View full case

JONAR SANTIAGO v. ATTY. EDISON V. RAFANAN

FACTS:

The case involves a verified Complaint filed by Jonar Santiago against Atty. Edison V. Rafanan, seeking the disbarment of the latter. Santiago alleged that Rafanan, in notarizing several documents, failed to make necessary notations regarding the cedula of the affiants, did not enter details in the notarial register, and neglected to execute certifications and provide his PTR and IBP numbers. Santiago also claimed that Rafanan executed an Affidavit in favor of his client and presented it as evidence in a case where he was representing his client. Lastly, Santiago accused Rafanan of waiting for him after a hearing, disarming him, and issuing insults and veiled threats. In response, Rafanan admitted to administering oaths but believed that Residence Certificates were not required to be noted in the Affidavits and Counter-affidavits. Rafanan also argued that he had the option to comply or not with the certification required by the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rafanan further contended that he was being harassed due to his representation of Barangay Captain Ernesto Ramos in cases filed against Santiago. After the submission of memoranda, the IBP Board of Governors found Rafanan in violation of specific requirements of the Notarial Law and imposed a fine of PHP 3,000, with a warning for any future violations. The other charges were dismissed for lack of evidence.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondent violated Rule 12.08 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by executing an affidavit in behalf of his clients.

  2. Whether the respondent should be held administratively liable for violating Rule 12.08 of the CPR.

  3. Whether or not the imposition of a fine of P3,000 is valid given the nature of the offense committed.

RULING:

  1. The respondent did not violate Rule 12.08 of Canon 12 of the CPR.

  2. The respondent should not be held administratively liable for violating Rule 12.08 of the CPR.

  3. The Supreme Court ruled that the imposition of a fine of P3,000 is valid given the nature of the offense committed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Lawyers are not disqualified from being witnesses, except in certain cases pertaining to privileged communication arising from an attorney-client relationship.

  • Lawyers should refrain from testifying as witnesses for their clients, unless absolutely necessary, and should withdraw from active management of the case if they do testify.

  • The duty of a lawyer is to assert every remedy and defense that is authorized by law for the benefit of the client, especially in a criminal action where the client's life and liberty are at stake.

  • Lawyers have the duty to present, by all fair and honorable means, every defense and mitigating circumstance permitted by law, to ensure that their clients are not deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law.

  • In a preliminary investigation, which is merely inquisitorial and not a trial on the merits, the purpose is to secure innocent persons against hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecutions, and to protect the state from useless and expensive prosecutions.

  • The court has the authority to impose fines as part of its power to administer justice.

  • Fines can be imposed as a penalty for a range of offenses, depending on the circumstances and seriousness of the offense.