In Crisostomo v. Nazareno, the Supreme Court held Atty. Philip Z. A. Nazareno administratively liable for making false declarations in certifications against forum shopping and for malpractice as a notary public. The Court suspended him from the practice of law for one year, revoked his notarial commission, and permanently disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public. This ruling underscores the importance of honesty and candor in legal practice, especially concerning certifications submitted to the courts, which are relied upon for the efficient administration of justice.

When Honesty Fades: Examining an Attorney’s Duty to the Court

The case arose from an administrative complaint filed by several individuals against Atty. Philip Z. A. Nazareno. The complainants had individually purchased housing units from Rudex International Development Corp. (Rudex) and subsequently filed rescission cases against Rudex due to construction defects and other inadequacies. Atty. Nazareno represented Rudex in these cases. The central issue emerged when Atty. Nazareno, representing Rudex, filed petitions and complaints with certifications against forum shopping that contained false declarations. These certifications failed to disclose the existence of similar pending actions involving the same issues before other tribunals, specifically an ejectment case against one of the complainants and the rescission cases filed by the complainants themselves.

The complainants alleged that Atty. Nazareno violated Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court by making false declarations in the certifications against forum shopping. They further accused him of malpractice as a notary public, alleging that he improperly notarized the certifications. Despite being notified of the charges, Atty. Nazareno failed to respond or offer any defense. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and recommended Atty. Nazareno’s suspension, a recommendation that the IBP Board of Governors adopted with a modification to the length of the suspension.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by distinguishing between the prohibition against forum shopping and the separate requirement of submitting a truthful certification against forum shopping. The Court emphasized that compliance with the certification requirement is independent of avoiding forum shopping itself. The Court cited the case of Sps. Ong v. CA to clarify this distinction:

The distinction between the prohibition against forum shopping and the certification requirement should by now be too elementary to be misunderstood. To reiterate, compliance with the certification against forum shopping is separate from and independent of the avoidance of the act of forum shopping itself. There is a difference in the treatment between failure to comply with the certification requirement and violation of the prohibition against forum shopping not only in terms of imposable sanctions but also in the manner of enforcing them. The former constitutes sufficient cause for the dismissal without prejudice to the filing of the complaint or initiatory pleading upon motion and after hearing, while the latter is a ground for summary dismissal thereof and for direct contempt.

Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court mandates that a party submitting a pleading must certify under oath that they have not commenced any action involving the same issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency, and that to the best of their knowledge, no such action is pending. Failure to comply, or the submission of a false certification, constitutes indirect contempt of court and exposes the erring counsel to administrative and criminal actions. This requirement is essential for maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and preventing abuse of the system.

The Court also addressed the ethical implications of Atty. Nazareno’s actions, citing the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 1.01, Canon 1, states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Canon 10 mandates that a lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court, and Rule 10.01 prohibits a lawyer from making any falsehood or misleading the court by any artifice. By making false declarations in the certifications, Atty. Nazareno violated these ethical precepts and undermined the integrity of the legal profession. In this case, the evidence clearly demonstrated that Atty. Nazareno made false statements in the certifications against forum shopping attached to Rudex’s pleadings. Specifically, he failed to disclose the existence of the ejectment case against the Spouses Sioting and the pending rescission cases filed by the complainants.

The court noted that Atty. Nazareno acted as Rudex’s counsel and filed petitions for review without disclosing the existence of the ejectment case. Further, he filed a complaint for rescission and ejectment against the Spouses Sioting without disclosing the prior rescission complaint filed by Sioting against Rudex, or Rudex’s own ejectment complaint. The Supreme Court considered the similarity of the issues involved in each set of cases and emphasized that Atty. Nazareno had a duty to truthfully declare the existence of the pending related cases in the certifications against forum shopping. His failure to do so, compounded by his lack of any defense or explanation, led the Court to uphold the IBP’s finding of administrative liability.

In determining the appropriate penalty, the Court considered the case of Molina v. Atty. Magat, where a lawyer was suspended for six months for making false statements in pleadings. Acknowledging the similarity of the infractions but also noting that Atty. Nazareno had repetitively committed the same offense, the Court increased the suspension period to one year. The Court emphasized the importance of honesty and candor in the legal profession, and the need for strict adherence to the rules of court. Separate from the false certifications, the Court also found Atty. Nazareno guilty of malpractice as a notary public. He assigned only one document number to multiple certifications against forum shopping, violating the rules on notarial practice. These rules require that each notarial act be recorded separately in the notarial register with a unique number.

Furthermore, Atty. Nazareno notarized certifications that he knew contained false statements. The Court referenced Heirs of the Late Spouses Villanueva v. Atty. Beradio, which established that a notary public with personal knowledge of false statements in a document must be disciplined. Such conduct breaches Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, requiring lawyers to obey the laws and promote respect for legal processes, and Rule 1.01, prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Due to the multiplicity of Atty. Nazareno’s infractions and his willful malfeasance, the Court permanently disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere routine act but one invested with substantive public interest, requiring qualified individuals to act as notaries public.

The Supreme Court reiterated the significance of a notary public’s role, stating:

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public document thus making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Nazareno should be held administratively liable for making false declarations in certifications against forum shopping and for malpractice as a notary public.
What is a certification against forum shopping?	A certification against forum shopping is a sworn statement required in pleadings, affirming that the party has not filed any similar action involving the same issues in any other court or tribunal. It aims to prevent parties from seeking favorable outcomes in multiple forums simultaneously.
What penalties did the Supreme Court impose on Atty. Nazareno?	The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Nazareno from the practice of law for one year, revoked his notarial commission, and permanently disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public.
Why was Atty. Nazareno penalized for his actions as a notary public?	Atty. Nazareno was penalized because he assigned only one document number to multiple certifications and notarized certifications that he knew contained false statements, violating the rules on notarial practice and ethical standards.
What is the significance of this ruling for lawyers in the Philippines?	This ruling emphasizes the importance of honesty, candor, and adherence to ethical standards in legal practice, particularly concerning certifications submitted to the courts. It serves as a reminder that lawyers must not mislead the court.
What is the role of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in this case?	The IBP investigated the administrative complaint against Atty. Nazareno and recommended his suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors adopted with a modification to the length of the suspension.
What is forum shopping, and why is it prohibited?	Forum shopping is the practice of seeking a favorable judgment in multiple courts or tribunals based on the same cause of action. It is prohibited because it wastes judicial resources, creates inconsistent rulings, and undermines the integrity of the justice system.
How does this case relate to the Code of Professional Responsibility?	This case highlights violations of Canon 1 and Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to uphold the law, avoid dishonest conduct, and maintain candor and fairness to the court.
What is the effect of notarization on a document?	Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. It signifies that a qualified notary public has verified the identity of the signatories and witnessed the execution of the document.

The Crisostomo v. Nazareno decision serves as a stern reminder to attorneys of their duty to uphold the integrity of the legal profession through honesty and compliance with court rules. The severe penalties imposed reflect the gravity of making false statements in certifications and the importance of proper notarial practices. It reinforces the principle that officers of the court must act with the utmost good faith in all their dealings.

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: EUPROCINA I. CRISOSTOMO, MARILYN L. SOLIS, EVELYN MARQUIZO, ROSEMARIE BALATUCAN, MILDRED BATANG, MARILEN MINERALES, AND MELINDA D. SIOTING, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. PHILIP Z. A. NAZARENO, RESPONDENT., A.C. No. 6677, June 10, 2014