G.R. No. A.C. No. 9338 (formerly CBD Case No. 13-3815). February 20, 2023.
Melissa Angela C. Fernando, Complainant, vs. Atty. Alejandro Jose C. Pallugna, Respondent.

FACTS

On January 10, 2012, complainant Melissa Angela C. Fernando filed a disbarment petition against Atty. Alejandro Jose C. Pallugna. The complaint alleged: (1) violation of Sections 1 and 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure; (2) orchestrating a robbery of a building; and (3) violation of Section 3, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Fernando claimed that on October 28, 2011, during the implementation of Search Warrant No. 2011-02 at the Sprintcruisers Advertising Solutions office in Cagayan de Oro City, Atty. Pallugnawho was not a police officerentered the premises and instructed police officers to confiscate cellular phones of individuals present, even though cellular phones were not listed in the warrant. He allegedly threatened those individuals with warrantless arrest and imprisonment under the Anti-Fencing Law if they refused.
Fernando further alleged that Atty. Pallugna orchestrated a robbery at the Sprintcruisers office, citing that on October 29, 2011, the office door locks were changed and personal belongings were missing. She referenced an affidavit from Arthur Dela Llana, the compound owner, who claimed that three unknown individuals stated they were directed to produce master keys for a “Michael” to enter, and that Dela Llana’s son saw Atty. Pallugna fleeing in a white pick-up when confronted.
Lastly, Fernando alleged that Atty. Pallugna violated notarial rules by notarizing a secretary’s certificate executed by his brother, Glenn Pallugna.
Atty. Pallugna, in his Comment, denied the allegations. He argued the complaint was based on hearsay, that he did not orchestrate any robbery, and that he merely suggested the confiscation of cellular phones for police safety. He admitted notarizing his brother’s document but claimed it was done in his brother’s corporate capacity, not individual capacity, thus not violating notarial rules.
The Integrated Bar of the PhilippinesCommission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) investigated the case. The Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Pallugna liable for violating Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, but noted insufficient evidence for the robbery allegation. The IBP Board of Governors modified the penalty, recommending suspension from law practice for six months, disqualification as a notary public for two years, and revocation of his notarial commission, in addition to a two-year suspension from law practice. Atty. Pallugna’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the IBP Board of Governors correctly found Atty. Pallugna liable for violation of Sections 1 and 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

RULING

The Supreme Court adopted the IBP Board of Governors’ findings but modified the penalty. The Court held that Atty. Pallugna violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Canons 1 and 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
1. Violation of Rule 126 and CPR: Atty. Pallugna admitted he influenced police to confiscate cellular phones not included in the search warrant, claiming safety concerns. The Court found no evidence to support his claim that individuals were calling for reinforcements or that police were in danger. By persuading police to exceed the warrant’s scope, he violated Canon 1 (upholding the law) and Canon 19 (representing clients within legal bounds). His actions demonstrated a disregard for legal processes and the bounds of zealous representation.
2. Violation of Notarial Rules: Atty. Pallugna notarized a document executed by his brother, Glenn Pallugna, violating Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which disqualifies a notary from acting when the principal is a relative within the fourth civil degree. His defense that his brother acted in a corporate capacity was rejected; the disqualification applies regardless of the capacity in which the relative appears.
3. Penalty: The Court considered Atty. Pallugna’s prior disciplinary record, including a previous disbarment. It suspended him from law practice for two years, but since he was already disbarred, this penalty was to be considered if he applies for reinstatement. He was also ordered to pay a fine of PHP 50,000.00. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty is to the administration of justice, and client interests must be pursued within ethical and legal limits.
The complaint regarding orchestration of robbery was dismissed for lack of substantial evidence.