AC 11093; (November, 2023) (Digest)
A.C. No. 11093, November 14, 2023
Lucrecia Q. Mamugay and Perfecto O. Saliga, Sr., Complainants, vs. Atty. Elmer Dela Rosa, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainants, farmer-beneficiaries of an agrarian reform cooperative, sought the disbarment of their former counsel, Atty. Elmer Dela Rosa. They alleged he orchestrated the unauthorized sale of their agricultural land and notarized a fraudulent Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated July 22, 2010. The SPA, which purportedly authorized a representative to act for the cooperative, was signed by individuals who were already deceased at the time of notarization, with one having died 12 years prior and another 6 years prior. Furthermore, the notarized document was not reported to the Clerk of Court as required by law. Atty. Dela Rosa, despite several orders from the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), repeatedly failed to file his comment or answer to the serious allegations.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Elmer Dela Rosa is guilty of violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice warranting disbarment.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Dela Rosa is guilty and is hereby DISBARRED. The Court adopted the IBP’s findings but modified the penalty. His repeated and willful failure to comply with the Court’s orders to comment constituted gross misconduct and disrespect for judicial authority, which alone is a less serious offense under the new Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA). More critically, the substantive allegations were deemed established. The act of notarizing a document with signatures of deceased persons is a grievous violation of a notary public’s sacred duty. It constitutes falsification, undermines the integrity of notarized documents, and betrays the trust of the public and the legal profession. This act violates the lawyer’s oath and the CPR, specifically Canon 1 on upholding the law and Canon 7 on maintaining high standards of legal practice.
The Court emphasized that the commission as a notary public is a privilege laden with public interest, and its abuse warrants severe sanction. Atty. Dela Rosa’s actions demonstrated a pattern of unethical conduct, as he was previously suspended in a separate case (Palalan CARP Farmers Multipurpose Cooperative v. Atty. De la Rosa) for similar misconduct involving the same cooperative. This prior discipline was considered an aggravating circumstance. Given the gravity of deliberately notarizing a spurious document and his evident lack of reform, the Supreme Court found the recommended three-year suspension insufficient. To protect the public and preserve the integrity of the legal profession, the ultimate penalty of disbarment was imposed. His name was ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, his notarial commission revoked, and he was perpetually disqualified from reappointment.