View full case

CORAZON T. NEVADA v. ATTY. RODOLFO D. CASUGA

FACTS:

Corazon T. Nevada seeks the disbarment of Atty. Rodolfo D. Casuga for alleged violation of his lawyer's oath and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Nevada alleges that she and Casuga are members of the One in Jesus Christ Church, and she allowed him to use one of the Hotel's functions rooms for church services. Unbeknownst to Nevada, Casuga started representing himself as the administrator of the Hotel and entered into a lease contract with Jung Jong Chul for an office space in the Hotel. Casuga signed the contract over the name of Edwin T. Nevada and notarized it himself. Nevada claims that the rental deposit of PhP 90,000 was never turned over to her. Furthermore, Casuga acquired several pieces of jewelry and a Rolex watch from Nevada, purportedly to sell them and remit the proceeds to her. However, despite repeated demands, the valuables or money were never returned. Casuga claims that Nevada pawned the jewelry and asked his wife to redeem and sell them. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Casuga guilty of gross misconduct, violation of the notarial law, and infidelity in the custody of money and jewelry, and recommended his suspension for four years. The IBP also ordered Casuga to return the amount of PhP 90,000, the jewelry valued at PhP 300,000, and the Rolex watch valued at $12,000 to Jung Jong Chul. Nevada requested the return to be made in her favor, but the request was not acted upon.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether respondent Casuga is guilty of gross misconduct for misrepresenting himself as a duly-authorized representative of Nevada.

  2. Whether Casuga's misrepresentation constitutes gross misconduct.

  3. Whether the respondent lawyer, Casuga, is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  4. Whether Casuga violated the Notarial Rules.

  5. Whether the notary public violated the Notarial Rules by notarizing a deed in which he was a party.

  6. Whether the notary public committed malpractice of law and misconduct.

  7. Whether the notary public should be disbarred.

  8. The issues in this case are:

  9. Whether or not Atty. Rodolfo D. Casuga committed acts of direct contempt when he accused the members of the Supreme Court of bribery and corruption on social media.

  10. Whether or not Atty. Casuga's act of accusing the Supreme Court justices on social media violates the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

  1. Yes, respondent Casuga is guilty of gross misconduct for misrepresenting himself as a duly-authorized representative of Nevada. Casuga admitted signing the contract of lease but failed to provide evidence to prove that he was authorized to do so. The burden of proof lies on the person alleging the existence of an agency relationship, and Casuga failed to meet this burden. The court ruled that Casuga's misrepresentation was a wrongful intention and a transgression of established rules of action.

  2. Yes, Casuga's misrepresentation constitutes gross misconduct. His fraudulent scheme of misrepresenting himself as the administrator of the Hotel and collecting rentals from its occupants, including Chul, amounts to gross misconduct. Similar cases have ruled that misrepresentations and false representations constitute gross misconduct. Casuga's actions eroded the public's perception of the legal profession and violated the trust placed in him as a lawyer.

  3. Yes, Casuga is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court held that Casuga's misrepresentation and failure to deliver the jewelry and watch entrusted to him both constitute gross misconduct and violation of Canon 16 and Rule 16.03 of the Code. The Court also cited past cases where lawyers were suspended for failing to account for their client's funds and properties, emphasizing that even without an attorney-client relationship, a lawyer can be disciplined for gross misconduct and dishonesty.

  4. Yes, Casuga violated the Notarial Rules. The Court stated that the requirements for a notary public to sign on behalf of another person were not met, and Casuga is disqualified from performing a notarial act as he was a party to the instrument or document to be notarized.

  5. The notary public violated the Notarial Rules by notarizing a deed in which he was a party.

  6. The notary public committed malpractice of law and misconduct.

  7. The notary public should be suspended from the practice of law for four (4) years, with his notarial commission being revoked and a disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for four (4) years as well.

  8. The Supreme Court found Atty. Rodolfo D. Casuga guilty of direct contempt for accusing the members of the Supreme Court of bribery and corruption on social media. In its ruling, the Court imposed a fine on Atty. Casuga and warned him that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. The Court also ordered that a copy of the decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all trial courts.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Gross misconduct is defined as a transgression of established rules of action, involving unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.

  • Misconduct implies wrongful intention and not mere error or judgment.

  • The burden of proof lies on the person alleging the existence of an agency relationship.

  • Misrepresentations and false representations can constitute gross misconduct.

  • Gross misconduct erodes the public's perception of the legal profession and violates the trust placed in a lawyer.

  • Lawyers who engage in gross misconduct and violate the Code of Professional Responsibility can be disciplined even without an attorney-client relationship.

  • Lawyers are duty-bound to hold in trust their client's money and properties and deliver them when due or upon demand.

  • Lawyers who fail to account for or return the funds and properties of their clients demonstrate a lack of integrity, which warrants disciplinary action.

  • Notaries public must comply with the requirements of the Notarial Rules, and a notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if they are a party to the instrument or document to be notarized.

  • Violation of the Notarial Rules can result in disciplinary sanctions for a notary public.

  • Malpractice of law and misconduct can lead to suspension or disbarment of an attorney.

  • Notarization is a substantive act that converts a private document into a public document, and it must be done with utmost care.

  • A notary public should not notarize a document unless the signatories are the same individuals who executed and appeared before him.

  • The function of a notary public is to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements.

  • The penalty for a notary public's misconduct should be commensurate with the severity of the infractions committed.

  • Disbarment is a severe sanction that is only imposed when a lawyer's misconduct borders on criminality or is committed under scandalous circumstances.

  • Property or funds that do not belong to a party in a case should be returned to the rightful owner.

  • The act of accusing members of the judiciary of bribery and corruption without any evidence or basis constitutes direct contempt of court.

  • Lawyers have a duty to uphold the dignity and integrity of the court and should refrain from making baseless accusations against the judiciary.

  • A lawyer's duty to maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers requires them to exercise great caution and restraint in their public statements and social media posts.