A.C. No.
11668
JOY T. SAMONTE vs. ATTY. VIVENCIO V. JUMAMIL
PRINCIPLE:
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act. It is invested with substantive public
interest. It must be underscored that the notarization by a notary public converts a private
document into a public document, making that document admissible in evidence without further
proof of authenticity thereof. A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon
its face. For this reason, a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements
in the performance of their duties; otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this
form of conveyance would be undermined
The relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and
confidence. In this regard, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of their
cause, and accordingly, exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs.
Accordingly, lawyers are required to maintain, at all times, a high standard of legal proficiency,
and to devote their full attention, skill, and competence to their cases, regardless of their
importance, and whether they accept them for a fee or for free.17 To this end, lawyers are
enjoined to employ only fair and honest means to attain lawful objectives. 18 These principles are
embodied in Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the CPR.
FACTS:
Samonte received summons from the NLRC Davao, City, relative to an illegal dismissal case
filed by four (4) persons claiming to be workers in her small banana plantation. Consequently,
complainant engaged the services of respondent to prepare her position paper, and paid him
the amount of ₱8,000.003 as attorney's fees.4 Despite constantly reminding respondent of the
deadline for the submission of her position paper, complainant discovered that he still failed to
file the same.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision 6 based on the evidence on record, whereby complainant
was held liable to the workers in the total amount of ₱633,143.68.7 When complainant
confronted respondent about the said ruling, the latter casually told her to just sell her farm to
pay the farm workers.8 Because of respondent's neglect, complainant claimed that she was left
defenseless and without any remedy to protect her interests against the execution of the
foregoing judgment;9 hence, she filed the instant complaint.
respondent admitted that he indeed failed to file a position paper on behalf of complainant.
However, he maintained that said omission was due to complainant's failure to adduce credible
witnesses to testify in her favor.
The IBP-CBD found respondent guilty of violating Rule 10.01, Canon 10, and Rule 18.03,
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), as well as the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not he violated the 2004 rules on notarial practice by notarizing a perjured
affidavit.
2. Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable.
RULING:
1. Yes, he violated the 2004 rules on notarial practice.
Notably, the notarization of a perjured affidavit also constituted a violation of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice. Section 4 (a), Rule IV thereof pertinently provides:
SEC. 4. Refusal to Notarize. - A notary public shall not perform any notarial act described in
these Rules for any person requesting such an act even if he tenders the appropriate fee
specified by these Rules if:
(a) the notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction is
unlawful or immoral.
On this score, it is well to stress that "notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act. It
is invested with substantive public interest. It must be underscored that the notarization by a
notary public converts a private document into a public document, making that document
admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity thereof. A notarial document is, by
law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. For this reason, a notary public must observe
with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties; otherwise, the
confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined."
2. Yes, respondent should be held administratively liable.
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 - 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.1âwphi1
CANON 18 -A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
The relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and
confidence. In this regard, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of their
cause, and accordingly, exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs.
Accordingly, lawyers are required to maintain, at all times, a high standard of legal proficiency,
and to devote their full attention, skill, and competence to their cases, regardless of their
importance, and whether they accept them for a fee or for free.17 To this end, lawyers are
enjoined to employ only fair and honest means to attain lawful objectives. 18 These principles are
embodied in Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the CPR.
In this case, it is undisputed that a lawyer-client relationship was forged between complainant
and respondent when the latter agreed to file a position paper on her behalf before the NLRC
and, in connection therewith, received the amount of ₱8,000.00 from complainant as payment
for his services. Case law instructs that a lawyer-client relationship commences when a lawyer
signifies his agreement to handle a client's case and accepts money representing legal fees
from the latter,19 as in this case. From then on, as the CPR provides, a lawyer is duty-bound to
"serve his client with competence and diligence," and in such regard, "not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him."
However, it is fairly apparent that respondent breached this duty when he admittedly failed to file
the necessary position paper before the NLRC, which had, in fact, resulted into an adverse
ruling against his client, i.e., herein complainant. To be sure, it is of no moment that complainant
purportedly failed to produce any credible witnesses in support of her position paper; clearly,
this is not a valid justification for respondent to completely abandon his client's cause. By
voluntarily taking up complainant's case, respondent gave his unqualified commitment to
advance and defend the latter's interest therein. Verily, he owes fidelity to such cause and must
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.20 In A bay v. Montesino,21 it was
explained that regardless of a lawyer's personal view, the latter must still present every remedy
or defense within the authority of the law to support his client's cause.
Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause
and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client
with competence and diligence, and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity,
care, and devotion. Otherwise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm
zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost
learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules
of law, legally applied. This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and
every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his
lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an attorney, it is
because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to
the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with
diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of
justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal
profession.
Likewise, the IBP correctly found that respondent violated Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR.
Records show that he indeed indulged in deliberate falsehood when he admittedly
prepared23 and notarized24 the affidavit of complainant's intended witness, Romeo, despite his
belief that Romeo was a perjured witness. In Spouses Umaguing v. De Vera,25 the Court
highlighted the oath undertaken by every lawyer to not only obey the laws of the land, but also
to refrain from doing any falsehood, viz. :
The Lawyer's Oath enjoins every lawyer not only to obey the laws of the land but also to refrain
from doing any falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to the doing of any in court, and
to conduct himself according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to
the courts as well as to his clients. Every lawyer is a servant of the law, and has to observe and
maintain the rule of law as well as be an exemplar worthy of emulation by others. It is by no
means a coincidence, therefore, that the core values of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness
are emphatically reiterated by the Code of Professional Responsibility. In this light, Rule 10.01,
Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides 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."
