
any brief to the Commission on Bar Discipline.[6]
On June 29, 2016, the Investigating Commissioner
found Atty. Diño guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule
1.01[7] of the Code of Professional Responsibility by
issuing in favor of Lehnert post-dated checks, which
were subsequently dishonored. Moreover, the
Investigating Commissioner noted that although Atty.
Diño had not yet been convicted of the crime charged,
his acts of evading arrest and failing to participate in
the administrative proceedings before the
Commission on Bar Discipline further gave the
impression that he was probably guilty. Thus, she
recommended that Atty. Diño be suspended from the
practice of law for two (2) years.[8]
On July 17, 2017, the Board of Governors of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines passed Resolution
No. XXII-2017-1164, adopting the findings of fact and
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner
imposing on Atty. Diño the penalty of suspension of
two (2) years from the practice of law.[9]
This Court agrees with the findings of the Board of
Governors and sustains its recommended penalty.
In Lao v. Medel,[10] this Court stressed that a lawyer's
payment of financial obligations is part of his duties:
Verily, lawyers must at all times faithfully perform
their duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to
their clients. As part of those duties, they must
promptly pay their financial obligations. Their
conduct must always reflect the values and norms of
the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility. On these considerations,
the Court may disbar or suspend lawyers for any
professional or private misconduct showing them to
be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and
good demeanor — or to be unworthy to continue as
officers of the Court.
It is equally disturbing that respondent remorselessly
issued a series of worthless checks, unmindful of the
deleterious effects of such act to public interest and
public order.[11] (Citations omitted)
This Court continues to state that the issuance of
worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct and
violates Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which mandates all members of the
bar "to obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for law." Issuance of worthless checks also violates
Rule 1.01 of the Code, which mandates that "[a] lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct."
Thus, this Court has imposed the penalty of one (1)-
year suspension from the practice of law for a cavalier
attitude toward incurring debts.[12] This Court has
imposed a higher penalty of two (2)-year suspension
on a lawyer who issued worthless checks and also
disregarded the Integrated Bar of the Philippines'
orders in administrative proceedings.[13]
In light of the foregoing, this Court finds the
recommended penalty of two (2)-year suspension
from the practice of law proper.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Dennis L. Diño
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2)
years. He is likewise WARNED that a repetition of
similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
The respondent, upon receipt of this Resolution, shall
immediately serve his suspension. He shall formally
manifest to this Court that his suspension has started,
and copy furnish all courts and quasi-judicial bodies
where he has entered his appearance, within five (5)
days from receipt of this Resolution. Respondent shall
also serve copies of his manifestation on all adverse
parties in all the cases he entered his formal
appearance.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Office
of the Bar Confidant to be attached to Atty. Dennis L.
Diño's personal record. Copies of this Resolution
should also be served on the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for its proper disposition, and the Office of
the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in
the country.
SO ORDERED.