Case Digest for Santiago vs Rafanan (Legal Ethics)



Canon 2: PROVIDE EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT LEGAL SERVICES

Was not mandatory for affidavits related to cases pending before

Not to Refuse to Give Legal Advice  – Rule 2.02

courts and other government offices (Side comment: If they were

Prepared by: Michael Joseph Nogoy, JD 1

not notarized and were used for court proceedings, edi hindi sila

CASE No. 24

naging public documents? Paano sila magiging admissible sa court? Tenge lang yata si Rafanan) 

[A.C. No. 6252. October 5, 2004] JONAR SANTIAGO, complainant, vs. ATTY. EDISON V. RAFANAN, respondent

He also pointed out that older practitioners in Nueva Ecija also do what he did  – they do not indicate affiants’ residence certificates on documents they notarized, or have entries in the notarial

PONENTE: PANGANIBAN,  J.:

register for these documents. o

As to his alleged failure to comply with Sec.3 Rule 112 of the Rules of 

NOTE: I can’t pinpoint where Rule 2.02 plays in so this digest will be a bit long since I’ll

Criminal Procedure: as counsel to the affiants, he had the option not

tackle them all. But I do have guesses about Rule 2.02 here. I hope they are correct 

comply or not with the certification. o

As to his alleged violation of Rule 12.08 of CPR: lawyers could testify on

NOTE 2: I don’t know the p recedent facts before all of these happened. In case they

behalf of their clients “on substantial matters, in cases where [their]

will be asked, just say the truth - they’re not mentioned in the case  Basta na lang

testimony is essential to the ends of justice.” 

nagreklamo si Santiago dito.

Santiago charged Rafanan’s clients with attempted murder.

Rafanan said that since his clients were in his house during the

FACTS: 



alleged crime, that’s why he said his testimony is very essential.

This is a disbarment case filed by BJMP employee Jonar Santiago against Atty.

o

He also contends that the case filed by Santiago was only to harass

Edison Rafanan.

Rafanan since he is the counsel of the parties who filed cases against him

Santiago, in his complaint, alleged among others that Rafanan, in notarizing

before the ombudsman (Brgy. Capt. Ernesto Ramos and BJMP)

several documents on different dates failed and/or refused to : o

Make the proper notation regarding the cedula or community tax

ISSUES:

certificate of the affiants (*one making the affidavit);



o

Enter the details of the notarized documents in the notarial register;



o

Make and execute the certification and enter his PTR and IBP numbers in

Whether or not Rafanan is guilty in violating the Notarial Law. Whether or not a lawyer (in this case, Rafanan) can stand as witness in favor of  his clients.

the documents he notarized 

Santiago also alleged that Rafanan executed an Affidavit in favor of his client and offered it as evidence (Rafanan stood as counsel and as witness of his

HELDS: 

entering the details of the n otarized documents.

client) and Rafanan, as alleged by Santiago, waited for him together with his “men” and disarmed Santiago and uttered insulting words at him. 

Yes, he violated the Notarial Law for not making the proper notation and



Yes, a lawyer can stand as witness of a client.

ATTY. RAFANAN’S CONTENTIONS: o

Admitted having administered the oath to the affiants whose Affidavits

RATIO DECIDENDI:

were attached to the Complaint of Santiago. But Rafanan believed that

On Issue No. 1

the non-notation of their Residence Certificates in the Affidavits and



And these formalities are mandatory and cannot be simply neglected.

Counter-Affidavits were allowed because: 

Notation of residence certificates applied only to documents acknowledged by a notary public, and

The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of notaries public.



They are required to certify that the party to every document acknowledged before them has presented the proper residence certificate (or exemption from



the residence tax); and to enter its number, place of issue and the date as part

RULING: Atty. Rafanan is GUILTY of violating the Notarial Law and Canon 5 of the CPR.

of such certification.

He is fined P3,000.00 with a warning that similar infractions will be dealt more

They are also required to keep a notarial register; to enter therein all

severely.

instruments notarized by them; etc. 

As to Rafanan’s defense that it’s a common practice in Nueva Ecija, SC says: It is

appalling and inexcusable that he did away with the basics of notarial procedure allegedly because others were doing so. Being swayed by the bad example of others is not an acceptable justification for breaking the law.

On Issue No. 2 

A lawyer is not disqualified from being a witness, except only in certain cases pertaining to privileged communication arising from an attorney-client relationship.



Reason: The difficulty posed upon lawyers by the task of dissociating their relationship to their clients as witnesses from that as an advocate (Note: A witness must only say what happened. Only the truth. As compared with the task of a lawyer who will use all the available remedies and actions in his arsenal for his client to win the cas e.)



It is difficult to distinguish the fairness and impartiality of a disinterested witness from the zeal of an advocate.



The preference is for lawyers to REFRAIN from testifying as witnesses, unless they absolutely have to; and should they do so, to withdraw from active management of the case.



In the case at bar: o

Atty. Rafanan cannot be administratively liable because: 

It’s a duty of the lawyer to assert every remedy and defense that is

authorized by law for the benefit of the client. (Remember, there is a criminal case of attempted murder against his client which will deprive his client of his life and liberty, if they fail to display a good defense.)

On the Side Issues: 

There is no harassment of the part of Rafanan against Santiago because there were no pieces of evidence presented.



Mere allegation is never equivalent to proof, and a bare charge cannot be equated with liability.