View full case

LEAH B. TADAY v. ATTY. DIONISIO B. APOYA

FACTS:

Leah B. Taday (complainant), an overseas Filipino worker (OFW) staying in Norway, sought legal services from Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. (respondent) for the nullification of her marriage. A Retainer Agreement was executed between respondent and complainant's parents, indicating a fee of P140,000. Respondent drafted a Petition for Annulment of Marriage and filed it before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City. While complainant was on vacation in the Philippines, respondent delivered a Decision granting the annulment of complainant's marriage. However, complainant became suspicious as the decision came from a different branch by a different judge and was poorly crafted. It was discovered that the said branch and judge do not exist. Complainant sought to withdraw respondent as her counsel, but respondent filed an urgent motion to withdraw the petition instead. Complainant then sought the legal services of Atty. Alexander M. Verzosa, who wrote a letter to respondent regarding the payment of his attorney's fees and the purported fake decision. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found that respondent committed several violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including notarizing the petition without complainant's presence, authoring a fake decision, and failing to respond when questioned about the irregularities. The IBP recommended disbarment, which was affirmed by the IBP Board of Governors in two resolutions denying respondent's motions for reconsideration.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondent violated Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a petition without the affiant being personally present.

  2. Whether the respondent violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code by delivering a fake decision to his client.

  3. Whether the respondent committed violations of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  4. Whether the respondent violated Section 2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

  5. Whether Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

  6. Whether Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. should be disbarred from the practice of law.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the respondent violated Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a petition without the affiant being personally present. Notarization is not a routine act but must be done with utmost care and in accordance with the required procedures. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice require the signatory to personally appear before the notary public at the time of notarization and to be personally known by the notary public or identified through competent evidence of identity. Compliance is necessary to verify the authenticity of the signature and to ensure the document is the signatory's free act and deed.

  2. Yes, the respondent violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code by delivering a fake decision to his client. The delivery of a fake decision, purportedly granted by a certain Judge, constitutes a serious irregularity and misconduct. It is a breach of the lawyer's duties and undermines the integrity of the legal profession.

  3. The Court found that the respondent indeed committed violations of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He notarized the verification and certification of non-forum shopping of the petition without the personal presence of the complainant, authored a fake decision to deceive the complainant, and retaliated against the complainant for confronting him with the fake decision by withdrawing the petition and dropping the case from the court's docket. These acts constituted unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct, as well as activities aimed at defiance of the law and lessening confidence in the legal system.

  4. The respondent also violated Section 2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He performed a notarial act without the complainant's personal presence and without personally knowing or identifying the complainant by competent evidence of identity.

  5. Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. is found guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

  6. Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. is disbarred from the practice of law and his name is ordered stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity in all their dealings, especially in their relationship with clients.

  • Membership in the bar is a privilege with conditions. Lawyers can be subject to disciplinary measures, including disbarment, for misconduct.

  • Notarization is not an empty act and must be performed in accordance with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. It converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible as evidence.

  • Notaries public must observe the basic requirements of notarization, including the personal appearance of the signatory and the verification of their identity. A notary public must refuse to perform a notarial act if the signatory is not acting on their own free will.

  • Delivery of a fake decision to a client is a serious irregularity and violates the lawyer's duties of honesty and fidelity to the client. It undermines the integrity of the legal profession.

  • A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. (Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility)

  • A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. (Canon 1, Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility)

  • A lawyer must uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and for legal processes. (Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility)

  • A person shall not perform a notarial act without the personal presence of the person involved and without personally knowing or identifying the person by competent evidence of identity. (Section 2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice)

  • Violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules on Notarial Practice can result in disbarment from the practice of law.

  • The ultimate penalty of disbarment may be imposed upon a lawyer who commits reprehensible acts that are contrary to the standards and ethics of the legal profession.