G.R. No. L-35095 - Garcia vs. Florido

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-35095)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner/complainant: Marjorie filed a complaint-affidavit charging respondent with preparing and notarizing a deed of donation that misrepresented the donees’ ages and with submitting that deed in adoption proceedings. Respondent: a lawyer and then-notary public who prepared the deed and later notarized it; represented Mommayda in adoption proceedings and represented or advised members of the donor’s family.

Key Dates (selected from record)

Margarita died April 13, 2003.
IBP Commissioner resolution recommending discipline: May 22, 2008.
IBP Board of Governors resolution (adopted/modified): July 17, 2008.
IBP Board denial of reconsideration: June 26, 2011.
Respondent’s filings and Court procedural steps occurred in 2011–2012. (The decision in the provided record is later; see Constitutional Basis paragraph below.)

Applicable Law and Rules

Primary standards applied by the Court in the decision: the Lawyer’s Oath; Code of Professional Responsibility—Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest or deceitful conduct and counseling or abetting defiance of the law); Canon 10, Rule 10.01 (prohibiting falsity and misleading the court); the Rules on Notarial Practice (including Rule II Section 1 on Acknowledgment). The Revised Penal Code provisions cited in the complaint (Articles 171(4), 172(2), 347, 359, 183, 184) appear in the record as the criminal-law context of the allegations, though the Court’s professional-discipline ruling focused on ethical and notarial rules. Constitutional framework: the decision was rendered after 1990 and the 1987 Constitution was applied as the governing constitution.

Procedural History

Marjorie filed a complaint before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline alleging falsification of a public document and professional misconduct by respondent for preparing and notarizing a deed of donation that falsely stated the donees were of legal age and for presenting the deed in adoption proceedings. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found a violation of the Notarial Law and recommended a one-year suspension from notarial practice; the IBP Board modified the recommendation to suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year, revoke his notarial commission immediately, and disqualify him from reappointment as notary for two years. The Board denied reconsideration. The respondent filed comment(s) with the Supreme Court; the Office of the Bar Confidant treated the comment as a petition for review and the Court required further pleadings before resolving the matter.

Core Factual Findings

Respondent prepared the deed of donation in favor of Princess Anne and Mommayda, both minors at the time of execution.
Respondent admitted he knew Princess Anne was a minor and was aware Mommayda was a minor (and represented Mommayda in adoption proceedings).
The deed as prepared and later notarized indicated that the donees were "of legal age" despite their minority.
The notarial acknowledgement, as entered in the notarial book, showed only Margarita personally appearing and acknowledging the instrument; the deed nonetheless contained an acceptance clause naming the two donees. The deed lacked signatures and parental appearances of the minor donees in the notarial acknowledgment.
The respondent allowed the deed to be taken out of his presence for signature procurement, left blanks in the deed (date, document number, page) to be filled later, and later notarized the instrument after it returned to him unsigned by parental representatives.

Issues Presented

Whether respondent violated his duty as a lawyer by preparing a deed that contained a material falsehood regarding the age of the donees, in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether respondent violated notarial practice rules by notarizing the deed despite the minors’ nonappearance and the absence of required parental/guardian participation and signatures.
Appropriate disciplinary penalty, considering the circumstances and respondent’s defenses (claimed good faith, persistence of donor, benefit to minors, first offense, household support obligations).

Court’s Ruling — Professional and Ethical Violations (Lawyer)

The Court affirmed that respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the cited provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court’s reasoning: a lawyer must not do falsehoods or consent to them, and must avoid unlawful, dishonest or deceitful conduct and abetting defiance of the law. Respondent prepared an instrument that affirmatively stated the donees were of legal age while he knew both donees were minors; that constituted a material falsehood. The donees’ ages were material because they affected the legal capacity for acceptance and the efficacy of the donation. The respondent’s explanation — that only the donor acknowledged the instrument, that he relied on the donor’s persistence and assurances, that donation to minors is not illegal, or that the partition petition amounted to ratification — did not excuse the conscious insertion of an untrue statement of material fact. The Court cited prior authority (Young v. Batuegas) underscoring lawyers’ obligation to truthfulness and honesty, and held that good faith or good intentions do not justify professional dishonesty.

Court’s Ruling — Notarial Practice

The Court also found respondent violated the Rules on Notarial Practice. The notarial rules require the personal appearance of the signatory(ies) before the notary and presentation of an integrally complete instrument. The deed of donation contained the donees’ acceptance language and named them as donees, but the notarial acknowledgment only recorded Margarita’s personal appearance; the minor donees and their parents/legal guardians did not appear nor were their signatures and assisting parental appearances recorded. The respondent had admitted that Princess Anne signed the instrument elsewhere (in Metro Manila), not in his presence. The omission of the minors’ personal appearances and parental assistance in the notarial acknowledgment rendered the acknowledgment improper, undermining public confidence in notarial acts.

Findings on the Alleged Use of a Simulated Birth Certificate

The Court adopted the IBP Commissioner’s findings absolving respondent of direct responsibility for the making of a simulated birth certificate. The Certificate of Live Birth for Mommayda was found to be simulated on its face, but there was no showing that respondent participated in or prepared the simulated entries at the Local Civil Registrar. When respondent used the certificate in the adoption petition he did not misrepresent that Mommayda was the petitioners’ biological child in the petition’s allegations; related correction-of-entry and simulat

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-35095)

Case Caption and Citation

Reported at 824 Phil. 811, Third Division, A.C. No. 9067, January 31, 2018.
Decision penned by Justice Bersamin; concurred in by Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Leonen, and Gesmundo, JJ.; Justice Martires on official business.
Parties: Marjorie A. Apolinar-Petilo (complainant) v. Atty. Aristedes A. Maramot (respondent).

Core Allegations in the Complaint

Complainant Marjorie alleged respondent consented to, abetted, and participated in falsifying a public document in violation of Article 171(4) in relation to Article 172(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
Alleged professional violations: breach of the Lawyer’s Oath; violations of Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1 and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The public document at issue: a deed of donation executed in favor of Princess Anne Apolinar-Petilo (age alleged 12 at execution) and Ma. Mommayda V. Apolinar (age alleged 16 1/2 at execution).
Complaint asserts respondent knew both donees were minors, yet prepared the deed indicating the donees were “of legal age” and notarized the document.
Allegation that respondent, as Mommayda’s counsel in adoption proceedings, knowingly submitted the deed of donation as evidence despite knowledge of falsity.

Relevant Facts as Alleged and Admitted

Donor: Margarita Apolinar (grandaunt), owner of a parcel in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, who purported to donate to Princess Anne (complainant’s daughter) and Mommayda (adopted daughter of Justina).
Respondent’s version: Margarita and Justina visited his office circa 2000; respondent advised Princess Anne, being a minor, should be represented by a parent; Margarita persisted and respondent prepared the deed but left date, document number, and page number blank and reserved notarization until after parties signed.
Respondent permitted Margarita to take the deed to Manila to procure Princess Anne’s signature to avoid extra travel; later Margarita and Justina returned with the signed deed; respondent observed absence of Princess Anne’s parents’ signatures.
Margarita died on April 13, 2003.
Subsequent family disputes over Margarita’s properties surfaced; in 2004 Justina and Tomas consulted respondent and filed a petition for adoption of Mommayda to legitimize inheritance prospects given a simulated birth certificate.
Complainant Marjorie opposed the adoption and filed criminal complaints alleging simulation and falsification of Mommayda’s birth certificate (Articles 347, 359, 183, 184 RPC); those criminal and other related procedural objections were dismissed.
Procedural developments admitted during IBP mandatory conference: a petition for judicial partition involving donated land was filed; a compromise agreement was reached; Princess Anne sold her share to Mommayda.

Respondent’s Defenses and Explanations

Respondent contended Margarita, as sole owner, had absolute right to donate property; no law prohibiting donation to minors was cited as barring the transaction.
Claimed he left blanks (date, document number, page) and deferred notarization until parties signed; alleged Margarita took the deed to Manila to secure Princess Anne’s signature.
Argued that in conveyances only the person conveying (donor) needs to personally appear, sign and acknowledge before the notary; Princess Anne’s and Mommayda’s names were placed only for them to accept the donation.
Maintained good faith and candor: admitted facts to IBP, asked for mitigation on humanitarian grounds (first offense in 12 years, sole breadwinner).
In motion for reconsideration, stressed that only Margarita attested to the deed’s execution in the notarial acknowledgement; asserted notarization was in good faith and that the resulting effect benefitted the minors.

IBP Commission on Bar Discipline Proceedings and Findings

Mandatory conference held by IBP Commission on Bar Discipline.
IBP Investigating Commissioner (resolution dated May 22, 2008) found respondent violated the Notarial Law and recommended suspension from notarial practice for one (1) year; other complaints recommended dismissed for lack of merit.
Commissioner’s findings (adopted in part by Court): respondent admitted notarizing the Deed of Donation notwithstanding that at least one donee (Princess Anne) had signed not in respondent’s presence; this undermines public confidence in notarial documents.
Commissioner observed that notarial practice requires persons who signed to be the same persons who executed and personally appeared before the notary.

IBP Board of Governors Resolutions and Actions

IBP Board of Governors Resolution No. XVII-2008-337 (July 17, 2008): adopted and approved the Commission’s Report and Recommendation with modification, and resolved:
- Suspend respondent from the practice of law for one (1) year;
- Immediate revocation of respondent’s notarial commission if presently commissioned;
- Disqualification from reappointment as Notary Public for two (2) years.
IBP Board of Governors denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration (Res