EN BANC
ATTY. MUNTUERTO, JR. et at v. ATTY. ALBERTO
A.C. No. 12289
April 02, 2019
Facts:
The complainants aver that the respondent was the counsel of record of Cristeto E.
Dinopol, Jr., who had instituted an action for reconveyance and recovery of possession
and damages against Singfil Hydro Builders in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
47, in Masbate City docketed as Civil Case No. 6835; that the respondent had attached
to the complaint a supplemental agreement and an amended joint venture agreement
separately acknowledged before him as a notary public for and in Cavite City; that he
had antedated his notarizations; that, however, the Notarial Division of the RTC in
Cavite City certified that it had "no record of any Commission/Order appointing a
certain Atty. Gerardo Wilfredo L. Alberto as Notary Public for the City of Cavite nor of
any documents notarized by him, more specifically a document denominated as
Supplemental & Amended Joint Venture Agreement;''that he had not indicated his
MCLE certificate of compliance number and the date of issue of such certificate; 4 that
realizing that the complaint he had filed was fatally defective, he had his client sign and
file the so-called Motion for Prior Leave of Court to Admit the Herein Attached Amended
Complaint, with the amended complaint attached; and that the respondent had further
falsified the supposed secretary's certificate to make it appear that he had been duly
appointed as the acting corporate secretary of Singtrader JV Corporation, and that a
resolution had been adopted by said corporation authorizing Cristeto E. Dinopol, Jr. as
its representative relative to the filing of the necessary and proper actions.
Upon receipt of the administrative complaint against the respondent, the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) directed him to file his answer. However, he did not comply, and
for that reason he was declared in default. 6
The IBP then conducted a mandatory conference on June 18, 2016, but the respondent
did not attend the same despite notice. Furthermore, he did not file his position paper. 7
Issue:
Whether or not respondent violate the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility by allowing a non-lawyer to sign a motion filed in court.
Held:
Yes, The respondent was liable for the charge of assisting and abetting the
unauthorized practice of law by a non-lawyer because he had a non-lawyer sign and file
the so-called Motion for Prior Leave of Court to Admit the Herein Attached Amended
Complaint despite him being the counsel of record of the plaintiff in Civil Case No.
6835. He thereby patently breached both the letter and spirit of Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of
the Code, which states:
Rule 9.01 — A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of
any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good
standing.
The preparation and signing of any pleading, motion or other paper to be submitted in
court in connection with any pending matter constitute legal work within the context of
the practice of law. Verily, pursuant to Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, the
signature on the pleading, motion or other paper serves as a certification that the
signing attorney "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."
Such formal assurance cannot be undertaken and given except by a regular member of
the Philippine Bar in good standing. It is also necessary to stress that the high
responsibility for conducting the litigation pertains only to the enrolled attorney of the
party in whose behalf the pleading, motion or other paper is submitted in court. He may
delegate the signing of the pleading, motion or other paper to another lawyer, but not
to a non-lawyer.
