Case Digest (G.R. No. 230519)
Facts:
The case pertains to a complaint filed by Marjorie A. Apolinar-Petilo against Atty. Aristedes A. Maramot, alleging violations related to falsification of a public document and breach of the Lawyer’s Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility. The controversy arose from a deed of donation executed by Margarita Apolinar, a grandaunt, in favor of her two minor relatives, Princess Anne Apolinar-Petilo (aged 12) and Ma. Mommayda V. Apolinar (aged 16½). Marjorie claimed that respondent Atty. Maramot knowingly prepared, notarized, and submitted a deed of donation falsely stating that the donees were of legal age, despite knowing their minority. This was pointed out to be a falsification in violation of the Revised Penal Code Articles 171(4) and 172(2), and a violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and related Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent denied wrongdoing, stating that Margarita pressured him to prepare the deed, and he advised that Princess Anne needed paren
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 230519)
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Complainant Marjorie A. Apolinar-Petilo (Marjorie) filed a complaint against respondent Atty. Aristedes A. Maramot (respondent), alleging violations of the Lawyer’s Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Revised Penal Code due to falsification of a public document.
- The public document at issue was a deed of donation executed in favor of Princess Anne Apolinar-Petilo (Princess Anne) and Ma. Mommayda V. Apolinar (Mommayda), both minors at the time of execution (12 and 16½ years old, respectively).
- Marjorie claimed that the respondent knew the donees were minors but still indicated in the deed that both were “of legal age" and notarized the document despite this falsity. She asserted this was in violation of the law as well as the ethical rules governing lawyers.
- Respondent acknowledged preparation of the deed but claimed compliance with proper legal procedure, stating Margarita Apolinar (donor) insisted on proceeding notwithstanding the donees' minority. Margarita took the deed to Manila to secure Princess Anne’s signature due to travel constraints, and respondent noted that Justina Villanueva-Apolinar (related to Mommayda) and Margarita handled such matters with knowledge of the donor's medical condition.
- The respondent explained that the signatures of Princess Anne’s parents were missing and that notarization proceeded with Margarita’s acknowledgment alone. Margarita later died in 2003; thereafter, family disputes surfaced, including court battles involving Margarita’s properties which brought the deed to controversy again.
- A petition for the adoption of Mommayda was filed by Tomas and Justina Apolinar to regularize her status because of a simulated birth certificate; Marjorie opposed this petition and filed several criminal complaints, all dismissed.
- The respondent alleged the complaint was a tactic to delay or pre-empt the adoption case, calculated to malign his reputation.
- Proceedings Before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
- During the mandatory conference, Marjorie admitted a judicial partition petition had been filed pertaining to the donated land resulting in a compromise agreement.
- The IBP Commissioner found respondent violated the Notarial Law by notarizing a document without proper personal appearance of all parties and recommended suspension from notarial practice for one year.
- The IBP Board of Governors modified the penalty, suspending the respondent from the practice of law for one year, revoking his notarial commission with disqualification from reappointment as notary for two years.
- The respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
- The respondent elevated the case to the Supreme Court submitting comments, with opposing pleadings filed by the complainant.
- Supreme Court Proceedings
- The case was reviewed with full consideration of the presented facts and arguments regarding the respondent’s alleged falsification of the deed of donation and improper notarization.
Issues:
- Whether or not the respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the Rules of Professional Responsibility by preparing and notarizing a deed of donation that falsely stated the donees were of legal age when they were minors.
- Whether or not the respondent violated the Notarial Law by notarizing the deed of donation without the personal appearance and acknowledgment of all parties required by law.
- Whether the penalties imposed by the IBP Board of Governors were appropriate considering the circumstances and nature of the violations.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)