Taday vs. Apoya

A lawyer who notarizes a document without the affiant's personal presence, fabricates a court decision to deceive a client, and retaliatorily withdraws a pending petition when confronted warrants the ultimate penalty of disbarment for violating Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

Leah B. Taday, an overseas Filipino worker based in Norway, sought legal services through her parents, Virgilio and Natividad Taday, for the nullification of her marriage. Her parents contracted the services of Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr., and a Retainer Agreement was executed on April 17, 2011, stipulating an acceptance fee of ₱140,000.00 payable on a staggered basis. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility provide the ethical and procedural framework governing lawyers' conduct in notarizing documents and dealing with clients, the violation of which forms the basis of the administrative charge.

Sometime in 2011, Leah B. Taday, an overseas Filipino worker residing in Norway, asked her parents, Virgilio and Natividad Taday, to find legal counsel for the nullification of her marriage. Her parents engaged the services of Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr., and on April 17, 2011, a Retainer Agreement was executed indicating an acceptance fee of ₱140,000.00, payable on a staggered basis. Complainant informed respondent that she was staying in Norway, and respondent assured her that her absence would not be a problem, as he could find ways to push for the resolution of the case despite her being abroad.

Respondent drafted a Petition for Annulment of Marriage dated April 20, 2011, which he sent to complainant for her signature. After notarizing the petition, respondent filed it before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, where it was raffled to Branch 131 and docketed as Civil Case No. C-22813. On November 17, 2011, while complainant was on vacation in the Philippines and after paying respondent ₱14,500.00, respondent delivered to her a Decision dated November 16, 2011, purportedly granting the annulment of her marriage. The decision was attributed to a certain Judge Ma. Eliza Becamon-Angeles of RTC Branch 162. Complainant grew suspicious because the decision came from a different branch presided by a different judge than where the case was originally filed, appeared to have been issued too quickly, and was poorly crafted.

Verifications were made, and complainant discovered that both RTC Branch 162 and Judge Ma. Eliza Becamon-Angeles did not exist. Complainant's family sought the withdrawal of respondent as counsel. Instead of withdrawing as counsel, respondent filed an urgent motion to withdraw the petition itself. In its Order dated June 25, 2012, RTC Branch 131 granted the motion, and the case was dropped from the civil docket. Complainant and her parents then engaged Atty. Alexander M. Verzosa, who sent a letter dated February 26, 2013 to respondent demanding an accounting of attorney's fees and an explanation for the fake decision. Respondent did not respond. In his Answer to the IBP complaint, respondent denied delivering any decision, claimed the fake decision was a product of complainant's imagination, denied filing the urgent motion to withdraw the petition (asserting he merely drafted it), and claimed he was unaware complainant was abroad, believing she was merely in the Bicol province.

• Notarization Without Personal Appearance: Complainant contended that respondent notarized the verification and certification of non-forum shopping of the petition despite knowing she was in Norway at the time, and that respondent had assured her that her absence would not be an issue.
• Fabrication of Court Decision: Complainant alleged that respondent authored and delivered a fake court decision dated November 16, 2011, purportedly from RTC Branch 162 presided by Judge Ma. Eliza Becamon-Angeles, both of which were non-existent, to deceive her into believing her annulment petition had been granted.
• Retaliatory Withdrawal of Petition: Complainant asserted that when confronted about the fake decision, respondent retaliated by filing an urgent motion to withdraw the petition before RTC Branch 131, resulting in the dismissal of her case.

• Lack of Knowledge of Complainant's Whereabouts: Respondent denied being informed that complainant was an OFW in Norway and claimed he was made to believe she was merely in the Bicol province, which is why he agreed to draft the petition and gave it to complainant's parents for her signature.
• Denial of Delivering Fake Decision: Respondent denied delivering any decision relative to the annulment case and asserted that the alleged fake decision was a product of complainant's imagination.
• Denial of Filing Motion to Withdraw: Respondent claimed he merely drafted the urgent motion to withdraw the petition and gave it to complainant's parents but never signed or filed it.
• Imputing Fabrication to Complainant's Parents: Respondent argued that the fake decision was drafted by complainant's parents, not by him.

• Notarization Without Personal Appearance: Whether respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing the verification and certification of non-forum shopping without the affiant's personal appearance.
• Fabrication of Court Decision: Whether respondent authored and delivered a fake court decision to deceive complainant, in violation of Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the totality of respondent's misconduct warrants the penalty of disbarment.

• Notarization Without Personal Appearance: Yes. Respondent violated Section 2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code, as complainant was in Norway at the time of notarization and did not personally appear before respondent.
• Fabrication of Court Decision: Yes. Respondent authored the fake decision, as evidenced by the identical formatting, grammatical errors, and content between the fake decision and the petition he drafted, the non-existent judge and branch, and his failure to credibly explain these similarities.
• Proper Penalty: Yes. Disbarment was warranted, respondent having committed unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct that lessened public confidence in the legal system and tarnished the legal profession.

• Notarization Without Personal Appearance: Notarization is imbued with public interest and converts a private document into a public document entitled to full faith and credit. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice require that the signatory personally appear before the notary public at the time of notarization and be personally known or identified through competent evidence of identity. On April 20, 2011, respondent notarized the verification and certification of non-forum shopping supposedly executed by complainant, but complainant was in Norway at the time. Respondent's excuse that he was not informed of complainant's whereabouts was rejected; even assuming it were true, he should have refrained from notarizing the document until complainant personally appeared. Instead, he proceeded with the notarization and gave a false assurance that the case would continue despite her absence. This violated both the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code. The Court relied on Gaddi vs. Atty. Velasco and Ferguson vs. Atty. Ramos, where lawyers were sanctioned for notarizing documents without the personal presence of the signatories.

• Fabrication of Court Decision: The Court identified four circumstances establishing respondent's authorship of the fake decision. First, the decision purportedly came from Judge Ma. Eliza Becamon-Angeles of RTC Branch 162, both of which were verified as non-existent. Second, the fake decision was strikingly similar to the petition respondent had drafted—sharing the same statement of facts, issues, rationale, grammatical errors, font, and spacing in the caption—without any credible explanation from respondent. Third, when confronted about the fake decision, respondent immediately filed an urgent motion to withdraw the petition before RTC Branch 131, contradicting his claim that he merely drafted but never filed the motion, as the RTC's June 25, 2012 Order confirmed the motion was filed and the case withdrawn. Fourth, when complainant's new counsel sent a letter confronting respondent about the fake decision and attorney's fees, respondent neither answered nor denied the allegations. Respondent's defense that complainant's parents fabricated the decision was dismissed as illogical, since they had just paid respondent's acceptance fee on November 17, 2011, and the fake decision was dated November 16, 2011; complainant's parents had nothing to gain from a fake decision that would not benefit their daughter. The Court concluded that respondent authored the fake decision to deceive complainant into believing he had won her case.

• Proper Penalty: The burden of proof in disbarment proceedings rests upon the complainant, and the case must be established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof. The Court found that complainant met this standard on all three charges: improper notarization, fabrication of a court decision, and retaliatory withdrawal of the petition. These acts constituted violations of Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code and Section 2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions, and a lawyer may be deprived of it for misconduct rendering him unfit to hold a license. Drawing parallels to Krursel vs. Atty. Abion, where a lawyer was disbarred for drafting a fake Supreme Court order, and Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. vs. Atty. Naldoza, where a lawyer was disbarred for falsifying an official court receipt, the Court held that respondent's reprehensible acts—making a mockery of the judicial system, degrading the administration of justice, and besmirching the legal profession—did not merit his continued membership in the bar. The ultimate penalty of disbarment was imposed.

• Notarization Requires Personal Appearance of the Affiant — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routinary act but is imbued with public interest. It converts a private document into a public document entitled to full faith and credit. A notary public must not notarize a document unless the signatory personally appears before the notary at the time of notarization and is personally known or identified through competent evidence of identity. The purpose is to enable the notary to verify the genuineness of the signature and ascertain that the document is the signatory's free act and deed. Notarizing a document without the affiant's personal presence violates Section 2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and constitutes dishonest conduct under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In this case, respondent notarized the verification and certification of non-forum shopping while complainant was in Norway, warranting disciplinary sanction.

• Fabrication of Court Documents as Grounds for Disbarment — A lawyer who drafts or fabricates a fake court decision to deceive a client commits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct in violation of Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Such conduct makes a mockery of the judicial system, degrades the administration of justice, weakens public faith in the judicial system, and besmirches the entire legal profession. Where the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that a lawyer authored a fabricated court decision, the ultimate penalty of disbarment is warranted. The Court applied this doctrine to respondent, who authored a fake decision bearing a non-existent judge's name and branch number, with content and formatting identical to the petition he had drafted.

• Burden of Proof in Disbarment Proceedings — In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof. The appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts. Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions, and a lawyer may be deprived of it for misconduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or exercise the duties and responsibilities of an attorney.

• "Notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routinary act. It is imbued with public interest and only those who are qualified and authorized may act as notaries public." — This passage articulates the doctrinal foundation for the Court's ruling on the notarization violation, emphasizing the public-interest character of notarial acts and the high standard of care required of notaries public.

• "Instead of being an advocate of justice, he became a perpetrator of injustice. His reprehensible acts do not merit him to remain in the rolls of the legal profession." — This passage captures the Court's ratio for imposing disbarment, framing respondent's misconduct as a fundamental betrayal of the lawyer's role and justifying the ultimate penalty.

• "Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law during good behavior and can only be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard has afforded him." — This passage states the canonical formulation of the nature of bar membership as a conditional privilege, a principle frequently cited in Philippine legal ethics jurisprudence.

• Gaddi vs. Atty. Velasco, 742 Phil. 810 (2014) — Followed. The Court cited this case for the proposition that notarizing a document without ascertaining the identity and voluntariness of the signatory, and affixing a signature on an incomplete notarial certificate, constitutes a breach of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code.
• Ferguson vs. Atty. Ramos, A.C. No. 9209, April 18, 2017 — Followed. The Court relied on this case for the principle that notarizing a document without the presence of the parties is fraught with dangerous possibilities, given the conclusiveness courts and the public accord to notarized documents.
• Krursel vs. Atty. Abion, 789 Phil. 584 (2016) — Followed. A lawyer was disbarred for drafting a fake Supreme Court order to deceive her client. The Court found the facts analogous and adopted the same rationale: such conduct makes a mockery of the judicial system and warrants disbarment.
• Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. vs. Atty. Naldoza, 374 Phil. 1 (1999) — Followed. A lawyer was disbarred for falsifying an official court receipt. The Court cited this case to support the imposition of disbarment where a lawyer clearly fails the standards of the noble profession.
• Luna vs. Atty. Galarrita, 763 Phil. 175 (2015) — Cited for the principle that lawyers must conduct themselves with honesty and integrity, and that the lawyer-client relationship is highly fiduciary in nature.
• Ceniza vs. Atty. Rubia, 617 Phil. 202 (2009) — Cited for the burden of proof standard in disbarment proceedings: clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof.

• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes." Respondent violated this Canon by notarizing a document without the affiant's presence, fabricating a court decision, and withdrawing the petition in retaliation.
• Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Respondent's notarization without personal appearance, fabrication of a court decision, and retaliatory withdrawal of the petition constituted unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct.
• Rule 1.02, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system." Respondent's fabrication of a fake court decision and delivery thereof to his client lessened public confidence in the legal system.
• Section 2, Rule IV, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Prohibits a notary public from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present at the time of notarization and is not personally known or identified through competent evidence of identity. Respondent violated this provision by notarizing the verification and certification of non-forum shopping while complainant was in Norway.

Antonio T. Carpio (Senior Associate Justice), Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Francis H. Jardeleza, Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, Samuel R. Martires, Noel Gimenez Tijam, Andres B. Reyes, Jr., and Alexander G. Gesmundo. The decision was rendered Per Curiam with no separate concurring opinions.