A.C. No.

6677, June 10, 2014

EUPROCINA I. CRISOSTOMO, MARILYN L. SOLIS, EVELYN MARQUIZO, ROSEMARIE

FACTS:
Sometime in 2001, complainants individually purchased housing units (subject properties) in
Patricia South Villa Subdivision, Anabu-II, Imus, Cavite, from Rudex International Development
Corp. (Rudex). In view of several inadequacies and construction defects in the housing units and
the subdivision itself, complainants sought the rescission of their respective contracts to sell before
the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), seeking the refund of the monthly
amortizations they had paid. The first batch of rescission cases was filed by herein complainants
Sioting on May 24, 2002, and Crisostomo and Marquizo on June 10, 2002, while the second batch of
rescission cases was filed by complainants Balatucan on March 3, 2003, Solis and Ederlinda M.
Villanueva (represented by Minerales) on May 12, 2003, and Batang on July 29, 2003. In all the
foregoing rescission cases, Rudex was represented by herein respondent Atty. Nazareno.
Judgments of default were eventually rendered against Rudex in the first batch of rescission cases.
Sometime in August 2003, Rudex filed three (3) petitions for review before the HLURB assailing the
same. In the certifications against forum shopping attached to the said petitions, Rudex, through its
President Ruben P. Baes, and legal counsel Atty. Nazareno, stated that it has not commenced or has
knowledge of any similar action or proceeding involving the same issues pending before any court,
tribunal or agency – this, notwithstanding the fact that Rudex, under the representation of Atty.
Nazareno, previously filed an ejectment case on September 9, 2002 against Sioting and her
husband, Rodrigo Sioting (Sps. Sioting), before the Municipal Trial Court of Imus, Cavite (MTC).
On January 29, 2004, Rudex, again represented by Atty. Nazareno, filed another complaint against
Sps. Sioting before the HLURB for the rescission of their contract to sell and the latter’s ejectment,
similar to its pending September 9, 2002 ejectment complaint. Yet, in the certification against forum
shopping Rudex declared that it has not commenced or is not aware of any action or proceeding involving
the same issues pending before any court, tribunal or agency.18 The said certification was notarized by
Atty. Nazareno himself.
On April 1, 2004, six (6) similar complaints for rescission of contracts to sell and ejectment, plus
damages for non-payment of amortizations due, were filed by Atty. Nazareno, on behalf of Rudex,
against the other complainants before the HLURB.
On February 21, 2005, complainants jointly filed the present administrative complaint for disbarment
against Atty. Nazareno, claiming that in the certifications against forum shopping attached to the
complaints for rescission and ejectment of Rudex filed while Atty. Nazareno was its counsel, the latter
made false declarations therein that no similar actions or proceedings have been commenced by Rudex or
remained pending before any other court, tribunal or agency when, in fact, similar actions or proceedings
for rescission had been filed by herein complainants before the HLURB against Rudex and Atty.
Nazareno, and an ejectment complaint was filed by Rudex, represented by Atty. Nazareno, against Sps.
Sioting. In addition, complainants asserted that Atty. Nazareno committed malpractice as a notary public
since he only assigned one (1) document number (i.e., Doc. No. 1968) in all the certifications against
forum shopping that were separately attached to the six (6) April 1, 2004 complaints for rescission and
ejectment.
Despite notice, Atty. Nazareno failed to file his comment and refute the administrative charges against
him.
The HLURB, in the Resolutions, dismissed Rudex’s complaints for rescission and ejectment on the
ground that its statements in the certifications against forum shopping attached thereto were false
due to the existence of similar pending cases in violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.
IBP’s Report and Recommendation
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero recommended
the suspension of Atty. Nazareno for a period of six (6) months for his administrative violations.
The Investigating Commissioner found, among others, that there were unassailable proofs that the
certification against forum shopping attached to Rudex’s ejectment complaint against Sps. Sioting had
been erroneously declared, considering that at the time Rudex filed the said complaint in September
2002, Sps. Sioting’s rescission complaint against Rudex, filed on May 24, 2002, was already pending. In
this relation, the Investigating Commissioner observed that Atty. Nazareno cannot claim innocence of his
omission since he was not only Rudex’s counsel but the notarizing officer as well. Having knowingly
made false entries in the subject certifications against forum shopping, the Investigating Commissioner
recommended that Atty. Nazareno be held administratively liable and thereby penalized with six (6)
months suspension.
In a Resolution dated April 15, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating
Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation, but modified the recommended penalty from a suspension
of six (6) months to only one (1) month.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Nazareno should be held administratively liable and accordingly suspended
for a period of one (1) month
HELD: The Court affirms the IBP’s findings with modification as to the penalty imposed.
Separate from the proscription against forum shopping31 is the violation of the certification requirement
against forum shopping, which was distinguished in the case of Sps. Ong v. CA32 as follows:

The distinction between the prohibition against forum shopping and the certification requirement should
by now be too elementary to be misunderstood. To reiterate, compliance with the certification against
forum shopping is separate from and independent of the avoidance of the act of forum shopping itself.
There is a difference in the treatment between failure to comply with the certification requirement and
violation of the prohibition against forum shopping not only in terms of imposable sanctions but also in
the manner of enforcing them. The former constitutes sufficient cause for the dismissal without prejudice
to the filing of the complaint or initiatory pleading upon motion and after hearing, while the latter is a
ground for summary dismissal thereof and for direct contempt.

Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, the submission of false entries in a certification against
forum shopping constitutes indirect or direct contempt of court, and subjects the erring counsel to the
corresponding administrative and criminal actions,
Section 5. Certification against forum shopping
xxx (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in
any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or
claim is pending therein; xxx

xxx The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein
shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and
criminal actions. xxx

In the realm of legal ethics, said infraction may be considered as a violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and
Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Code) which read as follows:=

CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

x x x x

CANON 10 – A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

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.
In this case, it has been established that Atty. Nazareno made false declarations in the certifications
against forum shopping attached to Rudex’s pleadings, for which he should be held administratively
liable.

Records show that Atty. Nazareno, acting as Rudex’s counsel, filed, in August 2003, petitions for review
assailing the judgments of default rendered in the first batch of rescission cases without disclosing in the
certifications against forum shopping the existence of the ejectment case it filed against Sps. Sioting
which involves an issue related to the complainants’ rescission cases. Further, on January 29, 2004,
Rudex, represented by Atty. Nazareno, filed a complaint for rescission and ejectment against Sps. Sioting
without disclosing in the certifications against forum shopping the existence of Sioting’s May 24, 2002
rescission complaint against Rudex as well as Rudex’s own September 9, 2002 ejectment complaint also
against Sps. Sioting. Finally, on April 1, 2004, Atty. Nazareno, once more filed rescission and ejectment
complaints against the other complainants in this case without disclosing in the certifications against
forum shopping the existence of complainants’ own complaints for rescission.
Owing to the evident similarity of the issues involved in each set of cases, Atty. Nazareno – as
mandated by the Rules of Court and more pertinently, the canons of the Code – should have truthfully
declared the existence of the pending related cases in the certifications against forum shopping attached to
the pertinent pleadings. Considering that Atty. Nazareno did not even bother to refute the charges against
him despite due notice, the Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the IBP’s resolution on his
administrative liability. However, as for the penalty to be imposed, the Court deems it proper to modify
the IBP’s finding on this score.
Separately, the Court further finds Atty. Nazareno guilty of malpractice as a notary public, considering
that he assigned only one document number (i.e., Doc. No. 1968) to the certifications against forum
shopping attached to the six (6) April 1, 2004 complaints for rescission and ejectment despite the fact that
each of them should have been treated as a separate notarial act. It is a standing rule that for every notarial
act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of the notarization, among others, the entry
and page number of the document notarized, and that he shall give to each instrument or document
executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his
register. Evidently, Atty. Nazareno did not comply with the foregoing rule.

Worse, Atty. Nazareno notarized the certifications against forum shopping attached to all the
aforementioned complaints, fully aware that they identically asserted a material falsehood, i.e., that Rudex
had not commenced any actions or proceedings or was not aware of any pending actions or proceedings
involving the same issues in any other forum. The administrative liability of an erring notary public in
this respect was clearly delineated as a violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code
In said case, the lawyer who knowingly notarized a document containing false statements had his
notarial commission revoked and was disqualified from being commissioned as such for a period of
one (1) year. Thus, for his malpractice as a notary public, the Court is wont to additionally impose the
same penalties of such nature against him. However, due to the multiplicity of his infractions on this
front, coupled with his willful malfeasance in discharging the office, the Court deems it proper to
revoke his existing commission and permanently disqualify him from being commissioned as a
notary public.