Facts:
Complainant Felipe E. Abella filed a complaint for violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Complainant Felipe E. Abella filed a complaint for violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees against respondent Atty. Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees against respondent Atty. Asteria
Asteria E. E. Cruzabra. Cruzabra. In In his his affidavit-complaint, affidavit-complaint, complainant complainant charged charged respondent respondent withwith engaging in private practice of law while employed in the government service.
engaging in private practice of law while employed in the government service.
Respondent was appointed at the Register of Deeds of General Santos City. During her Respondent was appointed at the Register of Deeds of General Santos City. During her term of office, she ap
term of office, she applied for a notarial plied for a notarial commission and notarizcommission and notarized 3, 000 documents. ed 3, 000 documents. TheseThese acts were performed by respondent, without obtaining a permission from the Secretary of acts were performed by respondent, without obtaining a permission from the Secretary of Justice.
Justice.
Respondent invoke good faith as her defense. Respondent insists that she cannot be Respondent invoke good faith as her defense. Respondent insists that she cannot be punish because she was given permission by her senior officer to notarize. In fact, one of the punish because she was given permission by her senior officer to notarize. In fact, one of the agreement in her appointment letter was that she will not imposed charges on papers from agreement in her appointment letter was that she will not imposed charges on papers from their office that needs notarization. Moreover, respondent argued that she is new in the legal their office that needs notarization. Moreover, respondent argued that she is new in the legal profession and she does know the intricacies thereof.
profession and she does know the intricacies thereof. Issue:
Issue:
Whether or not respondent's act merits disciplinary action. Whether or not respondent's act merits disciplinary action.
Ruling: Ruling:
Yes, as per Civil Service rules, the authority to grant permission to any official or Yes, as per Civil Service rules, the authority to grant permission to any official or employee shall be granted by the head of the ministry or agency in accordance with Section employee shall be granted by the head of the ministry or agency in accordance with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules, which provides:
12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules, which provides:
"Sec. 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business, "Sec. 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business, vocation, or profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural, or industrial vocation, or profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural, or industrial undertaking without
undertaking without a written permission from the head of Departmenta written permission from the head of Department; Provided, That; Provided, That this prohibition will be absolute in the case of those officers and employees whose duties this prohibition will be absolute in the case of those officers and employees whose duties and responsibilities require that their entire time be at the disposal of the Government: and responsibilities require that their entire time be at the disposal of the Government: Provided, further, That if an employee is granted permission to engage in outside activities, Provided, further, That if an employee is granted permission to engage in outside activities, the time so devoted outside of office hours should be fixed by the chief of the agency to the the time so devoted outside of office hours should be fixed by the chief of the agency to the end that it will not impair in any way the efficiency of the other officer or employee: And end that it will not impair in any way the efficiency of the other officer or employee: And provided, finally, That no permission is necessary in the case of investments, made by an provided, finally, That no permission is necessary in the case of investments, made by an officer or employee, which do not involve any real or apparent conflict between his private officer or employee, which do not involve any real or apparent conflict between his private interests and public duties, or in any way influence him in the discharge of his duties, and he interests and public duties, or in any way influence him in the discharge of his duties, and he shall not take part in the management of the enterprise or become an officer or member of shall not take part in the management of the enterprise or become an officer or member of the board of directors",
the board of directors",
Subject to any additional conditions which the head of the office deems necessary in Subject to any additional conditions which the head of the office deems necessary in each particular case in the interest of the service, as expressed in the various issuances of each particular case in the interest of the service, as expressed in the various issuances of the Civil Service Commission.
the Civil Service Commission.
It is clear in this case that when respondent filed her petition for commission as a It is clear in this case that when respondent filed her petition for commission as a notary public, she did not obtain a written permission from the Secretary of the DOJ. notary public, she did not obtain a written permission from the Secretary of the DOJ. Responden
Respondent’s t’s superior, thesuperior, the Register of Deeds, cannot issue any authorization because he isRegister of Deeds, cannot issue any authorization because he is not the head of the Department. And even assuming that the Register of Deeds authorized not the head of the Department. And even assuming that the Register of Deeds authorized her, respondent failed to present any proof of that written permission. Respondent cannot her, respondent failed to present any proof of that written permission. Respondent cannot feign ignorance or good faith because respondent filed her petition for commission as a feign ignorance or good faith because respondent filed her petition for commission as a notary public after Memorandum Circular No. 17 was issued in 1986.
notary public after Memorandum Circular No. 17 was issued in 1986.
Thus, under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Thus, under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, engaging in the private practice of profession, when unauthorized, is classified as a light engaging in the private practice of profession, when unauthorized, is classified as a light offense punishable by reprimand.
offense punishable by reprimand.
Wherefore, we find Atty. Asteria E. Cruzabra guilty of engaging in notarial practice Wherefore, we find Atty. Asteria E. Cruzabra guilty of engaging in notarial practice without the written authority from the Secretary of the Department of Justice, and accordingly without the written authority from the Secretary of the Department of Justice, and accordingly we REPRIMAND her. She is warned that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future we REPRIMAND her. She is warned that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall merit a more severe sanction.
shall merit a more severe sanction.
AGAGON VS BUSTAMANTE AGAGON VS BUSTAMANTE AC NO. 5510, DECEMBER 20, 2007 AC NO. 5510, DECEMBER 20, 2007 FACTS: FACTS: Complainant
Complainant Sajid Sajid D. D. agagon agagon filed filed the the instant instant administrative administrative case case againstagainst respondent Atty. Bustamante charging the latter with malpractice and violation of the respondent Atty. Bustamante charging the latter with malpractice and violation of the lawyer’s oath. Complainant alleged that respondent acted as Notary Public to the “Deed of lawyer’s oath. Complainant alleged that respondent acted as Notary Public to the “Deed of Sale” allegedly executed by and between Dominador Panglao
Sale” allegedly executed by and between Dominador Panglao and Alessandro Panglao. and Alessandro Panglao. However, upon verification with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of However, upon verification with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, it was discovered that the alleed Deed of Sale was not included in notarial Baguio City, it was discovered that the alleed Deed of Sale was not included in notarial
report. Instead, Doc no. 375 appearing on page 76 of Book XXXIII, Series of 2000 of report. Instead, Doc no. 375 appearing on page 76 of Book XXXIII, Series of 2000 of respondent Atty. Bustamante referred to an Affidavit executed by a certain Teofilo M. respondent Atty. Bustamante referred to an Affidavit executed by a certain Teofilo M. Malapit. Moreover, the Community Tax Certificates used by the parties in the Deed of Sale Malapit. Moreover, the Community Tax Certificates used by the parties in the Deed of Sale were fictitio us, as certified to by the C
were fictitio us, as certified to by the City Treasurer’s Office.ity Treasurer’s Office.
In his Comment,respondent admitted that he was the one who prepared the Deed of In his Comment,respondent admitted that he was the one who prepared the Deed of Sale. However, he claimed that the parties merely dictated to him their Community Tax Sale. However, he claimed that the parties merely dictated to him their Community Tax Certificate Numberrs and it was pure inadvertence that the document that was reported and Certificate Numberrs and it was pure inadvertence that the document that was reported and included in the report to the Office of the Clerk of Court and which bore the documents included in the report to the Office of the Clerk of Court and which bore the documents number assigned to the Deed of Sale was an Affidavit executed by Teofilo Malapit.
number assigned to the Deed of Sale was an Affidavit executed by Teofilo Malapit. Issue
Issue: Whether the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibilty and Notarial: Whether the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibilty and Notarial Law.
Law. Held Held::
Yes, there is no doubt that respondent violated the Code of Professional Yes, there is no doubt that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law when he failed to include a copy of the Deed of Sale in Responsibility and the Notarial Law when he failed to include a copy of the Deed of Sale in his Notarial Report and for failing to require the parties to the Deed to exhibit their respective his Notarial Report and for failing to require the parties to the Deed to exhibit their respective community tax certificates. Doubts were cast as to the existence and due execution of the community tax certificates. Doubts were cast as to the existence and due execution of the subject deed, thus undermining the integrity and sanctity of the notarization process and subject deed, thus undermining the integrity and sanctity of the notarization process and diminishing public confidence in notarial. In the performance of notarial acts, the notary diminishing public confidence in notarial. In the performance of notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the significance of the notarial seal as affixed on a document. The public must be mindful of the significance of the notarial seal as affixed on a document. The notarial seal converts the document from private to public, after which it may be presented notarial seal converts the document from private to public, after which it may be presented as evidence without need for proof of its genuineness and due execution. Thus, notarization as evidence without need for proof of its genuineness and due execution. Thus, notarization should not be treated as an empty, meaningless or routinary act. It is invested with should not be treated as an empty, meaningless or routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Indeed, a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its notaries public. Indeed, a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with the face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with the elementary formalities in the performance of their duties.Otherwise, the confidence of the elementary formalities in the performance of their duties.Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined. Canon 1 of the Code public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined. Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires every lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the of Professional Responsibility requires every lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes.
laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. Montecillo vs. Gica
Montecillo vs. Gica G.R. No. L-
G.R. No. L-36800, October 21, 197436800, October 21, 1974 FACTS:
FACTS:
Mr. Gica filed a criminal complaint for oral defamation against Montecillo. After finding the Mr. Gica filed a criminal complaint for oral defamation against Montecillo. After finding the counter-claim of Montecillo meritorious, the City Court rendered judgment against Gica for counter-claim of Montecillo meritorious, the City Court rendered judgment against Gica for him to pay Montecillo for damages. However, The Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals him to pay Montecillo for damages. However, The Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu.
reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu. Atty. Quirico del Mar, a
Atty. Quirico del Mar, as counsel for Montecillo, moved fs counsel for Montecillo, moved for a reconsideration or a reconsideration of the Appellateof the Appellate Court's decision with a veiled threat by mentioning the provisions of the Revised Penal Code Court's decision with a veiled threat by mentioning the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on "Knowingly rendering unjust judgment" and "judgment rendered through negligence", and on "Knowingly rendering unjust judgment" and "judgment rendered through negligence", and the innuendo that the Court of Appeals allowed itself to be deceived. The Appellate Court the innuendo that the Court of Appeals allowed itself to be deceived. The Appellate Court denied the motion AND IT admonished Atty. del Mar to remember that threats and abusive denied the motion AND IT admonished Atty. del Mar to remember that threats and abusive language cannot compel any court of justice to grant reconsideration. Respondent del Mar language cannot compel any court of justice to grant reconsideration. Respondent del Mar persisted and in his second motion for reconsideration, filed without leave of court, and persisted and in his second motion for reconsideration, filed without leave of court, and
made another threat by stating that “the next appeal that will be interposed, will be to his made another threat by stating that “the next appeal that will be interposed, will be to his excellency, the
excellency, the President of President of the the Philippines”. Philippines”. Appellate Court, Appellate Court, impelled impelled to assert to assert itsits authority, ordered respondent del Mar to explain within 10 days (and to appear on January authority, ordered respondent del Mar to explain within 10 days (and to appear on January 10, 1973) why he should not be punished for contempt of court.
10, 1973) why he should not be punished for contempt of court.
On December 5, 1972, respondent del Mar made a written explanation wherein he said that On December 5, 1972, respondent del Mar made a written explanation wherein he said that the Appellate Court could not be threatened and he was not making any threat but only the Appellate Court could not be threatened and he was not making any threat but only informing the Appellate Court of the course of action he would follow. On the same date, informing the Appellate Court of the course of action he would follow. On the same date, respondent sent a letter to the Justices of the 4th Division of the Court of Appeals informing respondent sent a letter to the Justices of the 4th Division of the Court of Appeals informing them that he sent a letter to the President of the Philippines, furnishing them a copy thereof, them that he sent a letter to the President of the Philippines, furnishing them a copy thereof, and requesting the Justices to take into consideration the contents of said letter during the and requesting the Justices to take into consideration the contents of said letter during the hearing of the case scheduled for January 10, 1973. Not content with that move, on hearing of the case scheduled for January 10, 1973. Not content with that move, on December 8, 1972, respondent sent another letter to the same Justices of the Court of December 8, 1972, respondent sent another letter to the same Justices of the Court of Appeals
Appeals wherein wherein he he reminded reminded them them of of a a civil civil case case he he instituted instituted against against Justices Justices of of thethe Supreme Court. The Resolution of the Appellate Court fittingly concluded that Atty. Del Mar Supreme Court. The Resolution of the Appellate Court fittingly concluded that Atty. Del Mar is guilty of contempt and condemned to pay a fine and suspended from the practice of law. is guilty of contempt and condemned to pay a fine and suspended from the practice of law. Thereafter, Atty. Del Mar asked the Supreme Court to reverse his suspension as well as the Thereafter, Atty. Del Mar asked the Supreme Court to reverse his suspension as well as the decision of the Court of Appeals as to the Montecillo case. However, the SC denied both and decision of the Court of Appeals as to the Montecillo case. However, the SC denied both and this earned the ire of Atty. Del Mar as he demanded from the Clerk of the Supreme Court as this earned the ire of Atty. Del Mar as he demanded from the Clerk of the Supreme Court as to who were the judges who voted against him.