Law Ethics Case Digest:
ALICE GOKIOCO vs ATTY. RAFAEL P. MATEO
Law Ethics Case Digest:
ALICE GOKIOCO vs ATTY. RAFAEL P. MATEO
[A.C. No. 4179, November 11, 2004.]
Principle:
A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice, and the highest degree of care is the basic requirement in the performance of their duties in notary public in order to preserve the confidence of the public in the integrity of the notarial system.
Facts:
Alice Gokioco filed an Affidavit-Complaint with this Court alleging that: during the pre-trial conference of civil case “Sps. Eustaquio Gokioco and See Chua-Gokioco vs. Jennifer Gokioco, Sps. Mariano Gokioco and Alice Gokioco,” they discovered that the complaint in said case was subscribed and sworn to by See Chua-Gokioco before herein respondent on November 10, 1992; See Chua-Gokioco however, died on October 7, 1992 as evidenced by the death certificate issued by the local civil registrar; respondent, a long time counsel for the family, notarized and filed the said complaint, fully aware of the death of See Chua-Gokioco; this constitutes a violation of the Revised Penal Code, the Notarial Law, the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and warrants respondent’s disbarment and/or suspension from the practice of law.
In turn, Atty Mateo filed its comment denying the allegations at hand and insist on faithfully acting his duties as a member of the bar.
For resolution, the Court referred the case to IBP for its investigation, report and recommendation.
IBP recommended that the respondent be reprimanded and warned that any future misconduct on his part will warrant the imposition of a greater penalty.
Issue:
Whether the respondent’s lawyer conduct constitutes a violation in the Code of Professional Responsibility
Ruling:
The Court agrees with IBP’s findings but held that the penalty of reprimand is not commensurate to the misconduct committed by respondent.
In the case at hand, the respondent lawyer violated the following:
Respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and the CPR when he made it appear that the complaint of the Gokioco was verified by See Chua on November 10, 1992. The verification of the civil case submitted to the trial court states, “SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS November 10, 1992, in Tanay, Rizal.” The death certificate submitted by complainant states however that See Chua Gokioco died on October 7, 1992.
Rule 10.01 of the CPR holds that:
A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
The Notarial Law, as provided for in Title IV, Chapter II, Revised Administrative Code.
Sec. 245. Notarial Register – Every notary public shall keep a register to be known as the notarial register, wherein record shall be made of all his official acts as notary…
Sec. 246. Matters to be entered therein. The notary public shall enter in such register, in chronological order, the nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledging the instrument,…
Sec. 249 of the Notarial Law provides for grounds for the revocation of the notarial commission, thus:
Sec. 249. Grounds for revocation of commission. — The following derelictions of duty on the part of a notary public shall, in the discretion of the proper judge of first instance, be sufficient ground for the revocation of his commission:
(b) The failure of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register touching his notarial acts in the manner required by law.
Here, the Court reiterated the importance of the following rules of law:
- It is not enough that the notaries public should be truthful in carrying out their functions but they must observe with the highest degree of care as the basic requirements in the performance of their duties in order to preserve the confidence of the public in the integrity of the notarial system;
Indeed, faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct.
- The jurat must truthfully reflect all the information stated therein since the courts and the public rely on such representations.
- The errors committed by the accused are not the first offense committed by him in the exercise of his duties as a notary public.
Hence, Atty Mateo violated the Notarial Law, the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically on Rule 10.01. Suspended from practice of law for six (6) months; his incumbent notarial commission is revoked; and prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.
[A.C. No. 4179, November 11, 2004.]
Principle:
A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice, and the highest degree of care is the basic requirement in the performance of their duties in notary public in order to preserve the confidence of the public in the integrity of the notarial system.
Facts:
Alice Gokioco filed an Affidavit-Complaint with this Court alleging that: during the pre-trial conference of civil case “Sps. Eustaquio Gokioco and See Chua-Gokioco vs. Jennifer Gokioco, Sps. Mariano Gokioco and Alice Gokioco,” they discovered that the complaint in said case was subscribed and sworn to by See Chua-Gokioco before herein respondent on November 10, 1992; See Chua-Gokioco however, died on October 7, 1992 as evidenced by the death certificate issued by the local civil registrar; respondent, a long time counsel for the family, notarized and filed the said complaint, fully aware of the death of See Chua-Gokioco; this constitutes a violation of the Revised Penal Code, the Notarial Law, the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and warrants respondent’s disbarment and/or suspension from the practice of law.
In turn, Atty Mateo filed its comment denying the allegations at hand and insist on faithfully acting his duties as a member of the bar.
For resolution, the Court referred the case to IBP for its investigation, report and recommendation.
IBP recommended that the respondent be reprimanded and warned that any future misconduct on his part will warrant the imposition of a greater penalty.
Issue:
Whether the respondent’s lawyer conduct constitutes a violation in the Code of Professional Responsibility
Ruling:
The Court agrees with IBP’s findings but held that the penalty of reprimand is not commensurate to the misconduct committed by respondent.
In the case at hand, the respondent lawyer violated the following:
Respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and the CPR when he made it appear that the complaint of the Gokioco was verified by See Chua on November 10, 1992. The verification of the civil case submitted to the trial court states, “SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO THIS November 10, 1992, in Tanay, Rizal.” The death certificate submitted by complainant states however that See Chua Gokioco died on October 7, 1992.
Rule 10.01 of the CPR holds that:
A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
The Notarial Law, as provided for in Title IV, Chapter II, Revised Administrative Code.
Sec. 245. Notarial Register – Every notary public shall keep a register to be known as the notarial register, wherein record shall be made of all his official acts as notary…
Sec. 246. Matters to be entered therein. The notary public shall enter in such register, in chronological order, the nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledging the instrument,…
Sec. 249 of the Notarial Law provides for grounds for the revocation of the notarial commission, thus:
Sec. 249. Grounds for revocation of commission. — The following derelictions of duty on the part of a notary public shall, in the discretion of the proper judge of first instance, be sufficient ground for the revocation of his commission:
(b) The failure of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register touching his notarial acts in the manner required by law.
Here, the Court reiterated the importance of the following rules of law:
- It is not enough that the notaries public should be truthful in carrying out their functions but they must observe with the highest degree of care as the basic requirements in the performance of their duties in order to preserve the confidence of the public in the integrity of the notarial system;
Indeed, faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct.
- The jurat must truthfully reflect all the information stated therein since the courts and the public rely on such representations.
- The errors committed by the accused are not the first offense committed by him in the exercise of his duties as a notary public.
Hence, Atty Mateo violated the Notarial Law, the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically on Rule 10.01. Suspended from practice of law for six (6) months; his incumbent notarial commission is revoked; and prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.