In Elsa L. Mondejar v. Atty. Vivian G. Rubia, the Supreme Court addressed the serious issue of notarial misconduct, specifically the ante-dating of a legal document. The Court found Atty. Rubia liable for violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that lawyers must not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. This decision underscores the high ethical standards expected of lawyers, especially those commissioned as notaries public, and serves as a reminder of the grave responsibility that comes with the power to authenticate documents. The ruling reinforces the integrity of the legal profession by ensuring that lawyers are held accountable for any actions that undermine the public’s trust and confidence in the legal system.

Conflicting Dates and a Questionable Revision: Did a Notary Public Violate Legal Ethics?

The case began with two administrative complaints filed by Elsa L. Mondejar against Atty. Vivian G. Rubia, seeking her disbarment and the cancellation of her notarial commission. The first complaint arose from a Memorandum of Joint Venture Agreement between Marilyn Carido and Yoshimi Nakayama, which was acknowledged before Atty. Rubia on January 9, 2001, but was entered in her notarial register for 2002 and bore her 2002 Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) number. Mondejar alleged that this document was falsified to conceal that Nakayama, a Japanese national, actually owned Bamiyan Group of Enterprises, in violation of the Anti-Dummy Law. The second complaint involved a Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly executed by Manuel Jose Lozada, who had been residing in the U.S. since 1992, with Mondejar claiming that Atty. Rubia had forged Lozada’s signature.

After the complaints were filed, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) was tasked with investigating the matter. Commissioner Doroteo Aguila, assigned by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, conducted a mandatory conference. Despite the death of the complainant, Celso Mondejar, her husband, requested that the case proceed based on the submitted documentary evidence. Atty. Rubia argued that the complainant lacked legal standing and highlighted her demise. However, the IBP proceeded with the investigation and evaluation of the evidence.

The Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the second complaint regarding the Deed of Sale. However, concerning the Memorandum of Joint Venture Agreement with the date discrepancies, he found Atty. Rubia to have violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Commissioner’s report highlighted the conflicting dates and PTR numbers on the document, leading to the conclusion that Atty. Rubia had made an untruthful declaration in a public document. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the finding of the Investigating Commissioner, but modified the recommended sanction from suspension to a warning, stating that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. This decision was then elevated to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s finding that Atty. Rubia violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court emphasized the crucial role of notaries public in converting private documents into public documents, which are admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. “Notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document, thus rendering the document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity,”. The Court further stressed that lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to adhere to sacred duties dictated by public policy and public interest. These duties include obeying the laws, not engaging in falsehoods, and guarding against any illegal or immoral arrangement. The Court underscored that a graver responsibility is placed upon them due to their solemn oath.

Atty. Rubia’s defense centered on the claim that the discrepancies occurred because the original agreement from January 9, 2001, was revised and amended in 2002 to include additional conditions, but she retained the original date. She claimed the errors in the notarial register and PTR number were oversights that her secretary was supposed to correct. However, the Court found this explanation unconvincing, stating that it “betrays her guilt.” The Court reasoned that the document appeared to have been ante-dated to exculpate Marilyn from the Anti-Dummy charge. If the new document merely added conditions while retaining the original date, the errors regarding the other original entries in the notarial register would not have occurred. Moreover, the Court pointed out that notaries public are required to submit copies of notarized documents to the proper clerk of court or Executive Judge within the first ten days of the following month.

The Court referenced the case of In re Almacen to support its decision, stating that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis and primarily concerned with public interest. “[D]isciplinary proceedings [against lawyers] are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, this proceeding is not – and does not involve – a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of its officers… Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such.”. The Court clarified that such proceedings are an investigation into the conduct of its officers, aimed at preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper administration of justice. This perspective reinforces the idea that disciplinary actions are not merely punitive but are aimed at maintaining the integrity of the legal system.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of notarized documents. The act of notarization carries significant legal weight, transforming private documents into public ones that are presumed authentic. Any deviation from the prescribed procedures or any act of dishonesty in the notarization process undermines the reliability of these documents and erodes public trust in the legal system. By disciplining Atty. Rubia, the Court sent a strong message that such misconduct will not be tolerated and that lawyers must uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct in their notarial duties.

In its decision, the Supreme Court found Atty. Rubia’s actions constituted a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court emphasized that Atty. Rubia’s explanation was not credible and that the document in question had been ante-dated to benefit one of the parties involved. By engaging in such conduct, Atty. Rubia not only violated her oath as a lawyer but also undermined the integrity of the notarial process and the public’s trust in the legal profession.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court ordered the suspension of Atty. Vivian Rubia for one month, sending a clear message about the importance of honesty and ethical conduct in the legal profession. The Court also warned that any repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The decision serves as a stern reminder to all lawyers, particularly those commissioned as notaries public, to uphold their ethical obligations and to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the documents they notarize. This case reinforces the principle that lawyers must act with the utmost good faith and honesty in all their professional dealings, and that any deviation from these standards will be met with appropriate disciplinary action.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Vivian G. Rubia violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by falsifying the date of a Memorandum of Joint Venture Agreement. This involved determining if she engaged in deceitful conduct by making an untruthful declaration in a public document.
What is the significance of a notary public?	A notary public’s role is to convert private documents into public documents, making them admissible as evidence without further proof of authenticity. This position requires them to uphold the law, avoid falsehoods, and ensure no illegal or immoral arrangements are made.
What was Atty. Rubia’s explanation for the date discrepancies?	Atty. Rubia claimed that the original agreement was revised in 2002 to include additional conditions, but she retained the original date of January 9, 2001. She attributed errors in the notarial register and PTR number to oversights that her secretary was supposed to correct.
Why did the Court reject Atty. Rubia’s explanation?	The Court found her explanation unconvincing because the document appeared to have been ante-dated to protect one of the parties from an Anti-Dummy charge. The Court noted that the errors would not have occurred if the original date was simply retained for a revised document.
What rule did Atty. Rubia violate?	Atty. Rubia violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This rule prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Vivian Rubia for one month for violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court also warned her that any repetition of similar acts would result in more severe penalties.
Can someone other than the direct victim file a disbarment case?	Yes, the Supreme Court can initiate disbarment proceedings motu proprio or through the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) based on a complaint from any person. The primary objective is to determine if the attorney is still fit to practice law.
What is the duty of a notary public regarding document submission?	Notaries public must send copies of notarized documents to the proper clerk of court or Executive Judge within the first ten days of the month following notarization. Failure to comply can be grounds for revocation of the notarial commission.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mondejar v. Rubia underscores the importance of ethical conduct and integrity in the legal profession, particularly for notaries public. By holding Atty. Rubia accountable for her actions, the Court has reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining the public’s trust and confidence in the legal system. This ruling serves as a crucial reminder to all lawyers to uphold the highest standards of honesty and ethical behavior in their professional duties.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Elsa L. Mondejar v. Atty. Vivian G. Rubia, A.C. Nos. 5907 and 5942, July 21, 2006