View full case

ATTY. ANASTACIO T. MUNTUERTO v. ATTY. GERARDO WILFREDO L. ALBERTO

FACTS:

This case involves a lawyer named Atty. Gerardo Wilfredo L. Alberto who was accused of notarizing documents without a notarial commission and assisting a non-lawyer in the unauthorized practice of law. The complainants alleged that the respondent was the counsel of record in a civil case in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Masbate City. The respondent attached a supplemental agreement and an amended joint venture agreement to the complaint, which were separately acknowledged before him as a notary public in Cavite City. However, the RTC in Cavite City certified that there was no record of any commission appointing the respondent as a notary public. The complainants also pointed out that the respondent did not indicate his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) certificate of compliance number in the complaint filed in relation to the case. In response to the administrative complaint, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) directed the respondent to file an answer, but he failed to comply and was declared in default. The IBP conducted a mandatory conference but the respondent did not attend nor file a position paper. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found the charges against the respondent established and recommended his suspension for five years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, with a modification of the recommended penalty. The respondent did not appeal or move for reconsideration. The issue is whether the respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing documents without a notarial commission, allowing a non-lawyer to sign a motion filed in court, and failing to indicate his MCLE compliance number in the complaint.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondent committed dishonesty by falsely representing himself as a notary public.

  2. Whether the respondent violated the requirement of disclosing his compliance with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) program in his pleadings.

  3. Whether the respondent assisted and abetted the unauthorized practice of law by having a non-lawyer sign and file a motion in court.

  4. Whether the respondent's act of delegating the responsibility of signing the motion to a non-lawyer constitutes an abdication of his responsibility as the attorney of record.

  5. Whether the respondent's failure to comply with the directives of the IBP is an aggravating circumstance.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the respondent committed dishonesty by falsely representing himself as a notary public. This is in violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

  2. Yes, the respondent violated the requirement of disclosing his MCLE compliance in his pleadings. Failure to disclose the required information would subject the counsel to appropriate penalty and disciplinary action, as stated in the resolution issued in Bar Matter No. 1922.

  3. Yes, the respondent assisted and abetted the unauthorized practice of law by having a non-lawyer sign and file a motion in court. This is in violation of Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code, which prohibits lawyers from delegating legal tasks to unqualified persons.

  4. Yes, the respondent's act of delegating the responsibility of signing the motion to a non-lawyer constitutes an abdication of his responsibility as the attorney of record, which subjects him to sanction.

  5. Yes, the respondent's failure to comply with the directives of the IBP is an aggravating circumstance.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Lawyers have a solemn oath to obey the laws and not engage in dishonest conduct.

  • Failure to disclose MCLE compliance may subject the counsel to penalties and disciplinary action.

  • Lawyers are prohibited from delegating legal tasks to unqualified persons.

  • The unauthorized practice of law is against public interest and policy, as it poses risks of incompetence and dishonesty.

  • Lawyers have a responsibility not to permit the unauthorized practice of law.

  • Lawyers can be held administratively liable for notarizing documents without a valid notarial commission.

  • Lawyers can be suspended from the practice of law or permanently barred from being commissioned as a notary public for their misconduct.

  • Lawyers should respect the directives of the IBP in the discharge of its duty to investigate administrative charges.

  • Failure to comply with the directives of the IBP can be treated as an aggravating circumstance.