EN
BANC
|
Complainant, - versus - ATTY. ROLANDO C. DELA CRUZ, Respondent. |
|
A.C. No. 6010 Present: PANGANIBAN, C.J., PUNO, QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO
MORALES, CALLEJO,
SR., AZCUNA,
TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
and VELASCO,
JR., JJ. Promulgated: |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This is a disbarment case filed by the Faculty members and
Staff of the
1)
Gross Misconduct:
From
the records of the case, it appears that there is a pending criminal case for
child abuse allegedly committed by him against a high school student filed
before the Prosecutor’s Office of Baguio City; a
pending administrative case filed by the Teachers, Staff, Students and Parents
before an Investigating Board created by SLU for his alleged unprofessional and
unethical acts of misappropriating money supposedly for the teachers; and the
pending labor case filed by SLU-LHS Faculty before the NLRC, Cordillera
Administrative Region, on alleged illegal deduction of salary by
respondent.
2)
Grossly Immoral Conduct:
In
contracting a second marriage despite the existence of his first marriage; and
3)
Malpractice:
In notarizing documents despite the expiration of his commission.
According
to complainant, respondent was legally married to Teresita
Rivera on
On
the charge of malpractice, complainant alleged that respondent deliberately
subscribed and notarized certain legal documents on different dates from 1988
to 1997, despite expiration of respondent’s notarial
commission on
1.
Affidavit of Ownership[2]
dated
2.
Affidavit[3]
dated
3.
Affidavit[4] dated
4.
Affidavit[5]
dated
5.
Absolute Date of Sale[6]
dated
6.
Joint Affidavit By Two Disinherited Parties[7]
dated
7.
Sworn Statement[8] dated
8.
Deed of
9.
Joint Affidavit by Two Disinterested Parties[10] dated
10.
Absolute Deed of Sale[11]
dated
11.
Deed of Absolute
Sale[12]
dated
12.
Joint Affidavit By Two Disinterested Parties[13]
dated
13.
Conditional Deed of Sale[14]
dated
14. Memorandum of Agreement[15] dated 19 July 1996, executed by JARCO represented by Mr. Johnny Teope and AZTEC Construction represented by Mr. George Cham, notarized by Rolando Dela Cruz.
Quite
remarkably, respondent, in his comment, denied the charges of child abuse,
illegal deduction of salary and others which are still pending before the St.
Louis University (SLU), National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Prosecutor’s
Office. He did not discuss anything about the allegations of immorality in
contracting a second marriage and malpractice in notarizing documents despite
the expiration of his commission.
After
the filing of comment, We referred[16]
the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), for investigation,
report and recommendation.
The
IBP conducted the mandatory preliminary conference.
The
complainants, thereafter, submitted their position paper which is just a
reiteration of their allegations in their complaint.
Respondent,
on his part, expressly admitted his second marriage despite the existence of
his first marriage, and the subsequent nullification of the former. He also admitted having notarized certain
documents during the period when his notarial commission
had already expired. However, he offered
some extenuating defenses such as good faith, lack of malice and noble
intentions in doing the complained acts.
After
the submission of their position papers, the case was deemed submitted for
resolution.
On
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that respondent be
administratively penalized for the following acts:
a. For contracting a second marriage without taking the appropriate legal steps to have the first marriage annulled first, he be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, and
b. For notarizing certain legal documents
despite full knowledge of the expiration of his notarial
commission, he be suspended from the practice of law for another one (1) year
or for a total of two (2) years.[17]
On
RESOLVED to ADOPT
and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case,
herein made part of this Resolution as Annex “A” and, finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the
applicable laws and rules, and considering that Respondent
contracted a second marriage without taking appropriate legal steps to have the
first marriage annulled, Atty. Rolando C. dela Cruz
is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and for
notarizing legal documents despite full knowledge of the expiration of his notarial commission Atty. Rolando C. dela
Cruz is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for another one (1) year, for a total of two (2) years Suspension from the
practice of law.[18]
This
Court finds the recommendation of the IBP to fault respondent well taken,
except as to the penalty contained therein.
At the threshold, it is worth
stressing that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by
the State on those who show that they possess the qualifications required by
law for the conferment of such privilege. Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened
with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege
and right to practice law only during good behavior, and he can be deprived of
it for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after
opportunity to be heard has been afforded him. Without invading any constitutional
privilege or right, an attorney’s right to practice law may be resolved by a
proceeding to suspend, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license
or to exercise the duties and responsibilities of an attorney. It must be understood that the purpose of
suspending or disbarring him as an attorney is to remove from the profession a
person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties
and responsibilities belonging to an office of attorney and, thus, to protect
the public and those charged with the administration of justice, rather than to
punish an attorney. Elaborating on this,
we said on Maligsa v. Atty. Cabanting,[19] that
the Bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of
honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer
brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to
society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. A member of the legal fraternity should
refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and
trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal
profession. Towards this end, an
attorney may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath or of his
duties as an attorney and counselor, which include statutory grounds enumerated
in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, all of these being broad enough
to cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private
capacity.
Equally
worthy of remark is that the law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy of
standards among its members. There is no
distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the lawyer’s
professional capacity or in his private life. This is because a lawyer may not divide his
personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.[20] Thus, not only his professional activities but
even his private life, insofar as the latter may reflect unfavorably upon the
good name and prestige of the profession and the courts, may at any time be the
subject of inquiry on the part of the proper authorities.[21]
One of the conditions prior to
admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral
character. Possession of such moral
character as requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice must
be continuous. Otherwise, “membership in
the bar may be terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good moral conduct.”[22]
In
the case at bench, there is no dispute that respondent
and Teresita Rivera contracted marriage on
Respondent was already a member of
the Bar when he contracted the bigamous second marriage in 1989, having been
admitted to the Bar in 1985. As such, he
cannot feign ignorance of the mandate of the law that before a second marriage
may be validly contracted, the first and subsisting marriage must first be
annulled by the appropriate court. The second
marriage was annulled only on
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court cites grossly immoral conduct as a ground for disbarment.
The Court has laid
down with a common definition of what constitutes immoral conduct, vis-à-vis, grossly immoral conduct.
Immoral conduct is “that conduct
which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference
to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community” and what is “grossly immoral,” that is, it must be so
corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree.”[24]
Undoubtedly,
respondent’s act constitutes immoral conduct.
But is it so gross as to warrant his disbarment? Indeed, he exhibited a deplorable lack of
that degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. In particular, he made a mockery of marriage
which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage while
the first marriage was still in place, is contrary to
honesty, justice, decency and morality.[25]
However, measured against the definition,
we are not prepared to consider respondent’s act as grossly immoral. This finds support in the following recommendation
and observation of the IBP Investigator and IBP Board of Governors, thus:
The
uncontested assertions of the respondent belies any
intention to flaunt the law and the high moral standard of the legal
profession, to wit:
a. After
his first failed marriage and prior to his second marriage or for a period of
almost seven (7) years, he has not been romantically involved with any woman;
b. His
second marriage was a show of his noble intentions and total love for his wife,
whom he described to be very intelligent person;
c. He
never absconded from his obligations to support his wife and child;
d. He
never disclaimed paternity over the child and husbandry (sic) with relation to
his wife;
e. After
the annulment of his second marriage, they have parted ways when the mother and
child went to
f. Since then up to now, respondent remained celibate.[26]
In
the case of Terre v. Terre,[27]
respondent was disbarred because his moral character was deeply flawed as shown
by the following circumstances, viz: he convinced the complainant that her prior marriage to
Bercenilla was null and void ab initio and that she was legally single
and free to marry him. When complainant
and respondent had contracted their marriage, respondent went through law
school while being supported by complainant, with some assistance from
respondent’s parents. After respondent
had finished his law course and gotten complainant pregnant, respondent
abandoned the complainant without support and without the wherewithal for
delivering his own child safely to a hospital.
In
the case of Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma,[28] respondent
was also disbarred for his grossly immoral acts such as: first, he abandoned his lawful wife and three children; second, he lured an innocent young woman
into marrying him; third, he mispresented himself as a “bachelor” so he could contract
marriage in a foreign land; and fourth,
he availed himself of complainant’s resources by securing a plane ticket from
complainant’s office in order to marry the latter’s daughter. He did this without complainant’s knowledge.
Afterwards, he even had the temerity to assure complainant that “everything is
legal.”
Such acts are wanting in the case at
bar. In fact, no less than the
respondent himself acknowledged and declared his abject apology for his
misstep. He was humble enough to offer
no defense save for his love and declaration of his commitment to his wife and
child.
Based on the reasons stated above, we find the
imposition of disbarment upon him to be unduly harsh. The power to disbar must
be exercised with great caution, and may be imposed only in a clear case of
misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as
an officer of the Court. Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser
penalty could accomplish the end desired.[29] In
line with this philosophy, we find that a penalty of two years suspension is
more appropriate. The penalty of one (1) year suspension recommended by the IBP
is too light and not commensurate to the act committed by respondent.
As to the charge of misconduct for
having notarized several documents during the years 1988-1997 after his commission
as notary public had expired, respondent humbly admitted having notarized
certain documents despite his knowledge that he no longer had authority to do
so. He, however, alleged that he
received no payment in notarizing said documents.
It
has been emphatically stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. On
the contrary, it is invested with substantive public interest, such that only
those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization of a private document converts
the document into a public one making it admissible in court without further
proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and
credit upon its face and, for this reason, notaries
public must observe with the utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties. Otherwise,
the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would
be undermined.[30]
The
requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public must not be
treated as a mere casual formality. The
Court has characterized a lawyer’s act of notarizing documents without the
requisite commission to do so as “reprehensible, constituting as it does not
only malpractice but also x x x
the crime of falsification of public documents.”[31]
The
Court had occasion to state that where the notarization of a document is done
by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or
commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action or
one, performing a notarial act without such
commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws, more
specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly
commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes,
indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer’s oath similarly
proscribes. These violations fall
squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides: “A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” By acting as a notary public without the
proper commission to do so, the lawyer likewise violates Canon 7 of the same
Code, which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession.
In the case of Buensuceso v. Barera,[32] a lawyer was suspended for one year when
he notarized five documents after his commission as Notary Public had expired,
to wit: a complaint for ejectment, affidavit,
supplemental affidavit, a deed of sale, and a contract to sell. Guided by the pronouncement in said case, we
find that a suspension of two (2) years is justified under the circumstances. Herein respondent notarized a total of fourteen
(14) documents[33] without
the requisite notarial commission.
Other charges constituting respondent’s
misconduct such as the pending criminal case for child abuse allegedly
committed by him against a high school student filed before the Prosecutor’s
Office of Baguio City; the pending administrative
case filed by the Teachers, Staff, Students and Parents before an Investigating
Board created by SLU; and the pending labor case filed by SLU-LHS Faculty
before the NLRC, Cordillera Administrative Region, on alleged illegal deduction
of salary by respondent, need not be discussed, as they are still pending
before the proper forums. At such
stages, the presumption of innocence still prevails in favor of the
respondent.
WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty.
Rolando Dela Cruz guilty of immoral conduct, in
disregard of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
a period of two (2) years, and another two (2) years for notarizing documents
despite the expiration of his commission or a total of four (4) years of
suspension.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished
all the courts of the land through the Court Administrator, as well as the IBP,
the Office of the Bar Confidant, and recorded in the personal records of the
respondent.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice |
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice |
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Leave
|
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROMEO J.
CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DANTE O.
TINGA Associate Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 5.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] 338 Phil. 912, 916-917 (1997).
[20] In
re: Almacen, G.R. No. L-27654,
[21] Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro,
A.C. No. 4256,
[22] Royong v. Oblena,
117 Phil. 865, 878 (1963).
[23] Cojuangco, Jr. v.
[24] See
Reyes v. Wong, A.C. No. 547,
[25] Villasanta v. Peralta, 101 Phil 313, 314 (1957).
[26] Rollo, p. 476.
[27] Adm. Case. No. 2349,
[28] Adm. Case No. 2474,
[29] T’boli Agro-Industrial Development, Inc. v. Atty. Solilapsi, 442 Phil. 499, 515 (2002).
[30] Arrieta v. Llosa, 346 Phil. 932, 937 (1997).
[31] Buensuceso v. Barrera, A.C. No. 3727,
[32]
[33] Supra notes 2-15.