Muntuerto, Jr. v. Alberto

A lawyer who notarizes documents without a notarial commission, assists and abets the unauthorized practice of law by a non-lawyer, and fails to disclose MCLE compliance information in court pleadings deliberately violates the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law and permanent disqualification from being commissioned as notary public.

The complainants — Atty. Anastacio T. Muntuerto, Jr., Atty. Ramon Jose G. Duyongco, Atty. Mario Y. Cavada, and Atty. Chad Rodolfo M. Miel — are members of the Philippine Bar who filed a disbarment complaint against the respondent, Atty. Gerardo Wilfredo L. Alberto. The respondent had served as counsel of record for Cristeto E. Dinopol, Jr. in an action for reconveyance and recovery of possession and damages against Singfil Hydro Builders, docketed as Civil Case No. 6835 before the RTC, Branch 47, in Masbate City. The administrative complaint charged the respondent with falsification of public documents and willful and deliberate violations of his oath as a lawyer and of the mandatory rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The respondent, Atty. Gerardo Wilfredo L. Alberto, acted as counsel of record for Cristeto E. Dinopol, Jr. in an action for reconveyance and recovery of possession and damages against Singfil Hydro Builders, filed before the RTC, Branch 47, in Masbate City as Civil Case No. 6835. In connection with this case, the respondent attached to the complaint a supplemental agreement and an amended joint venture agreement, each of which he had separately acknowledged before himself as a notary public for and in Cavite City. He had also antedated his notarizations of these documents.

The complainants averred that the respondent held no notarial commission at the time. This was confirmed by a certification from the Notarial Division of the RTC in Cavite City, which stated that it had "no record of any Commission/Order appointing a certain Atty. Gerardo Wilfredo L. Alberto as Notary Public for the City of Cavite nor of any documents notarized by him, more specifically a document denominated as Supplemental & Amended Joint Venture Agreement." The respondent likewise failed to indicate his MCLE certificate of compliance number and the date of issue of such certificate in the complaint.

Realizing that the complaint he had filed was fatally defective, the respondent had his client sign and file a pleading styled as a "Motion for Prior Leave of Court to Admit the Herein Attached Amended Complaint," with the amended complaint attached. The respondent further falsified a secretary's certificate to make it appear that he had been duly appointed as the acting corporate secretary of Singtrader JV Corporation and that a resolution had been adopted by said corporation authorizing Cristeto E. Dinopol, Jr. as its representative relative to the filing of the necessary and proper actions. The motion was signed by a non-lawyer representative of the corporate client, not by the respondent himself, despite his being counsel of record.

Upon receipt of the administrative complaint, the IBP directed the respondent to file his answer, but he did not comply and was declared in default. He likewise failed to attend the mandatory conference on June 18, 2016, despite notice, and did not file his position paper. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found the charges established and recommended a five-year suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors adopted with modification, adding a ₱5,000.00 fine. The respondent did not appeal or move for reconsideration.

• Falsification of Public Documents: The complainants averred that the respondent notarized the supplemental agreement and amended joint venture agreement attached to the complaint in Civil Case No. 6835 without a valid notarial commission, and that he had antedated his notarizations, as confirmed by the RTC Cavite City Notarial Division's certification of no record.
• Falsified Secretary's Certificate: The complainants charged that the respondent falsified a secretary's certificate to make it appear that he had been duly appointed as acting corporate secretary of Singtrader JV Corporation and that a corporate resolution had been adopted authorizing Dinopol as representative.
• Unauthorized Practice of Law: The complainants averred that the respondent had a non-lawyer sign and file the "Motion for Prior Leave of Court to Admit the Herein Attached Amended Complaint," thereby assisting and abetting the unauthorized practice of law.
• MCLE Non-Disclosure: The complainants pointed out that the respondent failed to indicate his MCLE certificate of compliance number and the date of issue of such certificate in the pleadings he filed.

• Unauthorized Notarization: Whether the respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing documents without having been issued a notarial commission.
• Unauthorized Practice of Law: Whether the respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by allowing a non-lawyer to sign a motion filed in court.
• MCLE Non-Disclosure: Whether the respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to indicate his MCLE compliance number in the complaint filed in connection with a pending case.

• Unauthorized Notarization: Yes. Notarizing documents without a valid notarial commission constituted a blatant violation of the Lawyer's Oath to obey the laws and of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
• Unauthorized Practice of Law: Yes. Allowing a non-lawyer to sign and file a court pleading patently breached Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits a lawyer from delegating to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.
• MCLE Non-Disclosure: Yes. Failure to disclose the MCLE certificate of compliance number constituted flagrant disobedience to the resolution in Bar Matter No. 1922, as amended, which subjects counsel to appropriate penalty and disciplinary action.

• Unauthorized Notarization: The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice expressly define a notary public as "any person commissioned to perform official acts under the [2004 Rules on Notarial Practice]." The commission is the grant of authority to perform notarial acts, issued only upon due application by the Executive Judge following a summary hearing, publication, and posting of notice. The respondent held no such commission, as certified by the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC in Cavite City. By notarizing the supplemental agreement and amended joint venture agreement without authorization, the respondent violated the injunction of the Lawyer's Oath to obey the laws. He also made it appear that he had been duly commissioned, thereby vesting the documents with evidentiary value under false pretenses and foisting a deliberate falsehood on the trial court. This constituted dishonesty and trivialized the solemnity of notarization, transgressing Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court cited Bernardo Vda. de Rosales vs. Ramos for the principle that a lawyer-notary bears a graver responsibility by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood.

• Unauthorized Practice of Law: The preparation and signing of any pleading, motion, or other paper submitted in court constitute legal work within the context of the practice of law. Pursuant to Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, the signature on a pleading serves as a certification that the signing attorney has read the pleading, that there is good ground to support it, and that it is not interposed for delay. Such formal assurance can be undertaken only by a regular member of the Philippine Bar in good standing. The respondent, as counsel of record, had the personal responsibility to sign the "Motion for Prior Leave of Court to Admit the Herein Attached Amended Complaint." By delegating this task to a non-lawyer, he abdicated his responsibility and breached Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court cited Cambaliza vs. Cristal-Tenorio for the principle that public policy requires the practice of law be limited to duly qualified individuals, and that it is a lawyer's duty to prevent, or at least not assist in, the unauthorized practice of law.

• MCLE Non-Disclosure: The resolution in Bar Matter No. 1922, as amended by the Court En Banc on January 14, 2014, required lawyers to disclose in all pleadings, motions, and papers filed in court information on their compliance with the MCLE program. Failure to disclose subjects counsel to appropriate penalty and disciplinary action, including fines and potential discharge from the case. The respondent did not disclose his MCLE certificate of compliance number and the date of issue in the complaint filed in Civil Case No. 6835. This was flagrant disobedience to the resolution. The Court further noted that the respondent appeared to be a repeat violator, having been observed guilty of the same omission in A.C. No. 12131, where he had defied an order to submit his MCLE compliance.

• Notarial Commission as Prerequisite to Notarial Acts — Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public is any person commissioned to perform official acts under the Rules. The commission is the grant of authority to perform notarial acts, issued only upon due application by the Executive Judge following a summary hearing, publication, and posting. Notarizing documents without a valid commission constitutes a violation of the Lawyer's Oath to obey the laws and of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as it vests documents with false evidentiary value and constitutes dishonesty.

• Prohibition Against Assisting Unauthorized Practice of Law — Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits a lawyer from delegating to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing. The preparation and signing of pleadings, motions, or other papers submitted in court constitute legal work that may be performed only by a regular member of the Philippine Bar in good standing. A lawyer may delegate signing to another lawyer, but not to a non-lawyer.

• MCLE Disclosure Requirement — Pursuant to the resolution in Bar Matter No. 1922, as amended, lawyers must disclose in all pleadings, motions, and papers filed in court their MCLE certificate of compliance or exemption number. Non-disclosure subjects counsel to fines (₱2,000.00 for the first offense, ₱3,000.00 for the second, ₱4,000.00 for the third), possible listing as a delinquent member of the Bar, and discharge from the case.

• Defiance of IBP Directives as Aggravating Circumstance — A respondent's failure to file an answer, attend a mandatory conference, or submit a position paper despite being required to do so by the IBP exhibits defiance toward the IBP's directives and should be treated as an aggravating circumstance, as the IBP, as the Court's designated investigator, discharges a public duty in the Court's name and stead.

• "A lawyer who notarizes documents without a notarial commission, and assists and abets the unauthorized practice of law by a non-lawyer, deliberately violates the Lawyer's Oath and transgresses the canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He thereby manifests a lack of respect for the law and dishonesty, and deserves to be severely punished." — This is the opening statement of the decision, articulating the overarching principle that unites the three charges and frames the severity of the sanction imposed.

• "The notarial act is invested with public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act and serve as notaries public." — This passage defines the public-interest character of notarization, grounding the rationale for requiring a commission before performing notarial acts.

• "The preparation and signing of any pleading, motion or other paper to be submitted in court in connection with any pending matter constitute legal work within the context of the practice of law." — This formulation establishes that signing court pleadings is the exclusive province of members of the Bar, providing the doctrinal basis for the prohibition against delegating such tasks to non-lawyers.

• "Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and character." — Quoted from Cambaliza vs. Cristal-Tenorio, this passage articulates the public-policy foundation for restricting the practice of law to licensed attorneys and the corresponding duty of lawyers not to assist laymen in unauthorized practice.

• Bernardo Vda. de Rosales vs. Ramos, A.C. No. 5645, July 2, 2002, 383 SCRA 498 — Cited for the principle that the principal function of a notary public is to authenticate documents and that a lawyer-notary bears a graver responsibility by reason of his oath to obey the laws and do no falsehood.
• Nunga vs. Viray, A.C. No. 4758, April 30, 1999, 306 SCRA 487 — Cited as precedent for suspending a lawyer for three years for notarizing an instrument without a commission; also cited for Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR.
• Zoreta vs. Simpliciano, A.C. No. 6492, November 18, 2004, 443 SCRA 1 — Followed for the proposition that a lawyer who notarizes documents after expiration of his commission may be suspended for two years and permanently barred from being commissioned as notary public.
• Mariano vs. Echanez, A.C. No. 10373, May 31, 2016, 791 SCRA 509 — Followed for the rule that performing notarial acts without a valid notarial commission warrants suspension from the practice of law and permanent disqualification from notarial commission.
• Tapay vs. Bancolo, A.C. No. 9604, March 20, 2013, 694 SCRA 1 — Cited as analogous precedent where a lawyer allowed a non-lawyer to sign a pleading filed in court and was suspended for one year; also cited for the principle that signing pleadings is personal to the attorney of record.
• Cambaliza vs. Cristal-Tenorio, 478 Phil. 378 — Cited for the principle that the lawyer's duty to prevent or not assist in the unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy.
• Maligsa vs. Cabanting, A.M. No. 4539, May 14, 1997, 272 SCRA 408 — Cited for the proposition that the notarial act is invested with public interest and only those qualified or authorized may serve as notaries public.

• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Applied to the respondent's act of notarizing documents without a commission, thereby foisting a deliberate falsehood on the trial court and constituting dishonesty.
• Rule 9.01, Canon 9, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that "A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing." Applied to the respondent's act of allowing a non-lawyer to sign and file a motion in court.
• Section 3, Rule 7, Rules of Court — Provides that the signature on a pleading serves as a certification that the signing attorney has read the pleading, that there is good ground to support it, and that it is not interposed for delay. Cited to establish that signing pleadings is legal work reserved for members of the Bar.
• 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule II, Section 9 — Defines "Notary Public" and "Notary" as any person commissioned to perform official acts under the Rules. Cited to establish that notarial authority requires a valid commission.
• Bar Matter No. 1922 (Resolution of January 14, 2014) — Requires lawyers to disclose MCLE compliance or exemption numbers in all pleadings filed with courts. Prescribes fines and disciplinary action for non-disclosure. Applied to the respondent's failure to indicate his MCLE compliance number in the complaint filed in Civil Case No. 6835.

Carpio, Peralta, Del Castillo, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, A. Reyes, Jr., Gesmundo, Carandang, and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concurred. Jardeleza, J., was on official business. J. Reyes, Jr., J., was on official leave. Hernando, J., was on leave.