The Supreme Court (SC) first division issued a notice regarding a resolution dated January 25, 2023, stating that lawyer Salvador Diputado, who is currently an Assistant Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, is disqualified from being commissioned as notary public for 2 years and likewise suspended as a lawyer for a year.
The SC finds Diputado guilty of Section 3, Rule IV, of the Rules of Notarial Practice and of Canon 13, Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility as well as Canons 20 and 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
The SC directed Diputado to file a Manifestation before this Court upon receipt of the Resolution that his suspension has already started.
COMPLAINT/ALLEGATIONS
Atty. Roberto Cajes filed a Complaint for disbarment against Diputado for notarizing documents executed by his own parents-in-law.
This is in violation of the Notarial Rules. Notaries Public “are not allowed documents executed by a principal who is related to the one who notarized the document within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity”, the Court said.
“On different occasions in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, Diputado, based on case records, notarized several Affidavits of Publication signed by his mother-in-law, Dr. Lilia Balite,” the SC said. Dr. Lilia Balite is the publisher of Bohol-based newspaper called the Bohol Times.
“In 2007 and 2010, Diputado notarized the Certificates of Candidacy of his father-in-law~ Atty. Dionisio Balite, who ran for Congress and Board Member, respectively, in their district at that time,” Court records show.
Cajes said that Diputado did not only violate the disqualification rule under the Notarial Rules” but also the rule prohibiting a notary public from performing a notarial act where he may receive a direct or indirect advantage, right or interest”.
Cajes stated that “Diputado acquired direct or indirect advantage or interest over said notarial acts because he is the Editor-in-Chief of Bohol Times at the time of said notarization.”
Moreover, Cajes stated that “Diputado violated Canon 13, Rule 13.02 of the Code [of Professional Responsibiliy] for making public statements in the media regarding a pending case”. This is known as the sub judice rule.
The statements were allegedly in relation to the libel case filed by complainant’s daughter, Jane Censoria Cajes-Yap against the late Ciriaco “BG” Guingging, a co-anchor of Diputado in their dyTR radio program and Manuel Ferdinand De Erio, Diputado’s client.” The case was pending at that time with the Regional Trial Court of Talibon, Bohol, Branch 52, information from the SC said.
De Erio faced a libel case when he wrote that Cajes-Yap was “the only SK [Sangguniang Kabataan] President who is wrapped with anomalies and controversies.”
Diputado allegedly made a public statement on June 12, 2011 in his column “Long Cuts” in the Bohol Times. The statement reads: “And fifth, this Order from COA [Commission on Audit] is clear proof that Jane Censoria Cajes was lying through her teeth because she testified under oath during the hearing of the libel case she filed against De Erio and BG Guingging that she has already liquidated the amount received by her when in truth and in fact, she has not.”
The Inquest Prosecutor has found probable cause for the filing of an information for libel against de Erio and Guingging. The case is now pending before the RTC of Talibon.
Cajes further stated that Diputado made another comment on June 15, 2011 regarding the said case in his radio program “Kwentas Klaras” aired over dyTR Bohol.
Diputado “explained and discussed the defense of his client by attacking the credibility and moral character of Cajes without regard to the due process clause and sub judice rule.”
Cajes claimed that Diputado’s comment was aimed to convince the public “about the guilt of Cajes-Yap in the separate graft case to validate the comments of Diputado’s client in the pending libel case.”
Cajes also alleged that “on the same radio program, respondent lawyer allowed his co-anchor, Guingging, to advertise his legal services during the June 16, 2011 broadcast, thereby violating Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics for resorting to indirect advertisements for professional employment.”
RESPONDENT’S ANSWER
Diputado contended that the “case filed by Cajes against him is just mere harassment and persecution.” Diputado said Cajes is just getting even with him. Apparently, Cajes lost an election case handled by Diputado.
Diputado mentioned that “the complaint had nothing to do with his duties as a lawyer.”
Cajes had no good motive in filing the complaint other than to get revenge after such defeat, Diputado argued.
Diputado stated that Cajes did not come with clean hands. “Cajes is a former priest who defied his vows under the Canon Law and later, circumvented the Civil Law after he married an already married woman and bore children during priesthood,” Diputado stated.
Diputado further said that this case “does not involve misuse of funds or even a lawyer-client relationship but merely focuses on the notarization of the Affidavits of Publication of his mother-in-law and Certificates of Candidacy (COC) of his father-in-law.”
Diputado admitted, although with much regret, that he notarized the documents executed by his parents-in-law and declared that he felt remorse for committing the rule violation. He said he will avoid the same mistake in the future.
Moreover, Diputado argued that Cajes and his daughter are both public officials. The discussion on “the failure of Cajes’ daughter to account for the millions involved in the graft case is a constitutionally protected speech and discourse and could not serve as basis for a disbarment suit against him”.
Finally, Diputado stated that he was not advertising his profession in his dyTR radio program. The supposed advertisement of Diputado’s legal services was done by the co-anchor.
IBP REPORT
“On July 1, 2014, the IBP Commission, through Investigating Commissioner Ramsey Quijano, submitted a report and recommendation finding Diputado “to have violated the disqualification rule under Sec. 3 (c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice”, the court records mention.
The court records stated: “Diputado’s violation of the Notarial Rules caused damage not only to those directly affected by the notarized document but also undermined the integrity of the office of a notary public and degraded the function of notarization. He should, thus, be held liable for such negligence not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer”.
Likewise, Diputado was found by the IBP Commission to have violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Diputado, who is the lawyer of de Erio, tackled the merits of the pending libel case and graft case. Diputado even suggested to the public about the lack of credibility of Cajes’ daughter in filing the libel case.
The IBP Commission emphasized that Diputado should have refrained from making statements as the case is already pending before the court.
Lastly, the IBP Commission pointed out that the statements regarding the so-called advertising of Diputado’s legal services were made by another person.
In a Resolution dated December 13, 2014, the IBP Board approved with modification the Commission’s report and recommendation.
Meanwhile, Diputado filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied by the IBP Board in a Resolution dated July 2, 2022.