Case Summary (A.C. No. 4179)
Allegations by the Complainant
On January 24, 1992, Alice Gokioco filed an Affidavit-Complaint claiming that during a pre-trial conference for the civil case Eustaquio Gokioco and See Chua-Gokioco vs. Jennifer Gokioco, Sps. Mariano Gokioco, and Alice Gokioco, it was discovered that the complaint had been notarized by Atty. Mateo on November 10, 1992. The complaint was said to be sworn to by See Chua-Gokioco, who had died on October 7, 1992. Alice alleged that Atty. Mateo, a longtime legal counsel for the family, notarized this document knowing full well that See Chua-Gokioco was deceased, thus violating the Revised Penal Code, Notarial Law, the lawyer's oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Respondent's Defense
In his comment, Atty. Mateo contested the assertion that he was a long-term counsel for the Gokiocos and claimed he only dealt with them sporadically in 1976 and in 1992. He explained that his office prepared the complaint on September 22, 1992, and that he had invited See Chua-Gokioco and her son to verify it, although he couldn't remember the exact date of this verification, which could have fallen between September 22 and October 7, 1992. He maintained that he was unaware of See Chua-Gokioco’s death at the time he notarized the document on November 10, 1992, attributing the delayed discovery of her death to the lack of communication facilities at his office.
Findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
The IBP investigated the complaint and revealed that Atty. Mateo had neglected to record proper entries in his notarial register as required by law. The Commissioner’s report noted that Atty. Mateo failed to accurately document the verification date of See Chua-Gokioco's signature in his notarial records. This was deemed a breach of his lawyer's oath and the relevant notarial laws. Despite acknowledging his shortcomings, the Commissioner determined that although Atty. Mateo's misconduct was serious, it did not warrant disbarment or suspension due to a lack of a dishonest motive and minimal impact on the clients involved.
IBP's Recommendation
The IBP ultimately recommended that Atty. Mateo receive a reprimand, warning him that any future misconduct could lead to a harsher penalty. This recommendation was accepted and adopted by the IBP’s Board of Governors on February 27, 2004, which identified that Atty. Mateo's actions lacked deceit and were more a result of negligence than malicious intent.
Court's Evaluation of Misconduct
The Court concurred with the IBP's findings but determined that the sanction of reprimand was insufficient given the violation of the lawyer's oath and CPR. The Court emphasized the necessity for notaries public to act truthfully, stressing the public trust placed in notarial functions and the critical importance of accuracy in notarizing doc
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 4179)
Case Background
- The case involves a complaint filed by Alice Gokioco against Atty. Rafael P. Mateo for the alleged falsification of a public document.
- The complaint arose during the pre-trial conference of a civil case involving Alice Gokioco and her family against other members of the Gokioco family.
- It was discovered that a civil complaint had been notarized by Atty. Mateo on November 10, 1992, despite the affiant, See Chua-Gokioco, having died on October 7, 1992.
Allegations Against Respondent
- Alice Gokioco alleged that Atty. Mateo knowingly notarized a complaint after the death of See Chua-Gokioco, constituting a violation of the Revised Penal Code, the Notarial Law, the lawyer's oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
- The complaint sought disbarment or suspension of Atty. Mateo from practicing law due to his actions.
Respondent's Defense
- Atty. Mateo denied being a long-time counsel for the Gokioco family and stated that his interactions were limited to 1976 and 1992.
- He contended that he had no knowledge of See Chua-Gokioco's death at the time of notarization and that the verification of the complaint occurred between September 22, 1992, and October 7, 1992.
- The respondent indicated that he