FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10719. September 14, 2021.]
PAMELA FUENTES-PITTS, complainant,vs. ATTY. ISRAELI S. TABELL, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10719 [Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5040] (Pamela Fuentes-Pitts, complainant v. Atty. Israeli S. Tabell, respondent.).
Before this Court is a Disbarment Complaint 1 filed by Pamela Fuentes-Pitts (complainant) against respondent Atty. Israeli S. Tabell (Atty. Tabell) for violation of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC or the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (Notarial Rules).
Antecedents
Complainant is the daughter of the late Atty. Proculo P. Fuentes (Atty. Proculo), President of Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL). During his lifetime, Atty. Proculo assisted a number of employees (complainants-employees) of Dole Philippines, Stanfilco Division (Dole) in filing Complaints 2 for salary differential, nonpayment of 13th month pay, holiday pay, and service incentive leave pay (SIL) before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). 3 After Atty. Proculo's death, he was succeeded by Atty. Wilbur Fuentes (Atty. Wilbur) as the lawyer in the said cases, 4 which were decided in favor of the complainants-employees. On appeal, the same was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) and eventually by the Court. 5
On April 3, 2014, the said Decision became final and executory. 6 Consequently, the complainants-employees filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution which was eventually granted. On July 17, 2014, Dole deposited the judgment award at the NLRC-Regional Arbitration Branch XI (NLRC-RAB XI). 7
Subsequently, the NLRC-RAB XI issued an Order 8 dated August 7, 2014, directing the release of the awards totaling P40,753,574.47 in favor of the complainants-employees. 9 In the same order, the NLRC prescribed the guidelines for the orderly release of the checks to the complainants-employees.
Herein complainant alleges that the complainants-employees executed joint affidavits in connection with the release of the judgment award which were prepared and pre-notarized by Atty. Tabell. 10 Complainant submitted the Affidavits 11 of complainants-employees Antonio Dag-Uman (Dag-Uman), Renante Escultora (Escultora), Epefanio Lebria (Lebria), Anthony Mandalones (Mandalones), Gaudencio Rayon (Rayon) and Astrade Tibor (Tibor), all attesting that they did not appear before Atty. Tabell and that the joint affidavits had already been notarized by Atty. Tabell before they signed the same. Complainant maintains that Atty. Tabell violated Section 2, paragraph (b), Rule IV 12 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice when he pre-notarized the affidavits of persons who did not personally appear before him. 13
In addition, complainant avers that Atty. Tabell filed before the NLRC a "Manifestation with Motion to Expunge from the Records the Statement of Attorney's Charging Lien" 14(Manifestation) praying that the pleadings filed by the heirs of Attorneys Proculo and Wilbur claiming entitlement to twenty percent (20%) attorney's fees, be expunged from the records. 15 Attached to the said manifestation was a copy of a manifesto purportedly signed by a number of the complainants-employees. However, herein complainant maintains that most, if not all, of the signatures of the said complainants-employees were forged and were merely signed by two (2) persons only. 16 In support of this allegation, complainant submitted manifestations signed by Five Hundred Thirty-Seven (537) members of the United Workers of Serbai-Southem Philippines Federation of Labor (UWS-SPFL) who were also among the complainants-employees, denying any agreement with Atty. Tabell regarding attorney's fees. 17 She also attached in the instant disbarment complaint, copies of Affidavits 18 and handwritten Attestations 19 of several other complainants-employees denying any agreement or signing any manifesto involving the charging lien of Atty. Proculo.
In his Comment, 20 Atty. Tabell maintained that the instant disbarment complaint against him is unfounded and baseless. 21 He claimed that he could not intelligently determine whether he was the one who notarized the joint affidavits since the said documents were not attached to the instant complaint. 22 With regard to the manifesto, Atty. Tabell denied any participation in the alleged forgery of the signatures of the complainants-employees because he was not present when the said document was signed by the employees during the General Assembly Meeting of the UWS-SPFL on June 20, 2010. 23
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
In its January 5, 2018 Report and Recommendation, 24 the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) recommended that Atty. Tabell be (a) suspended from the practice of law for one year, and (b) his notarial commission be suspended for a period of one year. 25 The pertinent portions of the recommendation read:
Respondent Atty. Israeli S. Tabell violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility in notarizing a document without requiring the presence of the affiants. The notarization of documents ensures the authenticity and reliability of a document. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but one invested with substantial public interest.
xxx xxx xxx
The rules require the notary public to assess whether the person executing the document voluntarily affixes his or her signature. Without physical presence, the notary public will not be able to properly execute his or her duty under the law.
It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. (Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility). They are expected to be in the forefront in the observance and maintenance of the rule of law.
In view of the foregoing premises, it is respectfully recommended that respondent-Atty. Israeli S. Tabell be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year for violating his oath as a lawyer and one (1) year suspension as notary public for violation of the Notarial Law.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 26
On October 4, 2018, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP-Board) adopted a Resolution, 27 modifying the recommendation of the IBP-CBD, recommending instead the penalty of immediate revocation of Atty. Tabell's notarial commission, if subsisting, and disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for a period of one (1) year. 28 The resolution reads:
CBD Case No. 16-5040Pamela Fuentes-Pitts vs.Atty. Israeli S. Tabell
RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, with modification, to impose upon Respondent the recommended penalty of Immediate Revocation of his Notarial Commission, if subsisting and Disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of one (1) year.29
Should Atty. Tabell be held administratively liable for violating the Notarial Rules and for submitting the manifesto which contained falsified signatures of the complainants-employees?
The Court's Ruling
The Court adopts with modification the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board.
It is well to stress that "notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act, but one invested with substantive public interest. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, a notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his notarial duties; otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined." 30
Notably, Sec. 1, Rule II of the Notarial Rules emphasizes the importance of the affiant's personal appearance when a document is notarized, viz.:
SECTION 1. Acknowledgment. — "Acknowledgment" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument or document;
(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and
(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that capacity. (emphases supplied)
Furthermore, Sec. 2 (b), Rule IV of the same Rules prohibits a notary public from notarizing a document when the affiant is not present or not personally known to him or her, viz.:
SECTION 2. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document —
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules. (emphases supplied)
The foregoing provisions mandate the notary public to require the physical or personal presence of the person/s who executed a document, before notarizing the same. In other words, a document should not be notarized unless the person/s who is/are executing it is/are personally or physically present before the notary public. The personal and physical presence of the parties to the deed is necessary to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature/s of the affiant/s therein and the due execution of the document. 31
Furthermore, this Court has always emphasized that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the document in question, the notary public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act or deed. 32
Based on the affidavit of Escultora, one of the complainants-employees, he signed the joint affidavit prepared by Atty. Tabell after the same had already been signed and notarized by the latter, thus:
xxx xxx xxx
6. That while I signed the Joint Affidavit of Undertaking, I was not the one who wrote my name on this affidavit;
7. That I was surprised to know that the said Joint Affidavit of Undertaking was already PRE-SIGNED and NOTARIZED by one ISRAELI S. TABELL as notary public;
8. That I do not personally know one [Israeli] S. Tabell and I only saw him once while the aforesaid cases were still being heard at the NLRC. Moreover, I did not appear before him to subscribe and swear before him my affidavit;
9. That I was surprised to see when I signed the affidavit that the same was already pre-signed and notarized by one [Israeli] S. Tabell;
10. That the above affidavit was already a prepared form where the complainants like me will simply [affix] their signature, and the said affidavit was already PRE-SIGNED and NOTARIZED by said [Israeli] S. Tabell; [and]
11. That I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts and to support the complaint for administrative charge against said [ISRAELI] S. TABELL for his act of pre-signing and notarizing my affidavit and without requiring my personal presence before him at the time he notarized the said affidavit.33 (emphases supplied)
Several other complainants-employees executed affidavits attesting that their joint affidavits had been previously signed and notarized by Atty. Tabell even before they signed the said document. 34 More importantly, they uniformly declared that they did not personally appear before Atty. Tabell when they signed their individual joint affidavits.
The Court notes that Atty. Tabell did not deny preparing and notarizing the joint affidavits of the complainants-employees in connection with the August 7, 2014 Order of the NLRC-RAB XI. His defense that he cannot "intelligently determine" whether he prepared or notarized the joint affidavits fails considering that he can always refer to his notarial book and copies of the documents he notarized, to verify the statements of Dag-Uman, Escultora, Lebria, Mandalones, Rayon, and Tibor who denied appearing before him. Moreover, as the lawyer who purportedly represents the complainants-employees before the NLRC-RAB XI, it is highly improbable for him not to have any knowledge or recollection of having them appear in person to personally subscribe before him.
At this point, the Court would like to remind Atty. Tabell that he is bound by his duty as a lawyer and notary public, to obey the laws of the land and to promote respect for legal processes. His failure to faithfully discharge the duties of a notary public makes him guilty of violating Canon 1 35 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which requires every lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for the law and legal processes; and Rule 1.01, 36 Canon 1 of the CPR, which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct.
Clearly, in notarizing the questioned affidavits without requiring the affiants to appear before him and show competent proof of their identity, Atty. Tabell was remiss in his duties as a notary public under Sec. 1, Rule II and Sec. 2 (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Notarial Rules. His failure to perform the basic duties of a notary public undermined the faith and confidence of the public in the notarial act and/or notarized documents.
With regard to the alleged forgery of the signatures in the manifesto, the Court declared in Armilla-Calderon v. Atty. Lapore37 that a disbarment proceeding is not the appropriate venue to determine a claim of forgery or falsification. We explained:
[C]omplainant's claim of forgery or falsification must be competently proved because these allegations cannot be presumed. The allegations should first be established and determined in appropriate proceedings, like criminal or civil cases, for it is only by such proceedings that the last word on the falsity or forgery can be uttered by a court of law with the legal competence to do so. Considerably, a disbarment proceeding is not the occasion to determine the issue of falsification or forgery. 38
Herein complainant's imputation of forgery against Atty. Tabell lacked proof that he had a hand in falsifying the signatures of the complainants-employees therein. The complainants-employees who executed the Affidavits 39 and handwritten Letters 40 only denied affixing their signatures on the manifesto by stating the following:
xxx xxx xxx
4. That our names [appear] to have been printed and our signatures affixed opposite our names;
5. That the problem with that document is that we never affixed our signatures on it and if there are signatures in it, same are evidently forgeries;
6. That a close scrutiny of the names and signatures, it appears that the printed names and signatures were done by one or two persons; [and]
7. That we are denying therefore our participation in the execution of the Manifesto, and challenge those who presented them to have the handwriting and signatures submitted to a handwriting expert and if the signatures are found [to have] been forged those responsible therefor should be sanctioned/penalized[.] 41
Hence, Atty. Tabell should be cleared from the charge of forgery or falsification of the signatures appearing in the manifesto.
However, this Court would like to emphasize upon Atty. Tabell the importance of his signature in the manifestation to which the subject manifesto was attached. Sec. 3, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure lays down the import of a lawyer's signature in a pleading, as well as the penalties for violating the warranties:
Section 3. Signature and address. — x x x
The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay.
An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, the court may, in its discretion, allow such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to mere inadvertence and not intended for delay. Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or signs a pleading in violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or fails to promptly report to the court a change of his address, shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.
The 2019 Amended Rules of Court not only re-echoed the significance of a lawyer's signature on a pleading, but also imposed stiffer sanctions against a counsel who violates the rule:
Section 3. Signature and address. — (a) x x x
(b) The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him or her that he or she has read the pleading and document; that to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or jurisprudence, or by a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing jurisprudence;
(3) The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after availment of the modes of discovery under these rules; and
(4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
(c) If the court determines, on motion or motu proprio and after notice and hearing, that this rule has been violated, it may impose an appropriate sanction or refer such violation to the proper office for disciplinary action, on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule, or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly and severally liable for a violation committed by its partner, associate or employee. The sanction may include, but shall not be limited to, non-monetary directive or sanction; and order to pay a penalty in court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation, including attorney's fees for the filing of the motion for sanction. The lawyer or law firm cannot pass on the monetary penalty to the client.
Clearly, whether under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure or in the recent 2019 Amended Rules of Court, the signatures of lawyers constitute as a certification that they had read the pleading, and that they firmly believe in the veracity of the statements contained therein.
On this note, Atty. Tabell was remiss in his duty as a lawyer by affixing his signature in the manifestation. In paragraph 5 of the manifestation, he clearly stated that the manifesto forms an integral part of the pleading, and that the same had been signed by the complainants-employees, thus:
5. That hereto attached as ANNEX "A", forming part and parcel of this pleading, is the signed MANIFESTO of [the] members of the UNITED WORKERS OF SEARBAI/STANFILCO-SPFL (UWS-SPFL), denying the fact that there was [beforehand] an agreement for the payment of 20% of the claims of individual complainants as Attorney's fees for Attorneys PROCULO FUENTES and WILBUR FUENTES. 42
Notwithstanding the lack of evidence to prove that he had a hand in the preparation of the manifesto, Atty. Tabell's act of affixing his signature in the manifestation and claiming that the manifesto had been signed by the complainants-employees themselves, constituted as his warranty that his manifestation, including the attached manifesto, is meritorious and free from any falsities.
It is well to emphasize that a counsel's signature on a pleading is neither an empty formality nor even a mere means for identification. Through his or her signature, a party's counsel makes a positive declaration. In certifying through his or her signature that he or she has read the pleading, that there is ground to support it, and that it is not interposed for delay, a lawyer asserts his or her competence, credibility, and ethics. 43
Atty. Tabell's admission that he merely prepared the manifestation and had no hand in the manifesto, will not entirely free him from liability. Affixing his signature to the manifestation without first confirming the veracity of the manifesto makes him liable for violating Sec. 3, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Notably, violation of Sec. 3, Rule 7 is an act of falsehood before the courts, which in itself is a ground for subjecting the counsel to disciplinary action. 44 Such act is also proscribed by Rule 10.01, Canon 10 45 of the CPR, as he did not only commit a falsehood in certifying the truthfulness of the manifesto, but he had likewise misled the tribunal of its validity. He also breached the Lawyer's Oath on which he had sworn to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any in court.
As to the appropriate penalty to be imposed, it should be emphasized that the same shall depend on the exercise of sound judicial discretion after due consideration of the surrounding facts. 46
In Baysac v. Atty. Aceron-Papa, 47 the Court noted that based on existing jurisprudence, the following penalties are imposed against notaries public who failed to perform their duties: (1) revocation of his notarial commission; (2) disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years; and (3) suspension from the practice of law for one year.
Thus, in Spouses Soriano v. Atty. Ortiz, Jr., 48 the Court found the notary public liable for notarizing documents without the presence of the complainants therein in violation of the Notarial Law. He was suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year and disqualified from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years. 49
Similarly, in Agbulos v. Atty. Viray, 50 the Court suspended Atty. Viray from the practice of law for one (1) year and disqualified him from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years for notarizing a document without ascertaining the identity of the affiant and merely relying on the assurance of his client and the presentation of Community Tax Certificates, despite the requirement of the rules on the presentation of competent evidence of identity such as an identification card with photograph and signature. 51
In Tabas v. Atty. Mangibin, 52 the Court suspended Atty. Mangibin from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year and disqualified him from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years for notarizing a document without ascertaining their identities. In particular, he notarized a document upon the request of a certain person claiming to be a mortgagee which discharged a piece of real property from a mortgage attached thereto. It turned out, however, that she was not the real mortgagee of the property, and because of his recklessness, the mortgagor was able to mortgage the property again, this time, in her favor. 53
Based on the above jurisprudence, the Court deems it proper to impose against Atty. Tabell the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year and disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years.
Insofar as violating Sec. 3, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court, in Spouses Mariano v. Atty. Abrajano, 54 only issued a reprimand with a stem warning. The Court explained:
As to the proper penalty to be imposed on Atty. Bayaua, it must be pointed out that "[d]isbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution, only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar." In this regard, case law instructs that "[w]hile the Supreme Court has the plenary power to discipline erring lawyers through this kind of proceedings, it does so in the most vigilant manner so as not to frustrate its preservative principle. The Court, in the exercise of its sound judicial discretion, is inclined to impose a less severe punishment if through it the end desired of reforming the errant lawyer is possible." In this case, Atty. Bayaua's offense is not so gross as to justify removal from the legal profession; and hence, a penalty other than disbarment may satisfactorily forwarn him and the other members of the Bar to be more cautious and diligent in the practice of their profession.
Considering that Atty. Tabell had merely neglected to confirm the veracity of the signatures in the manifesto, and the records herein do not show that he had knowledge of such inaccuracies, the Court only finds it proper to issue a reprimand, and to remind him to be more circumspect of the documents presented to him by his clients before submitting the same to the courts and tribunals.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Israeli S. Tabell GUILTY of:
(a) violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year; IMMEDIATELY REVOKES his incumbent notarial commission, if any; and DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as Notary Public for a period of two (2) years; and
(b) violating Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for which he is hereby REPRIMANDED.
He is further STERNLY WARNED that commission of similar infractions will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to Atty. Israeli S. Tabell's personal record; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and the Office of the Court Administrator which is directed to circulate the same to all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 4-9.
2. Entitled "Southern Philippines Federation of Labor and Jenepie Agan, et al. v. Dole Philippines, Stanfilco Division, et al." docketed as NLRC RAB-11-09-00863-97; and "Southern Philippines Federation of Labor and Remedios Abapo, et al. v. Dole Philippines, Inc., Stanfilco Division, et al." docketed as NLRC RAB-11-05-00480-97.
3.Rollo, p. 506.
4.Id.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 4.
7.Id. at 10.
8.Id. at 10-44.
9.Id. at 44.
10.Id. at 507.
11.Id. at 45-56.
12. SECTION 2. Prohibitions. — (a) A notary public shall not perform a notarial act outside his regular place of work or business; provided, however, that on certain exceptional occasions or situations, a notarial act may be performed at the request of the parties in the following sites located within his territorial jurisdiction:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document —
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
13.Rollo, p. 507.
14.Id. at 57-59.
15.Id. at 57.
16.Id. at 6-7; see Affidavit-Complaint.
17.Id. at 60-77.
18.Id. at 78-87.
19.Id. at 88-188.
20.Id. at 196-203.
21.Id. at 202.
22.Id. at 198.
23.Id. at 199-200.
24.Id. at 504-508.
25.Id. at 508.
26.Id. at 519-520.
27.Id. at 502-503.
28.Id. at 502.
29.Id.
30.Atty. Lim v. Tabiliran, Jr., A.C. No. 10793, September 16, 2020.
31.Almario v. Atty. Llera-Agno, 823 Phil. 1, 10 (2018).
32.Kiener v. Atty. Amores, A.C. No. 9417, November 18, 2020, citing Prospero v. Atty. Delos Santos, A.C. No. 11583, December 3, 2019.
33.Rollo, pp. 47-48.
34.Id. at 45-56.
35. Canon I — A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
36. Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
37. A.C. No. 10619, September 2, 2020.
38.Id., citing Zarcilla v. Atty. Quesada, 827 Phil. 629, 639 (2018).
39.Rollo, pp. 78-87; captioned as "Affidavit of Explanation on the Authenticity and Genuineness of the Signatures Appearing on the Manifestation with Motion to Expunge from the Records the Statement of Attorney's Charging Lien" and "Affidavit of Denial of Our Participation in the Execution of the Manifesto of Some Complainants/Claimants Attached to the Manifestation and Motion to Expunge from the Records Attorney's Charging Lien Filed in RAB Case No. RAB-11-09-00863-[97] and [RAB]-11-05-00480-97 (Ela Restauro)."
40.Id. at 88-188.
41.Id. at 82.
42.Id. at 58.
43.Intestate Estate of Jose Uy v. Atty. Maghari III, 768 Phil. 10, 22 (2015).
44.Spouses Mariano v. Atty. Abrajano, A.C. No. 12690, April 26, 2021.
45. Rule 10.01 — 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.
46.Re: Resolution dated October 11, 2017 in OCA IPI No. 16-4577-RTJ (Deoasido v. Atty. Tacorda), A.C. No. 11925, September 28, 2020.
47. 792 Phil. 635 (2016).
48. A.C. No. 10540, November 28, 2019.
49.Id.
50. 704 Phil. 1 (2013).
51.Id. at 7.
52. 466 Phil. 296 (2004).
53.Id. at 303.
54.Supra note 44.