THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 13150. December 1, 2021.][Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5498]
ATTY. MAURICIO C. ULEP, complainant,vs. ATTY. GREGORIO DALISAY DAVID, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 1, 2021, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 13150 [Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5498] (Atty. Mauricio C. Ulep,Complainant, vs. Atty. Gregorio Dalisay David, Jr.,Respondent). — Before the Court is a complaint for disbarment filed by Atty. Mauricio C. Ulep (complainant) against Atty. Gregorio Dalisay David, Jr. (respondent), charging the latter with violation of Rule 10.01 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (Notarial Rules).
Antecedents
On 23 October 2017, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) received an administrative complaint 2 for disbarment against respondent. The complainant mainly alleged that respondent violated the CPR when he used a fake and non-existent mandatory continuing legal education (MCLE) exemption number in two documents 3 he notarized on 19 May 2017. Respondent likewise violated the Notarial Rules because at the time he applied for a notarial commission, he was not a member in good standing since he had no MCLE exemption and did not comply with the MCLE requirements for the Fifth Compliance Period (15 April 2013 to 14 April 2016). 4
The IBP-CBD, thereafter, directed respondent to file his answer but none was filed. On 04 December 2018, Atty. Michael E. David (Atty. David), son of respondent, informed the IBP-CBD that his father passed away on 09 January 2014. 5 Consequently, on 10 December 2018, Atty. David filed a Motion to Dismiss 6 (motion) on the ground that his father could not have notarized any document on 19 May 2017, having passed away on 09 January 2014. Attached to the motion was respondent's Certificate of Death. 7
Report and Recommendation of the IBP
The investigating commissioner, in her Report and Recommendation 8 dated 07 October 2019, found in favor of respondent. The records would readily show that respondent could not have notarized the subject documents on 19 May 2017, as it is clear that he was already dead at the time of the notarization. Since complainant did not refute this matter, the IBP-CBD recommended the dismissal of the administrative case against respondent. 9
On 27 June 2020, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. CBD-2020-06-31, 10 approving and adopting the Report and Recommendation of the investigating commissioner, and dismissing the case against respondent, after finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules.
In her Report for Agenda 11 dated 12 November 2021, the assistant bar confidant reported, among others, that no motion for reconsideration or petition for review was filed by either of the parties, per records of the Office of the Bar Confidant, as of 07 October 2021. 12
Ruling of the Court
The Court finds it fitting to sustain the IBP's findings and recommendation since the attendant facts of the case show that respondent was already deceased at the time the subject documents were notarized on 17 May 2017. Respondent definitely could not have notarized the same, having passed away three years earlier or on 09 January 2014.
Likewise, it is settled that the death of the respondent in a complaint for "disbarment [renders] the case moot and academic." 13 "Since disbarment is a proceeding which is personal to the respondent, his death naturally extinguishes the proceeding, [meriting the dismissal of the case.] Actio personalis moritur cum persona." 14
WHEREFORE, the complaint for disbarment against Atty. Gregorio Dalisay David, Jr. is hereby DISMISSED. This case is further declared CLOSED and TERMINATED considering that no motion for reconsideration or petition for review was filed with the Court per records of the Office of the Bar Confidant.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 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.
2. Rollo, pp. 1-3.
3. Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping as well as Affidavit of Personal Delivery.
4. Certification dated 20 October 2017 issued by MCLE Office; Id. at 11.
5. Id. at 36.
6. Id. at 43-44.
7. Id. at 45-46.
8. Id. at 59-63; signed by Commissioner Stephanie M. Cas-Refina.
9. Id. at 63.
10. Id. at 57.
11. Id., unpaginated.
12. Id., unpaginated.
13. Guevara v. Calalang, 202 Phil. 328, 330 (1982) [Per J. Guttierez, Jr.]; Alindogan, Jr. vs. Barican, A.C. No. 8332 (Notice), 17 February 2021.
14. Sotto vs. De Guia, 187 Phil. 268, 269 (1980) [Per J. Aquino]; Pelejo vs. Zaballero, 208 Phil. 390 (1983) [Per J. Aquino]; See Villanueva vs. Alentajan, A.C. No. 12161 (Notice), 28 June 2021.