IV.

DUTY OF THE LAWYER TO HIS PROFESSION

A. Duty to Maintain the Dignity of the Profession

BANSIG VS CELERA

[ A.C. No. 5581, January 14, 2014 ]

ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG, COMPLAINANT,  VS.  ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA, RESPONDENT

FACTS:

 Bansig, sister of bunagan narrated that, respondent and Gracemarie R. Bunagan, entered into a
contract of marriage. However, notwithstanding respondent’s marriage with Bunagan, respondent
contracted another marriage with a certain Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba, as evidenced by a certified xerox
copy of the certificate of marriage Bansig stressed that the marriage between respondent and Bunagan
was still valid and in full legal existence when he contracted his second marriage with Alba, and that the
first marriage had never been annulled or rendered void by any lawful authority.

 Bansig alleged that respondent’s act of contracting marriage with Alba, while his marriage is still
subsisting, constitutes grossly immoral and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar, which renders
him unfit to continue his membership in the Bar.

ISSUE: Whether respondent is still fit to continue to be an officer of the court in the dispensation of
justice

RULING:

For purposes of this disbarment proceeding, these Marriage Certificates bearing the name of
respondent are competent and convincing evidence to prove that he committed bigamy, which renders
him unfit to continue as a member of the Bar

 The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support
the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.

 Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the
Bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of
contracting a second marriage while his first marriage is subsisting constituted grossly immoral conduct
and are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
SPOUSES MANOLO & MILINIA NUEZCA v. ATTY. ERNESTO V. VILLAGARCIA, AC. No. 8210, 2016-08-08

Facts:

In their verified complaint, complainants averred that respondent sent them

a demand letter... copy furnished to various offices and persons, which
contained not only threatening but also libelous utterances. Allegedly, the
demand letter seriously maligned and ridiculed complainants to its
recipients.

Thus, they maintained that respondent should be held administratively liable

therefor.

In a Resolution[5] dated July 22, 2009, the Court directed respondent to file
his comment to the verified complaint. However, for failure... the
complainants were then ordered[6] to furnish the Court the complete and
correct address of respondent. Still, complainants failed to comply... refer
the case to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation, which set
the case for a mandatory conference/hearing.[8]

Unfortunately, despite notices,[9] complainants failed to appear for the

scheduled mandatory hearings.

IBP -Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD),... recommended that respondent be

suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months for
violation of Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Likewise, for defying the lawful order of the IBP, the latter recommended
that respondent be declared in contempt of court and fined the amount of
PI,000.00, with a... warning that repetition of the same or similar offense
shall be dealt with more severely.[12]

IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve with modification the
May 29, 2015 Report and Recommendation of the IBP — CBD by suspending
respondent from the practice of law... for a period of six (6) months and
deleting the fine imposed on him.

Issues:

The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not respondent should be
held administratively liable based on the allegations of the verified
complaint.

Ruling:

partially concurs with the findings and recommendations of the IBP Board of
Governors.
WHEREFORE, respondent Arty. Ernesto V. Villagarcia is found GUILTY of
violation of Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He
is hereby

SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) month, effective
upon his receipt of this Resolution, and is STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
 B. Duty of the Courtesy towards Fellow Lawyers

JOSE C. SABERON v. ATTY. FERNANDO T. LARONG

561 SCRA 493 (2008)

Utterances, petitions and motions are considered as  absolutely  privileged, however  false  or malicious
they may be, only if they are pertinent and relevant to the subject of inquiry.

Petitioner Jose C. Saberon charged respondent Atty. Fernando T. Larong of grave misconduct

for allegedly using abusive and offensive language in pleadings filed before the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas (BSP).

The Investigation Commissioner found Larong guilty of grave misconduct, Saberon nevertheless submits

that the recommended penalty of suspension should be modified to disbarment. On the other hand,
Larong seeks for the Court‘s declaration that the questioned allegations were privileged communication.
He submits that the statements, while opening up a lawyer to possible administrative sanction for the
use of intemperate language under the Canons of Professional Responsibility, should not be stripped of
their privileged nature.

ISSUES:

Whether or not Larong is guilty of grave misconduct

HELD:

On many occasions, the Court has reminded members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive
personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless
required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. In keeping with the dignity of the legal
profession, a lawyer’s language even in his pleadings must be dignified.

Respecting Larong’s argument that the matters stated in the Answer he filed before the BSP were
privileged, it suffices to stress that lawyers, though they are allowed a latitude of pertinent remark or
comment in the furtherance of the causes they uphold and for the felicity of their clients, should not
trench beyond the bounds of relevancy and propriety in making such remark or comment.

True, utterances, petitions and motions made in the course of judicial proceedings have consistently
been considered as absolutely privileged, however false or malicious they may be, but only for so long as
they are pertinent and relevant to the subject of inquiry.

Thus, while Larong is guilty of using infelicitous language, such transgression is not of a grievous
character as to merit Larong’s disbarment. In light of Larong’s apologies, the Court finds it best to
temper the penalty for his infraction which, under the circumstances, is considered simple, rather
than grave, misconduct.
 A.C. No. 10303               April 21, 2015

JOY A. GIMENO, Complainant, 
vs.
ATTY. PAUL CENTILLAS ZAIDE, Respondent

FACTS: On August 8, 2007, complainant Joy A. Gimeno (Cimeno) filed a complaint3 with the
IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline, charging Atty. Zaide with: (1) usurpation of a notary
public's office; (2) falsification; (3) use of intemperate, offensive and abusive language; and (4)
violation of lawyer-client trust. In her complaint, Gimeno alleged that even before Atty. Zaide's
admission to the Bar and receipt of his notarial commission, he had notarized a partial
extrajudicial partition with deed of absolute sale on March 29, 2002. She also accused Atty.
Zaide of making false and irregular entries in his notarial registers.

On October 4, 2007, the IBP CBD issued an order setting the case for mandatory conference.
Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo, Jr. (Commissioner Magpayo) found Atty. Zaide
administratively liable for violating the Notarial Practice Rules, representing conflicting interests,
and using abusive and insulting language in his pleadings.

He noted that Atty. Zaide violated Section 1(a) and 1(b), Rule VI of the Notarial Practice Rules
when he maintained several active notarial registers in different offices. These provisions
respectively require a notary public to "keep, maintain, protect and provide for lawful inspection,
a chronological official register of notarial acts consisting of a permanently bound book with
numbered papers" and to "keep only one active notarial register at any given time.

Finally, the investigating commissioner noted that Atty. Zaide used intemperate, offensive, and
abusive language when he called Gimeno a "notorious extortionist" in one of his pleadings.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Zaide violated Section 1(a) and 1(b), Rule VI of the Notarial
Practice Rules and the CPR.

HELD: YES. The Notarial Practice Rules strictly requires a notary public to maintain only one
(1) active notarial register andensure that the entries in it are chronologically arranged. The “one
active notarial register” rule is in place to deter a notary public from assigning several notarial
regiters to different offices manned by assistants who perform notarial services on his behalf.

Atty. Zaide should have been acutely aware of the requirements of his notarial commission. His
flagrant violation of Section 1, Rule VI of the Notarial Practice Rules is not merely a simple and
excusable negligence. It amounts to a clear violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides that "a lawyer [should] uphold the constitution, obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for law and legal processes." The prohibition on the use of
intemperate, offensive and abusive language in a lawyer's professional dealings, whether with
the courts, his clients, or any other person, is based on the following canons and rules of the
Code of Professional Responsibility:
 Canon 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Canon 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to
judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts. (emphasis supplied)

As shown in the record, Atty. Zaide,in the reply that he drafted in the Ombudsman case, called
Gimeno a "notorious extortionist." And in another case, Gimeno observed that Atty. Zaide used
the following demeaning and immoderate language in presenting his comment against his
opposing counsel.

Her declaration in Public put a shame, DISGRACE, INDIGNITY AND HUMILIATION in the
whole Justice System, and the Department of Justice in particular, where the taxpayers paid for
her salary over her incompetence and poor performance as a prosecutor...This is a clear
manifestation that the Public prosecutor suffers serious mental incompetence as regard her
mandate as an Assistant City Prosecutor.35 (emphasis supplied)

This clearly confirms Atty. Zaide's lack of restraint in the use and choice of his words - a conduct
unbecoming of an officer of the court.

While a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not
justify the use of offensive and abusive language. Language abounds with countless
possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, and
illuminating but not offensive.

On many occasions, the Court has reminded the members of the Bar to abstain from any
offensive personality and to refrain from any act prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party
or a witness. In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's language even in his
pleadings, must be dignified
A.C. No. 10628, July 01, 2015
MAXIMINO NOBLE III, Complainant, v. ATTY. ORLANDO O. AILES, Respondent.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

FACTS:
Maximino alleged that Orlando, a lawyer, filed a complaint for damages against his own brother,
Marcelo O. Ailes, Jr., whom Maximino represented. In the said complaint, Orlando stated the following
data: "IBP-774058-12/07/09-QC x x x MCLE Compliance No. II-0008689/Issued on March 10, 2008."

Maximino claimed that during that time, Orlando's IBP O.R. number should have already reflected
payment of his IBP annual dues for the year 2010, not 2009, and that he should have finished his third
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Compliance, not just the second.

Later on, Maximino learned from Marcelo that the latter had filed a separate case for grave threats
and estafa against Orlando. When Maximino was furnished a copy of the complaint, he discovered that,
through text messages, Orlando had been maligning him and dissuading Marcelo from retaining his
services as counsel, claiming that he was incompetent and that he charged exorbitant fees, saying,
among others: "Better dismiss your hi-track lawyer who will impoverish you with his unconscionable
professional fee. Max Noble, as shown in court records, never appeared even once, that's why you lost
in the pre-trial stage… get rid of Noble as your lawyer. He is out to squeeze a lot of money from you,
… daig mo nga mismong abogado mong polpol."

Records show that Orlando even prepared a Notice to Terminate Services of Counsel. It stated that
Maximino has never done anything to protect the interests of the defendants in a manner not befitting
his representation as a seasoned law practitioner and, aside from charging enormous amount of
professional fees and questionable expenses, said counsel's contracted services reached as far only in
preparing and filing uncalled for motions to dismiss. Orlando likewise prepared a Compromise
Agreement which was sent to Marcelo for signature.

Maximino filed a complaint charging Orlando with violation of Rule 7.03 of Canon 7, the entire Canon 8
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Bar Matter Nos. 850 and 1922, and prayed for the disbarment
of respondent as well as the award of damages.

Orlando denied the charges against him and claimed that his late submission of the third MCLE
compliance is not a ground for disbarment and that the Notice to Terminate Services of Counsel and
Compromise Agreement were all made upon the request of Marcelo when he was declared in default of
the previous civil case. Moreover, he insisted that the allegedly offensive language in his text messages
sent to Marcelo was used in a "brother-to-brother communication" and were uttered in good faith.

Meanwhile, the criminal case for grave threats and estafa filed by Marcelo against Orlando was
downgraded to unjust vexation. Orlando (voluntary plea of guilty) was convicted of the crime of unjust
vexation, consisting in his act of vexing or annoying Marcelo by "texting insulting, threatening and
persuading words to drop his lawyer over a case."
IBP Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the case against Orlando, finding that a transgression
of the MCLE compliance requirement is not a ground for disbarment. Failure to disclose the required
information would merely cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the
records. Neither did the IBP Commissioner find any violation of the CPR --- the communication between
Orlando and Marcelo, who are brothers, was done privately and not directly addressed to Maximino nor
intended to be published and known by third persons.

IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the IBP Commissioner's Report and Recommendation ---
dismissed the case against Orlando and warned him to be more circumspect in his dealings.

Maximino moved for reconsideration. However, it was denied in a resolution with modification deleting
the warning. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE:

W/N the IBP correctly dismissed the complaint against Orlando

RULING:

NO. The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on lawyers who meet high standards of legal proficiency
and morality. It is a special privilege burdened with conditions before the legal profession, the courts,
their clients and the society such that a lawyer has the duty to comport himself in a manner as to uphold
integrity and promote the public's faith in the profession. Consequently, a lawyer must at all times,
whether in public or private life, act in a manner beyond reproach especially when dealing with fellow
lawyers.

In this relation, Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 as well as Canon 8 of the CPR provides:

Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.

Canon 8 — A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional
colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.
Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of
another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and
assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.

Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful,
befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has
no place in the dignity of the judicial forum.

In this case, the IBP found the text messages that Orlando sent to his brother Marcelo as casual
communications considering that they were conveyed privately. To the Court's mind, however, the
tenor of the messages cannot be treated lightly. The text messages were clearly intended to malign and
annoy Maximino, as evident from the use of the word "polpol" (stupid). Likewise, Orlando's insistence
that Marcelo immediately terminate the services of Maximino indicates Orlando's offensive conduct
against his colleague, in violation of the above-quoted rules. Moreover, Orlando's voluntary plea of
guilty to the crime of unjust vexation in the criminal case filed against him by Marcelo was, for all intents
and purposes, an admission that he spoke ill, insulted, and disrespected Maximino - a departure from
the judicial decorum which exposes the lawyer to administrative liability.

Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions such that a lawyer's words and actions
directly affect the public's opinion of the legal profession. Lawyers are expected to observe such conduct
of nobility and uprightness which should remain with them, whether in their public or private lives, and
may be disciplined in the event their conduct falls short of the standards imposed upon them. Thus, in
this case, it is inconsequential that the statements were merely relayed to Orlando's brother in private.
As a member of the bar, Orlando should have been more circumspect in his words, being fully aware
that they pertain to another lawyer to whom fairness as well as candor is owed. It was highly improper
for Orlando to interfere and insult Maximino to his client.

With regard to Orlando's alleged violation of Bar Matter No. 1922, the Court agrees with the IBP
that his failure to disclose the required information for MCLE compliance in the complaint for damages
he had filed against his brother Marcelo is not a ground for disbarment. At most, his violation shall only
be cause for the dismissal of the complaint as well as the expunction thereof from the records.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Orlando O. Ailes GUILTY of violating Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 as well as the
entire Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby ADMONISHED to be more
circumspect in dealing with his professional colleagues and STERNLY WARNED that a commission of the
same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
 C. Duty to be Fair to Fellow Lawyers

FRANCISCO BINAY-AN, et al. vs. ATANACIO ADDOG

A.C No. 10449, 28 July 2014

FACTS:

Complainants herein, who happened to be the heirs of Barot Binay-an, are the plaintiffs in a civil case for
the Annulment of Documents against defendants Angeline Damaso and the Cordillera Small Business
Assistance Center, Inc. before the National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP). Complainants are
represented by Atty. Jerome Selmo while the defendants are represented by respondent Atty. Atanacio
Addog.

From the allegations of the complainants, on Feb. 8, 2008, Damaso, who is the constituted
representative of the heirs of Barot Binay-an, called for a meeting in Mandarin Restaurant. This meeting
was attended by the respondent as well as Paul Palos and Bienvenido Palos, both of which are also heirs
of Barot Binay-an. There, Paul and Bienvenido were convinced by the respondent and by Damaso to
execute separate Affidavits of Desistance, which was later notarized by the respondent. This notarized
affidavits were then submitted by respondent to the NCIP, which denied the same. The NCIP Hearing
Officer cautioned the respondent on the ethical consideration in having the affidavits submitted. The
respondent later withdrew his representation for the defendants. Thus, a complaint for misconduct was
filed against the respondent before the IBP.

On his part, respondent, while admitting that he was present in Mandarin Restaurant and notarized the
affidavits of desistance, denied the complainants’ charge. He also denied lawyering for Paul and
Bienvenido. According to him, he submitted the said affidavits in behalf of his clients and not in behalf of
the complainants.

The IBP Board of Governors, adopting with modifications the findings and recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner, recommends that respondent be suspended for a period of six (6) months.
The respondent filed his MR but the same was denied.

ISSUE:

W/N respondent is guilty of misconduct

RULING:

YES. Respondent, despite knowing that the Complainants Palos were not represented by a counsel
during that meeting they had with defendant Angeline Damaso, communicated with the Palos and in
fact indications are ripe that it was he who convinced them to execute their affidavits of desistance in
exchange for monetary consideration. This presumption is strongly supported by the fact that the
affidavits were prepared and notarized by him during the said meeting. Significantly, he did not take it
upon himself to inform Atty. Jerome W. Selmo about the act of his clients. He too failed to advise the
Palos to first consult their counsel about it. In fact he showed that he needed the affidavits badly as in
fact he went on to present the same to the NCIP Hearing Officer to prove that the Palos had clearly
wanted to withdraw their complaint against the defendants. The affidavits of desistance [were],
however, rejected by the NCIP Hearing Officer.

Canon 8, Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “A lawyer shall not, directly or
indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any
lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against
unfaithful or neglectful counsel.”

In this case, the respondent knew that Paul and Bienvenido were represented by counsel, Atty. Selmo.
His act of preparing the affidavit of desistance, even assuming that it was only the joint affidavit of Paul,
Isabela Daniel and Romana which he drafted and notarized was true, nonetheless encroached upon the
legal functions of Atty. Selmo. Worse, the respondent even disclosed that the affidavits of desistance
were executed by the affiants in exchange for a certain sum of money. It was unscrupulous of the
respondent to compel some of the complainants in Civil Case No. 005-CAR-07 to execute the affidavit of
desistance sans the knowledge and agreement of Atty. Selmo.

Similarly, in this case, the respondent's acts clearly violated the ethical tenets of the legal profession and
must, therefore, be disciplined. "Such acts constituting malpractice and grave misconduct cannot be left
unpunished for not only do they erode confidence and trust in the legal profession, they likewise
prevent justice from being attained."

WHEREFORE, Atty. Atanacio D. Addog is hereby imposed the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice
of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS, effective immediately upon his receipt of this Resolution, with a
WARNING that commission of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.
 D. Duty to Prevent Unauthorized Practice of Law

RODRIGO E. TAPAY and ANTHONY J. RUSTIA vs.

ATTY. CHARLIE L. BANCOLO and ATTY. JANUS T. JARDER
March 20, 2013

FACTS:
Sometime in October 2004, Tapay and Rustia received an Order from the Office of the Ombudsman-
Visayas requiring them to file a counter-affidavit to a complaint for usurpation of authority, falsification
of public document, and graft and corrupt practices filed against them by Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr., a
co-employee in the Sugar Regulatory Administration.

The Complaint was allegedly signed on behalf of Divinagracia by one Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo of the
Jarder Bancolo Law Office based in Bacolod City, Negros Occidental.

When Atty. Bancolo and Rustia accidentally chanced upon each other, the latter informed Atty. Bancolo
of the case filed against them before the Office of the Ombudsman. Atty. Bancolo denied that he
represented Divinagracia since he had yet to meet Divinagracia in person. When Rustia showed him the
Complaint, Atty. Bancolo declared that the signature appearing above his name as counsel for
Divinagracia was not his. Thus, Rustia convinced Atty. Bancolo to sign an affidavit to attest to such fact.

The Office of the Ombudsman provisionally dismissed the Complaint since the falsification of the
counsel’s signature posed a prejudicial question to the Complaint’s validity.

Thereafter, Divinagracia filed his Counter-Affidavit denying that he falsified the signature of his former
lawyer, Atty. Bancolo. Divinagracia presented as evidence an affidavit by Richard A. Cordero, the legal
assistant of Atty. Bancolo, that the Jarder Bancolo Law Office accepted Divinagracia’s case and that the
Complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman was signed by the office secretary per Atty. Bancolo’s
instructions.

The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the criminal case for falsification of public document for
insufficiency of evidence. The administrative case for dishonesty was also dismissed for lack of
substantial evidence.
Tapay and Rustia filed with the IBP a complaint to disbar Atty. Bancolo and Atty. Jarder, Atty. Bancolo’s
law partner. The complainants alleged that they were subjected to a harassment Complaint filed before
the Office of the Ombudsman with the forged signature of Atty. Bancolo. Complainants stated further
that the signature of Atty. Bancolo in the Complaint was not the only one that was forged. Complainants
attached a Report  by the PNP Crime Laboratory 6 which examined three other letter-complaints signed
by Atty. Bancolo for other clients, allegedly close friends of Atty. Jarder. The report concluded that the
questioned signatures in the letter-complaints and the submitted standard signatures of Atty. Bancolo
were not written by one and the same person. Thus, complainants maintained that not only were
respondents engaging in unprofessional and unethical practices, they were also involved in falsification
of documents used to harass and persecute innocent people.

ISSUE:
        Whether or not Atty. Bancolo is administratively liable

RULING:
Yes. Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former client before the Office of the
Ombudsman was signed in his name by a secretary of his law office. Clearly, this is a violation of Rule
9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: A LAWYER SHALL NOT,
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.

The lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the unauthorized practice of law is
founded on public interest and policy. Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those
individuals found duly qualified in education and character. The permissive right conferred on the
lawyer is an individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper
standards of moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client,
and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to
the disciplinary control of the Court.

The preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving the practice of law which is
reserved exclusively for members of the legal profession.
The complainants did not present any evidence that Atty. Jarder was directly involved, had knowledge
of, or even participated in the wrongful practice of Atty. Bancolo in allowing or tolerating his secretary to
sign pleadings for him. Thus, the court finds Atty. Jarder is not administratively liable.

PENALTY: suspension from the practice of law for one year

 ANGELES VS BAGAY

A Lawyer’s Negligence That Allowed His Secretary To Sign On His Behalf As Notary Public, Allowed An
Unauthorized Person To Practice Law…

The Facts:

June 11 2 Atty. Aurelio (Angeles), Provincial Legal Officer of Bataan wrote a letter to the Hon. Remigio
Escalada, Executive Judge of RTC Bataan regarding the alleged notarisation by Atty. Renato Bagay of 18
documents from March 13, 2008 to April 8, 2008 when he was out of the country. These documents
were forwarded to the Provincial Legal Office by the Provincial Treasurer who knew that Renato was in
Mexico to attend a Prayer and Life Workshop in Mexico, and accompanied by affidavits of the persons
who executed the documents who all alleged that they did not see Renato notarise the documents but
her secretary. Verification with the Bureau of Immigration revealed that Renato was out of the country
from March 13, 208 to April 8, 2008. The judge indorsed the letter to the IBP Bataan, which in turn
endorsed it to the IBP National Office. It was then referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline for
investigation and report. The IBP endorsed the letter to the Office of the Bar Confidant in view of the
manifestation by Atty. Angeles that his letter was not meant as a compliant but merely to clarify the
status of the documents allegedly notarised by Renato. The Court then required Renato to comment. In
his comment, Renato averred that it was his secretary who caused the notarisation of the documents
without his knowledge and authority and he had already terminated her services. The Court referred the
matter to the IBP for investigation and report, and only Renato submitted his position paper in view of
the manifestation of Atty. Angeles that he be excused from participating in the case. The Investigating
Commissioner recommended that Renato be suspended from the practice of law for two years, in view
of his admission that he employed an office secretary who had access to his office, his notarial seal and
records without proper training, thus he failed to live up to his obligation under the Rules on Notarial
Practice. The IBP adopted the recommendation of the Commissioner. Renato in his motion for
reconsideration argued that his case should be treated with leniency since he admitted and owned up to
his shortcomings and it was done without wrong intention. His case should be a case of simple
negligence

The Court’s ruling:

The sole issue to resolve in this case is whether the notarization of documents by the secretary of
respondent while he was out of the country constituted negligence.

The Court answers in the affirmative.

Respondent admitted in his comment and motion for reconsideration that the 18 documents were
notarized under his notarial seal by his office secretary while he was out of the country. This clearly
constitutes negligence considering that respondent is responsible for the acts of his secretary. Section 9
of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a “Notary Public” refers to any person
commissioned to perform official acts under these Rules. A notary public’s secretary is obviously not
commissioned to perform the official acts of a notary public.
Respondent cannot take refuge in his claim that it was his secretary’s act which he did not authorize. He
is responsible for the acts of the secretary which he employed. He left his office open to the public while
leaving his secretary in charge. He kept his notarial seal and register within the reach of his secretary,
fully aware that his secretary could use these items to notarize documents and copy his signature. Such
blatant negligence cannot be countenanced by this Court and it is far from being a simple negligence.
There is an inescapable likelihood that respondent’s flimsy excuse was a mere afterthought and such
carelessness exhibited by him could be a conscious act of what his secretary did.

Respondent must fully bear the consequence of his negligence. A person who is commissioned as a
notary public takes full responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register[1]. He cannot relieve
himself of this responsibility by passing the buck to his secretary.

As to his plea of leniency, the Court cannot consider it. Respondent claims that for the 21 years that he
has been practicing law, he acted as a notary public without any blemish and this was his first and only
infraction. His experience, however, should have placed him on guard and could have prevented
possible violations of his notarial duty. By his sheer negligence, 18 documents were notarized by an
unauthorized person and the public was deceived. Such prejudicial act towards the public cannot be
tolerated by this Court. Thus, the penalty of revocation of notarial commission and disqualification from
reappointment as Notary Public for two (2) years is appropriate.

Because of the negligence of respondent, the Court also holds him liable for violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR). His failure to solemnly perform his duty as a notary public not only
damaged those directly affected by the notarized documents but also undermined the integrity of a
notary public and degraded the function of notarization. He should, thus, be held liable for such
negligence not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer[2]. Where the notary public is a lawyer, a
graver responsibility is placed upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do
no falsehood or consent to the doing of any[3].

Respondent violated Canon 9 of the CPR which requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the
unauthorized practice of law. Due to his negligence that allowed his secretary to sign on his behalf as
notary public, he allowed an unauthorized person to practice law. By leaving his office open despite his
absence in the country and with his secretary in charge, he virtually allowed his secretary to notarize
documents without any restraint.

Respondent also violated his obligation under Canon 7 of the CPR, which directs every lawyer to uphold
at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The people who came into his office while he
was away, were clueless as to the illegality of the activity being conducted therein. They expected that
their documents would be converted into public documents. Instead, they later found out that the
notarization of their documents was a mere sham and without any force and effect. By prejudicing the
persons whose documents were notarized by an unauthorized person, their faith in the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession was eroded.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, an additional penalty of suspension from the
practice of law for three (3) months is in order.

Respondent should remember that a notarial commission is a privilege and a significant responsibility. It
is a privilege granted only to those who are qualified to perform duties imbued with public interest. As
we have declared on several occasions, notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is
invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act
as notary public. The protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not qualified or
authorized to act must be prevented from imposing upon the public, the courts, and the administrative
offices in general[4].

It must be underscored that notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public
document, making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Thus,
notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their
duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of public instruments would be
undermined[5].

Let this serve as a reminder to the members of the legal profession that the Court will not take lightly
complaints of unauthorized acts of notarization, especially when the trust and confidence reposed by
the public in our legal system hang in the balance.

WHEREFORE, the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is ADOPTED with
MODIFICATION. Finding Atty. Renato C. Bagay grossly negligent in his duty as a notary public, the Court
REVOKES his notarial commission and DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as notary public for a
period of two (2) years. The Court also SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for three (3) months
effective immediately, with a WARNING that the repetition of a similar violation will be dealt with even
more severely.

The respondent is DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this Decision to enable this Court to
determine when his suspension shall take effect.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to Atty. Renato C.
Bagay’s personal record; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and all courts in the country for their
information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.