Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1980 > August 1980 Decisions > A.C. No. 1098 August 21, 1980 - FILOTEO VILLANUEVA v. FLORANTE C. DE LA CRUZ:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 1098. August 21, 1980.]

FILOTEO VILLANUEVA, Complainant, v. ATTORNEY FLORANTE C. DE LA CRUZ, Respondent.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDO, C.J.:


The basis of this administrative action by Filoteo Villanueva against Florante C. de la Cruz, a member of the Philippine Bar, was his alleged refusal to furnish complainant with documents which he had notarized, particularly documents in connection with loans obtained by the former from Rang-ay Rural Bank, Inc. of San Fernando, La Union, of which respondent is the lawyer. Nor was that all. There was, so it was alleged, a failure to comply with his duty to submit copies of said notarized documents to the Court. What increased the resentment of complainant was the imputed impolite conduct of Attorney de la Cruz, who was accused of having shouted at him thus causing him embarrassment. There was a denial on the part of Respondent.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

The complaint was then referred to the Office of the Solicitor General. Thereafter, its report and recommendation was submitted to the Court. Its summary of the evidence showed that respondent was retained by the Rang-ay Rural Bank of San Fernando, La Union, as its legal counsel. It also found that complainant executed several real estate mortgages in favor of Rang-ay Bank, all of which were notarized by Respondent. It then took note of the issuance by complainant of a promissory note in favor of Rang-ay Rural Bank, Inc. whereby he bound himself to pay P2,000.00 for a loan he obtained from said bank; with some entries in said promissory note later discovered to have been falsified, with the result that complainant failed to receive the amount therein mentioned. Nonetheless, he paid the same under protest with the request that copies of the documents notarized by respondent be furnished him. Then came this portion of the report: "The charge that respondent Atty. de la Cruz refused to give copies of notarial documents he notarized upon the request of complainant appears to have been proven, as the following testimony of complainant shows: ‘On the last time because I went there several times, when I went to his office he refuses still to give me a copy of the notarized papers and he even shouted at me. Q. What was your purpose in going to the Office of Atty. de la Cruz? A. I did not go there voluntarily but he invited me to go inside his office to get copies of the contracts. When I was inside his office he shouted at me and said "that I have already told you many times that I cannot give you copies." "It was for this reason that complainant had to secure copies from the Register of Deeds. Although, respondent denied ever having refused complainant’s request, we cannot believe that complainant will have to resort to the Register of Deeds if he could have easily obtained copies of the same from Respondent." 1 Further on that point: "Indeed, complainant would not have gone to the extent of initiating this charge for respondent’s refusal, if it were not true, because respondent, a lawyer, could have easily charged complainant for perjury or falsification, but this the evidence failed to disclose. A businessman, as complainant is, would not resort to file charges, much less against a lawyer, if that were false." 2

After setting forth the applicable provisions of the Notarial Law, the Report continued: "By the very nature of his functions therefore, as notary public, respondent should have furnished complainant the notarized documents he was requesting as he apparently had no valid reason to refuse." 3 There was no clear showing, however, of respondent having in his possession the promissory note which did "not appear to have been notarized." 4 Moreover, so the Report stated, "there was no serious damage from respondent’s refusal, as in fact, complainant was able to secure copies from other sources." 5 Nor was the charge of discourtesy sufficiently demonstrated. It was further stated that the discourteous act imputed to respondent "is not an act of malpractice by a lawyer." 6

Respondent was absolved of the charge that he failed to submit periodical reports of his actuations as notary. He was also cleared of the accusation of being impolite, the evidence merely proving that both parties did not employ the language of moderation in their confrontation. The recommendation is for the dismissal of the case with the warning that he should not lay himself open to the suspicion that he was negligent in the performance of his duties as a notary. This Court accepts such recommendation.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the case against respondent is dismissed but he is admonished to be more careful in the future in his actuations as a notary and to observe faithfully the requirements of the law. Let a copy of this resolution be spread on his record.

Barredo, Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Abad Santos, J., is on official leave.

Endnotes:



1. Report and Recommendation, 3-4.

2. Ibid, 4.

3. Ibid, 5.

4. Ibid, 6.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid, 7.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1980 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-24733 August 5, 1980 - JOSE ROSELLO, ET AL. v. PASTOR P. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37851 August 5, 1980 - LUZON GENERAL MERCHANDISING COMPANY, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 1255-CTJ August 6, 1980 - ESTEBAN UBONGEN v. TORIBIO S. MAYO

  • A.M. No. P-1313 August 6, 1980 - JOSEFINA ALMALEL VDA. DE HERBER v. LEODY MANUEL

  • A.C. No. 1343 August 6, 1980 - PAUL T. NAIDAS v. VALENTIN C. GUANIO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-2391 August 6, 1980 - ANTONIO P. PAREDES v. LEONARDO D. MORENO

  • G.R. No. L-31979 August 6, 1980 - FILOMENA G. PIZARRO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45017 August 6, 1980 - ELINO A. VILLAFLOR v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48883 August 6, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO V. SENERIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49933 August 6, 1980 - DOMINGA GABAS DE VELAYO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51919 August 6, 1980 - ESTELITA T. CORLETO, ET AL. v. JOSE P. ARRO, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1098 August 21, 1980 - FILOTEO VILLANUEVA v. FLORANTE C. DE LA CRUZ

  • A.M. No. 1129-MJ August 21, 1980 - ROLANDO S. DAPLAS v. BELENITA TOLEDO ARQUIZA

  • A.M. No. 1237-CAR August 21, 1980 - FELICIDAD CASTRO v. ARTURO MALAZO

  • A.C. No. 1753 August 21, 1980 - MARCIAL A. EDILLON v. JESUS P. NARVIOS

  • A.C. No. 1842 August 21, 1980 - AMANDO L. DE LA TORRE v. JERRY D. BANARES

  • A.M. No. P-1846 August 21, 1980 - PEDRO PABIA v. TEOFILO A. CABAÑERO

  • A.M. No. P-2282 August 21, 1980 - NELIA GELLA-SAGUN v. MARIA FLOR F. FRAGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22204 August 21, 1980 - SANTIAGO CHENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25294 August 21, 1980 - RICE AND CORN ADMINISTRATION v. ISIDORO G. SILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25747 August 21, 1980 - BUENO INDUSTRIAL AND DEV’T. CORP., ET AL. v. R. C. AQUINO TIMBER AND PLYWOOD CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45539 August 21, 1980 - ALBERTO SALAS v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-45896 August 21, 1980 - MARIA LACSON v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47296 August 21, 1980 - FELICIDAD MANGALI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48678 August 21, 1980 - ARNEDO S. LUCAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49755 August 21, 1980 - FERMIN CAYCO, ET AL. v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50025 August 21, 1980 - ALFONSO YU, ET AL. v. REYNALDO P. HONRADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50083 August 21, 1980 - ATANACIA FERNANDEZ v. BLAS F. OPLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50086 August 21, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLY LAT

  • G.R. No. L-51479 August 21, 1980 - MD TRANSIT & TAXI CO., INC., ET AL. v. FRANCISCO L. ESTRELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52200 August 21, 1980 - ERNESTO D. CO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53372 August 21, 1980 - RODRIGO CONTRERAS v. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53856 August 21, 1980 - OSCAR VENTANILLA ENTERPRISES CORPORATION v. ALFREDO M. LAZARO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 107-MJ August 27, 1980 - LEONILA S. SALOSA v. FELIZARDO PACETE

  • G.R. No. L-30634 August 27, 1980 - BRENDA J. DEBUQUE, ET AL. v. RAFAEL CLIMACO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 770-MJ August 29, 1980 - SANDRA DUGGER VASQUEZ v. EMMANUEL FLORES

  • A.M. No. P-1592 August 29, 1980 - ESPERANZA ESQUIROS v. MIGUEL G. BERNARDO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-2184 August 29, 1980 - DIMAS BALOD, ET AL. v. VICTORIANO RODRIGUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-26559 August 29, 1980 - REPARATIONS COMMISSION v. GUILLERMO SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29271 August 29, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADELINO BARDAJE

  • G.R. No. L-30070 August 29, 1980 - FEDERICO DECANO v. ROMEO F. EDU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30832 August 29, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIO REALON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36154 August 29, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO V. CARREON

  • G.R. No. L-36157 August 29, 1980 - HADJI SHARIF RADJID ABIRIN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-36721-27 August 29, 1980 - COMMUNICATIONS INSURANCE COMPANY, INCORPORATED v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39450 August 29, 1980 - CRESENCIO CANTILLANA, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF FRANK D. SCOTT

  • G.R. No. L-41795 August 29, 1980 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. JUAN F. ECHIVERRI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42276 August 29, 1980 - MANUEL D. TABAS v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-43753-56 & L-50991 August 29, 1980 - FILOMENO SOBERANO, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49007 August 29, 1980 - SOUTHERN MOTORS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50236 August 29, 1980 - RODOLFO YABUT LEE, ET AL. v. FLORENCIO P. PUNZALAN

  • G.R. No. L-50917 August 29, 1980 - TAS WORLD SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD., ET AL. v. BLAS F. OPLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52762 August 29, 1980 - HERMINIGILDO BASE, ET AL. v. OSCAR LEVISTE, ET AL.