Mamugay and Saliga, Sr. vs. Dela Rosa

A lawyer who engages in dishonest acts against his clients, falsifies notarial documents, and willfully disobeys orders of the Supreme Court and the IBP is guilty of gross misconduct warranting disbarment.

Lucrecia Q. Mamugay and Perfecto O. Saliga, Sr., members of the Palalan CARP Farmers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Elmer Dela Rosa, the cooperative's former counsel. They discovered that Atty. Dela Rosa had orchestrated the sale of the cooperative's agrarian reform land to a third party without their consent. Furthermore, he notarized a Special Power of Attorney on July 22, 2010, which purportedly bore the signatures of two cooperative members, Alberto A. Ramos and Romana E. Palconit, despite their having died in 1998 and 2004, respectively. The complaint also alleged that the notarized document was not reported to the Clerk of Court as required by the Notarial Law.

• Nature of the Action: A disbarment complaint filed by two farmer-beneficiaries against their former cooperative counsel.
• The Unauthorized Sale: Atty. Dela Rosa sold the cooperative's agrarian reform land to Diana G. Biron via a Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 7, 2009, without the knowledge or consent of the complainants and other farmer-beneficiaries.
• The Falsified Notarization: On July 22, 2010, Atty. Dela Rosa, acting as a notary public, notarized a Special Power of Attorney purportedly executed by the cooperative members. Two signatories, Alberto A. Ramos and Romana E. Palconit, were deceased at the time of notarization (having died in 1998 and 2004, respectively).
• Failure of Reportorial Duty: A certification from the Assistant Clerk of Court confirmed that the notarized Special Power of Attorney was not reported to the court, violating the Notarial Law.
• Respondent's Non-Participation: Despite being ordered to comment, Atty. Dela Rosa repeatedly failed to comply with directives from the Supreme Court and the IBP, leading to the dispensing of his comment and his non-participation in the IBP proceedings.
• Prior Disciplinary Record: The Court took judicial notice that Atty. Dela Rosa had been previously suspended and disbarred in other administrative cases (Sps. Concepcion v. Atty. Dela Rosa and Palalan CARP Farmers Multi-Purpose Coop v. Atty. Dela Rosa) for similar misconduct involving client betrayal and unauthorized land sales.

• Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Complainants argued that by selling their property without consent, Atty. Dela Rosa violated his duty of fidelity and loyalty to his clients.
• Falsification and Dishonesty: They maintained that notarizing a document purportedly signed by deceased persons constituted dishonest and deceitful conduct, undermining the integrity of notarial acts.
• Violation of Notarial Rules: They asserted that the failure to report the notarized document to the Clerk of Court violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Contumacious Conduct: They highlighted respondent's repeated disobedience to lawful orders of the Supreme Court and the IBP as evidence of his disrespect for the judiciary.

• No Arguments Presented: Respondent Atty. Dela Rosa failed to file a comment or any responsive pleading despite being given multiple opportunities. His non-participation was construed as a waiver of his right to be heard and an implied admission of the allegations.

• Unauthorized Sale of Client Property: Whether the respondent's sale of the cooperative's property without the clients' consent constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Falsification of a Notarial Document: Whether notarizing a Special Power of Attorney purportedly signed by deceased individuals violates the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Failure to Comply with Reportorial Requirements: Whether the respondent's failure to submit the notarized document to the Clerk of Court violates the Notarial Law.
• Disobedience to Court and IBP Orders: Whether the respondent's willful and repeated failure to comply with directives from the Supreme Court and the IBP constitutes misconduct punishable under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.

• Unauthorized Sale of Client Property: The respondent was found guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon III of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as Canon II, Section 1 and Canon III, Sections 2 and 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. Selling client property without consent is a blatant betrayal of trust and a failure to serve with competence and zeal.
• Falsification of a Notarial Document: The respondent was found guilty of violating Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Notarizing a document where the signatories were not present (as they were deceased) constitutes a false certification and an act of dishonesty that erodes public confidence in notarized documents.
• Failure to Comply with Reportorial Requirements: The respondent was found guilty of violating Rule VI, Section 2(h) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice for failing to forward a certified copy of the notarized instrument to the Clerk of Court.
• Disobedience to Court and IBP Orders: The respondent's conduct was classified as a less serious offense under Canon VI, Section 34(c) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, warranting a fine. His non-compliance demonstrated disrespect for the judiciary and the legal profession.

• Fiduciary Duty of a Lawyer — A lawyer must act with utmost fidelity and loyalty, safeguarding client interests and avoiding conflicts of interest. The sale of a client's property without consent is a gross violation of this duty.
• Integrity of Notarial Acts — Notarization is not a mere formality; it converts a private document into a public one, lending it authenticity and admissibility. A notary public must ensure the personal appearance and identity of the signatories. Certifying the appearance of a deceased person is a gross falsehood that undermines the public's faith in notarial documents.
• Duty to Obey Court and IBP Orders — Lawyers are officers of the court and are held to a high standard of respect for judicial processes. Willful and deliberate disobedience to orders of the Supreme Court and the IBP is a punishable offense under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.

• "By selling the awarded property sans Mamugay and Saliga, Sr.'s consent, Atty. Dela Rosa undisputedly failed to serve his clients with full competence, and to attend to their cause with zeal, care, and utmost devotion, in complete disregard of his duties enshrined in the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability."
• "Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, [and] routinary act. It converts a private document into a public one and makes it admissible in evidence without need of preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution."
• "Having spun an intricate web of lies through a series of unethical acts, Atty. Dela Rosa not only violated the Lawyer's Oath, but also transgressed many provisions of the CPRA. In particular, his actions may be treated as serious offenses under Canon VI, Section 33(b) and (p) of the CPRA, which pertain to '[s]erious dishonesty, fraud, or deceit, including falsification of documents and making untruthful statements,' and '[v]iolation of the notarial rules, except reportorial requirements, when attended by bad faith,' respectively."

• Palalan CARP Farmers Multi-Purpose Coop v. Atty. Dela Rosa, 859 Phil. 52 (2019) — Cited as a prior case where the respondent was disbarred for similar misconduct, establishing a pattern of exploiting client trust and engaging in unauthorized property sales.
• Jumalon v. Atty. Dela Rosa, A.C. No. 9288, January 31, 2023 — Another prior case where the respondent was found guilty of gross misconduct for selling a client's property without consent, reinforcing his status as a repeat offender.
• Re: Order Dated October 27, 2016... v. Atty. Frances E. Ramon, 882 Phil. 45 (2020) — Applied for the principle that when a lawyer has already been disbarred, a subsequent finding of guilt for a new charge deserving disbarment is recorded in the lawyer's file but not re-imposed as a new penalty.

• Canon 1, Rule 1.01; Canon III, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibit lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct and mandate fidelity to client interests.
• Canon II, Section 1; Canon III, Sections 2 and 6, Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability — Reiterate the duties of propriety, fidelity, and fiduciary responsibility.
• Rule IV, Section 2(b), 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Requires the personal appearance of signatories before a notary public at the time of notarization.
• Rule VI, Section 2(h), 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Mandates the monthly submission of certified copies of notarized documents to the Clerk of Court.
• Canon VI, Section 34(c), Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability — Classifies willful and deliberate disobedience of Supreme Court and IBP orders as a less serious offense.
• Canon VI, Section 42, Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability — Provides that when a previously disbarred lawyer is found guilty of a new charge, the penalty of disbarment or suspension is recorded in the lawyer's personal file but not imposed anew.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, and Kho, Jr., JJ.