Crisostomo vs. Nazareno

A lawyer who makes false declarations in certifications against forum shopping, and who notarizes documents containing false statements of which he has personal knowledge, violates Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and may be suspended from the practice of law and permanently disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public. The submission of a false certification is separate from the act of forum shopping itself and constitutes indirect contempt, subjecting the erring counsel to administrative and criminal sanctions.

Complainants are individual buyers of housing units in Patricia South Villa Subdivision, Imus, Cavite, from Rudex International Development Corp. (Rudex). Respondent Atty. Nazareno served as Rudex’s counsel in various rescission and ejectment proceedings before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). The dispute implicates the certification requirement against forum shopping under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, as well as the notarial practice rules under A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC (2004 Rules on Notarial Practice), which require each notarial act to be separately recorded and numbered.

Sometime in 2001, complainants individually purchased housing units in Patricia South Villa Subdivision, Anabu-II, Imus, Cavite, from Rudex International Development Corp. (Rudex). Due to construction defects and inadequacies in the subdivision, complainants sought rescission of their contracts to sell before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), seeking refunds of monthly amortizations paid. The first batch of rescission cases was filed by Sioting on May 24, 2002, and by Crisostomo and Marquizo on June 10, 2002; the second batch was filed by Balatucan on March 3, 2003, by Solis and Ederlinda M. Villanueva (represented by Minerales) on May 12, 2003, and by Batang on July 29, 2003. In all these rescission cases, Rudex was represented by Atty. Nazareno.

Judgments of default were rendered against Rudex in the first batch of rescission cases. In August 2003, Rudex filed three petitions for review before the HLURB assailing those judgments. In the certifications against forum shopping attached to these petitions, Rudex, through its President Ruben P. Baes and counsel Atty. Nazareno, stated that it had not commenced or had knowledge of any similar action or proceeding involving the same issues pending before any court, tribunal, or agency. This was false because Rudex, under Atty. Nazareno’s representation, had previously filed an ejectment case on September 9, 2002 against Sps. Sioting before the Municipal Trial Court of Imus, Cavite (MTC).

On January 29, 2004, Rudex, again represented by Atty. Nazareno, filed another complaint against Sps. Sioting before the HLURB for rescission of their contract to sell and ejectment, similar to the pending September 9, 2002 ejectment complaint. The certification against forum shopping attached thereto, executed by Rudex’s Head of Credit and Collection, Norilyn D. Unisan, declared that Rudex had not commenced or was not aware of any action or proceeding involving the same issues pending before any court, tribunal, or agency. Atty. Nazareno notarized this certification himself. On April 1, 2004, six similar complaints for rescission of contracts to sell and ejectment, plus damages for non-payment of amortizations, were filed by Atty. Nazareno on behalf of Rudex against the other complainants before the HLURB. The certifications against forum shopping attached to these complaints likewise stated that Rudex had not commenced or had knowledge of any similar pending action. Atty. Nazareno assigned only one document number (Doc. No. 1968) to all six certifications.

On February 21, 2005, complainants jointly filed the present administrative complaint for disbarment, alleging that Atty. Nazareno made false declarations in the certifications and committed notarial malpractice. Despite notice, Atty. Nazareno failed to file his comment. In the interim, the HLURB, in Resolutions dated April 14, 2005 and May 12, 2005, dismissed Rudex’s complaints for rescission and ejectment on the ground that the certifications against forum shopping contained false statements due to the existence of similar pending cases, in violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.

• False Certifications Against Forum Shopping: Complainants argued that Atty. Nazareno, as counsel for Rudex, made false declarations in the certifications against forum shopping attached to the petitions for review and complaints for rescission and ejectment, by stating that no similar actions or proceedings were pending when in fact complainants’ rescission cases and Rudex’s own ejectment case were already pending before the HLURB and the MTC.
• Notarial Malpractice: Complainants asserted that Atty. Nazareno committed malpractice as a notary public by assigning only one document number (Doc. No. 1968) to the six separate certifications against forum shopping attached to the April 1, 2004 complaints, instead of treating each as a separate notarial act.

N/A — Atty. Nazareno failed to file his comment despite due notice, and the decision does not attribute any arguments to him.

• False Certification Against Forum Shopping: Whether Atty. Nazareno should be held administratively liable for making false declarations in the certifications against forum shopping attached to Rudex’s pleadings.
• Notarial Malpractice: Whether Atty. Nazareno should be held administratively liable for notarizing multiple certifications under a single document number and for notarizing certifications containing false statements of which he had personal knowledge.

• False Certification Against Forum Shopping: Yes. Atty. Nazareno is administratively liable for violating Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, for knowingly making false declarations in the certifications against forum shopping.
• Notarial Malpractice: Yes. Atty. Nazareno is administratively liable for malpractice as a notary public for assigning one document number to six separate notarial acts and for notarizing certifications containing false statements, in violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code.

• False Certification Against Forum Shopping: The Court distinguished the prohibition against forum shopping from the certification requirement, citing Sps. Ong vs. CA: compliance with the certification is separate from avoidance of forum shopping, and failure to comply is a ground for dismissal without prejudice, while false certification constitutes indirect contempt and subjects the erring counsel to administrative and criminal actions. The records show that Atty. Nazareno, as Rudex’s counsel, filed petitions for review in August 2003 without disclosing the pending ejectment case against Sps. Sioting; filed a January 29, 2004 complaint without disclosing Sioting’s May 24, 2002 rescission complaint and Rudex’s own September 9, 2002 ejectment complaint; and filed six April 1, 2004 complaints without disclosing complainants’ pending rescission cases. Because of the evident similarity of issues, Atty. Nazareno was mandated to truthfully declare the existence of pending related cases. His failure to refute the charges despite due notice left no reason to deviate from the IBP’s finding of liability. The Court increased the penalty from one month to one year, noting the repetitive nature of the infractions and citing Molina vs. Atty. Magat, where six months suspension was imposed for a single false statement.

• Notarial Malpractice: The Court found that Atty. Nazareno assigned only one document number to the six certifications attached to the April 1, 2004 complaints, violating the standing rule that each notarial act must be separately recorded and numbered in the notarial register. Worse, he notarized these certifications fully aware that they identically asserted a material falsehood — that Rudex had not commenced or was not aware of any pending actions involving the same issues. Citing Heirs of the Late Spouses Villanueva vs. Atty. Beradio, the Court held that a notary public who has personal knowledge of a false statement in an instrument yet proceeds to notarize it breaches Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code. Given the multiplicity of infractions and willful malfeasance, the Court revoked his notarial commission and permanently disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public, emphasizing that notarization is not a routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest.

• Distinction between prohibition against forum shopping and certification requirement — Compliance with the certification against forum shopping is separate from and independent of the avoidance of forum shopping itself. Failure to comply with the certification is a ground for dismissal without prejudice, while violation of the prohibition against forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and direct contempt. A false certification constitutes indirect contempt and subjects the erring counsel to administrative and criminal actions. The Court applied this distinction to hold Atty. Nazareno liable for the false certifications, independent of any finding of actual forum shopping.
• Notary public’s duty to record each notarial act separately — Under Section 2(a) and (e), Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of notarization the entry and page number of each document, and shall give each instrument a number corresponding to the one in the register. Assigning one document number to multiple separate certifications violates this rule and constitutes notarial malpractice. The Court applied this rule to Atty. Nazareno’s single document number for six certifications.
• Notarization as a substantive public act — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act; it converts a private document into a public document admissible without further proof of authenticity, and is entitled to full faith and credit. A notary public who knowingly notarizes a false statement undermines the integrity of the notarization process and breaches Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court applied this principle to justify the permanent disqualification from notarial commission.

• "The distinction between the prohibition against forum shopping and the certification requirement should by now be too elementary to be misunderstood. To reiterate, compliance with the certification against forum shopping is separate from and independent of the avoidance of the act of forum shopping itself." — This passage from Sps. Ong vs. CA establishes the doctrinal separation between the two concepts, which the Court used to hold Atty. Nazareno liable for false certifications even without a finding of actual forum shopping.
• "Where admittedly the notary public has personal knowledge of a false statement or information contained in the instrument to be notarized, yet proceeds to affix his or her notarial seal on it, the Court must not hesitate to discipline the notary public accordingly as the circumstances of the case may dictate." — Quoted from Heirs of the Late Spouses Villanueva vs. Atty. Beradio, this passage defines the standard for notarial liability when the notary knows of a falsehood, directly applicable to Atty. Nazareno’s notarization of the false certifications.
• "Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public." — From Bernardo vs. Atty. Ramos, this passage underscores the gravity of notarial malfeasance and supports the Court’s imposition of permanent disqualification.

• Sps. Ong vs. CA, 433 Phil. 490 (2002) — Controlling precedent distinguishing the prohibition against forum shopping from the certification requirement; the Court relied on this to establish that false certification is independently sanctionable.
• Molina vs. Atty. Magat, A.C. No. 1900, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 1 — Followed as a benchmark for penalty; the Court noted that a six-month suspension was imposed for a single false statement, justifying a heavier penalty for Atty. Nazareno’s repetitive infractions.
• Heirs of the Late Spouses Villanueva vs. Atty. Beradio, 541 Phil. 17 (2007) — Followed for the rule that a notary who knowingly notarizes a false statement breaches Canon 1 and Rule 1.01; the Court applied the same principle to Atty. Nazareno.
• Bernardo vs. Atty. Ramos, 433 Phil. 8 (2002) — Cited for the principle that notarization is a substantive public act; the Court used this to justify the permanent disqualification from notarial commission.
• Cruz vs. Caraos, 550 Phil. 98 (2007) — Cited in a footnote for the definition of forum shopping, distinguishing it from the certification requirement.

• Section 5, Rule 7, Rules of Court — Requires the plaintiff or principal party to certify under oath that no similar action or claim is pending, and provides that submission of a false certification constitutes indirect contempt, without prejudice to administrative and criminal actions. The Court applied this provision to Atty. Nazareno’s false declarations.
• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court found Atty. Nazareno’s false certifications and notarization of false statements to be a breach of this rule.
• Rule 10.01, Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from doing any falsehood or consenting to the doing of any in court, or misleading the court by artifice. The Court applied this to Atty. Nazareno’s false certifications.
• Section 2(a) and (e), Rule VI, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC (2004 Rules on Notarial Practice) — Requires a notary to record each notarial act in the register with entry and page numbers, and to assign a corresponding number to each instrument. The Court found Atty. Nazareno’s single document number for six certifications to be a violation of this rule.

Sereno, C.J.; Carpio, J.; Velasco, Jr., J.; Leonardo-de Castro, J.; Brion, J.; Peralta, J.; Bersamin, J.; Del Castillo, J.; Villarama, Jr., J.; Perez, J.; Mendoza, J.; Reyes, J.; Leonen, J.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the provided text.