Case Digest: Zoreta vs Atty Heherson Simpliciano 443 SCRA 1, A.C. No. 6492

Zoreta vs Atty Heherson Simpliciano 443 SCRA 1, A.C. No. 6492. November 18, 2004

Subject: Basic Legal Ethics

FACTS

Petitioner Melanio L. Zoreta alleged that he filed a complaint for Breach of Contract and Damages against Security Pacific Assurance Corporation (SPAC) dated 22 June 2001 due to the latter’s failure to honor SPAC’s Commercial Vehicle Policy No. 94286, where respondent Atty. Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano was the latter’s counsel. In said cases, the respondent who was not a duly commissioned Notary Public in 2002 per Certifications issued by the Clerk of Court of Quezon City Mercedes S. Gatmaytan, performed acts of notarization, as evidenced by presented documents.

ISSUE

Whether or not, the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility under the Rules of Court.

RULING

Yes.

Under Rule 1.01 Canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

In this case, the respondent performing a notarial without such commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws and making it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer’s oath similarly proscribes. Hence, the lawyer is guilty of the violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility of lawyers.