Apolinar-Petilo vs. Maramot

A lawyer's knowing inclusion of a false statement of a material fact in a legal document he prepares, and his notarization of an incomplete instrument without the required personal appearance of the parties, constitutes dishonest and deceitful conduct warranting disciplinary sanction. The lawyer's duty of truthfulness and honesty is paramount and cannot be excused by good faith, good intentions, or the persistence of a client.

The complainant, Marjorie A. Apolinar-Petilo, is the mother of Princess Anne Apolinar-Petilo, one of the minor donees in the deed of donation. The respondent, Atty. Aristedes A. Maramot, is a lawyer and notary public who prepared and notarized the deed. The other donee, Ma. Mommayda V. Apolinar, was the adopted daughter of Justina Villanueva-Apolinar, and the respondent was also her counsel in her adoption case. The donor, Margarita Apolinar, was a grandaunt of the parties who owned the donated parcel of land in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro.

Complainant Marjorie A. Apolinar-Petilo filed a complaint-affidavit against respondent Atty. Aristedes A. Maramot alleging that he consented to, abetted, and participated in the illegal act of falsifying a public document in violation of Article 171(4) in relation to Article 172(2) of the Revised Penal Code, and that he thereby violated the Lawyer's Oath, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1, and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The public document in question was a deed of donation executed in favor of Princess Anne Apolinar-Petilo and Ma. Mommayda V. Apolinar, who were only 12 years old and 16½ years old, respectively, at the time of its execution. Marjorie asserted that the respondent knew of the minority of the donees, yet he prepared the deed of donation indicating that both donees were "of legal age," and notarized the document. She further claimed that the respondent, being Mommayda's counsel in the latter's adoption case, was aware of the untruthful statements because he thereafter submitted the deed of donation as evidence therein.

In his answer, the respondent stated that Margarita Apolinar and her sister-in-law Justina Villanueva-Apolinar went to his law office sometime in 2000. Margarita was a grandaunt who owned a parcel of land in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro that she wanted to donate to Princess Anne and Mommayda. Upon learning of Princess Anne's minority, he advised that she had to be represented by either parent. However, Margarita persisted and prevailed over him. He prepared the deed of donation but left the date, document number, and page number blank, reserving the notarization for later after the parties had signed the document. He allowed Margarita to bring the deed to Manila to procure Princess Anne's signature, as a way of avoiding additional travel expenses. Justina mentioned that Margarita was then suffering from colon cancer and had little time to live.

A month later, Margarita and Justina returned with the signed deed of donation. The respondent noticed that the document did not bear the signatures of Princess Anne's parents. Margarita again offered to procure the signatures, but she and Justina did not return with the document until the time when he had to enter the instrument in his notarial book for his monthly report. Margarita died on April 13, 2003. In 2004, Justina and her husband Tomas consulted the respondent about a court battle with Marjorie over Margarita's properties. They learned that because Mommayda's birth certificate had been simulated, they needed to legally adopt her. They filed a petition for adoption, which Marjorie opposed, arguing that Tomas and Justina were not morally capable of adoption due to the simulation of Mommayda's birth. Marjorie also brought several criminal cases against them for simulation of birth and falsification of the birth certificate. Marjorie's opposition and criminal charges were dismissed.

The respondent submitted that there was nothing illegal in the deed of donation, as Margarita had an absolute right to dispose of her property by donation, and no law prohibited donations to minors. He argued that the filing of a petition for judicial partition was an express if not implied ratification of any defect in the donation. During the mandatory conference, Marjorie admitted that a petition for judicial partition involving the donated land was filed, a compromise agreement was reached, and Princess Anne sold her share to Mommayda. The respondent asserted that the complaint was pure harassment calculated to besmirch his reputation and a premeditated tactic to prolong or pre-empt the adoption case.

In his motion for reconsideration, the respondent submitted that he did not employ any falsity because only Margarita, the donor, had attested to the execution of the deed in the notarial acknowledgment; that it was inconsequential even if Princess Anne had signed the deed not in his presence; and that in conveyances, only the person encumbering or conveying needed to personally appear before the notary public. He pleaded for mitigation of his liability, citing his candor in admitting the offense, his good faith, the lack of damage to the complainant, and that this was his first offense in 12 years of practice. Marjorie countered that Princess Anne could not have signed the instrument in Manila because her daughter was then studying in Victoria, Oriental Mindoro.

• Falsification of Public Document: Complainant alleged that the respondent consented to, abetted, and participated in the illegal act of falsifying a public document in violation of Article 171(4) in relation to Article 172(2) of the Revised Penal Code, by preparing the deed of donation and indicating that the minor donees were "of legal age."
• Violation of Lawyer's Oath and CPR: Complainant argued that the respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1, and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly because he submitted the deed of donation as evidence in the adoption case despite knowing of the untruthful statements.
• Impossibility of Signing in Manila: Complainant averred that Princess Anne could not have signed the instrument in Manila because her daughter was then studying in Victoria, Oriental Mindoro.

• Validity of the Donation: Respondent argued that there was nothing illegal in the deed of donation because Margarita, as sole owner, had an absolute right to dispose of her property by donation, and no law prohibited donations to minors.
• Ratification: Respondent submitted that the filing of the petition for judicial partition was an express, if not implied, ratification of any defect in the donation.
• No Falsity in Acknowledgment: Respondent argued that he did not employ any falsity because only Margarita, the donor, had attested to the execution of the deed in the notarial acknowledgment, and that in conveyances, only the person conveying needed to personally appear before the notary public.
• Harassment and Bad Motive: Respondent asserted that the complaint was pure harassment calculated to besmirch his reputation and a premeditated tactic to prolong or pre-empt the adoption case.
• Mitigating Circumstances: Respondent pleaded for mitigation of liability, citing his candor in admitting the offense, good faith, lack of damage to the complainant, and that this was his first offense in 12 years of practice.

• Violation of the Lawyer's Oath and CPR: Whether the respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1, and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by preparing a deed of donation that falsely stated that the minor donees were of legal age.
• Violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice: Whether the respondent violated the Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the deed of donation without the donees and their assisting parents personally appearing before him.

• Violation of the Lawyer's Oath and CPR: Yes. The respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1, and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by knowingly indicating in the deed of donation that the minor donees were of legal age, an act that was undeniably dishonest and contrary to his oath as a lawyer.
• Violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice: Yes. The respondent violated Rule II Section 1 of the Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a deed of donation that was not complete, as the donees and their assisting parents or legal guardians were not included in the notarial acknowledgment and did not sign the instrument.

• Violation of the Lawyer's Oath and CPR: The Court held that the respondent's knowledge of the donees' minority was established. He actually knew Princess Anne was a minor, as evidenced by his claim of having advised that her parents should represent her. His awareness of Mommayda's minority was not disputed because he was representing her in adoption proceedings and was her neighbor. Despite this knowledge, he still indicated in the deed of donation that the donees were of legal age. The Court emphasized that the deed of donation, whether or not acknowledged by the donees, should not bear any false statement upon a material fact, as the ages of the donees bore on their capacities to render the donation efficacious. The respondent's justifications — that the donor's persistence prevailed upon him, that the execution redounded to the advantage of the minors, and that no law prohibited donations to minors — did not relieve him of liability. The Court cited Young vs. Batuegas for the principle that a lawyer must be a disciple of truth and that the courts are entitled to expect complete honesty from lawyers. The decisive consideration was whether the respondent committed a falsehood in his preparation of the deed of donation, and the answer was in the affirmative. The Court adopted the IBP Commissioner's finding absolving the respondent regarding the submission of the simulated birth certificate of Mommayda, as it was not shown that the respondent had a hand in its contents, and he did not misrepresent that Mommayda was the biological daughter of the petitioners in the adoption case.
• Violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice: The Court noted that the IBP Commissioner's observation assumed that Princess Anne had herself acknowledged the instrument not in the respondent's presence. However, the acknowledgment indicated only Margarita's name as the person appearing before the respondent. Nonetheless, the Court held that the respondent's denial of falsity did not save him. While a donation can be accepted in a separate instrument, the deed of donation in question was also the same instrument that contained the acceptance. The names of Princess Anne and Mommayda as donees, even if minors, should have been included in the notarial acknowledgment, and in view of their minority, the names of their respective parents or legal guardians assisting them should have been indicated. Princess Anne and Mommayda should have also signed the deed themselves along with their assisting parents or legal guardians. The omission indicated that the deed of donation was not complete, rendering the notarial acknowledgment improper under Rule II Section 1 of the Rules on Notarial Practice, which requires the personal appearance of the individual and the presentation of an integrally complete instrument or document.

• Lawyer as a Disciple of Truth — A lawyer swore upon admission to the Bar to do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court, and to conduct himself with all good fidelity to the courts and his clients. The Court applied this doctrine in finding that the respondent's knowing inclusion of a false statement of material fact in the deed of donation was dishonest and contrary to his oath, and that his duty of truthfulness could not be excused by good faith or good intentions.
• Notarial Acknowledgment Requirements — Under Rule II Section 1 of the Rules on Notarial Practice, "Acknowledgment" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument or document. The Court applied this rule in finding that the respondent improperly notarized the deed of donation because the donees and their assisting parents or legal guardians were not included in the acknowledgment and did not sign the instrument, rendering it incomplete.

• "A lawyer is a disciple of truth because he swore upon his admission to the Bar that he would do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court, and that he would conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients. His violation of the Lawyer's Oath through the commission of falsehood can be condignly sanctioned." — This passage states the core principle underlying the Court's decision: the lawyer's duty of truthfulness is fundamental and its violation warrants disciplinary sanction.
• "The deed of donation, whether or not acknowledged by the donees, should not bear any false statement upon a material fact. The ages of the donees were material because they bore on their capacities to render the donation efficacious. That neither Princess Anne nor Mommayda acknowledged the deed of donation did not cure the defect." — This passage articulates the Court's reasoning that a false statement of a material fact in a legal document is a violation of the lawyer's duty, regardless of whether the document was acknowledged by all parties.
• "As a lawyer, he should not invoke good faith and good intentions as sufficient to excuse him from discharging his obligation to be truthful and honest in his professional actions. His duty and responsibility in that regard were clear and unambiguous." — This passage establishes that good faith and good intentions do not excuse a lawyer's violation of the duty of truthfulness and honesty.

• Young vs. Batuegas, A.C. No. 5379, May 9, 2003, 403 SCRA 123 — Cited as controlling precedent for the principle that a lawyer must be a disciple of truth, that the courts are entitled to expect complete honesty from lawyers, and that a lawyer's conduct must never be at the expense of truth.
• Serzo vs. Flores, A.C. No. 6040, July 30, 2004 — Cited by the IBP Commissioner and adopted by the Court for the rule that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.

• Article 171(4) and Article 172(2), Revised Penal Code — The complainant alleged that the respondent violated these provisions on falsification of public documents. The Court did not directly rule on the criminal aspect but used the allegations as the basis for the administrative complaint.
• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court found the respondent violated this rule by knowingly indicating false statements in the deed of donation.
• Rule 1.02, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. The Court found the respondent's conduct defied the law and contributed to the erosion of confidence in the legal profession.
• Rule 10.01, Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. The Court found the respondent violated this rule by his dishonest conduct.
• Rule II Section 1, Rules on Notarial Practice — Defines "Acknowledgment" as an act in which an individual on a single occasion appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument or document. The Court applied this rule in finding that the respondent improperly notarized the incomplete deed of donation.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Leonen, and Gesmundo, JJ., concurred. Martires, J., was on official business.