Apolinar-Petello vs. Maramot

Complainant MARJORIE A.
APOLINAR-PETILO
Respondent TTY. ARISTEDES A. MARAMOT, RESPONDENT.
complaint alleges that the respondent consented to, abetted and participated in the illegal act of falsifying a public
document in violation of Article 171(4) in relation to Article 172(2) of the Revised Penal Code; and that he thereby
violated the Lawyer's Oath, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1 and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
The respondent prepared the deed of donation. At the time of his preparation of the document, he actually knew that
Princess Anne was a minor; hence, his claim of having then advised that her parents should represent her in the
execution of the document. Mommayda was likewise a minor. His awareness of the latter's minority at the time was
not disputed because he was also representing Mommayda in the latter's adoption proceedings aside from being
Mommayda's neighbor. Nonetheless, he still indicated in the deed of donation that the donees were of legal age. His
doing so, being undeniably dishonest, was contrary to his oath as a lawyer not to utter a falsehood. He thereby
consciously engaged in an unlawful and dishonest conduct, defying the law and contributing to the erosion of
confidence in the Law Profession.
The ages of the donees were material because they bore on their capacities to render the donation efficacious. That
neither Princess Anne nor Mommayda acknowledged the deed of donation did not cure the defect.
. As a lawyer, he should not invoke good faith and good intentions as sufficient to excuse him from discharging his
obligation to be truthful and honest in his professional actions. His duty and responsibility in that regard were clear
and unambiguous.
Hence a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same
persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated
therein
The names of Princess Anne and Mommayda as the donees, even if still minors, should have been included in the
notarial acknowledgment of the deed itself; and, in view of their minority, the names of their respective parents (or
legal guardians) assisting them should have also been indicated thereon. This requirement was not complied with.
Moreover, Princess Anne and Mommayda should have also signed the deed of donation themselves along with their
assisting parents or legal guardians.
ISSUE
whether or not the respondent committed a falsehood in his preparation of the deed of donation
Apolinar-Petillo vs. Maramot
A.C. No. 9067, January 31, 2018
FACTS
Complainant Marjorie A. Apolinar-Petillo filed an administrative complaint against respondent

Atty. Aristestedes A. Maramot for alleged falsification of deed of donation in violation of Article
171(4) in relation to Article 172(2) of the Revised Penal Code; and that he thereby violated the
Lawyer's Oath, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1 and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility by indicating Princess Anne Apolinar-Petilo and Ma. Mommayda V.
Apolinar is of legal age even though they’re still a minor. Also, he claims that he, being
Mommayda's counsel in the latter's adoption case, was aware of the untruthful statements he
made in the deed of donation because he thereafter submitted the deed of donation as evidence
therein.
In his defense, the respondent denied all those allegations. He averred that it was Margarita
Apolinar, the one who will donate the parcel of land in Calapan Mindoro to the two minors, who
insisted on signing the document when he learned that the two were not of legal age, and he
allowed Margarita to bring the deed of donation to Manila, where she was supposedly
proceeding in order to procure the signature of Princess Anne thereon and as a way of avoiding
additional travel expenses. The respondent also asserts that the complaint was pure harassment
calculated only to besmirch and malign his reputation and that the complaint was also a
premeditated tactic to prolong or preempt the adoption case, considering that a favorable ruling
thereat would adversely affect Marjorie's rights as an heir of Mommayda's parents.
ISSUE
whether or not the respondent committed a falsehood in his preparation of the deed of donation
RULLING
Yes, and the respondent violated the lawyer’s oath, Rule 1.01, Rule 1.02 of Canon 1; and Rule
10.1 of Canon 10, which states; CANON 1 Rule 1.01: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct; CANON 1 Rule 1.02: A lawyer shall not counsel or
abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system;
CANON 10 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 since in the case the
respondent was aware of the true age of the two minors yet chose to indicate in the deed of
donation that the donees were of legal age. His awareness of the latter's minority at the time was
not disputed because he was also representing Mommayda in the latter's adoption proceedings
aside from being Mommayda's neighbor. His doing so, being undeniably dishonest, was contrary
to his oath as a lawyer not to utter a falsehood. He thereby consciously engaged in unlawful and
dishonest conduct, defying the law and contributing to the erosion of confidence in the law
profession. Therefore, under existing facts of the case, the court declares the respondent guilty of
violating the following provisions and being suspended for six months.

Apolinar-Petello vs. Maramot

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Apolinar-Petello vs. Maramot

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Apolinar-Petello vs. Maramot

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complainant MARJORIE A.

Respondent TTY. ARISTEDES A. MARAMOT, RESPONDENT.

Complainant Marjorie A. Apolinar-Petillo filed an administrative complaint against respondent

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.