August 1984 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1984 > August 1984 Decisions >
A.C. No. L-2001 August 24, 1984 - RICARDO S. OCAMPO v. ALFREDO N. CUBA:
SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. L-2001. August 24, 1984.]
RICARDO S. OCAMPO, Complainant, v. ALFREDO N. CUBA, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
AQUINO, J.:
Alfredo N. Cuba, admitted to the bar in 1961, was charged on January 26, 1979 by Ricardo S. Ocampo with having notarized a deed of extrajudicial settlement although Ocampo allegedly did not appear before him. The National Bureau of Investigation in its questioned documents report dated April 23, 1976 found that Ocampo’s signature in the deed was not genuine (Exh. D).
The deed was acknowledged before Cuba on September 30, 1970 by Basilio Ocampo and his sons, Ricardo (complainant) and Jose, as heirs of Juliana Sunglao, wife of Basilio. It involved the conjugal lot with an area of 150 square meters located at 2281 Romblon Street, Sampaloc, Manila and the house thereon where the signatories resided.cralawnad
At the same time, in that deed, Basilio and Ricardo transferred their interests to Jose in consideration of his assumption of the mortgage debt of P3,000 to the Development Bank of the Philippines. It was also signed by Jose’s wife Andrea and Ricardo’s wife Francisca. The number of Ricardo’s residence certificate appears in the notarial acknowledgment.
Secretary of Justice Vicente Abad Santos, in his opinion of February 11, 1977, found that Cuba’s indictment for falsification in a criminal case pending in the Manila Court of First Instance appears to be unjustified (Exh. E).cralawnad
Cuba, a lawyer in the legal department of the Philippine American Life Insurance Company, notarized the deed at the instance of Jose S. Ocampo, his fellow employee. When the deed was presented to him, it was already signed. He asked the parties and witnesses, including Ricardo, whether they acknowledged the signatures appearing therein. They answered in the affirmative. He asked them to produce their residence certificates. He instructed his clerk to enter the document in his notarial register. He did not charge any notarial fee.
He presented in evidence the report of the Constabulary Crime Laboratory which found to be genuine the signature of complainant Ricardo S. Ocampo in the deed (Exh. 7), thus contradicting the NBI report (Exh D).
The father, Basilio, owned a two-thirds interest in the property and the sons, Ricardo and Jose, a one-sixth interest each. It is difficult to believe that the father would sanction an injustice against his son, Ricardo, just to favor his other son, Jose.
We find that respondent Cuba acted in good faith and that there is no cause for disciplinary action against him (Monterey v. Arayata and Montoya, 61 Phil. 820, 821). Strong, complete and conclusive proof is necessary to overthrow a notarial document (Robinson v. Villafuerte, 18 Phil. 171, 190).
WHEREFORE, as recommended by the Solicitor General, the complaint for disbarment is dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, Jr., Escolin, Gutierrez, Jr.** and Cuevas, JJ., concur.
Makasiar and Guerrero, JJ., are on leave.
Abad Santos, J., took no part.
The deed was acknowledged before Cuba on September 30, 1970 by Basilio Ocampo and his sons, Ricardo (complainant) and Jose, as heirs of Juliana Sunglao, wife of Basilio. It involved the conjugal lot with an area of 150 square meters located at 2281 Romblon Street, Sampaloc, Manila and the house thereon where the signatories resided.cralawnad
At the same time, in that deed, Basilio and Ricardo transferred their interests to Jose in consideration of his assumption of the mortgage debt of P3,000 to the Development Bank of the Philippines. It was also signed by Jose’s wife Andrea and Ricardo’s wife Francisca. The number of Ricardo’s residence certificate appears in the notarial acknowledgment.
Secretary of Justice Vicente Abad Santos, in his opinion of February 11, 1977, found that Cuba’s indictment for falsification in a criminal case pending in the Manila Court of First Instance appears to be unjustified (Exh. E).cralawnad
Cuba, a lawyer in the legal department of the Philippine American Life Insurance Company, notarized the deed at the instance of Jose S. Ocampo, his fellow employee. When the deed was presented to him, it was already signed. He asked the parties and witnesses, including Ricardo, whether they acknowledged the signatures appearing therein. They answered in the affirmative. He asked them to produce their residence certificates. He instructed his clerk to enter the document in his notarial register. He did not charge any notarial fee.
He presented in evidence the report of the Constabulary Crime Laboratory which found to be genuine the signature of complainant Ricardo S. Ocampo in the deed (Exh. 7), thus contradicting the NBI report (Exh D).
The father, Basilio, owned a two-thirds interest in the property and the sons, Ricardo and Jose, a one-sixth interest each. It is difficult to believe that the father would sanction an injustice against his son, Ricardo, just to favor his other son, Jose.
We find that respondent Cuba acted in good faith and that there is no cause for disciplinary action against him (Monterey v. Arayata and Montoya, 61 Phil. 820, 821). Strong, complete and conclusive proof is necessary to overthrow a notarial document (Robinson v. Villafuerte, 18 Phil. 171, 190).
WHEREFORE, as recommended by the Solicitor General, the complaint for disbarment is dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, Jr., Escolin, Gutierrez, Jr.** and Cuevas, JJ., concur.
Makasiar and Guerrero, JJ., are on leave.
Abad Santos, J., took no part.
