The Supreme Court’s decision in Dimayuga v. Rubia underscores the high standards of conduct expected of attorneys in the Philippines. This case illustrates the consequences of neglecting professional duties, especially when it involves disobeying court orders and failing to uphold the law. The Court suspended Atty. Vivian G. Rubia from the practice of law for three years, disqualified her from notarial practice for a similar period, and revoked her notarial commission. This ruling serves as a stern reminder that lawyers must diligently fulfill their responsibilities and respect legal processes; failure to do so can result in severe disciplinary actions.

When Silence Speaks Volumes: An Attorney’s Disregard for Court Orders and Legal Ethics

The case of Julieta Dimayuga v. Atty. Vivian G. Rubia began with a complaint filed by Dimayuga against Atty. Rubia for alleged gross negligence, misrepresentation, and violation of the lawyer’s oath. Dimayuga claimed that Atty. Rubia had been engaged to facilitate the transfer of property and purchase a real estate, but failed to do so promptly, raising suspicions of misappropriation and neglect. The heart of the matter, however, shifted from the initial allegations to Atty. Rubia’s subsequent failure to respond to the Court’s orders. The Supreme Court focused heavily on her repeated failure to submit a comment on the charges against her, despite multiple directives and fines. The central legal question became whether an attorney’s persistent refusal to comply with court orders constitutes a grave breach of professional conduct, warranting disciplinary action.

The Supreme Court emphasized that Atty. Rubia’s repeated failure to comply with the Court’s orders constituted a grave breach of professional conduct. The Court noted that her actions demonstrated a blatant disrespect for the judicial system. Despite numerous opportunities and extensions granted over several years, Atty. Rubia failed to provide any substantive response to the allegations against her. This inaction was deemed a willful disobedience of lawful orders, which is, in itself, a sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Section 27 of Rule 138 explicitly states the grounds for which an attorney may face disciplinary actions:

A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do.

The Court found that Atty. Rubia’s excuses for her inaction—trauma, stress, and life-threatening situations—were insufficient, especially given that she managed to file pleadings explaining these issues but not the required comment. The Court concluded that her actions were deliberate and manipulative, causing unreasonable delays in the resolution of the case. Citing Sebastian v. Atty. Bajar, the Court reiterated that failure to comply with court orders constitutes gross misconduct and insubordination, further underscoring the severity of Atty. Rubia’s actions.

Regarding the initial allegations of delay and misappropriation of funds, the Court found that these claims were not sufficiently substantiated. The standard of proof in administrative proceedings requires substantial evidence, which is defined as evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In this case, the complainant’s allegations lacked concrete evidence to prove that the funds were indeed given to the respondent on the claimed date and subsequently misappropriated. The Court emphasized that mere allegations, without supporting evidence, are insufficient to establish guilt.

Despite the lack of evidence supporting the misappropriation claims, the Court found fault with Atty. Rubia for preparing and notarizing a deed of sale for a property that was legally prohibited from being sold, transferred, or conveyed under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, also known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. This law imposes a ten-year restriction on the sale or transfer of land awarded under a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA), except through hereditary succession or to the government.

By preparing and notarizing the deed of sale during the prohibited period, Atty. Rubia was deemed to have violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect for the law and legal processes. Additionally, Rule 1.02 of the CPR mandates lawyers to not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law. The Court emphasized that lawyers must always conduct themselves in a manner that is scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Furthermore, she violated Rule 15.07, which requires a lawyer to impress upon his client compliance with the laws.

The act of notarizing the illegal document was considered a serious breach of duty. Notarization imbues a document with a presumption of regularity and authenticity, making it more credible and reliable. However, in this case, the notarization lent undeserved credibility to an illegal transaction. The Court cited Caalim-Verzonilla v. Atty. Pascua, which explained that notaries public must guard against illegal or immoral arrangements and refrain from being a party to their consummation. This is further reinforced by Section 4 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which prohibits notaries from performing any notarial act if they know or have good reason to believe that the act or transaction is unlawful or immoral.

The Supreme Court weighed the appropriate disciplinary action, considering that this was not Atty. Rubia’s first administrative sanction. The Court acknowledged the principle that disbarment should not be imposed if a less severe punishment would suffice. However, given the gravity of her offenses—willful disobedience of court orders and facilitating an illegal transaction—and her prior disciplinary record, the Court deemed a substantial suspension necessary.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found Atty. Rubia guilty of violating Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Canon 1 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Rules on Notarial Practice. She was suspended from the practice of law for three years, disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for three years, and her notarial commission was revoked. The Court issued a stern warning that future infractions would be dealt with more severely, underscoring the importance of upholding ethical standards and complying with legal obligations in the legal profession.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Rubia’s repeated failure to comply with court orders and her notarization of an illegal sale constituted a breach of professional conduct warranting disciplinary action.
What is the significance of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court?	Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court lists the grounds for which an attorney may be disciplined, including willful disobedience of a lawful court order. This provision was central to the Court’s decision to suspend Atty. Rubia.
What constitutes substantial evidence in administrative cases?	Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. This standard is used to determine guilt in administrative proceedings.
What is the restriction on selling land acquired through a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA)?	Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657 imposes a ten-year restriction on the sale or transfer of land awarded under a CLOA, except through hereditary succession or to the government.
What ethical rules did Atty. Rubia violate?	Atty. Rubia violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws, and Rule 15.07, which requires lawyers to impress upon their clients compliance with the laws.
What is the duty of a notary public regarding illegal transactions?	A notary public must guard against illegal or immoral arrangements and refrain from being a party to their consummation. Section 4 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice prohibits notarization if the notary knows or has reason to believe the transaction is unlawful.
What disciplinary actions can be taken against erring lawyers?	The Court can impose various sanctions, including suspension from the practice of law, revocation of the notarial commission, disqualification from acting as a notary public, and even disbarment, depending on the gravity of the offense.
What was the final ruling in this case?	Atty. Rubia was suspended from the practice of law for three years, disqualified from being a notary public for three years, and her notarial commission was revoked due to her ethical and legal violations.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dimayuga v. Rubia serves as a critical reminder to all attorneys in the Philippines about the importance of upholding their ethical obligations and respecting the orders of the court. The consequences of failing to do so can be severe, impacting not only their professional careers but also the public’s trust in the legal system. This case highlights the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining high standards of conduct within the legal profession.

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: JULIETA DIMAYUGA VS. ATTY. VIVIAN G. RUBIA, A.C. No. 8854, July 03, 2018