G.R. No. 264125 - Noel E. Rosal vs. Commission on Elections and Joseph San Juan Armogila

Case Summary (G.R. No. 264125)

Petitioner, Respondent and Subject Matter

Petitioners/Complainants asserted that the respondent, as counsel of record for a plaintiff in Regional Trial Court Civil Case No. 6835 (Masbate City), attached to the complaint a supplemental agreement and an amended joint venture agreement that were acknowledged before the respondent as notary public in Cavite City, that the notarizations were antedated, that the RTC Notarial Division in Cavite had no record of any notarial commission for him, that he failed to disclose his MCLE compliance number and date in the pleadings, and that he caused a non-lawyer to sign and file a motion and submitted a falsified secretary’s certificate.

Key Dates and Procedural History

Investigatory and disciplinary process before the IBP: respondent was directed to file an answer but defaulted, failed to attend a mandatory conference (June 18, 2016) and did not file a position paper.
IBP Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation dated January 31, 2017 found the charges established and recommended five-year suspension.
IBP Board of Governors (November 27, 2017) adopted the findings and recommended five-year suspension and a fine of P5,000 for disregarding Commission orders.
Respondent did not appeal or move for reconsideration before the Supreme Court.

Applicable Law and Governing Standards

Primary legal bases invoked in the decision: the 1987 Constitution (as the governing constitution for cases decided in 1990 or later), the Lawyer’s Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canons, including Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 9.01 of Canon 9), the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (defining notary public and prescribing requirements for appointment and commission), Bar Matter No. 1922 (MCLE disclosure requirements and sanctions), and the Rules of Court (signature certification obligations). The Court also relied on prior jurisprudence cited in the decision addressing unauthorized notarizations, unauthorized practice assistance, and MCLE non-compliance.

Allegations and Factual Background

Complainants alleged the respondent notarized two corporate agreements without holding a valid notarial commission (and that the notarial attestations were antedated). They further alleged that he failed to indicate his MCLE certificate of compliance number and date in the complaint, and that he had a non-lawyer sign and file a motion (the Motion for Prior Leave of Court to Admit the Herein Attached Amended Complaint) while being counsel of record. Additional assertion included falsification of a secretary’s certificate to appear that the respondent had been appointed acting corporate secretary of a corporation and that a corporate resolution authorized the corporation’s representative to file suit.

IBP Proceedings and Recommendation

The IBP investigated, found the respondent in default for failing to answer or participate in the mandatory conference, and the Investigating Commissioner recommended suspension for five years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted those findings and recommended a five-year suspension from practice and a P5,000 fine for disregarding Commission orders. The respondent did not seek reconsideration or appeal the IBP action prior to the Supreme Court’s adjudication.

Issues Presented to the Court

The Supreme Court framed the issues as whether the respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by: (a) notarizing documents without a notarial commission; (b) allowing a non-lawyer to sign a court filing; and (c) failing to indicate his MCLE compliance number and date in pleadings as required under Bar Matter No. 1922.

Court’s Finding — Notarial Acts Without Commission

The Court found that the respondent had notarized the supplemental agreement and the amended joint venture agreement attached to the complaint and that he did so without possessing a notarial commission. This factual finding was supported by a certification from the Clerk of Court of the RTC in Cavite City stating no record of any commission appointing the respondent as notary public for Cavite City.

Court’s Analysis — Notarization as Violation of Lawyer’s Oath and Professional Canons

The Court held that notarizing documents without authorization constituted a clear violation of the Lawyer’s Oath to obey the laws and transgressed the Code of Professional Responsibility. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice require a commission issued upon application and summary hearing by the Executive Judge; a notarial act hence cannot lawfully be performed without such commission. The Court emphasized the public character and evidentiary significance of notarial acts and held that by misrepresenting that he had a commission the respondent foisted a deliberate falsehood on the trial court, manifesting dishonesty in contravention of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1.

Court’s Finding — MCLE Non-Disclosure

The Court found that the respondent failed to disclose his MCLE certificate of compliance number and date in the complaint filed in the RTC in Masbate City, in breach of the resolution in Bar Matter No. 1922. The Court further observed that the respondent had previously been noted for similar omission in an earlier administrative matter (A.C. No. 12131), indicating repeated non-compliance.

Court’s Analysis — MCLE Non-Disclosure Sanctions and Repeated Violation

Under Bar Matter No. 1922, counsel are required to disclose MCLE compliance/exemption numbers in pleadings; failure to disclose subjects counsel to fines, potential listing as delinquent, and other penalties. The respondent’s omission was characterized as a flagrant disobedience to the resolution and was treated as a relevant factor in assessing discipline, particularly given his prior history of non-compliance with MCLE disclosure directives.

Court’s Finding — Assisting Unauthorized Practice of Law

The Court found that the respondent allowed a non-lawyer to sign and file the Motion for Prior Leave of Court to Admit the Herein Attached Amended Complaint despite being counsel of record. The Court deemed this act as assisting and abetting the unauthorized practice of law by an unlicensed person and a violation of Rule 9.01, Canon 9.

Court’s Analysis — Delegation of Legal Work to Non-Lawyer Violates Canon and Rules of Court

The Court explained that preparation and signing of pleadings, motions or other court papers are legal work that, by law and professional ethical rules, must be performed and signed by a member of the Bar in good standing. The signature on a pleading is a certification under the Rules of Court that the signing attorney has read the pleading and believes there exist good grounds to support it; such certification cannot be mad

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 264125)

Antecedents

This is an en banc disbarment/administrative proceeding recorded at 850 Phil. 1139, A.C. No. 12289, decided April 2, 2019.
Complainants: Atty. Anastacio T. Muntuerto, Jr.; Atty. Ramon Jose G. Duyongco; Atty. Mario Y. Cavada; and Atty. Chad Rodolfo M. Miel.
Respondent: Atty. Gerardo Wilfredo L. Alberto.
The Court considers and resolves a disbarment complaint alleging falsification of public documents, willful and deliberate violations of the Lawyer’s Oath, and violations of mandatory rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Facts Alleged by the Complainants

Respondent was counsel of record for Cristeto E. Dinopol, Jr. in Civil Case No. 6835 (RTC, Branch 47, Masbate City), an action for reconveyance and recovery of possession and damages against Singfil Hydro Builders.
The complaint filed in Civil Case No. 6835 contained a supplemental agreement and an amended joint venture agreement, each acknowledged before the respondent as a notary public for Cavite City.
Complainants alleged the respondent antedated his notarizations.
The Notarial Division of the RTC in Cavite City certified it had “no record of any Commission/Order appointing a certain Atty. Gerardo Wilfredo L. Alberto as Notary Public for the City of Cavite nor of any documents notarized by him, more specifically a document denominated as Supplemental & Amended Joint Venture Agreement.”
The respondent allegedly failed to indicate his MCLE certificate of compliance number and the date of issue in the complaint.
Realizing the complaint was fatally defective, the respondent allegedly had his client sign and file a “Motion for Prior Leave of Court to Admit the Herein Attached Amended Complaint,” with the amended complaint attached.
The respondent allegedly falsified a secretary’s certificate to make it appear he had been duly appointed acting corporate secretary of Singtrader JV Corporation and that a corporate resolution authorized Cristeto E. Dinopol, Jr. to represent the corporation relative to filing necessary actions.

Procedural History Before the IBP

Upon receipt of the administrative complaint, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) directed the respondent to file an answer; he did not comply and was declared in default.
The IBP conducted a mandatory conference on June 18, 2016; respondent did not attend despite notice.
The respondent did not file a position paper required by the IBP investigation.
IBP Investigating Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala issued a Report and Recommendation dated January 31, 2017, finding the charges established and recommending suspension from the practice of law for five years.
On November 27, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the investigating commissioner’s findings and recommendation, modifying the recommendation to suspension from practice for five years and recommending a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) for disregarding the Orders of the Commission.
The respondent did not appeal or move for reconsideration of the IBP’s action.

Issues Presented to the Court

Whether the respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility:
- (a) by notarizing documents without having been issued a notarial commission;
- (b) by allowing a non-lawyer to sign a motion filed in court; and
- (c) by failing to indicate his MCLE compliance number in the complaint filed in connection with a pending case.

Court’s Overall Ruling

The Supreme Court adopted with modification the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.
The respondent was found to have committed the violations alleged and to be deserving of disciplinary sanctions.

Notarization without a Notarial Commission — Findings and Legal Basis

The respondent notarized the supplemental agreement and the amended joint venture agreement attached to the complaint in Civil Case No. 6835.
IBP Investigating Commissioner Villanueva-Maala found the respondent held no notarial commission when he notarized those documents; this lack of commission was confirmed by a certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC in Cavite City stating no record of any commission appointing the respondent as Notary Public for the City of Cavite.
The respondent’s act violated the injunction of the Lawyer’s Oath to obey the laws and specifically contravened the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which defines a notary public as “any person commissioned to perform official acts under the [2004 Rules on Notarial Practice].”
The grant of authority (commission) to perform notarial acts is issued upon application and specific procedural requirements by the Executive Judge, including summary hearing, publication of notice, and posting of notice as described in the Rules on Notarial Practice.
The Court emphasized the public significance of the office of notary public: notarial acts are invested with public interest and only qualified or authorized persons may act as notaries.
The Court cited Bernardo Vda. de Rosales v. Ramos on t