Title
Noemi M. Donato vs. Attorney Elmer A. Dela Rosa
Case
A.C. No. 9717
Decision Date
Jul 29, 2025
Disbarment case dismissed due to res judicata, but prior disbarment reiterated due to similar misconduct.
legal ethics
professional responsibility
code of conduct

Case Summary (A.C. No. 9717)

Antecedents: Donato’s Allegations

Donato alleged that Atty. Dela Rosa intentionally induced her to waive her rights over the subject lot in favor of a third party for a price of PHP 30.00 per square meter. She averred that Atty. Dela Rosa offered a partial payment of PHP 218,785.00 through his personal check, which she accepted, but he allegedly failed to pay the remaining balance of PHP 646,710.38 even though the subject lot was allegedly sold to Diana G. Biron (Biron) on August 7, 2009 for PHP 30,000,000.00. Donato further contended that the sale was illegal because the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) Law prohibits the sale or transfer of CARP-acquired lands for ten (10) years. In addition, Donato alleged that Atty. Dela Rosa violated the Notarial Rules and resorted to forgery when he notarized a special power of attorney (SPA) allegedly executed by members of the cooperative who allegedly attended a general assembly in favor of Atty. Rolex T. Suplico. Donato denied attending the general assembly and asserted that her signature and that of her daughter were forged in the SPA. To support her claim, she submitted a certification from the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City stating that the SPA was not included in the notarial reports submitted by Atty. Dela Rosa.

Referral to the IBP and Mandatory Conference

By a Resolution dated September 9, 2015, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) for investigation. During the mandatory conference on March 11, 2016, Atty. Dela Rosa’s Answer was admitted into the records. He countered that the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 929 cited by Donato was not the same title originally issued to the cooperative. He also asserted that the ten-year prohibition on transferability had already expired in 2002, and he claimed that the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), in DARAB Case No. X(06)3287, had recognized and declared the sale to Biron as outside the prohibited period. As to the deception allegation, Atty. Dela Rosa argued that Donato executed the waiver with the assistance of her own lawyer and voluntarily signed it. He further claimed that Donato received the partial payment through the cooperative’s Metrobank account, from which sale proceeds were intended for distribution to beneficiaries. Donato, for her part, filed a Comment dated May 4, 2016, where she maintained that she was not assisted by counsel in signing the waiver. She insisted that the sale occurred within the ten-year prohibition since TCT No. 929 indicated it was issued on December 18, 2008, and she also denied the occurrence of any general assembly, which she said made it impossible for the cooperative members to execute the July 22, 2010 SPA that Atty. Dela Rosa notarized.

Report and Recommendation of the IBP

In its Report and Recommendation dated September 21, 2020, Commissioner Eric Orolaza Labuguen recommended that Atty. Dela Rosa be suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months, and that his notarial commission be revoked, with a further recommendation that he be prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for the same period. Commissioner Labuguen found, based on the documentary evidence, that the ten-year prohibition against selling a land awarded under the CARP had already expired. He also gave credence to the notarized waiver signed by Donato, citing the presumption of regularity that attaches to notarized documents. He further found that Donato failed to establish her forgery allegations by the degree of proof required, i.e., clear, positive, and convincing evidence. However, Commissioner Labuguen agreed that Atty. Dela Rosa failed to submit the notarized SPA in violation of the Notarial Rules.

Subsequently, in its February 13, 2021 resolution, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP-Board) adopted the findings with a modification on the penalty. It resolved to impose (a) suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year; (b) immediate revocation of the notarial commission, if subsisting; and (c) disqualification from reappointment as a notary public for two (2) years, along with a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely to conform with the standard penalty on violations of the notarial law.

Core Issue

The principal issue for resolution was whether Atty. Dela Rosa should be held administratively liable for the acts imputed to him in the complaint.

The Court’s Disposition: No Further Sanction Due to Res Judicata

The Court held that the instant disbarment complaint could not proceed on its merits insofar as it sought further disciplinary punishment for the same underlying facts already adjudicated in earlier administrative cases involving the same land and substantially identical instruments. The Court first addressed Donato’s agrarian-law theory. It agreed with the controlling agrarian adjudication, holding that the subject lot was no longer covered by the ten-year prohibition on transferability. It emphasized that the DARAB had primary, original, and appellate jurisdiction over agrarian disputes arising from the implementation of the CARP Law, and that its factual findings deserved great weight absent a substantial showing of error. The Court credited the October 12, 2011 DARAB-Cagayan de Oro City decision which ruled that the ten-year prohibitory period should be reckoned from the date the land was awarded to the cooperative on September 8, 1992, and not from December 18, 2008 when a new title issued under the corrected name. Consequently, the Court ruled that when the land was sold on August 7, 2009, it was no longer within the Section 27 transferability prohibition.

However, the dispositive basis of the Court’s ruling was res judicata. The Court considered the procedural and substantive history of Atty. Dela Rosa’s prior administrative liabilities, including the fact that he had already been disbarred in Palalan CARP Farmers Multi-Purpose Coop v. Atty. Dela Rosa, and that he had faced subsequent penalties and disbarment-for-record orders in Jumalon and Mamugay, all of which stemmed from the same parcel of land and similar allegations centered on the same deed of sale and the same SPA. The Court noted that these cases involved farmer-beneficiaries complaining that the property was sold without their consent, and that they challenged the notarization of the SPA for alleged falsity, incompleteness of acknowledgement, and notarial reportorial violations (including the failure to include the SPA in notarial reports). The Court observed that Mamugay bore the most similarity to the present complaint, not only in the factual setting and allegations but also in the specific notarial irregularities charged—namely, the issuance of a false and incomplete acknowledgment when the SPA allegedly stated that signatories who were long deceased personally appeared and were ascertained as voluntary signers, and the failure to include the SPA in the notarial reports.

Res Judicata Requirements and Their Application

The Court reiterated that res judicata is a bar grounded in final judgments by competent jurisdiction on the merits. It applied the requisites that: (a) the prior decision had to be final; (b) the same court (or at least a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties in the prior case) had to have rendered it; (c) it had to be a judgment or order on the merits; and (d) there had to be identity or substantial identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action.

The Court found all elements present. It ruled that it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties in the present case, and that in the earlier cases—Palalan CARP Farmers, Jumalon, and Mamugay—the Court had adjudicated similar administrative charges on the merits, with those judgments having long become final and executory. The Court also found substantial sameness in the operative facts and circumstances. It held that while the complainants were not identical, substantial identity of parties existed because the farmer-beneficiaries in the prior cases had community of interest with Donato: each was an original member of the cooperative and a beneficiary with co-ownership interests over the subject lot covered by TCT No. 929. It further found identity of subject matter because the earlier complaints and the present complaint all concerned Atty. Dela Rosa’s acts relating to the sale of the same 111.41-hectare land in Palalan, Lumbia, Cagayan de Oro City, and the complaints in Mamugay specifically referenced the same Deed of Absolute Sale executed in favor of Biron on August 7, 2009 and the same SPA attached to Donato’s affidavit-complaint and identified in the records.

Finally, it held that the causes of action were identical in substance because each case sought the administrative reprimand or disbarment of Atty. Dela Rosa based on substantially the same set of facts and circumstances surrounding the same instruments and alleged ethical and notarial violations. Th

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms