Title
Muntuerto, Jr. vs. Alberto
Case
A.C. No. 12289
Decision Date
Apr 2, 2019
A lawyer was suspended for five years and barred from notarial practice for falsifying documents, allowing non-lawyer filings, and violating MCLE rules.

Case Summary (A.M. No. 2002-15-SC)

Antecedents

The complaint asserted that the respondent acted as counsel for Cristeto E. Dinopol, Jr. in a civil case against Singfil Hydro Builders. The allegations included that the respondent notarized documents without a proper notarial commission and falsified documents associated with the case. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) directed the respondent to respond to the complaint, but he failed to comply and did not attend mandatory conferences, resulting in a default ruling against him.

Findings and Recommendation of the IBP

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found substantial evidence against the respondent, highlighting his lack of a notarial commission and recommendation for a five-year suspension from practicing law. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings, imposing a suspension and a fine of P5,000 for neglecting IBP directives.

Issue

The central issue addressed whether the respondent violated his Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing documents without a commission, permitting a non-lawyer to file motions in court, and failing to indicate his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance details in filed documents.

Ruling of the Court

The Court upheld the IBP's findings and recommendations with modifications. It determined that the respondent notarized documents without a valid commission, violating the legal standard established in the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. By doing so, he misrepresented his authority and committed acts of dishonesty.

Violation of Notarial Standards

The respondent's lack of a notarial commission was substantiated by an official certification indicating no record of his commission. The Court underscored the gravity of notarization, which is an act imbued with public interest, requiring adherence to legal safeguards that ensure only qualified persons may act as notaries. The respondent’s actions were seen as a significant breach of trust and a misrepresentation of the legal framework.

MCLE Compliance Violation

The Court also noted the respondent’s failure to disclose his MCLE compliance information in his pleadings, constituting a blatant contravention of the rules as specified in the resolution of Bar Matter No. 1922. His pattern of neglect evidenced a disregard for the rules and suggested he was a repeat offender in failing to comply with the necessary disclosures.

Unauthorized Practice of Law

In addition, the Court addressed the complaint concerning the respondent’s allowance of a non-lawyer to sign court documents on behalf of his client, thereby facilitating the unauthorized practice of law. This conduct was found to be contrary to the ethical obligations of lawyers, who must ensure that legal tasks are performed only by qualified individuals.

Recommended Penalty

The Court observed that prior cases where lawyers engaged in similar misconduct received various suspension lengths. Considering the respondent's disregard for dis

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.