The Certification Against Forum Shopping: When a Lawyer's False Oath Leads to Suspension

The Supreme Court has long required lawyers to be truthful in their dealings with courts and other tribunals. This obligation extends to certifications against forum shopping, which are sworn statements that no similar case is pending elsewhere. In Crisostomo v. Nazareno (A.C. No. 6677, June 10, 2014), the Court reminded the legal profession that a lawyer who makes false declarations in these certifications—and who notarizes documents he knows to be false—faces serious consequences, including suspension from practice and permanent disqualification from being a notary public.

The Facts of the Case

The case began with housing disputes. In 2001, several individuals purchased housing units from Rudex International Development Corp. (Rudex). Due to alleged construction defects, the buyers filed rescission cases against Rudex before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). Rudex was represented throughout by Atty. Philip Z. A. Nazareno.

After judgments of default were rendered against Rudex in the first batch of cases, Rudex filed petitions for review before the HLURB. In the certifications against forum shopping attached to these petitions, Rudex declared that it had not commenced any similar action or proceeding. This was false: Rudex, through Atty. Nazareno, had previously filed an ejectment case against one of the buyers.

The pattern continued. Rudex filed additional complaints for rescission and ejectment, each with certifications against forum shopping declaring no pending similar cases—despite the existence of related cases. Atty. Nazareno notarized these certifications, including one instance where he assigned a single document number to six separate certifications.

The Issue

The central question was whether Atty. Nazareno should be held administratively liable for making false declarations in the certifications against forum shopping and for malpractice as a notary public.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found Atty. Nazareno guilty on both counts. The Court distinguished between the prohibition against forum shopping itself and the separate requirement to comply with the certification against forum shopping. Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, submitting a false certification constitutes indirect contempt of court and subjects the erring counsel to administrative and criminal actions.

The Court also found that Atty. Nazareno violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibit lawyers from engaging in dishonest or deceitful conduct and from doing any falsehood in court.

On the notarial aspect, the Court held that each notarial act must be recorded separately in the notarial register. By assigning one document number to six separate certifications, Atty. Nazareno failed to comply with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Worse, he notarized certifications he knew contained false statements.

The Penalty

The Court suspended Atty. Nazareno from the practice of law for one year, noting that his infractions were repetitive. It also revoked his notarial commission and permanently disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public.

Practical Takeaways

• A certification against forum shopping is a sworn statement, not a mere formality. Lawyers must verify the truth of its contents before signing.
• The prohibition against forum shopping and the certification requirement are separate obligations. Failure to comply with the certification can result in dismissal of the case and administrative sanctions.
• Notarization is not a routine act. Each notarial act must be recorded separately, and a notary public who knowingly notarizes a false document faces severe penalties.
• Lawyers who fail to respond to administrative charges cannot expect leniency; the Court may rely on the complainants' evidence.
• Repeated violations of legal ethics rules invite heavier penalties than a first offense.

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