Legal Ethics

1. AC No. 9512 February 5, 2018

ROBERTO P. MABINI vs ATTY. VITTO A. KINTANAR
Legal Ethics; Notarial Law. The duties of a Notary Public are not just plain ministerial acts but
are also impressed with public interest and dictated by public policy. This is for the reason that
notarization makes a private document into a public one and as a public document, it enjoys full
credit on its face. However, a lawyer cannot be held liable for violation of his duties as a Notary
Public when the law in effect at the time of his complained act does not provide any prohibition
to the same.
Same; Same; During the effectivity of the 1917 Revised Administrative Code, a Notary Public
was not disallowed from notarizing a document executed by a relative, neither was there a
prohibition for a Notary Public to notarize a document executed by his or her spouse.
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
2. AM No. OCA-IPI No. 10-21-SB-J April 4, 2017
IN RE: ALLEGED IMMORALITY AND UNEXPLAINED WEALTH OF
SANDIGANBAYAN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ROLAND B. JURADPO AND A CLERK
OF COURT IV MONA LISA A. BUENCAMINO, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT,
CALOOCAN CITY
Legal Ethics; Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees; Section 8. All
officials and employees in the government are mandated to accomplish and submit, under oath,
declarations of their assets, liabilities, net worth and business interests including those of their
spouse and unmarried children below eighteen (18) years of age.
Same; Same; Same. The document must contain information on the following: a) real property,
its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and current fair market value; b) personal
property and acquisition cost; c) all other assets such as investment, cash on hand or in banks,
stocks, bonds, and the likes; d) liabilities; and e) all the businesses interests and financial
connection.
MENDOZA, J.:
3. AM No. MTJ-17-1894 April 4, 2017
ROGER RAPSING vs JUDGE CARIDAD M. WALSE-LUTERO
Legal Ethics. It was the judge’s responsibility to know which cases or motions were submitted
for decision or resolution. Judges are expected to closely follow the development of cases and in
this respect, to keep their own records of cases so that they may act on it promptly. The
responsibility of keeping a personal inventory is a responsibility that rests primarily on the judge
and he or she cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement of his personnel.
LEONEN, J.:
AC No. 9512 February 5, 2018
ROBERTO P. MABINI vs ATTY. VITTO A. KINTANAR
Legal Ethics; Notarial Law. The duties of a Notary Public are not just plain ministerial acts but
are also impressed with public interest and dictated by public policy. This is for the reason that
notarization makes a private document into a public one and as a public document, it enjoys full
credit on its face. However, a lawyer cannot be held liable for violation of his duties as a Notary
Public when the law in effect at the time of his complained act does not provide any prohibition
to the same.
Same; Same; During the effectivity of the 1917 Revised Administrative Code, a Notary Public
was not disallowed from notarizing a document executed by a relative, neither was there a
prohibition for a Notary Public to notarize a document executed by his or her spouse.
DEL CASRILLO, J.:

FACTS:
Roberto Mabini filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Vitto A. Kintanar on the
ground that the said lawyer notarized a document executed by his wife, Evangeline Kintanar,
which according to Mabini constitutes a violation of the Notarial Law. Mabini stated that a
certain Regina Alamares approached him and his wife to sell a realty located in Daraga, Albay
which Alamares attested that the title for the said property was lost but its duplicate may be
secured from the Register of Deeds. Nonetheless, they still bough the property. Later on, the
Regional Trial Court granted their petition for the issuance of the duplicate copy and a Transfer
Certificate of Title was later on issued by the RD of Albay. The complainant further stated that
Evangeline filed a complaint against him for reconveyance, annulment of title, damages with
prayer for preliminary injunction or restraining order before the RTC in which an Affidavit of
Lost Owner’s Duplicate Copy of Title was attached. Said affidavit was executed by Evangeline
and Notarized by the herein respondent. Mabini further alleged that Atty. Kinatanar knew that he
was not authorized to notarize a document executed by his wife or any relative within the fourth
civil degree, whether by affinity or consanguinity.
For his defense, Atty. Kintanar countered that the said Affidavit was executed and
notarized on April 25, 2002, which was governed by the 1917 Revised Administrative Code
which did not prohibit a Notary Public from notarizing a document executed by one’s spouse.
Upon Investigation, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Investigating Commissioner
found the respondent lawyer guilty of misconduct and recommended his suspension from the
practice of law for six months. This report and recommendation was resolved and modified by
the IBP Board of Governors giving Atty. Kintanar a more stiffer penalty which includes a
suspension from practice of law for six months and revocation of his commission as Notary
Public.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent committed misconduct by notarizing his wife’s affidavit
of loss in 2002.

HELD: NEGATIVE. The Supreme Court ruled that the duties of a Notary Public are not just
plain ministerial acts but are also impressed with public interest and dictated by public policy.
This is for the reason that notarization makes a private document into a public one and as a
public document, it enjoys full credit on its face. However, a lawyer cannot be held liable for
violation of his duties as a Notary Public when the law in effect at the time of his complained act
does not provide any prohibition to the same. In the present case, the Court held that the law in
effect and thus governing the notarization of the Affidavit of Loss of Evangeline Kintanar which
was executed on April 25, 2002, was the 1917 Revised Administrative Code. During the
effectivity of the 1917 Revised Administrative Code, a Notary Public was not disallowed from
notarizing a document executed by a relative, neither was there a prohibition for a Notary Public
to notarize a document executed by his or her spouse. The said Administrative Code was
superseded by the passage of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice which means that any
prohibition enumerated in the later does not cover the acts made by the Notary Public earlier,
including those executed in 2002. Hence, the complaint against Atty. Vitto A. Kintanar was
dismissed.
AM No. OCA-IPI No. 10-21-SB-J April 4, 2017
IN RE: ALLEGED IMMORALITY AND UNEXPLAINED WEALTH OF
SANDIGANBAYAN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ROLAND B. JURADPO AND A CLERK
OF COURT IV MONA LISA A. BUENCAMINO, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT,
CALOOCAN CITY
Legal Ethics; Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees; Section 8. All
officials and employees in the government are mandated to accomplish and submit, under oath,
declarations of their assets, liabilities, net worth and business interests including those of their
spouse and unmarried children below eighteen (18) years of age.
Same; Same; Same. The document must contain information on the following: a) real property,
its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and current fair market value; b) personal
property and acquisition cost; c) all other assets such as investment, cash on hand or in banks,
stocks, bonds, and the likes; d) liabilities; and e) all the businesses interests and financial
connection.
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS:
An anonymous letter-complaint was sent to the Office of the President and a copy was
furnished to the Office of the Ombudsman charging Justice Rolando Jurado and Atty. Mona Lisa
Buencamino with unexplained wealth and immorality. Upon such, the Office of the Court
Administrator conducted an investigation. Based on the initial investigation, the OCA reported
that Justice Jurado and Atty. Buencamino owned several properties located in the different parts
of Metro Manila and that Justice Jurado understated his properties in his Statement of Assets and
Liabilities for the years 2000 to 2005 and 2008. Atty. Buencamino’s SALN, on the other hand,
allegedly contained several inconsistencies.
For his defense, Justice Jurado asserted that the properties located in Las Piñas was
declared and aggregately referred to as a single item in his SALN for the years 2000 to 2005 and
2008. As for the property he co-owned with Atty. Buencamino, he said that it was a road lot but
nonetheless mentioned in his SALNs. The properties which was covered by the seven tax
declarations, according to him, were all improvements on the land. Another real property was not
declared in his SALN for the said property was sold to a certain Ma. Paz Saldua, payable on
installments. Justice Jurado also bewailed that this was not the first time he was required to
explain how these properties were acquired.
Atty. Buencamino, for her defense, asserted that this was the third time she was required
to comment on the allegation of unexplained wealth. She, however, admitted owning that all
those enumerated real properties registered under her name but insisted that all those were
contained in her SALNs, some properties were referred as a single property and the other are tax
declarations of the improvements on the real property which was erected on the lands she owned.
For the charge of unexplained wealth, she attested that those properties were acquired by her on
inheritance, from her salaries and other legitimate source.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents are guilty for unexplained wealth and inconsistencies on
their Statement of Assests, Liabilities and Net Worth.

HELD: NEGATIVE. The Supreme Court ruled that the filing of SALN is obligatory on the part
of all officials, employees of the government. A SALN is a pro forma document which must be
completed and submitted under oath by the declarant attesting to his/her total assets and
liabilities, including business and financial interests that make up his/her net worth. This was
also stated in the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for the Public Officials and Employees.
Thus, understatement of assets in SALNs are being frowned upon. However, in the present case,
the OCA viewed that Justice Jurado understated his assets where in fact, a scrutiny of the same
would reveal that all the properties enumerated by the OCA were consistently declared albeit
collectively in all his SALNs. If only the investigating team conscientiously studied the
documents it gathered, it would discover that Justice Jurado’s real properties did not increase
significantly.
The same error was committed by the OCA on the SALNs of Atty. Buencamino as the
properties enumerated by OCA were declared in all her SALNs from 1992 to 2008. Though said
properties were not detailed, te same was not a violation of the rule of SALNs.
As to the alleged unexplained wealth, the Court found no prima facie showing that either
has unlawfully accumulated wealth as both sufficiently explained hoe they got into the business
of real estate which was fully supported by the evidence on records. The complaint against both
with regard to unexplained wealth was dismissed.
AM No. MTJ-17-1894 April 4, 2017
ROGER RAPSING vs JUDGE CARIDAD M. WALSE-LUTERO
Legal Ethics. It was the judge’s responsibility to know which cases or motions were submitted
for decision or resolution. Judges are expected to closely follow the development of cases and in
this respect, to keep their own records of cases so that they may act on it promptly. The
responsibility of keeping a personal inventory is a responsibility that rests primarily on the judge
and he or she cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement of his personnel.
LEONEN, J.:
FACTS:
Roger Rapsing accused Judge Caridad M. Walse-Lutero of undue delay in resolving two
motions filed by his counsel in a civil case. Rapsing’s counsel filed a Motion to Inhibit which the
respondent judge agreed to be resolved upon the filing of a Motion to Withdraw Admission in
2008. However, the motions remained unresolved for a considerable length of time which the
complainant perceived that Judge Walse-Lutero must be held liable for undue delay.
Judge Walse-Lutero subsequently denied the allegations. In her defense, she stated that
the Clerk of Court failed to return the record of the case to her for the resolution of the motion
and that she only discovered the unresolved motions when the Supreme Court informed her of
the present administrative complaint. She further affirmed that upon the receipt of the record, she
discovered that it was badly damaged by rain water that leaked through the court’s ceiling and
alleged after the record was reconstituted, she promptly resolved all pending incidents and
rendered her decision in the subject case. She also stated that it was impossible for her to monitor
each case before the court due to heavy volume of case she inherited and she relied on Celestina
Rota to inform her of cases that required prompt actions. Unfortunately, Rota was greatly remiss
in the performance of her duties.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Caridad Walse-Lutero should be held liable for neglecting her
duty to resolve motions expeditiously.
HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. The Supreme Court ruled that there was clearly an undue delay in
resolving the two motions. The Court, however, found that the respondent judge’s explanation
was not sufficient to clear her from any administrative liability. As the presiding judge, it was
respondent’s responsibility to know which cases or motions were submitted for decision or
resolution. Judges are expected to closely follow the development of cases and in this respect, to
keep their own records of cases so that they may act on it promptly. The Court further held that
the responsibility of keeping a personal inventory is a responsibility that rests primarily on the
judge and he or she cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement of his
personnel. Hence, Presiding Judge Caridad M. Walse-Lutero is admonished from her undue
delay in resolving the motions of Roger Rapsing.