A.C. No. 12289. April 2, 2019. ATTY. ANASTACIO T. MUNTUERTO, JR.; ATTY. RAMON JOSE G. DUYONGCO; ATTY. MARIO Y. CAVADA; and ATTY. CHAD RODOLFO M. MIEL, Complainants vs. ATTY. GERARDO WILFREDO L. ALBERTO, Respondent.
FACTS

Complainants charged respondent Atty. Gerardo Wilfredo L. Alberto with violations of his Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The charges stemmed from his actions as counsel in a civil case for reconveyance. Respondent attached to the complaint a Supplemental Agreement and an Amended Joint Venture Agreement, which he notarized in Cavite City. However, a certification from the Notarial Division of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City confirmed it had no record of any notarial commission issued to respondent for Cavite City, establishing he notarized the documents without authority.
Further, the complaint alleged respondent falsified a secretary’s certificate to make it appear he was the acting corporate secretary of a corporation involved, and that he filed a motion signed by his non-lawyer client. He also failed to indicate his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance number in the filed pleading. During the IBP investigation, respondent disregarded orders, failed to file an answer, did not attend the mandatory conference, and did not submit a position paper, leading to his being declared in default.

ISSUE

Did the respondent violate the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by: (a) notarizing documents without a notarial commission; (b) allowing a non-lawyer to sign a motion filed in court; and (c) failing to indicate his MCLE compliance number in a pleading?

RULING

Yes, the respondent committed serious professional misconduct. The Supreme Court adopted with modification the IBP Board of Governors’ recommendation. The act of notarizing documents without a commission is a grievous offense. A notarial commission is a prerequisite to performing notarial acts under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. By falsely acting as a notary public, respondent engaged in unlawful conduct, violated his oath to obey the laws, and committed dishonesty, which undermines the public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents. This act alone warrants severe discipline.
His failure to indicate his MCLE compliance number in the complaint constituted a separate violation of a specific rule (Bar Matter No. 1922) designed to ensure the continuing competence of lawyers. While this is a less severe infraction, it still demonstrates a disregard for court rules. His defiance of the IBP’s lawful orders during the investigation, including his failure to participate, constituted contempt and was treated as an aggravating circumstance, reflecting a lack of respect for the disciplinary authority of the Court and the IBP.
Considering the gravity of unauthorized notarization and the aggravating factor of non-cooperation, the Court suspended Atty. Alberto from the practice of law for five years. He was also permanently barred from being commissioned as a notary public. The Court sternly warned that a repetition of similar acts would merit a stiffer penalty.