Attorney Disbarment for Notarial Misconduct and Ethical Breaches in the Philippines

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that lawyers who betray client trust and abuse their notarial commission face the ultimate penalty of disbarment. In Mamugay v. Atty. Dela Rosa (A.C. No. 11093, November 14, 2023), the Court En Banc disciplined a lawyer for selling farmer-beneficiaries' property without their consent and notarizing a special power of attorney signed by persons who had been dead for years. The case underscores the high ethical standards expected of every member of the Philippine Bar.

The Facts of the Case

Complainants Lucrecia Mamugay and Perfecto Saliga were farmer-beneficiaries of an agricultural land in Cagayan de Oro City and members of the Palalan CARP Farmers Multi-Purpose Cooperative. Atty. Elmer Dela Rosa served as the cooperative's counsel.

In 2015, the farmer-beneficiaries discovered that Atty. Dela Rosa had sold their property to a third party without their knowledge or consent. Worse, he had notarized a Special Power of Attorney dated July 22, 2010, supposedly executed by cooperative members authorizing the sale. Two of the signatories—Alberto Ramos and Romana Palconit—had died in 1998 and 2004 respectively, years before the notarization date.

The Issue Before the Court

The central question was whether Atty. Dela Rosa's actions violated the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, warranting his disbarment.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found Atty. Dela Rosa guilty of multiple ethical violations. First, by selling the awarded property without the clients' consent, he breached his fiduciary duty to serve his clients with loyalty and to protect their interests. The Court cited Canon III of the new Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which defines fidelity as a lawyer's duty to advance or defend a client's cause with full devotion and genuine interest. The CPRA's provisions on fiduciary duty expressly prohibit a lawyer from abusing or exploiting the attorney-client relationship.

Second, the notarization of a document with deceased signatories constituted serious dishonesty. Under Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public cannot perform a notarial act unless the signatory personally appears before the notary and is properly identified. The Court emphasized that "notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act"—it converts a private document into a public one and makes it admissible in evidence without preliminary proof of authenticity.

Third, Atty. Dela Rosa failed to submit certified copies of his notarial entries to the Clerk of Court, violating Rule VI, Section 2(h) of the Notarial Rules, which requires a notary to forward a certified copy of each month's entries within the first ten days of the following month.

The Court also noted his repeated failure to comply with its directives and those of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which constituted willful disobedience of lawful orders—a serious breach of a lawyer's duty to respect and obey the orders of duly constituted authorities.

The Penalty

Because Atty. Dela Rosa had previously been disbarred in Palalan CARP Farmers Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. Atty. Dela Rosa (859 Phil. 52 [2019]) and declared ineligible for judicial clemency in Jumalon v. Atty. Dela Rosa (A.C. No. 9288, January 31, 2023), the Court could no longer impose a new disbarment. Instead, it ordered the penalty recorded in his file at the Office of the Bar Confidant, permanently disqualified him from reappointment as a notary public, and imposed a PHP 35,000 fine for his disobedience.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarization carries serious responsibility. A notary public must verify that signatories personally appear and are properly identified. Notarizing documents with fictitious or deceased signatories is grounds for severe disciplinary action.
• Lawyers owe clients absolute fidelity. Selling a client's property without consent—or acting where a conflict of interest exists—violates the fiduciary duty central to the attorney-client relationship.
• Disobeying court and IBP orders compounds liability. Failure to answer complaints or comply with directives is itself an ethical violation that aggravates the original misconduct.
• Prior discipline matters. A lawyer's disciplinary record is considered in subsequent cases, and repeat offenders face harsher consequences, including permanent disqualification from notarial practice.
• The CPRA now governs pending cases. The 2023 Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability applies to pending administrative cases, providing clear classifications of offenses and corresponding penalties.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.