Spouses Chambon vs. Ruiz

The clemency guidelines for disbarment under Nuñez vs. Ricafort apply to petitions seeking the lifting of perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, since the restoration of a lawyer's eligibility to apply for a notarial commission requires the same benevolence from the Court as the reinstatement of a lawyer as a member of the Bar. The Court may relax the five-year minimum filing period when the period actually served is close to five years and constitutes sufficient time for reflection and reformation.

The respondent, Atty. Christopher S. Ruiz, is a lawyer who was previously disciplined by the Court for violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The complainants, Spouses Andre and Ma. Fatima Chambon, filed the administrative complaint that led to respondent's original discipline. The Court's disciplinary authority over notaries public extends to granting clemency thereafter, and a breach of the Notarial Rules also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, since erring notaries public are considered to have violated their oath as lawyers.

The complaint against respondent stemmed from his act of notarizing a Notice of Loss/Affidavit of Loss and a Release of Mortgage in Cebu City without requiring competent evidence of identity of the executors, and without the consent or knowledge of the supposed executors of the Release of Mortgage. Entries in his Notarial Register referring to the Notice of Loss/Affidavit of Loss were not properly accomplished: the jurat was incomplete, with the competent proof of identity of the executor left blank, and the title/description of instrument, name and addresses of parties, competent evidence of identity, date and time of notarization, and type of notarial act were not filled up. Respondent did not provide the reasons and circumstances for not completing these notarial acts, in violation of Rule VI, Section 2 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

As to the Release of Mortgage, respondent denied having notarized the same, explaining that the reference to the book number, document number, and page number pointed to a Special Power of Attorney in his Notarial Register. He admitted, however, that it was actually a Deed of Absolute Sale, and the inadvertence was the fault of his office secretary. The Court gave short shrift to this explanation, holding that the Release of Mortgage bore similarities to his signature and seal, and that his admission that his secretary committed the inadvertence with the entries in his Notarial Register also constituted a violation under the Rules on Notarial Practice. The Court imposed the penalty of perpetual disqualification in light of respondent's negligence in notarizing an incomplete notarial document and in delegating to his secretary his duty of entering details in his Notarial Register, which acts constituted dishonesty.

On August 11, 2022, respondent filed the Petition for Judicial Clemency, praying for the recall of the order perpetually disqualifying him from being commissioned as a notary public. He claimed that he had endured the consequences of his actions far more than what was prescribed by the Court, and that he had adequately demonstrated complete remorse for his momentary lapse of judgment by doing numerous social/civic works and being recognized by universities and communities. He attached copies of certifications from courts, organizations, and agencies, as well as photos of his alleged volunteer works. He admitted that he let his guard down and committed the offense because of his desire to "establish rapport with more senior lawyers [and to accommodate] a fellow lawyer." He also stated that he acted as consultant on legal matters at the Regional Training School of the National Police Training Institute from May 2014 until December 2018, a period that included the duration of his suspension.

The OBC recommended denial of the Petition, noting that acting as a consultant on legal matters constituted practice of law, which respondent did while serving his suspension, a contemptible act. The OBC also observed that respondent shifted the blame to his secretary, which made the violation worse, and that he was doubly negligent in the performance of his duties as a notary public. The OBC concluded that the imposition of perpetual disqualification remains warranted, and that respondent's efforts to show remorse, while admirable, are not enough to erase the doubt cast upon his fitness to become a notary public.

• Sufficiency of Time Served: Respondent argued that he had endured the consequences of his actions far more than what was prescribed by the Court, having served his one-year suspension and additionally suffered deprivations and untold hardships for another year on account of his deference to the wisdom of the Court.
• Remorse and Reformation: Respondent claimed that he had adequately demonstrated complete remorse for his momentary lapse of judgment by doing numerous social/civic works and being recognized by universities and communities, and that the Court's Decision continues to weigh heavily on his shoulders.
• Potential for Public Service: Respondent stated that he is 56 years old and "has so much more to prove in the legal profession or even in the service of his community and the greater public" if the Court grants him clemency.

N/A — The decision does not recount arguments raised by the complainants in the clemency proceedings.

• Applicability of the Nuñez Guidelines: Whether the clemency guidelines for disbarment under Nuñez vs. Ricafort apply to a petition seeking the lifting of perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.
• Relaxation of the Five-Year Period: Whether the five-year minimum filing period under the clemency guidelines may be relaxed when the respondent filed the petition four years and ten months after the penalty commenced.
• Sufficiency of Remorse and Reformation: Whether respondent's showing of remorse, reformation, and community service warrants the grant of judicial clemency.
• Effect of Practicing Law During Suspension: Whether respondent's act of serving as a consultant on legal matters during his suspension should bar the grant of clemency.

• Applicability of the Nuñez Guidelines: Yes. The clemency guidelines for disbarment apply to petitions seeking the lifting of perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, since the restoration of a lawyer's eligibility to apply for a notarial commission requires the same benevolence from the Court as the reinstatement of a lawyer as a member of the Bar.
• Relaxation of the Five-Year Period: Yes. The Court relaxed the five-year rule, finding that the period of four years and ten months constitutes sufficient time for respondent to reflect on his actions and reform himself, especially considering that the guidelines were released only a year before the Petition was filed.
• Sufficiency of Remorse and Reformation: Yes. Respondent's declarations of remorse and reformation were given credence, supported by certifications from his IBP chapter, socio-civic organizations, his church, and training schools and centers, as well as his charitable activities during the pandemic and Typhoon Odette.
• Effect of Practicing Law During Suspension: No. The error may be a mere inadvertence and is not demonstrative of disobedience to the lawful order of the Court, there being no showing that it was committed willfully or flagrantly; respondent was simply reminded to be more circumspect in his acts.

• Applicability of the Nuñez Guidelines: The Court reasoned that while the guidelines in Nuñez vs. Ricafort specifically refer to disbarment, there is no reason why the same may not be applied to a petition seeking the lifting of perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. The restoration of a lawyer's eligibility to apply for a commission as a notary public requires the same benevolence from the Court as the reinstatement of a lawyer as a member of the Bar. Furthermore, a breach of the Notarial Rules constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, and erring lawyers found remiss in their functions as notaries public are considered to have violated their oath as lawyers. Inasmuch as the Court can wield its disciplinary authority over notaries public, the Court can likewise grant clemency thereafter.

• Relaxation of the Five-Year Period: The Court noted that respondent filed the Petition almost five years after the Decision to discipline him, specifically four years and ten months from when he had started serving the penalty of perpetual disqualification. Considering that this period is close to the five-year rule in the clemency guidelines, which were released through Nuñez only a year before the Petition, the Court chose to relax the rule. The Court found that the period of four years and ten months constitutes sufficient time for respondent to reflect on his actions and reform himself.

• Sufficiency of Remorse and Reformation: The Court gave credence to respondent's declarations of remorse and reformation, noting that his words demonstrate that he is aware of the magnitude of his infractions and has come to terms with the previous decision against him. The Court considered the certifications from his IBP chapter, socio-civic organizations, his church, and training schools and centers, which attest to his deep involvement in community service, as well as his charitable activities during the pandemic and Typhoon Odette. The Court also noted that certifications from the trial courts prove that he desisted from appearing as counsel during the period of his suspension and that no criminal case has been filed against him. The Court found that respondent's acts in devoting and rechanneling his time and energy to something worthwhile are laudable and encouraging, showing that his potential for public service has not waned. The Court further noted that while the new guidelines under Nuñez no longer provide for the age and promise factors under Re: Diaz, Canon VI, Section 48 of the CPRA provides that these allegations may also be made in support of a petition for judicial clemency, and a showing of productive years ahead and potential for public service remains persuasive.

• Effect of Practicing Law During Suspension: The Court acknowledged that under Canon VI, Section 52(a) of the CPRA, providing legal consultation or advice is considered practice of law, and that when a lawyer is suspended, he must desist from performing all functions requiring the application of legal knowledge within the period of suspension. However, the Court noted that the error may be a mere inadvertence on the part of respondent and is not demonstrative of his disobedience to the lawful order of the Court, there being no showing that it was in any way committed willfully or flagrantly. The Court deemed it proper not to take this error against respondent and deprive him of the clemency he seeks, but to simply remind him to be more circumspect in his acts and to obey and respect court processes.

The Court also addressed the OBC's recommendation, finding it erroneous to dwell on the infractions of respondent which merited his penalties. The Court emphasized that in clemency proceedings, the perspective should be more forward-looking and less on whether the respondent has the propensity to err. The Court cannot remain fixated on respondent's past infraction for which he is precisely asking for clemency, otherwise this will run counter to the spirit of a plea for judicial clemency. The Court further noted that under the CPRA, violations of notarial rules, except reportorial requirements, are classified as serious offenses when attended by bad faith, and are punished with revocation of notarial commission and disqualification as notary public for not less than two years. Citing Calixto vs. Baleros, where perpetual disqualification was imposed after appreciating a previous administrative case as an aggravating circumstance, the Court observed that if the case against respondent were revisited using the governing rules at this time, the extreme penalty of perpetual disqualification would appear to be too harsh under the circumstances, considering that there was no finding of either bad faith or the gravity of respondent's supposed dishonesty. The Court emphasized that the real objective of a disciplinary case is restorative justice and not retribution, and that extreme penalties are imposed not to punish but to correct offenders.

• Judicial Clemency Guidelines under Nuñez vs. Ricafort — The Court laid down the new clemency guidelines for reinstatement to the Bar: (1) a disbarred lawyer cannot file a petition for judicial clemency within five years from the effective date of disbarment, unless for the most compelling reasons based on extraordinary circumstances; (2) upon the lapse of the five-year period, or earlier if permitted, the disbarred lawyer becomes eligible to file a verified petition showing on its face that (a) the petitioner has fully complied with the terms and conditions of all prior disciplinary orders, including orders for restitution, as well as the five-year period to file, (b) the petitioner recognizes the wrongfulness and seriousness of the misconduct, and (c) notwithstanding the conduct for which the disbarred lawyer was disciplined, the disbarred lawyer has the requisite integrity and competence to practice law; (3) the Court shall first conduct a preliminary evaluation to determine if the petition has prima facie merit; (4) if the petition has prima facie merit, the Court shall refer the petition to the OBC to verify the details and authenticity of the statements and evidence; (5) the OBC shall submit its fact-finding report, and the Court shall ultimately resolve the petition based on clear and convincing evidence; and (6) unless otherwise resolved by the Court En Banc, these guidelines apply to pending petitions and those filed after promulgation. The Court applied these guidelines to a petition seeking the lifting of perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, finding that the restoration of a lawyer's eligibility to apply for a notarial commission requires the same benevolence as reinstatement to the Bar.

• Forward-Looking Perspective in Clemency Proceedings — In petitions for judicial clemency, the perspective of the Court should be forward-looking and less on whether the respondent has the propensity to err. The Court cannot remain fixated on the respondent's past infraction for which he is precisely asking for clemency, otherwise this will run counter to the spirit of a plea for judicial clemency. The Court applied this principle in rejecting the OBC's recommendation, which dwelled on respondent's infractions that merited his penalties.

• Restorative Justice as the Objective of Disciplinary Cases — The real objective of a disciplinary case is restorative justice and not retribution; the goal is not so much to punish the respondent as to protect the dispensation of justice by sheltering the judiciary and the public from the misconduct or inefficiency of officers of the court. Extreme penalties, such as perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, are imposed not to punish but to correct offenders, and the Court knows how to show compassion when the penalty imposed has already served its purpose.

• Notarial Violations as Serious Offenses under the CPRA — Under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, violations of notarial rules, except reportorial requirements, are classified as serious offenses when attended by bad faith, punishable with revocation of notarial commission and disqualification as notary public for not less than two years. The Court applied this in observing that the extreme penalty of perpetual disqualification would be too harsh under the circumstances of respondent's case, considering that there was no finding of either bad faith or the gravity of respondent's supposed dishonesty.

• "While the foregoing guidelines specifically refer to disbarment, there is no reason why the same may not be applied in this case. After all, the restoration of a lawyer's eligibility to apply for a commission as a notary public requires the same benevolence from the Court as the reinstatement of a lawyer as a member of the Bar." — This passage establishes the applicability of the Nuñez clemency guidelines to petitions seeking the lifting of perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, forming the doctrinal basis for the Court's ruling.

• "It is important to remember in these proceedings that the Court is being implored upon to be merciful. The main concern is whether the respondent may be given the chance to redeem himself in view of his contrition. In other words, the perspective of the Court should be more forward-looking and less on whether the respondent has the propensity to err." — This passage articulates the forward-looking perspective that governs judicial clemency proceedings, rejecting the OBC's fixation on respondent's past infractions.

• "To be sure, the Court should not lose sight of the real objective of a disciplinary case, which is restorative justice and not retribution. The goal is not so much to punish the respondent as to protect the dispensation of justice by sheltering the judiciary and the public from the misconduct or inefficiency of officers of the court." — This passage defines the restorative justice objective of disciplinary cases, supporting the Court's grant of clemency where the penalty imposed has already served its purpose.

• Nuñez vs. Ricafort, 897 Phil. 529 (2021) — Controlling precedent that laid down the new clemency guidelines for reinstatement to the Bar, which the Court applied to the present petition seeking the lifting of perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.
• Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37, Appealing for Judicial Clemency, 560 Phil. 1 (2007) — Earlier guidelines for judicial clemency, which were refined by Nuñez; the Court noted that the new guidelines no longer provide for the age and promise factors under Re: Diaz, but these remain persuasive under Canon VI, Section 48 of the CPRA.
• Re: 2003 Bar Examinations, Atty. Danilo De Guzman, 604 Phil. 284 (2009) — Followed as an example of a disbarred lawyer who sufficiently demonstrated remorse and redirected focus towards public service, warranting compassion; cited for the proposition that a subsequent track record in public service affords hope that achievements as a lawyer would redound to the general good.
• Calixto vs. Baleros, A.C. Nos. 13911 & 13912, October 3, 2023 — Distinguished; in that case, perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public was imposed after appreciating a previous administrative case as an aggravating circumstance, whereas in the present case there was no finding of bad faith or the gravity of respondent's supposed dishonesty.
• Sanchez vs. Inton, 866 Phil. 1 (2019) — Cited for the proposition that a breach of the Notarial Rules constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, and erring notaries public are considered to have violated their oath as lawyers.
• Lingan vs. Calubaquib, 737 Phil. 191 (2014) — Cited for the rule that when a lawyer is suspended from the practice of law, he must desist from performing all functions requiring the application of legal knowledge within the period of suspension.
• Valencia vs. Antiniw, 579 Phil. 1 (2008) — Cited for the proposition that the real objective of a disciplinary case is restorative justice and not retribution.

• Rule VI, Section 2, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — The provision violated by respondent for not providing the reasons and circumstances for not completing the notarial acts, specifically for leaving blank the competent proof of identity of the executor and other required entries in the Notarial Register.
• Canon VI, Section 48, Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability — Provides the allegations required in a verified petition for judicial clemency, including that the petition was filed after five years from receipt of the order of disbarment, that the disbarred lawyer has fully complied with all prior disciplinary orders, that he recognizes the wrongfulness and seriousness of the misconduct, that he has reconciled or attempted to reconcile with the wronged private offended party, and that he has the requisite good moral character and competence; also provides that allegations of productive years ahead and potential for public service may be made in support of the petition.
• Canon VI, Section 52(a), Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability — Defines providing legal consultation or advice as practice of law; applied in considering whether respondent's act of serving as a consultant on legal matters during his suspension constituted a violation of the Court's order.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred. Rosario and Singh, JJ., were on official business.

N/A — The decision does not recount any dissenting opinion.