EUPROCINA I. CRISOSTOMO, MARILYN L. SOLIS, EVELYN MARQUIZO, ROSEMARIE BALATUCAN, MILDRED BATANG, MARILEN MINERALES, AND MELINDA D. SIOTING, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. PHILIP Z. A. …

Crisostomo versus Nazareno

The Case

This is an administrative complaint for disbarment and disciplinary action filed by seven homeowners against their subdivision developer's lawyer. The complainants — Euprocina Crisostomo, Marilyn Solis, Evelyn Marquizo, Rosemarie Balatucan, Mildred Batang, Marilen Minerales, and Melinda Sioting — charge Attorney Philip Nazareno with making false declarations in certifications against forum shopping, in disregard of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, and with malpractice as a notary public in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The case matters because it draws a sharp line between the prohibition against forum shopping itself and the separate, independent duty to certify truthfully against it, and because it reminds every lawyer that notarization is not an empty, routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest.

Procedural History

The complainants filed the administrative complaint jointly before the Supreme Court on February 21, 2005. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Investigating Commissioner Oliver Cachapero, in a Report and Recommendation dated March 8, 2012, found Attorney Nazareno administratively liable and recommended suspension for six months. In a Resolution dated April 15, 2013, the Integrated Bar's Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report but modified the penalty to one month of suspension. The matter then came before the Supreme Court, which affirmed the finding of liability but modified the penalty.

Facts

Sometime in 2001, the complainants individually purchased housing units in Patricia South Villa Subdivision in Anabu the Second, Imus, Cavite, from Rudex International Development Corporation. Because of construction defects in the houses and inadequacies in the subdivision, the complainants sought rescission of their contracts to sell before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, asking for a refund of the monthly amortizations they had paid. The first batch of rescission cases was filed by Sioting in May 2002, and by Crisostomo and Marquizo in June 2002. The second batch was filed by Balatucan in March 2003, by Solis and Ederlinda Villanueva, represented by Minerales, in May 2003, and by Batang in July 2003. In all these rescission cases, Rudex was represented by Attorney Nazareno.

Judgments of default were eventually rendered against Rudex in the first batch. In August 2003, Rudex filed petitions for review before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board assailing those judgments. In the certifications against forum shopping attached to those petitions, Rudex, through its President and through Attorney Nazareno as legal counsel, stated that it had not commenced and had no knowledge of any similar action involving the same issues pending before any court, tribunal, or agency. This was false, because Rudex, again through Attorney Nazareno, had earlier filed an ejectment case against Sioting and her husband in September 2002 before the Municipal Trial Court of Imus, Cavite.

The pattern repeated. In January 2004, Rudex, represented by Attorney Nazareno, filed another complaint against the Siotings for rescission and ejectment, with a certification declaring no similar pending action, and Attorney Nazareno himself notarized that certification. In April 2004, six similar complaints for rescission and ejectment were filed by Attorney Nazareno on behalf of Rudex against the other complainants, each with a certification again declaring that no similar action was pending. The Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board later dismissed Rudex's complaints precisely because those certifications were false. Despite notice, Attorney Nazareno never filed a comment to refute the charges.

Issues

• Whether or not Attorney Nazareno should be held administratively liable for making false declarations in the certifications against forum shopping.
• Whether or not Attorney Nazareno is guilty of malpractice as a notary public for assigning only one document number to six separate certifications.
• Whether or not the penalty recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines should be modified.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

This is the very provision violated by the false certifications, and it fixes the consequences of that violation.

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.

This sentence is the basis for the administrative liability of the erring counsel.

Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

False declarations in a sworn certification are dishonest conduct under this Rule.

Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

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.

This Rule embodies the lawyer's duty of candor and good faith to the courts and tribunals.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held Attorney Nazareno administratively liable. It stressed that the prohibition against forum shopping is separate from and independent of the certification requirement. Compliance with the certification is one thing; avoiding the act of forum shopping is another. The Court found that Attorney Nazareno repeatedly made false declarations: in the August 2003 petitions for review, which concealed the pending ejectment case against the Siotings; in the January 2004 complaint, which concealed both Sioting's rescission complaint and Rudex's own ejectment complaint; and in the April 2004 complaints, which concealed the complainants' own rescission cases. As counsel, he was mandated by the Rules of Court and, more importantly, by the canons of the Code to declare truthfully the existence of the pending related cases. His failure to refute the charges left the Court no reason to deviate from the Integrated Bar's finding of liability.

On the second issue, the Court found him guilty of malpractice as a notary public. He assigned only one document number to the certifications attached to the six April 2004 complaints, when each should have been treated as a separate notarial act. Worse, he notarized certifications that he knew identically asserted a material falsehood. The Court quoted with approval its earlier ruling that where a notary public has personal knowledge of a false statement in the instrument to be notarized yet proceeds to affix his seal, he must be disciplined, otherwise the integrity and sanctity of the notarization process would be undermined.

On the third issue, the Court modified the penalty. It noted that in a prior case a lawyer who deliberately made false statements in a pleading was suspended for six months. Because Attorney Nazareno's infractions were of a similar nature but were committed repeatedly, the Court imposed one year of suspension. For his malpractice, and because of the multiplicity of his infractions and his willful malfeasance, the Court revoked his notarial commission and permanently disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public.

Doctrine

First, compliance with the certification against forum shopping is separate from and independent of the avoidance of forum shopping itself. The two are treated differently in terms of imposable sanctions and the manner of enforcing them. Second, the submission of a false certification constitutes indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to administrative and criminal actions, and exposes the erring counsel to discipline under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Third, for every notarial act the notary must record the required entries in his notarial register and give each instrument a number corresponding to his register; assigning one number to several distinct certifications is malpractice. Fourth, a notary who knowingly notarizes a document containing false statements violates Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 and may have his commission revoked and be disqualified from being commissioned anew.

Disposition

The Court found Attorney Nazareno guilty of making false declarations in the certifications against forum shopping and of malpractice as a notary public, suspended him from the practice of law for one year with a stern warning, revoked his notarial commission, and permanently disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: compliance with the certification against forum shopping is separate from and independent of the avoidance of forum shopping itself, and a false certification is indirect contempt plus an administrative offense. Examiners like to use this case on legal ethics and remedial law — on the duties of candor under Canon 10 and Rule 10.01, on the consequences of a false certification under Section 5, Rule 7, and on notarial malpractice.