View full case

ALICE GOKIOCO v. ATTY. RAFAEL P. MATEO

FACTS:

Alice Gokioco filed a complaint against Atty. Rafael Mateo for falsification of a public document. She alleged that the complaint in a civil case was subscribed and sworn to by See Chua-Gokioco before Atty. Mateo on November 10, 1992, but See Chua-Gokioco had already died on October 7, 1992. Atty. Mateo notarized and filed the complaint, fully aware of See Chua-Gokioco's death. Atty. Mateo denies being the long-time counsel of the Gokioco family and explains that he only transacted with them in 1976 and 1992. He claims that he prepared the complaint and called See Chua-Gokioco and her son Francisco for verification, but he was not aware that See Chua-Gokioco had already died. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. Commissioner Soriano submitted a report finding Atty. Mateo liable for misconduct but not gross enough to merit disbarment or suspension. The IBP Board of Governors approved the recommendation and reprimanded Atty. Mateo.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Rafael Mateo falsified a public document by notarizing and filing a complaint knowing that the affiant, See Chua-Gokioco, was already dead.

  2. Whether Atty. Rafael Mateo neglected to make the proper entry in his notarial register and failed to contact his clients prior to filing the said complaint.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Rafael Mateo is liable for his misconduct. It was established that he failed to enter the true date when See Chua-Gokioco signed the verification of the complaint, failed to contact his clients to ascertain if they wanted to proceed with the filing, and made it appear that See Chua-Gokioco personally signed and executed the complaint on a date when she was already dead or not present. However, the Court found that his misconduct was not gross enough to warrant disbarment or suspension. Instead, the Court reprimanded Atty. Rafael Mateo and warned that any future misconduct will be met with a greater penalty.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Lawyers have a duty to obey the laws and do no falsehood.

  • Notaries public have a duty to properly enter the true date of notarial acts in their notarial registers.

  • Lawyers have a duty to communicate with their clients and ascertain their intentions before filing legal documents.