EN BANC
VIOLETA
FLORES
ALITAGTAG,
Complainant,
A.C.
No.
4738
June 10, 2003 -versus-
ATTY.
VIRGILIO R.
GARCIA,
Respondent.
R
E S O L U
T I O N
PER
CURIAM:
This refers to the motion
for reconsideration of the resolution of this Court, dated February 6,
2002, finding respondent "guilty of grave misconduct rendering him
unworthy
of continuing membership in the legal profession" and ordering his
disbarment
"from the practice of law and his name stricken off the Roll of
Attorneys."
In essence, respondent
reiterates his innocence by denying authorship and participation in the
falsification of the subject deed of donation. However, he admits his
negligence
and expresses remorse for his failure to diligently perform his duties
as notary public with respect to the notarization of the said deed of
donation.
Respondent pleads for compassion and mercy and asks that the Court be
more
lenient in imposing penalty for the infractions he has committed.cralaw:red
As early as the case
of Santos vs. Dichoso[1]
and reiterated in the case of Martin vs. Felix Jr.,[2]
this Court held:
"In disbarment proceedings,
the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and for the court to
exercise
its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be
established
by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. Considering the serious
consequence
of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, this Court has
consistently held that clear preponderant evidence is necessary to
justify
the imposition of the administrative penalty."chanrobles virtual law library
There is no question
that respondent was remiss in the performance of his duties as a notary
public. In fact, there is preponderance of evidence showing that he
subverted
the clear provisions of Section 1[3]
of Public Act 2103, otherwise known as "An Act Providing for the
Acknowledgement
and Authentication of Instruments and Documents within the Philippine
Islands"
and Section 246[4]
of Act 2711, otherwise known as the Revised Administrative Code of 1917.cralaw:red
Respondent is likewise
found guilty of harassing the occupants of the property subject of the
donation by asking Meralco to disconnect its services to the property
and
by posting security guards to intimidate the said occupants. These acts
do not speak well of his standing as a member of the bar. Rule 7.03,
Canon
7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer
shall
not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice
law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession. By engaging in acts
that
undermine recognition of and respect for legal processes, respondent
has
clearly committed conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to be
a member of the legal profession.cralaw:red
However, as to the issue
of falsification of the subject deed of donation, a review of the
records
at hand shows that there is no clear and convincing evidence to prove
that
respondent is the author of the forged signature of the donor or that
he
actively participated or conspired with any party in forging the said
signature
as it appears in the questioned deed of donation. The only proven link
respondent has to the falsified deed is the fact that he notarized it.
The Court agrees with the observation of the Investigating Commissioner
of the IBP that there is no proof that respondent knew that the
signature
of Cesar Flores appearing on the deed of donation was falsified.
Complainant
never disputed respondent’s claim that the deed of donation was already
signed when personally handed to him by Cesar Flores, Sr. There is no
reason
shown why respondent should have doubted that the donor’s signature was
forged. Moreover, the fact that respondent was later on given a special
power of attorney to administer and sell the property covered by the
forged
deed of donation does not prove his participation in the falsification
of the said deed. Records reveal that there is a gap of more than
five years between the date of notarization of the subject deed of
donation
on September 19, 1991[5]
and the execution of the special power of attorney in favor of
respondent
on November 7, 1996.[6]
If respondent was indeed part of a scheme to defraud the other children
of Cesar Flores, we find it illogical that he and his cohorts would
wait
that long for him to be given the power of attorney to dispose of the
subject
property.cralaw:red
Likewise, the failure
of the respondent to submit to the proper authorities a copy of the
subject
deed of donation which he notarized does not directly prove that he
tried
to cover up the falsification committed.chanrobles virtual law library
It must also be noted
that in the criminal case for falsification filed by complainant
against
several accused including herein respondent, the city prosecutor of
Pasig
found no sufficient evidence to indict respondent.[7]
Even the decision of the lower court in Civil Case No. 65883[8]
which was filed for the nullification of the subject deed of donation
did
not contain any specific finding as to the alleged participation of
respondent
in the falsification of the subject deed.[9]
In sum, complainant
failed to discharge her burden of proving the liability of respondent
with
respect to the falsification of the questioned deed of donation.
Suspicion,
no matter how strong, is not enough to warrant the disbarment of
respondent.cralaw:red
Indeed, the power to
disbar must be exercised with great caution, and may be imposed only in
a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and the
character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of
the
bar.[10]
Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser penalty could
accomplish
the end desired.[11]
Without doubt, a violation of the high moral standards of the legal
profession
justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty, including
suspension
and disbarment.[12]
However, the said penalties are imposed with great caution, because
they
are the most severe forms of disciplinary action and their consequences
are beyond repair.[13]chanrobles virtual law library
A review of pertinent
and relevant jurisprudence convinces the Court to reconsider the
penalty
imposed on herein respondent.cralaw:red
In Maligsa vs. Cabanting,[14]
the respondent lawyer was disbarred after this Court found out that he
notarized a forged deed of quitclaim. However, the penalty of
disbarment
was imposed after considering that he was previously suspended from the
practice of law for six months on the ground that he purchased his
client’s
property while it was still the subject of a pending certiorari
proceeding.cralaw:red
In Flores vs. Chua,[15]
the respondent lawyer was disbarred after he was found guilty of
notarizing
a forged deed of sale. But again, the penalty of disbarment was imposed
because in a previous administrative case, respondent was found guilty
of violating Rule 1.01[16]
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and had been sternly warned
that a repetition of a similar act or acts or violation committed by
him
in the future will be dealt with more severely. The Court also took
into
consideration the other infractions or acts of misconduct committed by
the respondent such as forum shopping, committing falsehood, injurious,
willful and unprofessional conduct of publishing, or causing the
publication,
in a newspaper of general circulation of a pending case, causing undue
delay in the court proceedings and for notarizing a document without
the
party being present.cralaw:red
In Roces vs. Aportadera,[17]
the Court suspended the respondent lawyer from the practice of law for
a period of two years after it was found out that he has dubious
involvement
in the preparation and notarization of the falsified sale of his
client’s
property.chanrobles virtual law library
Thus, taking into consideration
the foregoing jurisprudence, the totality of the acts of misconduct
proven
to have been committed by herein respondent, his admission of
negligence,
plea for compassion and the fact that this is his first offense, the
Court
finds it proper to reconsider the penalty imposed. Nonetheless, the
Court
reiterates the principle that where the notary public is a lawyer, a
graver
responsibility is placed upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath
to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any.[18]
The penalty of suspension, both from respondent’s practice of law and
from
his commission as a notary public is apropos to the offenses he
committed.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the motion
for reconsideration is GRANTED. Respondent is REINSTATED as a member of
the Bar but he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law and from his
commission
as a notary public for a period of three (3) years, effective
immediately,
with a warning that a commission of the same or similar acts in the
future
shall be dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtual law library
The Clerk of Court of
this Court is DIRECTED to immediately circularize this Resolution for
the
proper guidance of all concerned.cralaw:red
Let copies of this Resolution
be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo,
Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and
Azcuna,
JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
84 SCRA 622, 627 (1978).chanrobles virtual law library
[2]
163 SCRA 111, 130(1988).chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
"Section 1. (a) The acknowledgement shall be made before a notary
public
or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take
acknowledgements
of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The
notary
public or the officer taking the acknowledgement shall certify that the
person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and
that
he is the same person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same
is
his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under his official
seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his
certificate
shall so state." (Emphasis ours)
[4]
"Sec. 246. Matters to be entered therein. - The notary public shall
enter
in such register, in chronological order, the nature of each instrument
executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him, the person executing,
swearing
to, or acknowledging the instrument, the witnesses, if any, to the
instrument,
the fees collected by him for his services as notary in connection
therewith,
and, when the instrument is a contract, he shall keep a correct copy
thereof
as part of his records, and shall likewise enter in said records a
brief
description of the substance thereof, and shall give to each entry a
consecutive
number, beginning with number one in each calendar year. x x x. A
certified
copy of each month’s entries as described herein and a certified copy
of
any instrument acknowledged before him shall, within the first ten days
of the month next following, be forwarded by the notary to the clerk of
the court of first instance of the province (or city) where he
exercises
his office, and shall be filed under the responsibility of such
officer,
provided, that if there is no entry to certify for the month, the
notary
shall forward a statement to this effect in lieu of the certified
copies
herein required." (Emphasis ours)
[5]
Exhibit "G-1", p. 181, Vol. II, Original Records.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Exhibit "I-2", p. 188, Vol. II, OR.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
See Annex "7" to Respondent’s Comment, pp. 55-57, Rollo.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
Entitled, "Heir of Cesar Flores Namely: Maria Evangelina Flores
Palparan,
Plaintiff, vs. Gregorio G. Flores, Maria Eugenia Flores Garcia,
Virgilio
R. Garcia and Magdalena G. Flores, Defendants"
[9]
See RTC Decision, Exhibit "Q", pp. 198-209, Vol. II, OR.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
Resurreccion vs. Sayson, 300 SCRA 129, 136 (1998); T-Boli
Agro-Industrial
Development Inc. vs. Solilapsi, AC No. 4766, December 27, 2002.
[11]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
De Ere vs. Rubi, 320 SCRA 617, 622 (1999).
[13]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
272 SCRA 408 (1997).chanrobles virtual law library
[15]
306 SCRA 465 (1999).chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or
deceitful conduct.
[17]
243 SCRA 108 (1995)chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
Flores vs. Chua, supra; Bernardo Vda. de Rosales vs. Ramos, AC No.
5645,
July 2, 2002 |