MARLENE DAUDEN-HERNAEZ vs. HON.

DELOS ANGELES, 
April 30, 1969 G.R. No L-27010 REYES, J.B.L.
FACTS

Marlene Dauden-Hernaez, a movie actress, filed a case against Hollywood Far East Productions its President and General Manager,Ramon Valenzuela,
to recover P14,700 allegedly the balance due for herservices as leading actress in two motion pictures. The complaint wasdismissed by Judge De Los
Angeles mainly because her claim was not supported by an written document, public or private in violation of Articles 1356 and 1358 of the Civil Code.
Upon a motion forreconsideration, the respondent judged dismissed the same becausethe allegations were the same as  the first motion.According to
Judge De Los Angeles, the contract sued upon wasnot alleged to be in writing when Article 1358 requires it to be sobecause the amount involved exceeds
P500

ISSUE/S

Do the purposes of the taking in this case constitute "public use"?

RULING

Yes. The petitioners' contention that the promotion of tourism is not "public use" because private concessioners would be allowed to maintain various
facilities such as restaurants, hotels, stores, etc. inside the tourist complex is impressed with even less merit. The policy objectives of the framers of the
constitution can be expressed only in general terms such as social justice, local autonomy, conservation and development of the national patrimony,
public interest, and general welfare, among others. The programs to achieve these objectives vary from time to time and according to place, To freeze
specific programs like Tourism into express constitutional provisions would make the Constitution more prolix than a bulky code. The particular mention
in the Constitution of agrarian reform and the transfer of utilities and other private enterprises to public ownership merely underscores the magnitude of
the problems sought to be remedied by these programs. They do not preclude nor limit the exercise of the power of eminent domain for such purposes
like tourism and other development programs.

As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of eminent domain comes into play. As just noted, the constitution in at least two cases, to
remove any doubt, determines what is public use. One is the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots for resale at cost to individuals. The
other is in the transfer, through the exercise of this power, of utilities and other private enterprise to the government. It is accurate to state then that at
present whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. 

The petitioners have failed to overcome the burden of anyone trying to strike down a statute or decree whose avowed purpose is the legislative
perception is the public good. A statute has in its favor the presumption of validity. All reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the
constitutionality of a law. The courts will not set aside a law as violative of the Constitution except in a clear case

 The right of the PTA to proceed with the expropriation of the 282 hectares already Identified as fit for the establishment of a resort complex to promote
tourism is, therefore, sustained.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

ADDITIONAL NOTES

The power of eminent domain is expressly provided for under Section 5 B(2) as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

2. Acquisition of Private Lands, Power of Eminent Domain. — To acquire by purchase, by negotiation or by condemnation
proceedings any private land within and without the tourist zones for any of the following reasons: (a) consolidation of lands for
tourist zone development purposes, (b) prevention of land speculation in areas declared as tourist zones, (c) acquisition of right of
way to the zones, (d) protection of water shed areas and natural assets with tourism value, and (e) for any other purpose expressly
authorized under this Decree and accordingly, to exercise the power of eminent domain under its own name, which shall proceed in
the manner prescribed by law and/or the Rules of Court on condemnation proceedings. The Authority may use any mode of
 payment which it may deem expedient and acceptable to the land owners: Provided, That in case bonds are used as payment, the
conditions and restrictions set forth in Chapter III, Section 8 to 13 inclusively, of this Decree shall apply.

JABINAL v. OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, G.R. No. 232094,

PARINA R. JABINAL, petitioner,
vs.
HON. OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, respondents
July 24, 2019 July 24, 2019 July 24, 2019
FACTS
Petitioner is a government employee and is prohibited from engaging in the private practice of her profession unless authorized by the NHA.

On December 4, 2015, the Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman, filed a complaint against Parina R. Jabinal, Legal Services Department,
National Housing Authority (NHA), for violation of Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees, which prohibits all public officials and employees from engaging in the private practice of their
profession unless authorized.

It was alleged that the petitioner had notarized two documents (Deed of Sale dated August 20, 2008 and a Deed of Assignment dated September 30,
2008) while he was the legal officer of the National Housing Authority. Further, she was paid the amount of ₱30,000.00 for both documents.

Such acts of notarization were within the ambit of the term private practice of law, there should have been a prior request made by her to the NHA for
authority to engage in the practice of her profession.

Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. 6713, in relation to Section 11:

Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and
existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not:

(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to
conflict with their official functions;

Petitioner submitted her counter affidavit which states that she filed a petition for appointment as a notary public for and in Quezon City, attaching the
authority issued by the NHA to engage in private practice, which was granted by the Executive Judge of RTC Quezon City on May 4, 2006, covering the
period from 2006-2007. On February 9, 2008, she filed another petition for a notarial commission, attaching a letter of authority issued by the NHA, but
the certificate for notarial commission was issued by the RTC Judge on March 3, 2009 for the period from 2009-2010

Ombudsman found probable cause against the petitioner. Petitioner filed for a motion for reconsideration and a supplemental motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE/S
Whether the respondent illegally engaged in private practice when she notarized the documents in August and September 2009 while she was still
employed by the National Housing Authority?

RULING
Since there was no petition filed on the said dates, and the authority given by the NHA comes as an attachment to the petition, the logical conclusion is
that there was no authority given by the NHA in order for respondent to engage in the limited practice of notarial services when she notarized the
documents in August and September 2008.

Section 7, paragraph b(2), R.A. 6713, prohibits any public official and employee to engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by
the Constitution or law. Respondent is a government employee and is prohibited from engaging in the private practice of her profession unless
authorized by the NHA.

Complainant has established that on two occasions respondent engaged in notarial practice while employed as Legal Officer of [the] NHA in 2008,
without prior authority from the NHA.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. The Resolution dated May 16, 2016 and the Joint Order dated December 2, 2016 issued by the
Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-C-15-0487 are hereby AFFIRMED.

ADDITIONAL NOTES

Public officials and employees during their incumbency are prohibited from engaging in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by law
or the Constitution and such practice should not be in conflict with their official functions.

Memorandum Circular No. 17 of the Executive Department allows government employees to engage directly in the private practice of their profession
provided there is a written permission from the Department head.

MUNTUERTO vs. ALBERTO, A.C. No. 12289,

ATTY. ANASTACIO T. MUNTUERTO, JR.; ATTY. RAMON JOSE G. DUYONGCO; ATTY. MARIO Y. CA VADA; and ATTY.
CHAD RODOLFO M. MIEL, complainant,
vs.

ATTY. GERARDO WILFREDO L. ALBERTO, respondents

April 02, 2019 April 02, 2019 April 02, 2019
FACTS
A lawyer who notarizes documents without a notarial commission, and assists and abets the unauthorized practice of law by a non-lawyer,
deliberately violates the Lawyer's Oath and transgresses the canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In the case at bar, 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. Attached to the complaint filed is a supplemental agreement and an
amended joint venture agreement separately acknowledged before him as a notary public for and in Cavite City. However, the Notarial
Division of the RTC in Cavite City certified that it had "no record of any Commission/Order the respondent as Notary Public for the City of
Cavite”. He also had not indicated his MCLE certificate of compliance number and the date of issue of such certificate. He also 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; he 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.

According to the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which expressly defines a notary public as "any person commissioned to perform official acts under
the [2004 Rules on Notarial Practice]." The commission, which is the grant of authority to perform notarial acts, is issued upon due application by the
Executive Judge of the province or city where the applicant is to have a regular place of work or business after a summary hearing conducted by the
Executive Judge following the publication of the notice of summary hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in said province or city, and after
posting of the notice of summary hearing in a conspicuous place in the offices of the Executive Judge and of the Clerk of Court. Clearly, the exercise of
the authority to notarize cannot simply be done by anyone.

An administrative complaint was filed 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.

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.

ISSUE/S
Whether the respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility: (a) by notarizing documents without having been
issued a notarial commission; (b) by allowing a non-lawyer to sign a motion filed in court; and (c) by failing to indicate his MCLE compliance number in
the complaint filed in connection with a pending case?
RULING

(a) The respondent should be subjected to strong disciplinary action for notarizing the documents without authorization or commission
to do so.
(b) In fine, the responsibility of signing the so-called Motion for Prior Leave of Court to Admit the Herein Attached Amended
Complaint was personal to the respondent as the attorney of record. That he delegated it to a non-lawyer was an abdication of the
responsibility that subjected him to sanction.
(c) It is also good to mention that the respondent seemed to be a repeat violator of the requirement for disclosure under the resolution
issued in Bar Matter No. 1922. He had been observed to have been guilty of the same omission in A.C. No. 12131, where the Court
noted his having defied the order for him to submit his MCLE compliance.

WHEREFORE, the Court SUSPENDS respondent ATTY. GERARDO WILFREDO L. ALBERTO from the practice of law for five (5) years
effective upon receipt of this decision; PERMANENTLY BARS him from being commissioned as Notary Public in the Philippines effective
upon his receipt of this decision; and STERNLY WARNS him that a stiffer penalty will be imposed should he commit a similar offense
hereafter.

ADDITIONAL NOTES

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.

Bar Matter No. 1922 – compliance with the MCLE program "Failure to disclose the required information would subject the counsel to appropriate penalty
and disciplinary action";