NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, COMPLAINANT, VS. MINERVA L. MORADA, RESPONDENT.

National Bureau of Investigation versus Morada

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment and disciplinary action brought by the National Bureau of Investigation against Attorney Minerva L. Morada, a member of the Philippine Bar and a commissioned notary public for the City of Manila. The complaint charged her with misconduct in the performance of her notarial duties, specifically for having authenticated an affidavit in the absence of the affiant and for having filled up the blanks in that affidavit. The case matters because it fixes the standard of care owed by a notary public and by a lawyer who acts as one, and it shows that not every notarial irregularity amounts to gross misconduct warranting disbarment, though it remains censurable and may be punished by admonition.

Procedural History

The verified complaint was filed on January 13, 1958 by Acting Director Jose G. Lukban of the National Bureau of Investigation, on two counts. The respondent filed her answer admitting that she authenticated the affidavit in the absence of the affiant but claiming that, because of a previous understanding between them, she knew the affiant had actually signed it. Upon the issues thus joined, the matter was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation. Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres and Solicitor Jorge R. Coquia conducted the investigation, received the evidence, and made findings and a recommendation. The case then came before the Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction over members of the Bar, and the Court rendered its decision on July 31, 1961.

Facts

On October 3, 1956, P. V. Agana and Associates entered into a contract with the Bureau of Public Highways for the construction of a portion of the Pototan-Dingle Road. Under the contract, the Bureau was to furnish the contractor 15,300 bags of cement free of charge. As of August 2, 1957, 6,660 bags had already been delivered on several occasions. Because of reports that cement supplied to contractors free of charge was being diverted to the black market, the Secretary of Public Works and Communications issued a memorandum requiring contractors, before any cement is released, to file an affidavit stating among other things that the cement would be used exclusively in complying with the contract with the Bureau.

The respondent passed the Bar examinations in 1956 and later secured a commission as notary public for the City of Manila. She was employed as a clerk in the office of P. V. Agana and Associates, a road construction company managed by P. V. Agana, and her duties included preparing and acknowledging documents and filing them with the Bureau of Public Highways. About the end of June 1957, before Agana left Manila for Bacolod, he told her that if the Bureau required an affidavit for the further release of cement while he was in Bacolod, he would send her by mail the required affidavit duly signed by him for her to ratify and submit. While in Bacolod, Agana sent her two affidavits signed by him, one asking for the release of 8,640 bags of cement and another in blank, together with a letter directing her to file the first with the Bureau.

Upon receipt, the respondent ratified the affidavit for the release of 8,640 bags and presented it to Benjamin Lizardo, who was then in charge of the release of cement for the Bureau. Lizardo suggested that she submit another affidavit for the release of the entire quota of 15,300 bags, so as to cover not only the bags already released but future releases as well. She returned to her office, filled up the blanks in the second affidavit sent by Agana from Bacolod, ratified it, and submitted it to Lizardo's office. Before Lizardo could act on it, agents of the National Bureau of Investigation discovered the document and took possession of it. Agana admitted to the NBI agents that he had indeed sent the two affidavits duly signed by him, and Lizardo corroborated the respondent's testimony, adding that he had asked her to make a notation that the affidavit superseded or included previous releases, but the document was seized before the notation could be made.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct warranting disbarment for having authenticated an affidavit in the absence of the affiant.
• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of misconduct for having filled up the blanks in the affidavit requesting the release of 15,300 bags of cement although she knew that the affiant had previously received 5,000 bags deductible from that allocation.
• Whether or not the respondent should be disciplined as a notary public and as a member of the Bar for these acts.

Applicable Provisions

Section 25 of Rule 127 of the Rules of Court, as cited in the investigators' conclusion, provides:

Section 25. Suspension of attorney or disbarment. 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 wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

This provision supplies the ground for disciplinary action and, by requiring gross misconduct, sets the threshold that the respondent's acts were measured against.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the investigators that the respondent acted without malice in submitting the affidavit to the Bureau of Public Highways. Her only misdeed was ratifying the affidavit in the absence of the affiant, and this act is not so serious as to constitute gross misconduct warranting disbarment. The Court held that the practice of administering the oath in an affidavit in the absence of the affiant is censurable in a notary public, and it took into account that the respondent is a practicing attorney.

On the second issue, the Court accepted the investigators' finding that the respondent acted without malice. The evidence showed that she filled up the blanks in the second affidavit upon the suggestion of Lizardo, the officer in charge of the release of cement, so that the affidavit would cover the entire quota of 15,300 bags, and that Lizardo had asked her to make a notation that it superseded or included previous releases before he would act on it. The Court found no basis for treating her conduct as gross misconduct.

On the third issue, the Court held that the respondent should be disciplined, but not disbarred. Following a similar case, Viuda de Veloso versus Casimiro Madarang, the Court admonished her to be henceforth more careful in the performance of her sworn duties as a notary public and as a member of the Bar, with the warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more drastically.

Doctrine

A member of the Bar may be removed or suspended only for deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the lawyer's oath, wilful disobedience of a lawful order of a superior court, or corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney without authority. Not every notarial irregularity rises to the level of gross misconduct. The administration of an oath in an affidavit in the absence of the affiant is censurable in a notary public and is a breach of sworn duty, but where it is done without malice and without prejudice to any party, it does not warrant disbarment. The proper penalty in such a case is an admonition, with a warning that a repetition will be dealt with more drastically. A lawyer who accepts a commission as notary public remains subject to the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court in both capacities.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent not guilty of gross misconduct warranting disbarment, and admonished her to be henceforth more careful in the performance of her duties as notary public and as a member of the Bar, with the warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more drastically.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that administering an oath in the absence of the affiant is censurable in a notary public but, absent malice, is not gross misconduct warranting disbarment. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between a notarial irregularity that merits admonition and conduct serious enough to justify suspension or disbarment under Section 25 of Rule 127.