Case Summary (A.C. No. 9067)
Applicable Law and Professional Standards
The proceedings are governed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Key legal provisions invoked include Article 171(4) and Article 172(2) of the Revised Penal Code concerning falsification of public documents, the Lawyer’s Oath, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1, and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which emphasize a lawyer’s duty to uphold truth, honesty, and good faith in legal practice. The Rules on Notarial Practice were also applied relative to the execution and acknowledgment of notarial documents.
Allegations Against the Respondent
The complainant alleges that the respondent knowingly participated in falsifying the deed of donation by falsely stating that the donees were of legal age when, in fact, both Princess Anne and Mommayda were minors at the time of execution. The respondent is accused of preparing the document containing this falsehood and notarizing it despite the minors not appearing before him, thus breaching his Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Furthermore, the submission of a simulated birth certificate in support of Mommayda’s adoption proceedings was also challenged.
Respondent’s Explanation and Defense
The respondent admitted to preparing the deed of donation but argued that Margarita Apolinar, the donor and legal owner of the property, was insistent on proceeding with the donation despite the minors’ status. He stated that he left some details blank for later completion, allowed Margarita to procure Princess Anne’s signature elsewhere to avoid inconvenience, and only notarized the document after Margarita’s acknowledgment. The respondent maintains that no law prohibits donations to minors, asserts good faith in his actions, and claims that the filing of a judicial partition petition ratified the donation. He denied wrongdoing concerning the simulated birth certificate, contending that he did not misrepresent facts in the adoption case.
Proceedings and Administrative Actions
Following the complaint, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commissioner found the respondent guilty of violating the Notarial Law for improperly notarizing a deed without personal appearance of one of the donees and recommended a one-year suspension from notarial practice. The IBP Board of Governors modified the penalty, suspending the respondent from the practice of law for one year, revoking his notarial commission immediately, and disqualifying him from reappointment as notary for two years. The respondent’s motions for reconsideration were denied.
Court’s Assessment — Lawyer’s Obligations and Duties
The Court emphasized the binding nature of the Lawyer’s Oath, underscoring the mandate to avoid falsehood and maintain honesty and fidelity as essential to legal practice. The respondent’s act of indicating that the minors were of legal age in the deed of donation was found to constitute a conscious and dishonest falsehood, contrary to the Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Good faith and donor insistence were insufficient to excuse the respondent’s failure to uphold truthfulness and legality in document preparation. The Court rejected the argument that ratification through judicial partition nullified the falsity inherent in the document.
Court’s Assessment — Falsification of Birth Certificate
Regarding the simulated birth certificate submitted during the adoption proceedings, the Court, adopting the IBP Commissioner’s findings, absolved the respondent from liability. It was shown that the creation of this document was beyond the respondent’s involvement, appearing to be an act by the donor, and that the adoption petition did not contain misrepresentations by the respondent.
Court’s Assessment — Notarial Acknowledgment
The respondent was found to have violated the Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the deed of donation without the personal appearance of the donee, Princess Anne, who had signed the document outside the notary’s presence. The acknowledgment only indicated the donor’s presence, omitting the signatures and appearances of the donees along with their legal representatives, which is improper and undermines public trust in notarial acts. This failure rendered the notarization improper, violating the notarial regulations.
Penalty Imposed by the Court
While the IBP recommended a one-year suspension from notarial practice and the IBP Board imposed a one-year suspension from the legal profession with revocation and disqualification from notarial office, the Court opted for leniency given the ci
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 9067)
Background and Parties Involved
- Complainant Marjorie A. Apolinar-Petilo filed a complaint-affidavit against respondent Atty. Aristedes A. Maramot.
- Marjorie alleged that Maramot consented to, abetted, and participated in the falsification of a public document, specifically a deed of donation, in violation of Articles 171(4) and 172(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
- The deed of donation favored Princess Anne Apolinar-Petilo (12 years old) and Ma. Mommayda V. Apolinar (16.5 years old), both minors at the time.
- Marjorie accused Maramot, in his capacity as lawyer and notary public, of falsely indicating that the donees were of legal age in the deed of donation and notarizing the document despite this falsehood.
- Maramot was also Mommayda’s counsel in her adoption case and allegedly submitted the deed as evidence, aware of the falsity.
Respondent’s Account and Defense
- Respondent said Margarita Apolinar (donor and grandaunt) and Justina Villanueva-Apolinar (sister-in-law) approached him regarding the donation of a land parcel.
- Upon learning Princess Anne was a minor, he advised representation by a parent; however, Margarita insisted on proceeding.
- He prepared the deed but left certain details blank and allowed Margarita to procure signatures in Manila to ease her travel during her illness (colon cancer).
- He noticed missing parental signatures upon return but relied on Margarita's assurance to procure them later; however, the document was eventually notarized without these.
- Margarita died in 2003; subsequent family disputes arose over her properties, intensifying conflict surrounding the deed.
- Justina and Tomas’ petition to adopt Mommayda ensued after noting the simulation of her birth certificate, which Marjorie opposed, leading to multiple dismissed criminal charges.
- Maramot contended no illegal act was committed in the donation or adoption filings, asserting the donor's absolute ownership and rights, and submitted the petition for judicial partition as ratification.
- He claimed the complaint was based on personal vendetta, intending to harass and delay adoption which would affect Marjorie's heirship.
Legal Issues and Professional Violations Alleged
- Violation of Lawyer’s Oath by committing falsehood and conduct unbecoming a lawyer.
- Breach of specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1 (prohibition against unlawful, dishonest or deceitful conduct; abetting defiance of law); and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 (prohibition against falsehood or misleading the court).
- Violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically regarding proper acknowledgment and notarization.
- Submission of a simulated birth certificate allegedly constituting falsification.
Court’s Analysis on Lawyer’s Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility
- Lawyer’s Oath requires honesty and fidelity to law, forbidding falsehood or consent to falsehood in court.
- Code of Professional Responsibility demands lawyers avoid unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct and not mislead courts or consent to falsehood.
- Respondent knowingly indicated minors were of legal age in the deed of donation, a material falsity affecting the document's legality.
- The dishonesty was deliberate despite his knowledge of the