..LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS..

a. JOHN PAUL KIENER vs. ATTY. RICARDO R. AMORES IBP BOG: reversed and set aside the Investigating Commissioner's Report
A.C. No. 9417, November 18, 2020 and Recommendation saying that as notary public, respondent carries with
Dacillo, Gerald R. him the presumption that he has performed his duties as required. This
presumption of regularity was not overcome by complainant.
FACTS:
Complainant filed MR but was denied by the IBP BOG. Hence, this case.
John Paul Kiener, herein complainant, was the accused in a criminal case for
Estafa pending before the Municipal Trial Court in Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu. ISSUE: WON Atty. Amores should be held administratively liable for violating
the Rules on Notarial Practice. (YES)
Atty. Ricardo Amores, the respondent, was the private prosecutor on behalf of
private complainant Pado's Divecamp Resort Corporation. He was also a RULING:
commissioned notary public at that time. Irene Medalla, the Corporate
Secretary of the Corporation, executed a Secretary's Certificate which It is settled that "notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act, but
authorizes Cho Chang Je, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of said one invested with substantive public interest. Notarization converts a private
Corporation, to file said criminal case on behalf of the Corporation against document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without
complainant. further proof of its authenticity. Thus, a notarized document is, by law, entitled
to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this reason that a notary public
Complainant claims that the Secretary's Certificate was defective and must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of
improperly notarized. He alleges that respondent as notary public failed to his notarial duties; otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of a
indicate the serial number of his notarial commission in the notarial certificate, notarized document would be undermined."
and that Irene's signature appears to have been printed or scanned (digital
copy) into the document. He asserts that because of the use of a printed A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, one of
signature, Irene could not have been physically present when the document which is a jurat. Atty. Amores performed a jurat when he notarized the
was signed and notarized. Secretary's Certificate with Irene signing as the Corporate Secretary. Rule II,
Section 6 of the Rules on Notarial Practice defines a jurat as:
Respondent, in his comment, claims that Irene signed the Secretary's Section 6. Jurat. — "Jurat" refers to an act in which an individual on a single
Certificate in his presence. He counters that the use of a printed or scanned occasion:
signature does not in itself constitute a violation of the Rules on Notarial (a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument
Practice. He further claims that it is common practice for the signatory to sign or document;
only one copy and to reproduce the originally signed copy to the desired (b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary
number of copies before notarization. Moreover, complainant’s allegations are public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these
matters that could be raised by way of defense in the criminal case instead of Rules;
being used for the filing of an administrative case against him. He also claims (c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and
that the instant case is a personal attack and a form of harassment given that (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such
there is another pending administrative case against him. instrument or document.

IBP: Investigating Commissioner Erwin L. Aguilera recommended the This provision requires that the signatory, or the affiant in some cases,
revocation of respondent’s appointment as Notary Public and his physically appears before the notary public and signs the document in his
disqualification from reappointment as such for a period of two years. He found presence. Rule IV, Section 2 of the same rules further provides:
that respondent failed to ascertain the genuineness of Irene's signature when xxx
he notarized the document and that there was no evidence to show that Irene (b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as
was physically present. 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

Page 1 of 12
..LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS..

personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the

notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by
these Rules.

This provision bolsters the requirement of physical appearance as it prohibits

the notary public from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not in his/her
presence at the time of the notarization.

In Prospero v. Delos Santos, the Court emphasized that "a notary public
should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the
very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest
to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. Without the
appearance of the person who actually executed the document in question, the
notary public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the
acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act
or deed."

Here, Atty. Amores failed to observe the requirement of physical presence

when he notarized the Secretary's Certificate. It is also worth mentioning that
Atty. Amores failed to indicate the serial number of his notarial commission in
the concluding part of the notarial certificate of the Secretary's Certificate as
required by the rules.

For having committed such violations, he also failed to adhere to Canon 1 of

the CPR, which requires every lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the
laws of the land, and promote respect for the law and legal processes, and
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in any
unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct

As to the penalty, recent jurisprudence provides that a notary public who fails
to discharge his duties or fails to comply with the Rules on Notarial Practice
may be penalized with revocation of his current notarial commission and
disqualification from reappointment as Notary Public. Thus, the Court holds
that Atty. Amores's current notarial commission, if there is any, should be
revoked. Further, he should be disqualified from reappointment as Notary
Public for a period of two years.

Page 2 of 12
..LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS..

b. OCA v. JUDGE ELIZA B. YU 3. Show-cause order respondent issued against fellow judges. It was
A.M. Nos. MTJ-12-1813, 12-1-09-MeTC, MTJ-13-1836, MTJ-12-1815, OCA IPI premature to rule that she thereby abused and committed misconduct
Nos. 11-2398-MTJ, 11-2399-MTJ, 11-2378-MTJ, 12-2456-MTJ & A.M. No. because she did not issue any ruling on the explanation by the other judges.
MTJ-13-1821 (Resolution). March 14, 2017. She did not violate Section 5, Canon 3 and Section 8, Canon 4 of the Code of
Agbon, Ervin G. Judicial Conduct.

FACTS: 4. Refusal to sign the leave of absence of Mr. Noel Labid. The refusal to
sign the application for leave of absence had factual and legal bases.
In a case, the Supreme Court finds and pronounces respondent Judge Eliza Moreover, she should be presumed to have acted in good faith if she
Yu guilty of gross insubordination; gross ignorance of the law; gross misconstrued the rules on approval of application of leave.
misconduct; grave abuse of authority; oppression; and conduct unbecoming of
a judicial official; and, dismisses her from the service and disqualifies her from 5. Allowing on-the-job trainees. The respondent claims that she did not
reinstatement or appointment to any public office. order the trainees to perform judicial tasks. She had no personal knowledge
that the trainees were made to serve as assistant court stenographers. The
Yu filed an MR with Explanation for the Show Cause Order for the above trainees were only in the premises of her court for a few hours. She allowed
promulgated decision. the trainees to merely observe proceedings.

In her motion, the respondent repeatedly denies committing all the 6. Designation of an officer-in-charge and ordering reception of evidence
administrative offenses for which she was held guilty, and insists on the by a non-lawyer. The respondent denies having violated a circular when she
absence of proof to support the findings against her. designated an officer-in-charge. There was no proof showing that she willfully
and deliberately intended to cause public damage. The ex parte reception of
She pleads that the Court reconsiders based on the following: evidence by a non-lawyer clerk of court was allowed by law.

1. Noncompliance with A.O. No. 19-2011. The complaint against her was 7. Allowing criminal proceedings to continue despite the absence of
premature because of the pendency of her protest against night court duty. counsel. The respondent merely followed the Rules of Criminal Procedure in
A.O. No. 19-2011 was only directory and it violated Section 5, Rule XVII which allowing criminal proceedings despite absence of counsel.
limited the working hours for government officials and employees. There was
no law prohibiting her from writing the protest letters as she had the right of 8. Sending inappropriate email messages. The respondent maintains that
freedom of speech Clause. She did not refuse to obey A.O. No. 19-2011. the e-mail messages were hearsay because the certification by the SC-MISO
was not presented to her, depriving her of the opportunity to object. Her
2. Refusal to honor the appointments of Ms. Mariejoy P. Lagman and Ms. granting access by the MISO to her private e-mails was conditional to prove
Leilani Tejero-Lopez. The respondent claims that she did not refuse to honor tampering. Her Lycos e-mail account was hacked. She did not completely
the appointment. She merely exercised her statutory right as a judge to waive her right to privacy. Considering that she did not authenticate said e-
question the appointment of the branch clerk of court assigned to her sala. mail messages, the same were inadmissible for being hearsay.
There was no proof of the alleged verbal threats, abuse, misconduct or
oppression committed against Ms. Tejero-Lopez. ISSUE: WON Judge Yu should be disbarred. (YES)

Page 3 of 12
..LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS..

RULING: The respondent's MR is denied for lack of merit. Furthermore, Judge Yu exhibited an unbecoming arrogance in committing
insubordination and gross misconduct. By her refusal to adhere to and abide
The respondent insists that there was no proof to support the adverse findings by A.O. No. 19-2011, she deliberately disregarded her duty to serve as the
of the Court. However, the records involved in these cases were voluminous, embodiment of the law at all times. She thus held herself above the law. She
because they consisted of the affidavits and other evidence submitted by the deserved to be removed from the service because she thereby revealed her
several complainants as well as her own pleadings and motions which unworthiness of being part of the Judiciary. Respondent's overall conduct
constituted proof of her administrative wrongdoings. Her explanations vis-a-vis negated her allegation of good faith.
the complaints often backfired against her, and all the more incriminated her
by systematically exposing her personal and professional ineptitude and stilted Disbarment is also to be imposed on the respondent.
logic. The respondent's accountability did not end with her removal from the
Judiciary. In the same decision, the Court declared that her misdemeanor as a
The respondent's argument that she was deprived of the guarantee against member of the Bench could also cause her expulsion from the Legal
self-incrimination has no basis. The respondent's correspondences were Profession through disbarment.
outside the scope of the constitutional proscription against self-incrimination.
She had not been subjected to testimonial compulsion in which she could Indeed, respondent Judge Yu's violation of the fundamental tenets of judicial
validly raise her right against self-incrimination. She also had herself voluntarily conduct embodied in the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
waived her right to be present and to confront the complainant and her Judiciary would constitute a breach of the canons of the CPR such as Canon
witnesses and evidence during the administrative investigation conducted. 1, Rule 1.02, Canon 6, Rule 6.02, Canon 11 and Rule 11.03.

At any rate, the respondent alternatively pleads for compassion and mercy, The Court does not take lightly the ramifications of Judge Yu's misbehavior
and vows not to repeat the same transgressions. She would have the Court and misconduct as a judicial officer. By penalizing her with the supreme
consider in her favor a mitigating circumstances pursuant to Section 48, Rule penalty of dismissal from the service, she should not anymore be allowed to
10 of the Revised Rules. remain a member of the Law Profession. However, this rule of fusing the
dismissal of a Judge with disbarment does not in any way dispense with or set
Administrative Cases in Civil Service, which provides thus: aside the respondent's right to due process.
1. Medications on allergies as analogous circumstance to an unsubstantiated
charge; In all the foregoing, the gross misconduct, violation of the Lawyer's Oath, and
xxx willful disobedience of any lawful order by the Court constitute grounds to
disbar an attorney. In the respondent's case, she was herein found to have
Respondent did not present any compelling argument on how her having committed all of these grounds for disbarment, warranting her immediate
medications for allergies was analogous to physical illness under said rule. disbarment as a consequence. The Court deem it worthwhile to remind that
The Court is unable to appreciate how her consumption of medications for the penalty of disbarment being hereby imposed does not equate to stripping
allergies could generate arrogance, insubordination, gross ignorance of laws, the respondent of the source of livelihood, her disbarment is intended to
and offensive conduct that manifested themselves in the periods material to protect the administration of justice by ensuring that those taking part in it as
the administrative complaints. attorneys should be competent, honorable and reliable to enable the courts
and the clients they serve to rightly repose their confidence in them.

Page 4 of 12
..LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS..

PETITION is DENIED.

Page 5 of 12
..LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS..

c. P/SR. INSP. ROSQUETA vs. JUDGE ASUNCION misconduct constituting a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and to
A.M. No. MTJ-13-1823 March 19, 2014 turn-over the firearm to PNP.
Baqueros, Meryll Sheena U.
ISSUE: WON Judge Asuncion violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
FACTS:
(YES)

● In 2008, Chief Insp. Baldeo received a report about persons armed with
RULING:
firearms in the house of one Alex Asuncion.
● The firearm that became the subject of this administrative charge was
Explanations of Judge Asuncion were not entitled to credence. Judge
seized from Refuerzo. Based on the investigation it was revealed that
Asuncion did not clarify why there had been a delay of two years since the
Refuerzo was an associate/bodyguard of Judge Asuncion.
dismissal of the criminal case before he and the clerk of court would think of
● The criminal case for illegal possession of firearms was then assigned to
turning the firearm over to the PNP Provincial Office for the first time. The
the court where Judge Asuncion presided.
unexplained long delay could only mean that he had already taken personal
● Another investigation ensued and it was revealed that the firearm in
interest in the firearm.
question was previously seized from the possession of one Joseph Canlas
in 2005 during an illegal drugs buy-bust operation wherein he was charged
The foregoing incongruities contained in Judge Asuncion’s explanation
for illegal possession of drugs and illegal possession of firearms.
inevitably lead us to conclude that he took a personal interest in the firearm
● Canlas moved to quash the information. Pending the resolution of Canlas’
and appropriated it. Accountability for his actuations is inescapable for him. He
motion to quash, Sr. Insp. Rosqueta moved for the release of the firearm
was guilty of misusing evidence entrusted to his court. He thereby did not live
for ballistic and cross matching examination.
up to the exacting standards prescribed by the New Code of Judicial Conduct,
● Judge Asuncion denied the motion of Rosqueta but granted the motion to
specifically its Canon 2 and Canon 4.
quash filed by Canlas and dismissed the case.
● The Assistant City Prosecutor filed a motion seeking the turnover of the
The admonition that judges must avoid not only impropriety but also the
firearm to the Prosecutor’s Office but such motion was subsequently
appearance of impropriety is more sternly applied to lower court judges. The
denied by Judge Asuncion for lack of merit.
conduct required of court personnel, from the Presiding Judge to the lowliest
● Upon the recovery of the firearm some two years after the dismissal of the
clerk, must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the heavy
case against Canlas, Sr. Insp. Rosqueta insisted that Judge Asuncion
burden of responsibility as to let them be free from any suspicion that could
should have turned over the firearm to the PNP.
taint the judiciary.
● Sr. Insp. Rosqueta also contended that Judge Asuncion committed serious
misconduct because he had shown malicious interest in the firearm by
Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court classifies violations of the Code of
allowing his bodyguard to take possession of the firearm.
Judicial Conduct under the category of gross misconduct. We have defined
● The case was then referred to Judge Ragucos. He held that there was no
gross misconduct as a "transgression of some established and definite rule of
need for the respondent judge to bring home the firearm. It had been safe
action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public
in the locker of the court for two (2) years. It was the bringing home of the
officer." Gross misconduct involves corruption, or an act that is inspired by the
firearm by the respondent Judge which was the mainspring of confiscation
intention to violate the law, or that is a persistent disregard of well-known rules.
of the firearm that seriously tainted the integrity of the judiciary.
Needless to state, any gross misconduct seriously undermines the faith and
● OCA: adopted the findings of Executive Judge Ragucos and
confidence of the people in the Judiciary.
recommended that Judge Asuncion be ADJUDGED GUILTY of gross

Page 6 of 12
..LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS..

Judge Asuncion was held ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE for GROSS

MISCONDUCT for violating Section 1 and Section 2 of Canon 2, and Section 1
of Canon 4, of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

With a FINE of P21,000.00 and with a stern warning that a repetition of the
same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. He was also DIRECTED
to turn over the firearm to PNP.

Page 7 of 12
..LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS..

d. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. ISMAEL It is settled that failure to decide or resolve cases within the reglementary
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2045 January 19, 2010 period constitutes gross inefficiency and is not excusable. It is a less serious
by Cajipo, Judy Queen N. charge and is punishable by either suspension from office without salaries and
benefits for not less than one month but not more than three months, or a fine
FACTS:
of more than ₱10,000 but not exceeding ₱20,000.
A judicial audit was conducted in the RTC of Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur,
Branch 22, presided over by respondent Judge Harun Ismael. The New Code of Judicial Conduct requires that a judge shall perform all
judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly
and with reasonable promptness. Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code admonishes
The judicial audit resulted in the issuance of a memorandum by the Office of
all judges to dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within
Court Administrator (OCA) directing Judge Ismael to explain his failure to
the period specified in Section 15 (1) and (2), Article VIII of the Constitution.
decide and act on current and inherited cases, as well as to resolve incidents
in various cases pending before him, within the reglementary period provided
The Court emphasized that the administration of justice is a joint responsibility
by law. Judge Ismael was likewise directed to inform the OCA if cases already
of the judge and the lawyer citing Salvador v. Judge Limsiaco: “A judge’s
submitted for decision or resolution had in fact been decided or resolved within
foremost consideration is the administration of justice. Thus, he should follow
the reglementary period.
the time limit set for deciding cases. xxx Failure to comply within the mandated
period constitutes a serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to
Consequently, Judge Ismael was ordered to immediately cease hearing cases
a speedy disposition of their cases. It also undermines the people’s faith and
in his sala and confine himself to deciding or resolving cases submitted for
confidence in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it to disrepute.
decision or resolution. Judge Edilberto Absin was directed to handle active
Decision making, among other duties, is the most important duty of a member
cases, other than cases submitted for decision, until Judge Ismael could
of the bench. “
comply with the directives or until he retired.
Furthermore, the SC ruled that pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, this
In its memorandum the OCA noted that Judge Ismael failed to fully comply
administrative case against respondent shall also be considered as a
with its directives in the memorandum. Neither did he ask for extensions of
disciplinary proceeding against him as a member of the bar. Violation of the
time within which to comply with the subject directives.
basic tenets of judicial conduct embodied in the New Code of Judicial Conduct
for the Philippine Judiciary and the Code of Judicial Conduct constitutes a
OCA found that Judge Ismael had partially complied with the directives of the
breach of Canons 1and 12 as well as Rules 1.03 and 12.04 of the CPR.
memorandum, having already decided or resolved some of the cases he was
directed to act on. Nonetheless, the OCA established that he committed gross
Judge Harun Ismael is found GUILTY of gross inefficiency and FINED in the
inefficiency when he unduly delayed actions in a huge number of cases. The
amount of ₱20,000 for violation of Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of
OCA recommended that he be fined ₱20,000. Furthermore, the OCA
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. He is likewise found GUILTY of
recommended that Judge Absin be directed to decide and resolve the cases
violation of Canons 1 and 12 as well as Rules 1.03, 10.03 and 12.04 of the
pending in respondent’s sala.
CPR for which he is FINED in the amount of ₱10,000.
ISSUE: WON Judge Ismael’s failure to decide cases within the reglementary
period constitutes gross efficiency. (YES)

RULING:

Page 8 of 12
..LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS..

e. COMPLAINT OF EMIL MEDENILLA, et. al. v. JUSTICE SOCORRO B. RULING:

INTING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
A.M. No. 11-190-CA-J, April 24, 2012 Here, the main thrust of the complaint against Justice Inting is that, as Justice
by Sison, Daryl Homer P. of the CA, she should have desisted from joining the elections for the officers
and members of the Board of Trustees of her homeowners association and
FACTS: gotten embroiled in the issues that animated the two groups which shared the
powers of the association, thus getting drawn into a bitter litigation.
1. Complainants, who are officers and trustees of Homeowners
Association, filed a complaint against Justice Socorro B. Inting of the CA But joining the judiciary does not mean that a judge should live the life of a
for grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and conduct unbecoming hermit. The Code of Judicial Ethics does not bar him from joining associations
of a CA Justice in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the CPR. or institutions that promote the common good. To be sure, no social or moral
considerations prevent him from taking active part in organizations that aim to
2. There was an election for the Associations Board of Trustees and promote the welfare of his family or community, like a homeowners
Justice Inting was one of the elected member. association.

3. Complainants alleged that she violated Rule 5.01 (d) and Rule 5.10 of Perchance, serious issues could develop even within socially desirable
Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct when she joined the political organizations but it cannot be on account of such a risk that the judge should
party of her group and contributed to its party funds. Complainants point stay off from all forms of human associations. He does not, by becoming a
out that the elections for the board of trustees and officers of the judge, cease to be a human being cast off from the society of men. Such
Association had become so politicized that she, as a CA Justice, ought not society is his natural habitat. It is membership in questionable organizations or
to have taken part in them since they detracted from the dignity of that actively engaging in the operation of business organizations while serving as
court. judge that he is enjoined to avoid.

4. In her comment, she assails the complaint as motivated by ill will, As a trustee of her village's homeowners association, Justice Inting has the
malice, and a desire to prevent her from fulfilling her duties as member of right to stand her ground on any legitimate issue that might arise in the course
the Association's board of trustees. It was unavoidable, she says, that she of the discharge of her duties. She could of course be wrong on those issues
and the others in the board had to institute an action before the HLURB but it is not for this that she can be subjected to administrative action. None of
against complainants even if there was a chance that the matter could go those issues are related to her work as Justice of the CA.
up to the CA where she worked. But, since she was involved in the case in
her personal capacity as a trustee of the Association, she simply would While it is the Court's duty to investigate every allegation of wrong-doing
have to inhibit herself voluntarily if such matter be assigned to her Division. against judges and other court personnel, it is also its duty to protect them
from frivolous charges.
She rejects as baseless the charge that the Association's elections partake
of political activities. And, although she was active in the affairs of the WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the present administrative complaint
Association, she excelled in her work as Justice of the CA as borne by its against Justice Socorro B. Inting of the Court of Appeals for want of substance.
records.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is sufficient basis to warrant further

administrative investigation of the complaint against Justice Inting. (NO)

Page 9 of 12
..LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS..

f. ATTY. ANTONIO B. MANZANO VS. ATTY. CARLOS P. RIVERA IBP Board of Governors: affirmed the findings but modified the penalty to
A.C. No. 12173, November 03, 2020 suspension from the law practice for 3 years and perpetual disqualification from
Hatton, Clarisse Lyka being commissioned as a notary public.

FACTS: ISSUE: WON Atty. Rivera is administratively liable for committing the acts
complained of. (YES)
Lupo G. Tan, Rema Tan-Manzano, and Sonia G. Tan, represented by Atty.
Manzano, filed a complaint for action publiciana against Pedro Pando, Rene Bloza, RULING:
Arcelie Bayaca, and Marlon Urata.
Notarization converts a private document into a public document and makes such
In his Return of Summons, the Sheriff reported that he failed to personally serve a document admissible as evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial
copy of the complaint and its annexes against defendants Bayaca, who was document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Consequently,
abroad, and Urata, who was in Manila. notaries public must therefore observe with utmost care the basic requirements in
the performance of their duties.
The defendants, through Atty. Rivera, filed their Answer before the RTC. A copy
was mailed to Atty. Manzano's address in Las Pinas City. The Answer was signed We have repeatedly emphasized that notarization is not a mere empty,
by Pando and Bloza. Interestingly, it also bore the signatures of Bayaca and Urata. meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that
It was prepared and notarized on the same date by Atty. Rivera in his law office only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. To protect
situated in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. However, upon inquiry, Atty. Rivera was substantive public interest, those not qualified or authorized to act must be
not commissioned as a notary public for and in the Province of Cagayan at the prevented from imposing upon the public, the courts, and the administrative offices
time he notarized the Answer in 2014 as stated in the Certification issued by the in general.
Office of the Clerk of Court.
Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice is clear. Only a person who is
Believing that the signatures of Bayaca and Urata were forged, Atty. Manzano commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the
advised Lupo Tan to file a criminal complaint for Falsification of Public Documents territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2) years
and Use of Falsified Documents against Atty. Rivera, Pando and Bloza. commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is
made, unless earlier revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules
In the Counter-Affidavit, Atty. Rivera admitted that he prepared the Answer for the and the Rules of Court.
defendants Pando, Bloza, Bayaca, and Urata in the civil case. He, however,
denied knowing that the signatures of Bayaca and Urata were forged. Atty. Rivera The Certification issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of
further admitted that his notarial commission has already expired in 2014. Tuguegarao City, Cagayan duly showed that Atty. Rivera was not commissioned
as a notary public for and in the Province of Cagayan in 2014. Thus, Atty. Rivera is
Thereater, Atty. Manzano filed the instant Petition for disbarment against Atty. indubitably liable for gross violation of the notarial rules which should not be dealt
Rivera for Malpractice, Dishonesty, and Falsification of Public Document. Atty. with lightly by the Court.
Rivera did not file his Answer and likewise did not appear during the scheduled
mandatory conference. The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline directed Atty. Atty. Rivera's act of making it appear that he was a duly commissioned notary
Manzano and Atty. Rivera to submit their respective verified Position Papers but it public is in blatant disregard of the Lawyer's Oath to obey the laws, i.e. the Notarial
was only Atty. Manzano who submitted his Position Paper. Law, and to do no falsehood. It likewise constitutes a transgression of Rule 1.01 of
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which states that: "A
Report and Recommendation of the IBP: no substantial evidence to prove that lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." He
Atty. Rivera forged the signatures of Bayaca and Urata in the Answer but found also transgressed Canon 7 of the CPR, which mandates that every lawyer shall
Atty. Rivera liable for Gross Misconduct, disregarding lawful orders in defiance of "uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession," and Rule 7.03
the Lawyer's Oath, and recommended that Atty. Rivera be suspended from the which provides:
practice of law for a period of three years and be barred from being commissioned
as notary public for the same period.

Page 10 of 12
..LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS..

A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards

of morality. The legal profession exacts from its members nothing less. Lawyers
are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts
constitutive of malpractice.

Moreover, Atty. Rivera's conduct during the administrative proceedings manifests

a blatant disregard to his oath "to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the
duly constituted authorities therein." He failed to comply with the directives of the
Investigating Commissioner to submit his Answer and Position Paper without
justifiable reason. He ignored the scheduled mandatory conferences despite
receipt of notices. These acts depict his deliberate defiance to the lawful orders of
the IBP, of which he is a member.

Thus, in line with the prevailing jurisprudence, we find that the recommended
penalties of the IBP to suspend Atty. Rivera from the practice of law for three years
and to perpetually disqualify him from being commissioned as a notary public are
just and proper.

Page 11 of 12
..LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS..

g.

Page 12 of 12