CANON 10

Apolinar-Petilo v. Maramot

FACTS:
Complainant Marjorie A. Apolinar-Petilo alleged that respondent consented and
participated in falsifying a public document in violation of Canons 1 and 10 Rule 10.01
of the CPR.
- Subject document was a deed of donation.
- Complaint alleged that respondent indicated in the deed that the 2 donees
(Princess and Mommayda) were “of legal age” despite knowing that both were
minors at the time of execution; and that respondent notarized the same
document.
- Respondent was counsel of Mommayda’s adoption case so he knew that the
later was a minor.

Respondent’s Contention
- Margarita Apolinar was a grandaunt who wanted to donate to Princess,
Marjorie’s own daughter, and Mommayda, the adopted daughter of Justina (sis-
in-law of Margarita)
- Respondent learned of Princess’ minority but Margarita persisted in the
preparation.
- When Margarita died, Marjorie and Justina were entangled in a court battle over
Margarita’s properties, which led Marjorie to file several cases including this
complaint. Respondent alleged that the complaint was pure harassment.
- That there was nothing illegal in the deed since Margarita had an absolute right
to dispose her property by donation and that no law prohibited donations to
minors.
- Only Margarita acknowledged the deed to be her own free act and deed.

IBP Board Recommendation:

- Against respondent: suspended from practice for 1 year, revocation of notarial
commission, and disqualification from reappointment for 2 years.

ISSUE:
WON respondent committed falsehood thus violating Canon 10 Rule 10.1 of
CPR?

RULING:
YES. Lawyer’s Oath provides that a lawyer “xxx will do no falsehood, nor consent
to the doing of any in court xxx.” This was adopted and instituted in Canon 10 Rule 10.1
which provides that:
“A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court;
nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.”
Respondent actually knew that Princess Anne was a minor having then advised that her
parents should represent her in the execution of the document. Mommayda was
likewise a minor. Nonetheless, he still indicated that the donees were of legal age. His
doing so, being undeniably dishonest, was contrary to his oath as a lawyer not to utter a
falsehood. He thereby consciously engaged in an unlawful and dishonest conduct,
defying the law and contributing to the erosion of confidence in the Law Profession.

As to the contention of Margarita’s persistence in preparing the deed and that there was
no law that prohibited donation in favor of minors.
- As a lawyer, he should not invoke good faith and good intentions as sufficient to
excuse him from discharging his obligation to be truthful and honest in his
professional actions. Truthfulness and honesty had the highest value for
attorneys.
- The issue in this case is whether or not he committed a falsehood in the
preparation of the deed which answer is in the affirmative. That no law prohibits
donation to minors is immaterial.

Violation as a Notary Public

- The acceptance of the donation was on the same instrument as the deed.
Princess and Mommayda should have been included in the notarial
acknowledgment, and not just Margarita. Moreover, the 2 should have also
signed the deed of donation themselves along with their assisting parents or
legal guardians.
- The omission indicated that the deed was not complete. Acknowledgement can
only be made when the instrument is integrally complete.

Penalty
- Modified suspension from practice of law to 6 months. Others affirmed.