Upholding Honesty: Lawyer Suspended for Falsifying Document Ages

The Supreme Court has once again reminded members of the Bar that a lawyer's duty to truthfulness is paramount, even when a client or relative insists otherwise. In Apolinar-Petilo v. Maramot (A.C. No. 9067, January 31, 2018), the Court suspended a lawyer for six months for preparing a deed of donation that falsely stated two minor donees were of legal age, and for improperly notarizing the document. The ruling reinforces that good intentions and the persistence of a client cannot excuse a lawyer's conscious participation in a falsehood.

The Facts of the Case

Complainant Marjorie A. Apolinar-Petilo charged Atty. Aristedes A. Maramot with falsifying a public document. The case arose from a deed of donation executed in favor of two minors: Princess Anne, who was 12 years old, and Mommayda, who was 16½ years old. Atty. Maramot prepared the deed and indicated that both donees were "of legal age," despite knowing their true ages. He also notarized the document.

The respondent lawyer admitted he knew Princess Anne was a minor and had initially advised that she be represented by a parent. However, he claimed the donor, an elderly grandaunt suffering from colon cancer, persisted and prevailed upon him to proceed. He prepared the deed, left some details blank, and allowed the donor to bring it to Manila to procure signatures. When the document was returned, he noticed it lacked the signatures of Princess Anne's parents but did not follow up.

The Issue Before the Court

The central issue was whether Atty. Maramot violated the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Rules on Notarial Practice by preparing and notarizing a deed of donation containing false statements about the donees' ages and by notarizing a document that was not integrally complete.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) but modified the penalty. The Court found Atty. Maramot guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1, and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as the Rules on Notarial Practice.

As a lawyer. The Court emphasized that a lawyer is "a disciple of truth," having sworn upon admission to the Bar to "do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court." By indicating that the minor donees were of legal age, the respondent consciously engaged in dishonest conduct. The Court rejected his defenses:

• Good faith is no excuse. A lawyer cannot invoke good faith or good intentions to excuse a failure to be truthful and honest in professional actions.
• The donor's persistence is irrelevant. The respondent should have stood firm against pressure from a client or relative.
• The donation's benefit to the minors does not matter. Whether a minor could benefit from a donation was not the decisive consideration; the falsehood itself was.

The Court also absolved the respondent of charges related to submitting a simulated birth certificate in an adoption case, finding no evidence he participated in its creation or misrepresented its contents.

As a notary public. The Court found that the notarial acknowledgment was improper. While only the donor appeared before the notary, the deed of donation itself contained the donees' acceptance. Therefore, the donees—and, being minors, their parents or guardians—should have appeared and signed the instrument. The acknowledgment also failed to indicate the donees' names. The Court cited Rule II, Section 1 of the Rules on Notarial Practice, which requires an individual to appear before a notary public and present an integrally complete instrument or document.

The Penalty

The Court imposed a penalty of six months suspension from the practice of law, revocation of the respondent's notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as a notary public for two years. The Court noted that the circumstances called for lenity, but sternly warned that a repetition of the offense would merit a more stringent penalty.

Practical Takeaways

• Truthfulness is non-negotiable. A lawyer's duty to be truthful applies to all professional actions, not just those in court. Preparing a document with false statements—even at a client's insistence—is a serious ethical violation.
• Good intentions do not cure falsehoods. A lawyer cannot justify a dishonest act by claiming it benefited another party or was done in good faith.
• Notarization requires strict compliance. A notary public must not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it personally appeared before him or her and the document is integrally complete. For deeds involving minors, the minors and their parents or guardians must be properly represented.
• Pressure from clients is not a defense. Lawyers must have the courage to decline instructions that would require them to violate the law or ethical rules.
• Ethical violations carry real consequences. Suspension from practice and revocation of notarial commission can severely impact a lawyer's career and livelihood.

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