became skeptical as the said decision seemed to come

EN BANC too soon and was poorly crafted.

Confused with the turn of events, verifications were

[ A.C. No. 11981, July 03, 2018 ]
made to ascertain the validity of the decision.
Complainant discovered that both Branch 162 and
LEAH B. TADAY, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. Judge Ma. Eliza Becamon-Angeles do not exist in the
DIONISIO B. APOYA, JR., RESPONDENT. RTC. Frustrated with the incident, complainant,
through her parents, sought the withdrawal
DECISION of respondent as her counsel from the case.

PER CURIAM: However, instead of withdrawing as counsel,

Before this Court is a Verified Complaint- respondent filed an urgent motion to withdraw the
Affidavit[1] filed before the Integrated Bar of the petition. In its Order[7] dated June 25, 2012, the RTC
Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. Branch 131 granted the said motion and the case was
(respondent) for violating the Code of Professional dropped from the civil docket of the court.
Responsibility (Code) in authoring a fake decision of a
court. Complainant and her parents sought the legal services
of Atty. Alexander M. Verzosa (Atty. Verzosa) of the
Sometime in 2011, Leah B. Taday (complainant), an Verzosa Lauengco Jimenez and Abesames Law Offices
overseas Filipino worker (OFW) staying in Norway, for their predicament. Atty. Verzosa sent a
asked her parents in the Philippines, Virgilio and Letter[8] dated February 26, 2013, to respondent
Natividad Taday, to seek legal services for the calling his attention regarding the payment of his
nullification of her marriage. Complainant's parents attorney's fees and the purported fake decision of RTC
found respondent and contracted his legal services. On Branch 162.
April 17, 2011, a Retainer Agreement[2] was executed
between respondent and complainant's parents In his Answer,[9] respondent denied being informed
indicating that respondent's acceptance fee was that complainant was an OFW and claimed that he was
P140,000.00, to be paid on a staggered basis. made to believe that she was merely in the Bicol
province, hence, he agreed to draft the petition and
According to complainant, respondent was informed gave it to complainant's parents for her signature. The
that she was staying in Norway and respondent petition was returned to respondent with
assured her that this would not be an issue as he can complainant's signature so he notarized and filed it
find ways to push for the resolution of the case despite before the court.
her absence.
Respondent denied delivering any decision relative to
Respondent drafted a Petition for Annulment of the annulment case of complainant. He asserted that
Marriage[3] (petition) dated April 20, 2011, which he the said decision was only a product of her
allegedly sent to complainant for her signature. After imagination. Respondent likewise denied that he filed
notarizing the petition, respondent filed it before the an urgent motion to withdraw the petition in the RTC,
Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City (RTC). The case Branch 131. He claimed that he merely drafted the
was then raffled to Branch 131, docketed as Civil Case said motion and gave it to complainant's parents but
No. C-22813. he never signed it.

On November 17, 2011, while complainant was on After the parties submitted their respective position
vacation in the Philippines[4] and after paying papers, the case was submitted for decision.
respondent his legal fees amounting to
P14,500.00,[5] respondent delivered a IBP Report and Recommendation
Decision[6] dated November 16, 2011 which granted
the annulment of complainant's marriage. The said In its Report and Recommendation,[10] the IBP
decision was promulgated by a certain Judge Ma. Eliza Commission on Bar Discipline (Commission) found
Becamon-Angeles of RTC Branch 162. Complainant that respondent committed several violations of the
became suspicious as the said decision came from a Code, particularly, Rules 1.01, 1.02 and Canon 1. The
different branch presided by a different judge where Commission held that respondent notarized the
the case was originally filed. Complainant's family Verification and Certification of Non Forum
Shopping[11] of the petition, even though complainant money or malice. These mandates apply especially to
was not personally present as she was then in Norway. dealings of lawyers with their clients considering the
highly fiduciary nature of their relationship.[15]
The Commission also found that respondent authored
a fake decision. It opined that the said decision was It bears stressing that membership in the bar is a
fake because it bore the same format and grammatical privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the
errors as that of the petition prepared by respondent. privilege and right to practice law during good
The Commission disregarded the defense of behavior and can only be deprived of it for misconduct
respondent that it was complainant's parents who ascertained and declared by judgment of the court
made the fake decision. It stressed that any reasonable after opportunity to be heard has afforded him.
mind would know that a fake decision would not Without invading any constitutional privilege or right,
benefit complainant. Moreover, complainant's parents and attorney's right to practice law may be resolved
continuously paid the legal fees of respondent, which by a proceeding to suspend or disbar him, based on
would show their lack of intent to create the fabricated conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to
decision. exercise the duties and responsibilities of an
attomey.[16] In disbarment proceedings, the burden of
The Commission further underscored that when proof rests upon the complainant, and for the court to
respondent was confronted with the fake decision, he exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the
filed an urgent motion to withdraw the petition before respondent must be established by clear, convincing
RTC Branch 131. It highlighted that when the new and satisfactory proof.[17]
counsel of complainant questioned respondent
regarding these irregularities, he did not respond. In this case, the Court finds that respondent violated
Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code and the 2004
Based on these circumstances, the Commission Rules on Notarial Practice.
concluded that the fake decision originated from
respondent and that he violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Respondent notarized the petition even though the
Canon I of the Code. It recommended the penalty of affiant was not present
suspension of two (2) years from the practice of law.
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless and
In its Resolution No. XXI-2015-100[12]dated January routinary act. It is imbued with public interest and
31, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors (Board) only those who are qualified and authorized may act
modified the recommended penalty of two (2) years as notaries public.[18] Notarization converts a private
suspension to a penalty of disbarment. document to a public document, making it admissible
in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but it notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and
was denied by the IBP Board in its Resolution No. XXII- credit upon its face. For this reason, notaries public
2016-508[13] dated September 23, 2016. must observe with utmost care the basic requirements
in the performance of their duties.[19]
Respondent filed a second motion for reconsideration
but it was also denied by the Board in its Resolution The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a
No. XXII-2017-951[14] dated April 19, 2017. notary public should not notarize a document unless
the signatory to the document personally appeared
before the notary public at the time of the notarization,
The Court's Ruling and personally known to the notary public or
otherwise identified through competent evidence of
The Court adopts the findings of the Commission and identity. At the time of notarization, the signatory shall
agrees with the recommendation of the IBP Board to sign or affix with a thumb or other mark in the notary
disbar respondent. public's notarial register. The purpose of these
requirements is to enable the notary public to verify
All those in the legal profession must always conduct the genuineness of the signature and to ascertain that
themselves with honesty and integrity in all their the document is the signatory's free act and deed. If
dealings. Members of the bar took their oath to the signatory is not acting on his or her own free will,
conduct themselves according to the best of their a notary public is mandated to refuse to perform a
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well notarial act. A notary public is also prohibited from
to the courts as to their clients and to delay no man for
affixing an official signature or seal on a notarial Respondent authored a fake decision and delivered it to
certificate that is incomplete.[20] his client

In this case, on April 20, 2011, respondent notarized Aside from improperly notarizing a petition,
the verification and certification of non forum respondent committed an even graver transgression
shopping in the petition filed before RTC Branch 131 by drafting a fake decision and delivering it to his
supposedly executed by complainant as the affiant. At client in guise of a genuine decision.
that time, however, complaint was not in the
Philippines because she was still in Norway working In this case, respondent delivered a decision dated
as an OFW. Undoubtedly, respondent violated the November 16, 2011, to complainant, which
notarial rules when he notarized a document without purportedly granted the petition for annulment of
the personal presence of the affiant. marriage in her favor. This decision is marred by
numerous and serious irregularities that point to
Respondent gave a flimsy excuse that he was not respondent as the author thereof.
informed that complainant was not in the Philippines
when he notarized the verification and certification on First, the decision came from a certain Judge Ma. Eliza
non forum shopping. Assuming arguendo that this is Becamon Angeles of RTC Branch 162. Yet, a
true, he should have refrained from notarizing such verification from the RTC revealed that the said judge
document until complainant personally appear before and the branch were non-existent.
him. In addition, respondent should have explained to
complainant and her parents that he can only notarize Second, the fake decision is starkly the same as the
and file the petition before the court once complainant petition prepared and filed by respondent. A reading
returns to the Philippines. Lamentably, instead of of the fake decision shows that the statement of facts,
informing his client about the rules of notarization, issues and the rationale therein are strikingly similar,
respondent proceeded with the notarization of the if not exactly alike, with the petition. Even the
document and gave a false assurance that the case of grammatical errors in both documents are similar.
complainant would still continue even in her absence. The fake decision was so poorly crafted because it
merely copied the petition filed by respondent.
In Gaddi v. Atty. Velasco,[21] the Court held that for Moreover, the font and spacing in the caption of the
notarizing a document without ascertaining the petition and the fake decision are one and the same.
identity and voluntariness of the signatory to the Glaringly, respondent did not give any credible
document, for affixing his signature in an incomplete explanation regarding the similarity of the fake
notarial certificate, and for dishonesty in his decision and the petition he drafted.
pleadings, the lawyer failed to discharge his duties as
notary public and breached Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of Third, when respondent was confronted by
the Code. complainant and her parents about the fake decision,
respondent immediately filed an urgent motion to
Similarly, in Ferguson v. Atty. Ramos[22] the Court held withdraw the petition before RTC Branch 131.
that when a lawyer affixes his signature and notarial Respondent provided a poor excuse that he merely
seal on a deed of sale, he leads the public to believe prepared the said motion but did not file it. However,
that the parties personally appeared before him and it is clear from the order dated June 25, 2012 of RTC
attested to the truth and veracity of the contents Branch 131 that the motion was filed by respondent
thereof. The act of notarizing a document without the and the case was indeed withdrawn.[23]
presence of the parties is fraught with dangerous
possibilities considering the conclusiveness on the Lastly, when complainant's case was dropped from the
due execution of a document that the courts and the civil docket of RTC Branch 131 at the instance of
public accord to notarized documents. respondent, complainant and her parents sought the
assistance of another lawyer. Atty. Verzosa, through a
Here, respondent notarized the verification and letter dated February 26, 2013, confronted
certification of non forum shopping even though respondent regarding the payment of attorney's fees
complainant did not personally appear before him. and the fake decision which respondent gave to
Not only did he violate the 2004 Rules on Notarial complainant. However, respondent neither answered
Practice, he also violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the nor denied the allegation of complainant's new
Code. counsel.
In his last ditch attempt to escape liability, respondent Respondent also violated Section 2, Rule IV of the
argued that the fake decision was drafted by 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which states that:
complainant's parents. The Court finds this
completely absurd. On November 17, 2011, SECTION 2. Prohibitions. - x x x
complainant's parents had just paid respondent's
staggering acceptance fee as evidenced by a (b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the
Receipt.[24] On the other hand, the fake decision was person involved as signatory to the instrument or
dated November 16, 2011. Thus, it is illogical for document –
complainant's parents to draft a fake decision when
they regularly paid for the services of respondent to (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the
legally and rightfully represent their daughter's case. time of the notarization; and
As opined by the Commission, any reasonable mind
would know that a fake decision would not benefit (2) is not personally known to the notary public or
complainant, thus, complainant's parents have otherwise identified by the notary public through
nothing to gain from it. competent evidence of identity as defined by these
Rules.
Based on the foregoing circumstances, the Court
concludes that respondent indeed authored the fake A member of the Bar may be penalized, even disbarred
decision in order to deceive complainant that he won or suspended from his office as an attorney, for
the legal battle in her favor. Fortunately, complainant violation of the lawyer's oath and/or for breach of the
was prudent in protecting her rights and discovered ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code.
that the decision given to her by respondent was fake. For the practice of law is a profession, a form of public
Surely, respondent's acts resulted to complainant's trust, the performance of which is entrusted to those
injuries and has tarnished the noble image of legal who are qualified and who possess good moral
profession. character. The appropriate penalty for an errant
lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial
Proper penalty discretion based on the surrounding facts.[25]

In Krursel v. Atty. Abion,[26] the lawyer therein drafted

The Court finds that complainant has established by a fake order from this Court in order to deceive her
clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence that: (1) client. The Court stated that she made a mockery of the
respondent notarized the verification and certification judicial system. Her conduct degraded the
of non forum shopping of the petition without the administration of justice and weakened the people's
personal presence of complainant; (2) respondent is faith in the judicial system. She inexorably besmirched
the author of the fake decision to deceive complainant the entire legal profession. The penalty of disbarment
that her petition for annulment of marriage was was imposed against the lawyer.
granted; and (3) respondent retaliated against
complainant for confronting him with the fake Similarly, in Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v.
decision by withdrawing the petition in the court, Atty. Naldoza,[27] the penalty of disbarment was
resulting into the dropping of the case from the civil imposed against the lawyer who falsified an official
docket of the court. These acts constitute violations of receipt from the Court to cover up his misdeeds. The
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Code, to wit: Court stated that since the lawyer clearly failed the
standards of his noble profession, he did not deserve
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, to continue as a member of the bar.
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law
and for legal processes. In this case, respondent committed unlawful,
dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct, and
RULE 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, lessened the confidence of the public in the legal
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. system. Instead of being an advocate of justice, he
became a perpetrator of injustice. His reprehensible
RULE 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities acts do not merit him to remain in the rolls of the legal
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence profession. Thus, the ultimate penalty of disbarment
in the legal system. must be imposed upon him.

WHEREFORE, the Court adopts the recommendation

of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of the Spouses Frias secure the loan with the subject
Govenwrs and finds Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, property, for twenty years.
Jr. GUILTY of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule
1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Because the Spouses Frias were unsure of their
Section 2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial capacity to pay back the loan in time, and were afraid
Practice. He is DISBARRED from the practice of law they might lose the subject property if they failed to
and his name ordered stricken off the Roll of settle the loan, they allegedly offered instead to lease
Attorneys, effective immediately. the property to the Spouses Arbiz, instead of
mortgaging it to them.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office
of the Bar Confidant to be entered into Atty. Dionisio Rodrigo Arbis allegedly accepted the offer to lease the
B. Apoya, Jr.'s records. Copies shall likewise be subject property, and gave them the amount of
furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and P340,000,00. Both parties agreed that: (1) the Spouses
the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation Frias would not have any obligation to give back the
to all courts concerned. amount of P340,000.00 to Rodrigo Arbiz; (2) Rodrigo
Arbiz and his wife would possess the subject property
SO ORDERED. for twenty years, that is from January 16, 1995 to
January 16, 2015, and enjoy the use and produce of the
EN BANC land; (3) Rodrigo Arbiz and his wife would be
responsible to pay for the real estate taxes due on the
[ AC. No. 12467, Apr 10, 2019 ] property because it would be difficult for the Spouses
Frias to pay them while they were in Mindanao; (4) the
SPS. PEPITO AND PRESCILA FRIAS v. ATTY. NELLY Spouses Frias would not disturb Rodrigo Arbiz and his
E. ABAO + wife's possession of the property until after the
expiration of twenty years; and (5) the Spouses Frias
RESOLUTION would entrust the original owner's duplicate copy of
TCT No. T-14354 that covers the subject property to
Rodrigo Arbiz and his wife. These agreements,
PERALTA, J.: however, were not put into writing as it was the usual
practice those days.
Before us is a Complaint[1] for Disciplinary Action
dated September 1, 2016 filed by the spouses Pepito On January 16, 1995, the Spouses Frias left for South
Frias and Prescila Chavez Frias (Spouses Frias) against Cotabato, leaving whatever they owned in Capiz.
respondent Atty. Nelly E. Abao (Atty. Abao) for Despite all medical treatments they could afford with
violation of Rule 1.01 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of their savings, Susana died in 2000 in South Cotabato.
Professional Responsibility and of the Notarial Law.
Sometime in 2000, the Spouses Frias learned that
The facts are as follows: Rodrigo Arbiz died. Later, in 2005, they also learned
that Rodrigo Arbiz's wife, Maria, also died. They
Complainant Pepito Frias, married to Prescila Chavez, discovered that the heirs of the Spouses Arbiz,
is the registered owner of a parcel of land known as Jermehilda Escutin and Danilo Escutin, took
Lot No. 3270-A, Psd-06-000781, situated at Barangay possession of the subject property.
Malonoy, Dao, Capiz, covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. T-14354 (subject property). The Spouses Frias alleged that even after the death of
the Spouses Arbiz, they could not return to Dao, Capiz
The Spouses Frias narrated that in early 1900s, Susana because they respected the alleged lease agreement.
Frias, their daughter, was enduring a heart disease. After the expiration of the lease contract, they decided
Because of financial difficulties, they accepted the to return to Capiz, and claim the subject property as
offer of one of their daughters who was then residing they believed to be entitled thereto. However, the
in Mindanao, to bring Susana to Davao for treatment. Spouses Escutin refused to turnover the possession of
Before they left, the Spouses Frias asked Rodrigo the subject property. Thus, the Spouses Frias filed a
Arbiz, and his wife, Maria, the parents of Jermehilda complaint for ejectment against the Spouses Escutin.
Escutin, if they could lend them money to cover for
their transportation to Mindanao and the medical In their Answer, the Spouses Escutin argued that the
expenses of Susana. Although the Spouses Arbiz subject property was sold to their parents by the
agreed to lend them some money, they demanded that
Spouses Frias. They attached a copy of the Deed of her unauthorized notarial act. She denied having
Absolute Sale dated July 11, 1995 purportedly notarized a fictitious deed of absolute sale, and
executed by complainants in favor of the parents of the maintained that complainants personally appeared
Spouses Escutin.[2] and signed the subject Deed of Absolute Sale before
her.
The Deed of Absolute Sale was notarized by herein
respondent Atty. Abao on July 11, 1995, as document Meanwhile, on November 29, 2016, the complaint for
no. 106, found on page 23, Book No. LVIX.[3] However, unlawful detainer filed by the Spouses Frias against
the Spouses Frias insisted that they did not execute the Spouses Escutin, docketed as Civil Case No. V-376,
any document of conveyance of the said parcel of land was dismissed.[10]
to anybody. They claimed that it was impossible for
them to execute the said Deed of Absolute Sale on July In its Report and Recommendation[11] dated
11, 1995 because at that time they already left for September 19, 2017, the IBP-CBD found Atty. Abao
Mindanao and never came back to Dao, Capiz, until liable for notarizing documents without a notarial
April 4, 2015. commission and for executing an untruthful judicial
affidavit. For notarizing a document without
The Spouses Frias then searched for an original copy commission, the IBP-CBD recommended that Atty.
of the deed of absolute sale with the Clerk of Court of Abao be suspended from the practice of law for six (6)
Roxas City. The Clerk of Court of Roxas City, Atty. Jelou months, and that if she is presently commissioned as
F. Almalbis-Laguna, issued a Certification[4] dated notary public, she be disqualified from being
November 3, 2015 stating that the deed of absolute commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2)
sale executed by Pepito Frias and Prescila Frias in years. Further, for executing an untruthful judicial
favor of Rodrigo Arbiz and Maria L. Arbiz under Doc. affidavit and testifying thereon, the IBP-CBD, likewise,
No. 106, Page 23, Book No. LVIX dated July 11, 1995 recommended a penalty of suspension from the
and notarized by Atty. Abao does not exist. It further practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
certified that respondent Atty. Abao was never
commissioned as Notary Public in the City of Roxas, In a Resolution[12] dated June 29, 2018, the IBP-Board
Province of Capiz for the year 1995 and had no of Governors adopted and approved the Report and
notarial files on record for the same year.[5] Recommendation of the IBP-CBD on the
recommended penalty.
The Spouses Frias, likewise, lamented that while Atty.
Abao admitted that she notarized the Deed of Absolute RULING
Sale purportedly executed by them, she, however,
made false statements in her Judicial Affidavit[6] dated
July 28, 2016 wherein she alleged that: (1) Pepito Frias We agree with the findings of the IBP-CBD, except as
was present when she notarized the said document; to use recommended penalty.
(2) Prescila Frias was present when she notarized the
Deed of Absolute Sale; and (3) Pepito Frias and Time and again, this Court has stressed that
Prescila Frias affixed their signatures in the said Deed notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routine
of Absolute Sale.[7] act. It is invested with substantive public interest that
only those who are qualified or authorized may act as
Thus, the instant administrative complaint against notaries public.[13] It must be emphasized that the act
Atty. Abao for violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and of notarization by a notary public converts a private
Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional document into a public document making that
Responsibility (CPR). document admissible in evidence without further
proof of authenticity. A notarial document is by law
On October 3, 2016, the Integrated Bar of the entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for
Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP- this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost
CBD) ordered Atty. Abao to submit her answer to the care the basic requirements in the performance of
complaint against her.[8] their duties.

In her Answer[9] dated November 14, 2016, Atty. Abao In the present case, it is undisputable that Atty. Abao
admitted that she notarized the subject Deed of performed notarial acts on the subject deed of
Absolute Sale without the necessary notarial absolute sale knowing fully well that; she was without
commission to do so. She offered no valid excuse for a valid notarial commission. Her lack of notarial
commission at the time of the unauthorized engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
notarization was likewise sufficiently established by conduct."[18]
the Certification issued by Atty. Jelou F. Almalbis-
Laguna, Clerk of Court VI of the Office of the Clerk of In a number of cases, the Court has subjected lawyers
Court, Regional Trial Court, 6th Judicial Region, Roxas to disciplinary action for notarizing documents
City in the territory where Atty. Abao performed the outside their territorial jurisdiction or with an expired
unauthorized notarial act.[14] Clearly, Atty. Abao could commission. In Zoreta v. Atty. Simpliciano,[19] the
not perform notarial functions in Dao, Capiz, since she respondent was, likewise, suspended from the
was not commissioned in the places to perform such practice of law for a period of two (2) years and was
act in the year 1995. permanently barred from being commissioned as a
notary public for notarizing several documents after
Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a person the expiration of his commission. In the case of Judge
commissioned as a notary public may perform Laquindanum v. Atty. Quintana,[20] the Court
notarial acts in any place within the territorial suspended a lawyer for six (6) months and was
jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of disqualified from being commissioned as notary
two (2) years commencing the first day of January of public for a period of two (2) years, because he
the year in which the commissioning is made. notarized documents outside the area of his
Commission either means the grant of authority to commission, and with an expired commission. In the
perform notarial or the written evidence of more recent case of Japitana v. Atty.
authority.[15] Without a commission, a lawyer is Parado,[21] following the Court's pronouncements
unauthorized to perform any of the notarial acts. in Re: Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice,[22] the
lawyer was suspended for two (2) years from the
Clearly, for misrepresenting in the subject Deed of practice of law and forever barred from becoming a
Absolute Sale that she was a notary public for and in notary public when he notarized documents with no
Dao, Capiz, when in fact she was not, Atty. Abao further existing notarial commission.
committed a form of falsehood which is undoubtedly
anathema to the lawyer's oath. Atty. Abao's misdeeds Considering that Atty. Abao has been proven to nave
run afoul of her duties and responsibilities, both as a performed notarial work in Dao, Capiz, without the
lawyer and a notary public. requisite commission, the Court finds the
recommended penalty insufficient. Likewise, Atty.
By performing notarial acts without the necessary Abao's assertion of old age and sickness fails to
commission from the court, Atty. Abao violated not convince, considering that at the time of the
only her oath to obey the laws, particularly the Rules commission of the unauthorized act of notarizing, she
on Notarial Practice, but also Canons 1 and 7 of the was only fifty-four (54) years old. Instead, Atty. Abao
Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes must be barred from being commissioned as notary
all lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, public permanently and suspended from the practice
immoral or deceitful conduct and directs them to of law for a period of two (2) years.[23]
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, at all times.[16] WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Nelly E. Abao is
found GUILTY of malpractice as a notary public, and
In the case of Nunga v. Atty. Viray,[17] the Court violating the lawyer's oath as well as Rule 1.01, Canon
appropriately held that where the notarization of a 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar Accordingly, she is SUSPENDED from the practice of
at a time when he has no authorization or commission law for two (2) years and BARRED
to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary PERMANENTLY from being commissioned as Notary
action. For one, performing a notarial [act] without Public, effective upon her receipt of a copy of this
such commission is a violation of the lawyer's oath to Decision.
obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law.
Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly Let copies of this Decision be furnished all the courts
commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents of the land through the Office of the Court
and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which Administrator, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
the lawyer's oath similarly proscribes. These the Office of the Bar Confidant, and be recorded in the
violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule personal files of Atty. Abao.
1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides: "A lawyer shall not SO ORDERED
 impression that he was probably guilty. Thus, she
recommended that Atty. Diño be suspended from the
EN BANC practice of law for two (2) years.[8]
On July 17, 2017, the Board of Governors of the
[ A.C. No. 12174, August 28, 2018 ] Integrated Bar of the Philippines passed Resolution
No. XXII-2017-1164, adopting the findings of fact and
ALFRED LEHNERT, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner
DENNIS L. DIÑO, RESPONDENT. imposing on Atty. Diño the penalty of suspension of
two (2) years from the practice of law.[9]
RESOLUTION
This Court agrees with the findings of the Board of
Governors and sustains its recommended penalty.
LEONEN, J.:
In Lao v. Medel,[10] this Court stressed that a lawyer's
Complainant Alfred Lehnert (Lehnert) filed this
payment of financial obligations is part of his duties:
administrative Complaint[1] before the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines on November 11, 2015. He prayed Verily, lawyers must at all times faithfully perform
that respondent Atty. Dennis L. Diño (Atty. Diño) be their duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to
permanently disbarred for violating the lawyer's oath, their clients. As part of those duties, they must
as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility, promptly pay their financial obligations. Their
when he committed two (2) violations of Batas conduct must always reflect the values and norms of
Pambansa Blg. 22. the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility. On these considerations,
In his Complaint, Lehnert narrated that an the Court may disbar or suspend lawyers for any
Information against Atty. Diño was filed with Branch professional or private misconduct showing them to
34, Metropolitan Trial Court, Quezon City, charging be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and
him with two (2) counts of violation of Batas good demeanor — or to be unworthy to continue as
Pambansa Blg. 22. A Warrant of Arrest[2] was then officers of the Court.
issued for Atty. Diño's arrest. Members of the
Philippine National Police and National Bureau of It is equally disturbing that respondent remorselessly
Investigation attempted to serve the warrant on Atty. issued a series of worthless checks, unmindful of the
Diño. However, despite their exhaustive efforts, they deleterious effects of such act to public interest and
were unable to locate him at his residential addresses public order.[11] (Citations omitted)
in Bulacan, Quezon City, San Lazaro, and Sta. Cruz, or This Court continues to state that the issuance of
even at his office address in Intramuros, worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct and
Manila.[3] Thus, considering that Atty. Diño was hiding violates Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
to evade arrest, Lehnert prayed for his immediate Responsibility, which mandates all members of the
disbarment.[4] bar "to obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for law." Issuance of worthless checks also violates
In a Notice of Mandatory Conference dated March 4, Rule 1.01 of the Code, which mandates that "[a] lawyer
2016, Atty. Diño and Lehnert were directed to submit shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
their respective mandatory conference briefs, and to deceitful conduct."
appear before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines on April 29, Thus, this Court has imposed the penalty of one (1)-
2016.[5]However, Atty. Diño did not appear or submit year suspension from the practice of law for a cavalier
any brief to the Commission on Bar Discipline.[6] attitude toward incurring debts.[12] This Court has
imposed a higher penalty of two (2)-year suspension
On June 29, 2016, the Investigating Commissioner on a lawyer who issued worthless checks and also
found Atty. Diño guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule disregarded the Integrated Bar of the Philippines'
1.01[7] of the Code of Professional Responsibility by orders in administrative proceedings.[13]
issuing in favor of Lehnert post-dated checks, which
were subsequently dishonored. Moreover, the In light of the foregoing, this Court finds the
Investigating Commissioner noted that although Atty. recommended penalty of two (2)-year suspension
Diño had not yet been convicted of the crime charged, from the practice of law proper.
his acts of evading arrest and failing to participate in WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Dennis L. Diño
the administrative proceedings before the is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2)
Commission on Bar Discipline further gave the
years. He is likewise WARNED that a repetition of
similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
The respondent, upon receipt of this Resolution, shall
immediately serve his suspension. He shall formally
manifest to this Court that his suspension has started,
and copy furnish all courts and quasi-judicial bodies
where he has entered his appearance, within five (5)
days from receipt of this Resolution. Respondent shall
also serve copies of his manifestation on all adverse
parties in all the cases he entered his formal
appearance.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Office
of the Bar Confidant to be attached to Atty. Dennis L.
Diño's personal record. Copies of this Resolution
should also be served on the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for its proper disposition, and the Office of
the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in
the country.
SO ORDERED.