Rivera vs. Atty. Dalangin

A lawyer who has represented parties as co-plaintiffs in litigation and thereafter notarizes a deed of sale over the subject property executed by only one of those parties, to the prejudice of the other, is guilty of dishonesty and deceitful conduct under Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by failing to refuse notarization despite knowledge of the transaction's prejudicial character and by failing to timely submit notarial reports.

Sylvia Rivera was the surviving spouse of the late Teofilo Rivera, while Nicasio Rivera was Teofilo's son from another woman. Together they litigated over land registered in Teofilo's name under Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-217758, filing a civil case for annulment of documents, cancellation of title, and damages against Felipe Pecache and the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija. Atty. Bayani P. Dalangin, then with the Public Attorney's Office, assisted them at the appellate stage. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC) govern the notarial duties at issue, and the Civil Code provisions on succession define the inheritance rights central to the dispute.

Sylvia Rivera, the surviving spouse of the late Teofilo Rivera, and Nicasio Rivera, Teofilo's son from another woman, filed a civil case for annulment of documents, cancellation of title, and damages against Felipe Pecache and the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija before the Regional Trial Court, docketed as Civil Case No. 1470. The controversy centered on land registered in Teofilo's name under Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-217758. The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, and Sylvia and Nicasio elevated the case to the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 53694. The CA initially affirmed the RTC's findings.

Aggrieved, Sylvia and Nicasio sought assistance from Atty. Bayani P. Dalangin, who was then working at the Public Attorney's Office. Atty. Dalangin prepared a motion for reconsideration, and the CA granted the motion and ruled in favor of Sylvia and Nicasio. Upon finality of the decision, Atty. Dalangin filed a motion for execution of judgment and then a motion to clarify writ of execution, both filed on behalf of the "plaintiffs" without distinguishing between Sylvia and Nicasio. By this time, Atty. Dalangin was no longer connected with the PAO. Emily de Luna, Nicasio's wife, later executed a sworn statement dated December 19, 2011 detailing how Atty. Dalangin became their lawyer, admitting they asked for his help to prepare the motion for reconsideration before the CA and that they told him a portion of the property would go to him.

Later, Sylvia discovered that Nicasio and Emily de Luna executed on June 14, 2009 an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication with Sale involving Teofilo's property. The land was sold for P100,000.00 to Spouses James Martin and Mary Ann Wy, who were later issued TCT No. N-47751 in their names. Sylvia charged Nicasio and Emily with estafa through falsification. She also wrote to Spouses Wy expressing her intention to recover the property by tendering payment of P100,000.00 and consigning the amount in court in case of refusal. Sylvia thereafter filed a complaint for annulment of the affidavit of self-adjudication with sale against Spouses Wy, Nicasio, and Emily, and for cancellation of TCT No. N-47751 before the RTC, and consigned the P100,000.00 in court.

In their answer, the Spouses Wy attached a Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 28, 2009 with a consideration of P4,000,000.00, notarized by Atty. Dalangin. Sylvia claimed the deed was antedated to prevent the consignment and that Atty. Dalangin was aware she had an interest over the property of her late husband. She filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Dalangin before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on grounds of deceit and dishonesty, docketed as CBD Case No. 11-3237. As supporting evidence, Sylvia submitted a certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court that Atty. Dalangin did not submit his notarial reports for the period February 6, 2008 to December 31, 2009.

Atty. Dalangin denied that Sylvia was his client, arguing that it was Nicasio who hired his services. He claimed no knowledge that Sylvia was the lawful wife of Teofilo and maintained that the deed of absolute sale was not antedated, presenting a page from his notarial register showing the deed was executed on May 28, 2009. He also countered that he submitted his notarial reports for 2008 and 2009 on October 11, 2011. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Dalangin violated the CPR and the Rules on Notarial Practice, noting that the motions for execution and to clarify writ of execution were substantial evidence of an attorney-client relationship between Sylvia and Atty. Dalangin, and that the notarization of the deed of sale was anomalous and done in bad faith to prejudice Sylvia's rights as a legal heir.

• Attorney-Client Relationship: Sylvia argued that Atty. Dalangin represented her as counsel, as evidenced by the caption of Civil Case No. 1470 and CA-G.R. CV No. 53694 naming both Sylvia and Nicasio as plaintiffs, and by the motions for execution and to clarify writ of execution filed on behalf of the "plaintiffs" without distinction.
• Antedated Deed: Sylvia claimed that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 28, 2009 was antedated to prevent the consignment of P100,000.00.
• Knowledge of Interest: Sylvia contended that Atty. Dalangin was aware she had an interest over the property of her late husband, making his notarization of the deed anomalous and prejudicial.
• Failure to Submit Notarial Reports: Sylvia presented a certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court showing that Atty. Dalangin did not submit his notarial reports for the period February 6, 2008 to December 31, 2009.

• No Attorney-Client Relationship with Sylvia: Atty. Dalangin denied that Sylvia was his client and argued that it was Nicasio who hired his services.
• No Knowledge of Marriage: Atty. Dalangin explained that the disputed property was previously registered solely in Teofilo's name and claimed no knowledge that Sylvia was the lawful wife of the late Teofilo.
• Deed Not Antedated: Atty. Dalangin maintained that the deed of absolute sale was not antedated, presenting a page from his notarial register showing the deed was executed on May 28, 2009.
• Submission of Notarial Reports: Atty. Dalangin countered that he submitted his notarial reports for 2008 and 2009 on October 11, 2011.

• Attorney-Client Relationship: Whether Atty. Dalangin represented Sylvia as his client in Civil Case No. 1470 and CA-G.R. CV No. 53694.
• Dishonesty and Deceit: Whether Atty. Dalangin exhibited dishonesty and deceitful conduct in feigning non-representation of Sylvia and in notarizing the deed of absolute sale prejudicial to her rights.
• Notarial Practice Violations: Whether Atty. Dalangin violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the deed of absolute sale and by failing to timely submit his notarial reports.
• Antedating of Deed: Whether the deed of absolute sale was antedated.

• Attorney-Client Relationship: Yes. The caption in both the RTC and CA cases named Sylvia and Nicasio as plaintiffs, and Atty. Dalangin filed motions on behalf of the "plaintiffs" without distinguishing between them, constituting substantial evidence of an attorney-client relationship.
• Dishonesty and Deceit: Yes. Atty. Dalangin exhibited dishonesty in feigning non-representation of Sylvia and in notarizing the deed of sale knowing a legal heir was left out, violating Canons 1 and 7 of the CPR.
• Notarial Practice Violations: Yes. Atty. Dalangin should have refused notarization under Section 4, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and his 43-month delay in submitting notarial reports violated Section 2(h), Rule VI.
• Antedating of Deed: No. The notarial register enjoys the presumption of regularity, and Sylvia failed to present contrary evidence to substantiate the accusation.

• Attorney-Client Relationship: The caption in Civil Case No. 1470 and CA-G.R. CV No. 53694 was entitled "Sylvia Reyes Rivera & Nicasio Rivera vs. Felipe Pecache and the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija." Atty. Dalangin's motion for execution of judgment used the words "Plaintiffs, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states," and the motion to clarify writ of execution was similarly worded. Any reasonably prudent attorney would inquire into the facts and background of a case before filing pleadings on behalf of parties. These motions constitute substantial evidence of an attorney-client relationship between Sylvia and Atty. Dalangin, estopping him from claiming he counseled only Nicasio and Emily. Emily de Luna's own sworn statement confirmed how Atty. Dalangin became their lawyer and assisted them.

• Dishonesty and Deceit: Atty. Dalangin cannot deny that Sylvia is Teofilo's wife or that she has an interest in the disputed land. As counsel for the plaintiffs in the civil case, he knew or should have known that the heirs of Teofilo included the surviving spouse and Nicasio. Notwithstanding this knowledge, he proceeded to notarize the deed of absolute sale executed solely by Nicasio without Sylvia's participation, to her great loss. The transaction disregarded the rules on succession, specifically that the widow is a compulsory heir of the decedent under Article 887(3) of the Civil Code. His feigning that he did not represent Sylvia constitutes dishonesty, defined as the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud, or betray, and deceitful conduct, defined as proclivity for fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation used upon another ignorant of the true facts, to their prejudice. These violate Canons 1 and 7, and Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the CPR.

• Notarial Practice Violations: Under Section 4, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public shall not perform any notarial act if the notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or immoral. Atty. Dalangin, knowing that a legal heir was left out of the transaction, should have refused the notarization. Additionally, he submitted certified copies of his notarial register for 2008 and 2009 only on October 11, 2011, or 43 months late from the date of his commission as notary public on February 6, 2008. Section 2(h), Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice requires that a certified copy of each month's entries be forwarded to the Clerk of Court within the first ten days of the month following.

• Antedating of Deed: A notarial register enjoys the presumption of regularity absent contrary evidence. Atty. Dalangin presented a page from his notarial register showing that the deed was executed on May 28, 2009, before the affidavit of self-adjudication dated June 14, 2009. Sylvia failed to substantiate her accusation of antedating. The quantum of proof in administrative complaints against lawyers is preponderant evidence, and the burden rests upon the complainant; bare allegations of misconduct are insufficient to support a case for disbarment.

• Presumption of Regularity of Notarial Register — A notarial register enjoys the presumption of regularity absent contrary evidence. The Court applied this doctrine in finding no proof that the deed of absolute sale was antedated, as Atty. Dalangin presented a notarial register page showing execution on May 28, 2009, and Sylvia failed to present contrary evidence.

• Quantum of Proof in Administrative Complaints Against Lawyers — The quantum of proof in administrative complaints against lawyers is clearly preponderant evidence, and the burden rests upon the complainant. Bare allegations of misconduct are insufficient to support a case for disbarment. The Court applied this in rejecting the antedating charge for lack of substantiation.

• Scope of Disciplinary Proceedings — The only issue in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers is their fitness to continue in the practice of law. The findings have no material bearing on other judicial action which the parties may choose to file against each other. The Court applied this in declining to delve on whether the deed of absolute sale deprived Sylvia of her inheritance, which must be threshed out in a proper civil action.

• Definitions of Unlawful, Dishonest, and Deceitful Conduct — "Unlawful" conduct refers to any act or omission contrary to, prohibited, or unauthorized by law; "dishonest" means the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud, or betray, lacking in integrity; "deceitful" conduct means the proclivity for fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation used upon another ignorant of the true facts, to their prejudice. The Court applied these definitions in finding Atty. Dalangin's feigning of non-representation and notarization of the prejudicial deed to constitute dishonest and deceitful conduct.

• "Verily, there is no way Atty. Dalangin could forget that Sylvia is his client. The theory that he counseled only Nicasio and Emily can hardly be given credit." — The Court's finding establishing the attorney-client relationship and rejecting respondent's denial, central to the dishonesty charge.

• "The only issue in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers is their fitness to continue in the practice of law. The findings have no material bearing on other judicial action which the parties may choose to file against each other." — Defines the scope and purpose of disciplinary proceedings, limiting the Court's inquiry to professional fitness rather than adjudicating substantive civil rights.

• "To say that lawyers must at all times uphold and respect the law is to state the obvious, but such statement can never be over emphasized. Considering that, of all classes and professions, lawyers are most sacredly bound to uphold the law, it is imperative that they live by the law." — Closing admonition articulating the foundational ethical principle underlying the disciplinary action.

• Jimenez vs. Atty. Francisco, 749 Phil. 551 (2014) — Followed for the definitions of "unlawful," "dishonest," and "deceitful" conduct, which the Court applied to characterize Atty. Dalangin's actions.
• Bote vs. Judge Eduardo, 491 Phil. 108 (2005) — Followed for the presumption of regularity enjoyed by a notarial register absent contrary evidence, applied in rejecting the antedating charge.
• De Zuzuarregui, Jr. vs. Atty. Soguilon, 589 Phil. 64 (2008) — Followed for the principle that the quantum of proof in administrative complaints against lawyers is preponderant evidence and the burden rests on the complainant.
• Garcia vs. Atty. Manuel, 443 Phil. 479 (2003) — Cited as a comparable case where a lawyer found guilty of dishonesty and abuse of client confidence was suspended from the practice of law for six months, supporting the penalty imposed.
• Aquino vs. Atty. Barcelona, 431 Phil. 59 (2002) — Cited as a comparable case where a lawyer suspended for six months for misconduct involving deliberate misrepresentation, supporting the penalty imposed.

• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. Applied to find Atty. Dalangin's dishonest and deceitful conduct violative of this canon.
• Rule 1.01, CPR — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Applied to Atty. Dalangin's feigning of non-representation and notarization of the prejudicial deed.
• Rule 1.02, CPR — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
• Canon 7, CPR — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Applied to find Atty. Dalangin fell short of the standards expected of a lawyer.
• Section 4(a), Rule IV, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC) — A notary public shall refuse to notarize if the notary knows or has good reason to believe the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or immoral. Applied to find Atty. Dalangin should have refused notarization of the deed knowing a legal heir was excluded.
• Section 2(h), Rule VI, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Requires a notary public to forward certified copies of monthly entries to the Clerk of Court within the first ten days of the following month. Applied to find Atty. Dalangin's 43-month delay in submitting notarial reports violative.
• Article 887(3), Civil Code — Identifies the surviving spouse as a compulsory heir of the decedent. Cited to establish that Sylvia, as widow, had inheritance rights in Teofilo's property that were disregarded in the notarized transaction.

Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson), Caguioa, Reyes, Jr., and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concurred.