G.R. No. A.C. No. 5864; April 15, 2005
ARTURO L. SICAT, Complainant, vs. ATTY. GREGORIO E. ARIOLA, JR., Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Arturo L. Sicat, a Board Member of Rizal, charged respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola, Jr., the Municipal Administrator of Cainta, Rizal, with violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. The charge stemmed from respondent’s notarization of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) on January 4, 2001, which was purportedly executed by Juanito C. Benitez. The complainant alleged that Benitez had already died on October 25, 2000, making the notarization a fraudulent act. This SPA was used to authorize the encashment of a municipal check worth P3,700,000.00 payable to J.C. Benitez Architects and Technical Management for consultancy services on a housing project.
In his defense, respondent admitted notarizing the SPA but claimed it was signed by Benitez earlier, on May 12, 2000, and he notarized it later due to inadvertence. He argued the document was superfluous, canceled on the same day, and thus legally non-existent. He also pleaded for dismissal on grounds of forum-shopping, citing prior dismissals of similar administrative charges by other agencies like the Civil Service Commission and the Office of the Ombudsman.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola, Jr. is administratively liable for gross misconduct for notarizing a document purportedly executed by a person already deceased.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of gross misconduct and ordered his disbarment. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere routine act but a public function that converts a private document into a public instrument, affording it prima facie evidence of authenticity. By notarizing an SPA where the purported affiant was already deceased, respondent violated his sacred duty as a lawyer and notary public. He breached Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct, and Canon 10, Rule 10.01, which commands a lawyer not to do any falsehood.
The Court rejected respondent’s defenses. His claim of inadvertence and the document’s alleged cancellation were unavailing. The notarial acknowledgment falsely stated Benitez personally appeared, constituting an intentional falsehood that undermined public confidence in notarized documents. As Municipal Administrator, respondent held a position of public trust, and his act facilitated a fraudulent scheme that caused undue injury to the Municipality of Cainta, as detailed by the Commission on Audit. The penalty of one-year suspension recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines was deemed too lenient. Given the gravity of the offense involving deceit in a public document linked to a substantial financial prejudice against the government, disbarment was the appropriate sanction to preserve the integrity of the legal profession.