[ A.C. No. 9717. July 29, 2025 ] EN BANC
[ A.C. No. 9717. July 29, 2025 ]
NOEMI M. DONATO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ELMER A. DELA ROSA, RESPONDENT. R E S O L U T I O N
PER CURIAM:
In Palalan*** CARP Farmers Multi-Purpose Coop v. Atty. Dela Rosa,[1] the Court unanimously disbarred herein respondent Elmer Dela Rosa (Atty. Dela Rosa) for gross misconduct arising from conflict of interest. In Jumalon v. Dela Rosa,[2] the Court once again found Atty. Dela Rosa to have grossly misbehaved in dealing with his clients. In Mamugay v. Dela Rosa,[3] the Court also declared Atty. Dela Rosa to be administratively liable for yet another act of gross misconduct in engaging in deceitful and dishonest notarial practice. If not for the ruling in Palalan CARP Farmers, the Court would have disbarred him again in Jumalon and Mamugay. Owing to his earlier disbarment, Atty. Dela Rosa was instead meted with a fine of PHP 100,000.00 in Jumalon, and in addition, the Court resolved that he is no longer entitled to any judicial clemency in the future.[4] While in Mamugay, Atty. Dela Rosa was declared permanently disqualified from reappointment as a notary public and ordered to be disbarred just for the sole purpose of recording the imposition of said penalty against him in his personal record in the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC). The instant case for resolution is yet another disbarment complaint filed against Atty. Dela Rosa for violation of (a) the Agrarian Reform Laws on land transferability;[5] (b) Rules 16.01[6] and 16.02[7] of Canon 16, and Canon 17[8] of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR); and (c) the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (Notarial Rules).[9]
The Antecedents
Noemi M. Donato (Donato), a regular member of the Palalan CARP Farmers Multi-Purpose Cooperative (cooperative), is one of the original CARP beneficiaries of a 111.41-hectare land (subject lot) located in Palalan, Lumbia, Cagayan de Oro City.[10] In her Affidavit-Complaint,[11] Donato alleged that Atty. Dela Rosa, who previously served as legal counsel of the cooperative intentionally induced her to waive her rights over the subject lot in the latter’s favor, for the price of PHP 30.00 per square meter.[12]
Donato averred that Atty. Dela Rosa offered a partial payment of PHP 218,785.00 through his personal check, which she accepted.[13] However, he failed to pay the remaining balance of PHP 646,710.38 despite having sold the subject lot to a certain Diana G. Biron (Biron) on August 7, 2009, for and in consideration of the sum of PHP 30,000,000.00.[14] Donato further claimed that the sale was illegal in view of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) Law[15] which prohibits the sale or transfer of lands acquired for a period of 10 years.[16]
In addition, Donato asserted that Atty. Dela Rosa violated the Notarial Rules and resorted to forgery when he notarized a special power of attorney[17] (SPA) allegedly executed by the members of the cooperative who attended a general assembly in favor of Atty. Rolex T. Suplico.[18] Donato denied attending the general assembly, and claimed that her and her daughter’s purported signatures were forged in the SPA.[19] She submitted a Certification[20] from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, which stated that the said SPA was not included in the notarial reports submitted by Atty. Dela Rosa.[21]
In a Resolution[22] dated September 9, 2015, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) for investigation. During the mandatory conference on March 11, 2016, Atty. Dela Rosa’s Answer[23] was admitted into the records.[24]
Atty. Dela Rosa countered that the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 929 cited by Donato was not the TCT originally issued to the cooperative.[25] He also maintained that the 10-year prohibition against the transferability of land awarded under the CARP program had already expired in 2002, and that the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), in DARAB Case No. X(06)3287, had recognized and declared the sale to Biron as outside of the prohibitory period.[26]
Anent Donato’s allegations of deception, Atty. Dela Rosa argued that Donato executed the waiver with the assistance of her own lawyer, and voluntarily signed the same.[27] Atty. Dela Rosa also claimed that Donato received the partial payment for the sale not through his personal check, but through the cooperative’s Metrobank account from which the proceeds of the sale of the subject lot were intended to be distributed to the beneficiaries.[28]
On May 4, 2016, Donato filed her Comment[29] where she denied having been assisted by counsel in signing the waiver.[30] She maintained that the sale of the subject lot was made within the 10-year prohibitory period since TCT No. 929 clearly states that it was issued on December 18, 2008.[31] She likewise insisted that no general assembly took place, making it impossible for the members of the cooperative to execute the July 22, 2010 SPA which Atty. Dela Rosa had notarized.[32]
Report and Recommendation of the IBP
In his Report and Recommendation[33] dated September 21, 2020, Commissioner Eric Orolaza Labuguen (Commissioner Labuguen) recommended the suspension of Atty. Dela Rosa from the practice of law for three months and that his commission as a notary public be revoked. Commissioner Labuguen also recommended that Atty. Dela Rosa be prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for the same period, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that respondent Atty. Elmer A. Dela Rosa be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months. It [is] also recommended that his incumbent commission as a notary public, if any[,] be REVOKED. It is further recommended that respondent be PROHIBITED from being commissioned as a notary public for three (3) months. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same offense or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.[34]
Commissioner Labuguen found that based on the documents submitted by the parties, the 10-year prohibition against selling a land awarded under the CARP had already expired.[35] He gave credence to the notarized waiver signed by Donato in view of the presumption of regularity of notarized documents.[36] Commissioner Labuguen also observed that Donato failed to prove her allegations of forgery through clear, positive, and convincing evidence.[37] However, Commissioner Labuguen agreed that Atty. Dela Rosa failed to submit the notarized SPA in violation of the Notarial Rules.[38]
In the Notice of Resolution,[39] it was stated that in its February 13, 2021 resolution, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP-Board) adopted with modification on the findings of fact and recommendation of Commissioner Labuguen, to wit:
RESOLUTION NO. CBD-2021-03 CBD Case No. 15-4771 (Adm. Case No 9717) Noemi M. Donato vs. Atty. Elmer A. Dela Rosa
RESOLVED to APPROVE and ADOPT, as it is hereby APPROVED and ADOPTED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, for being fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, with modification on the recommended penalty from immediate revocation of notarial commission and disqualification from reappointment as notary public for three (3) months to – (1) SUSPENSION of Atty. Elmer Dela Rosa from the practice of law for one (1) year; (2) IMMEDIATE REVOCATION of his notarial commission, if presently subsisting; and (3) DISQUALIFICATION from reappointment as notary public for two (2) years with stern Warning that repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely to conform with the standard penalty on violations of the notarial law.[40] (Emphasis in the original)
Issue
The issue for resolution of this Court is whether Atty. Dela Rosa should be held administratively liable.
Ruling of the Court
The subject lot is no longer covered by the prohibition on transferability
Apart from the many alleged violations of Atty. Dela Rosa of the CPR, now the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), Donato likewise posits that Atty. Dela Rosa violated the Agrarian Reform Laws on transferability when he sold the subject lot to Biron in 2009. This does not persuade.
At the outset, it bears emphasis that the DARAB has primary, original and appellate jurisdiction to resolve and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the CARP Law and other agrarian laws.[41] As a general rule, the factual findings of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of expertise, are afforded great weight and respect by the courts. In the absence of substantial showing that such findings were made from an erroneous estimation of the evidence adduced, they are conclusive, and should not be disturbed.[42] Such is the case here.
Donato claimed that the sale to Biron, which was allegedly machinated by Atty. Dela Rosa, violates Section 27 of the CARP Law on Transferability.[43] However, the Court concurs with the findings of the IBP in according credence and probative value to the Decision[44] of the DARAB, being the primary agency accorded with appropriate jurisdiction to resolve cases involving the implementation of the CARP. In its October 12, 2011 Decision, the DARAB-Cagayan de Oro City declared that the 10-year prohibitory period should be reckoned from September 8, 1992 when the subject land was awarded to the cooperative, and not on December 18, 2008, when a new title was issued to bear the correct name of the cooperative.[45] Clearly, when the subject lot was sold on August 7, 2009, it was no longer covered by the 10-year prohibition under Section 27 of the CARP Law.[46]
The Court rules to dismiss the instant case for disbarment against Atty. Dela Rosa on the ground of res judicata.
As regards Atty. Dela Rosa’s alleged violations of the CPR and the 2004 Notarial Rules, the Court here takes judicial notice of the fact that Atty. Dela Rosa had in fact, been previously found guilty of violating the CPR multiple times.
The first time was in Spouses Concepcion v. Atty. Dela Rosa,[47] where the Court found him guilty of violating Canon 7 and Canon 16, Rule 16.04, of the CPR for unduly borrowing money from his clients and blatantly refusing to pay back the same. The Court then suspended him from the practice of law for a period of three years.[48]
In the 2019 case of Palalan CARP Farmers,[49] the Court disbarred Atty. Dela Rosa from the practice of law. In said case, which dealt with the same parcel of land presently in dispute, the Court ruled that Atty. Dela Rosa committed gross misconduct when he dabbled in conflict of interest to the detriment of his client and its farmer-beneficiaries and had proven himself to be disloyal to them and a double-dealer.[50]
In the recent case of Jumalon,[51] which likewise stemmed from the same land dispute, the Court ruled that Atty. Dela Rosa once again violated his fiduciary duties under the CPR when he failed to protect the interests of his farmer beneficiary client, let alone inform him of the sale of the subject property. Worse, the Court also found that Atty. Dela Rosa deposited the proceeds of the sale in his own bank account, failing to keep his clients’ funds separate and apart from his own. The Court took note of Atty. Dela Rosa’s previous serious infractions of similar nature which accordingly reflect his incorrigible character and evince no prospect for rehabilitation. He was subjected to a fine of PHP 100,000.00 and, being a repeat offender, he was adjudged to be ineligible for judicial clemency in view of his earlier disbarment.[52]
Finally, in the most recent case of Mamugay,[53] the Court found Atty. Dela Rosa guilty of violating the CPR and the Notarial Rules, and subjected him to a fine of PHP 35,000.00, permanently disqualified him from reappointment as a notary public and adjudged him to be disbarred again only for the purpose of recording the imposition of said penalty against him in his personal file at the OBC, considering that he is already disbarred and ineligible for judicial clemency.[54] In Mamugay, the complainants were also farmer-beneficiaries of the same subject lot, and cried foul that the said property was sold without their consent.[55]
This is the fifth time that Atty. Dela Rosa is being accused of failing to fulfill his oath of upholding and obeying the law. It bears stressing that membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in law but also known to possess good moral character. Atty. Dela Rosa has once again failed in this regard. His repeated and brazen misconducts show his propensity to deceive his clients, and his failure to live up to the exacting ethical standards imposed on members of the Bar.
It is however notable that the 2019 case of Palalan CARP Farmers, and the 2023 cases of Jumalon and Mamugay all similarly dealt with the same parcel of land, the same deed of sale and finally, the same SPA as those in the present case. Curiously enough, the Court finds that the case of Mamugay, finds the most similarity to the present case not only in its factual antecedents but also in its allegations. In Mamugay, petitioners Mamugay and Saliga were likewise farmer-beneficiaries of the same land in dispute, now the subject lot in the case at bar, in dispute and they likewise alleged that Atty. Dela Rosa issued a false and incomplete acknowledgement when he notarized the SPA approving the sale, when it stated that two signatories, who were long deceased, personally appeared before him and ascertained their ‘voluntariness’ in signing the same. Further, Mamugay and Saliga also alleged that Atty. Dela Rosa violated the reportorial requirements under the Notarial Rules due to his failure to include the said SPA in his Notarial report.
It is clear then that the issues herein raised by Donato had already been resolved and squarely passed upon by this Court in an earlier administrative case, albeit filed by different complainants.
Considering the foregoing, the Court dismisses the instant disbarment complaint on the ground of res judicata.
Res judicata, which literally means “a matter adjudged”, a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment. It refers to the rule that a final judgement or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits. Simply put, it precludes parties from re-litigating the same issue more than once.[56] Jurisprudence teaches us that res judicata as an absolute bar to a subsequent action, applies when the following requisites are present: (a) the prior decision must be a final judgment or order; (b) the court rendering the same must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties; (c) it must be a judgment or order on the merits; and (d) there must be identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action between the two cases.[57]
After a perusal of the records, the Court finds that all elements of res judicata by prior judgment are present in the instant case. There is no dispute that the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties of the present case and those on Palalan CARP Farmers, Jumalon and Mamugay; that these latter cases were ultimately decided on the merits; and that they had long become final and executory. Furthermore, the record also shows that the facts and the circumstances of the instant case and in those in the previously decided cases against Atty. Dela Rosa are substantially the same.
First, there is as between Palalan CARP Farmers, Jumalon, Mamugay and the present case, identity of parties. Jurisprudence dictates that res judicata does not require absolute identity of parties, but requires at least, substantial identity of parties.[58] “There is substantial identity of parties when there exists a community of interest between a party in the first case, and a party in the second case even if the latter was not impleaded in the first case."[59] The fact that the parties in the aforementioned cases are not identical will not prevent the application of the principle of res judicata.[60] Here, records reveal that complainants in the aforementioned cases were also among the original members of the cooperative and are farmer-beneficiaries of the subject lot. On the other hand, the respondent for all these cases is Atty. Dela Rosa. Clearly, there is community of interest between Donato and the complainants in Palalan CARP Farmers, Jumalon and Mamugay.
Second, the subject matter of the instant case and in the cases of Palalan CARP Farmers, Jumalon and Mamugay is Atty. Dela Rosa’s act of selling the same 111.41-hectare land located in Palalan, Lumbia, Cagayan de Oro City covered by TCT No. 929 without the knowledge or consent of the complainants-farmer-beneficiaries. Significantly, the names of the complainants in all aforementioned cases against Atty. Dela Rosa appear as co-owners of the subject lot covered by TCT No. 929.[61] Furthermore, in the case of Mamugay, the complaints referred to the same Deed of Absolute Sale[62] executed in favor of a certain Biron on August 7, 2009, and to the same SPA[63] attached to the present affidavit-complaint of Donato and identified through Doc. No. 428, Page No. 86, Book No. 20, Series of 2010, which the farmer-beneficiaries allegedly executed in favor of one Atty. Suplico.
Third, it is undisputed that the causes of action in all the cases are undoubtedly identical as they all seek the administrative reprimand if not the disbarment of Atty. Dela Rosa based on substantially the same set of facts and circumstances which surrounds the present case.
Hence, by reason of his disbarment from the practice of law in Palalan CARP Farmers, his ineligibility for judicial clemency in Jumalon, and the recording of the penalty of disbarment in his OBC personal file in Mamugay, Atty. Dela Rosa can no longer be further sanctioned by this Court for the same offense, based on the same facts and circumstances for which all his previous cases arose. Atty. Dela Rosa should no longer be punished for exactly the same infraction. While double jeopardy does not lie in administrative cases, it would also be contrary to equity and substantial justice to penalize Atty. Dela Rosa once more for an act which he had already answered for.[64] Res judicata applies and bars this Court from further imposing the penalty of disbarment upon Atty. Dela Rosa.
ACCORDINGLY, the disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Elmer Dela Rosa is DISMISSED on the ground of res judicata.
However, the Court REITERATES Atty. Dela Rosa’s CONTINUING DISBARMENT, and shall seriously consider this Resolution in the event that Atty. Dela Rosa still attempts to apply for judicial clemency.
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to Atty. Elmer A. Dela Rosa’s personal record in the Office of the Bar Confidant. Likewise, let copies of this Resolution also be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its information and guidance, and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all the courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.
Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, Kho, Jr., and Villanueva, JJ., concur. Caguioa, J.,* on official business. Singh,** J., on leave.