February 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > February 2010 Resolutions >
[A.C. No. 8062 : February 08, 2010] GREGORIO Z. ROBLES V. ATTY. ISAGANI M. JUNGCO:
[A.C. No. 8062 : February 08, 2010]
GREGORIO Z. ROBLES V. ATTY. ISAGANI M. JUNGCO
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 08 February 2010:
A.C. No. 8062 (Gregorio Z. Robles v. Atty. Isagani M. Jungco)
This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Gregorio Robles against respondent Atty. Isagani Jungco for dishonesty and fraud in the filing of an appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) by registered mail in NLRC Case No. Lac. 11-002981-07 (RAB Case No. 03-0804654-02). Complainant claims that respondent violated 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.
Gregorio Robles, an employee of the Subic Bay Yacht Club (SBYC), filed a case of illegal dismissal against SBYC with the Regional Arbitration Branch III of San Fernando, Pampanga. When the Labor Arbiter decided[1] in favor of complainant, respondent, as the legal counsel of SBYC, filed an appeal with the NLRC by mail through the Malaca�ang Post Office on September 20, 2007 after receiving the Labor Arbiter's decision on September 10, 2007.
Complainant alleges that he noticed discrepancies with regard to the date of mailing of the appeal. He claims that Atty. Jungco connived with a Mrs. Aquino of the Malaca�ang Post Office to make it appear that he mailed the appeal on September 20, 2007 when, in fact, he did it on September 21, I 2007, as shown in the logbook of the post office. He also presented two (2) Certifications written by Mrs. Aquino: one showed the date of mailing as September 20, 2007 and the other as September 21, 2007. Since the logbook of the post office affirms the latter date as the actual date of mailing, the appeal was filed out of time. Moreover, complainant learned that, by practice, the staff of the Malaca�ang Post Office intentionally leave blank spaces on their registry book in order to accommodate late pleadings filed by lawyers.[2]
In his defense, Arty. Jungco vehemently denies acting with dishonesty while being the counsel of SBYC. He alleges that he received the decision of Executive Labor Arbiter Isabel G. Panganiban-Ortiguerra in NLRC Case No. RAB 111-08-4654-02 on September 10, 2007. Since he was leaving for Korea on September 12, 2007, he informed his client that, before leaving, he was going to prepare the Notice of Appeal with Memorandum of Appeal, which had to be filed with the NLRC in San Fernando, Pampanga. Upon his return, he was informed by his client that lawyers in Metro Manila were already handling the matter. Thereafter, on June 25, 2008, he received the Resolution of the NLRC dated June 12, 2008 dismissing the appeal because it was filed out of time. The decision said that the appeal was filed on October 3, 2007.
Before filing a Motion for Reconsideration, respondent requested his client to submit to him a certification on the date of the mailing of the appeal from the post office where it was mailed.[3] Based on the Certification issued by the Malaca�ang Post Office, he then drafted the Motion for Reconsideration. Fie further posits that he was not the one who secured the Certification but his client. Moreover, he asserts that it was impossible for him to connive with Mrs. Aquino of the Malaca�ang Post Office, since he was not the one who mailed the Notice of Appeal with Memorandum of Appeal but Geronimo Cleofas of Singson, Valsez & Associates. Finally, he stresses that if there was a mistake, it was the Malaca�ang Post Office that committed it and not him.
In his Karagdagang Salaysay, complainant submitted additional evidence showing the respondent's alleged acts of fraud in connection with the mailing of the appeal. One is the Certification[4] of Clerk of Court (CoC) Jennifer Cruz-Buendia stating that the Affidavit of Service[5] of Geronimo Cleofas was not indicated in the notarial report of notary public Atty. Edilberto Cosca. Another one is a Verification/Certification,[6] signed by Jose Vargas, the representative of SBYC and the respondent of the labor case, which was notarized by Atty. Jungco as notary public. Proving that the Verification was fraudulent, the complainant submitted a Certification[7] from the Office of the CoC, RTC Olongapo City, showing that the Verification was not included in the notarial report submitted by Atty. Jungco to the court.
After analyzing and evaluating the affidavits of the parties to this case, we hold that Atty. Jungco is not liable under the Code of Professional Responsibility, since the acts complained of by complainant were not done by respondent but by the law firm Singson, Valsez & Associates through their employee Geronimo Cleofas. Given that it was not Atty. Jungco who committed the acts complained of, he should not be punished under the aforesaid law.
Although respondent cannot be held liable under the Code of Professional Responsibility, he is liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. [8]The Notarial Law unequivocally states that a notary public should keep a notarial register recording all his official acts as a notary[9] and the specific information on the documents he notarizes.[10] Failure of the notary to perform this duty can result in the revocation of his commission as a notary public.[11]
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act.[12] It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized to do so may act as a notary public.[13] A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies, and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument.[14] With this, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.[15]
Importantly, since the notarial registry is a record of the notary public's official acts,, he is charged with recording in his notarial registry the necessary information regarding the document or instrument notarized and retaining a copy of the document presented to him for acknowledgment and certification.[16]If the document or instrument does not appear in the notarial records and a copy is not found in the records, doubt as to its nature arises so that the alleged notarized document cannot be considered a public document. Considering the evidentiary value given to the notarized documents, the failure of the notary public to record the document in his notarial registry is tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when, in fact, it was not.[17]
Evidence in this case shows that Atty. Isagani Jungco failed to exercise due diligence required of him in the performance of his duties as a notary public when he notarized the Verification/Certification of Jose Vargas without recording it in his notarial registry.[18] We, however, do not agree that his negligence should merit disbarment since it is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction and is only imposed on lawyers for serious misconduct. Under the circumstances, we find that the sanctions found under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice would be adequate. As to the penalty, Section 1 (b)[l] and [2] of Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides for the revocation of the Notarial commission of Atty. Jungco.
WHEREFORE, the instant complaint for dishonesty, fraud, and violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
However, for the breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the commission of respondent Atty. Isagani M. Jungco as Notary Public, if still existing, is REVOKED. Atty. Jungco is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment to the Office of Notary Public.
The Clerk of Court of this Court is DIRECTED to immediately circularize this Resolution for the proper guidance of all concerned.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the. Honorable Renato C. Corona, Chairperson, Hon. Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Hon. Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Hon. Diosdado M. Peralta and Jose C. Mendoza, Members, Third Division, this 8th day of February 2010.
A.C. No. 8062 (Gregorio Z. Robles v. Atty. Isagani M. Jungco)
R E S O L U T I O N
This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Gregorio Robles against respondent Atty. Isagani Jungco for dishonesty and fraud in the filing of an appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) by registered mail in NLRC Case No. Lac. 11-002981-07 (RAB Case No. 03-0804654-02). Complainant claims that respondent violated 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.
Gregorio Robles, an employee of the Subic Bay Yacht Club (SBYC), filed a case of illegal dismissal against SBYC with the Regional Arbitration Branch III of San Fernando, Pampanga. When the Labor Arbiter decided[1] in favor of complainant, respondent, as the legal counsel of SBYC, filed an appeal with the NLRC by mail through the Malaca�ang Post Office on September 20, 2007 after receiving the Labor Arbiter's decision on September 10, 2007.
Complainant alleges that he noticed discrepancies with regard to the date of mailing of the appeal. He claims that Atty. Jungco connived with a Mrs. Aquino of the Malaca�ang Post Office to make it appear that he mailed the appeal on September 20, 2007 when, in fact, he did it on September 21, I 2007, as shown in the logbook of the post office. He also presented two (2) Certifications written by Mrs. Aquino: one showed the date of mailing as September 20, 2007 and the other as September 21, 2007. Since the logbook of the post office affirms the latter date as the actual date of mailing, the appeal was filed out of time. Moreover, complainant learned that, by practice, the staff of the Malaca�ang Post Office intentionally leave blank spaces on their registry book in order to accommodate late pleadings filed by lawyers.[2]
In his defense, Arty. Jungco vehemently denies acting with dishonesty while being the counsel of SBYC. He alleges that he received the decision of Executive Labor Arbiter Isabel G. Panganiban-Ortiguerra in NLRC Case No. RAB 111-08-4654-02 on September 10, 2007. Since he was leaving for Korea on September 12, 2007, he informed his client that, before leaving, he was going to prepare the Notice of Appeal with Memorandum of Appeal, which had to be filed with the NLRC in San Fernando, Pampanga. Upon his return, he was informed by his client that lawyers in Metro Manila were already handling the matter. Thereafter, on June 25, 2008, he received the Resolution of the NLRC dated June 12, 2008 dismissing the appeal because it was filed out of time. The decision said that the appeal was filed on October 3, 2007.
Before filing a Motion for Reconsideration, respondent requested his client to submit to him a certification on the date of the mailing of the appeal from the post office where it was mailed.[3] Based on the Certification issued by the Malaca�ang Post Office, he then drafted the Motion for Reconsideration. Fie further posits that he was not the one who secured the Certification but his client. Moreover, he asserts that it was impossible for him to connive with Mrs. Aquino of the Malaca�ang Post Office, since he was not the one who mailed the Notice of Appeal with Memorandum of Appeal but Geronimo Cleofas of Singson, Valsez & Associates. Finally, he stresses that if there was a mistake, it was the Malaca�ang Post Office that committed it and not him.
In his Karagdagang Salaysay, complainant submitted additional evidence showing the respondent's alleged acts of fraud in connection with the mailing of the appeal. One is the Certification[4] of Clerk of Court (CoC) Jennifer Cruz-Buendia stating that the Affidavit of Service[5] of Geronimo Cleofas was not indicated in the notarial report of notary public Atty. Edilberto Cosca. Another one is a Verification/Certification,[6] signed by Jose Vargas, the representative of SBYC and the respondent of the labor case, which was notarized by Atty. Jungco as notary public. Proving that the Verification was fraudulent, the complainant submitted a Certification[7] from the Office of the CoC, RTC Olongapo City, showing that the Verification was not included in the notarial report submitted by Atty. Jungco to the court.
After analyzing and evaluating the affidavits of the parties to this case, we hold that Atty. Jungco is not liable under the Code of Professional Responsibility, since the acts complained of by complainant were not done by respondent but by the law firm Singson, Valsez & Associates through their employee Geronimo Cleofas. Given that it was not Atty. Jungco who committed the acts complained of, he should not be punished under the aforesaid law.
Although respondent cannot be held liable under the Code of Professional Responsibility, he is liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. [8]The Notarial Law unequivocally states that a notary public should keep a notarial register recording all his official acts as a notary[9] and the specific information on the documents he notarizes.[10] Failure of the notary to perform this duty can result in the revocation of his commission as a notary public.[11]
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act.[12] It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized to do so may act as a notary public.[13] A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies, and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument.[14] With this, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.[15]
Importantly, since the notarial registry is a record of the notary public's official acts,, he is charged with recording in his notarial registry the necessary information regarding the document or instrument notarized and retaining a copy of the document presented to him for acknowledgment and certification.[16]If the document or instrument does not appear in the notarial records and a copy is not found in the records, doubt as to its nature arises so that the alleged notarized document cannot be considered a public document. Considering the evidentiary value given to the notarized documents, the failure of the notary public to record the document in his notarial registry is tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when, in fact, it was not.[17]
Evidence in this case shows that Atty. Isagani Jungco failed to exercise due diligence required of him in the performance of his duties as a notary public when he notarized the Verification/Certification of Jose Vargas without recording it in his notarial registry.[18] We, however, do not agree that his negligence should merit disbarment since it is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction and is only imposed on lawyers for serious misconduct. Under the circumstances, we find that the sanctions found under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice would be adequate. As to the penalty, Section 1 (b)[l] and [2] of Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides for the revocation of the Notarial commission of Atty. Jungco.
WHEREFORE, the instant complaint for dishonesty, fraud, and violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
However, for the breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the commission of respondent Atty. Isagani M. Jungco as Notary Public, if still existing, is REVOKED. Atty. Jungco is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment to the Office of Notary Public.
The Clerk of Court of this Court is DIRECTED to immediately circularize this Resolution for the proper guidance of all concerned.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the. Honorable Renato C. Corona, Chairperson, Hon. Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Hon. Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Hon. Diosdado M. Peralta and Jose C. Mendoza, Members, Third Division, this 8th day of February 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] NLRC Case No. RAB III-08-4654-02. The Decision dated September 10, 2007 was penned by Executive Labor Arbiter Isabel G. Panganiban-Ortiguerra.
[2] Annex "I," of the Salaysay of Gregorio Robles.
[3] Annex "B" of the Comment of Atty. Isagani Jungco.
[4] Annex "N" of the Karagdagang Salaysay of Gregorio Robles.
[5] Annex "L," id.
[6] Annex "P," id.
[7] Annex "R" and Annex "S," id.
[8] A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. [9] Id., Sec. 1, Rule VI.
[10] Id., Sec. 2, Rule MI.
[11] Id., Sec. l(b)[l]and[2],RuleXI.
[12 ] Rosalinda Bernardo Vda. De Rosales v. Atty. Mario G. Ramos, A.C. No. 5645, July 2, 2002, 383 SCRA498.
[13] Maligsa v. Atty. Cabanting, 338 Phil. 912 (1997).
[14] Joson v. Baltazar, Adrn. Case No. 575, February 14, 1991, 194SCRA 114, 119.
[15] Nunga v. Viray, Adm. Case No. 4758, April 30, 1999, 306 SCRA 487, 491.
[16] Id, note 10.
[17] Id, note 11.
[17] Id., note 10.
