SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. 2936 March 31, 1995

CESAR V. ROCES, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE G. APORTADERA, Respondent.

PER CURIAM: chanrobles virtual law library

This case arose from the purported sale of a parcel of land located in Dingle, Iloilo by the late, Isabel Roces to a certain Gregorio Licauan, as evidenced by a Deed of Sale, dated January 4, 1980. The document was notarized on even date by respondent Atty. Jose C. Aportadera, and contained the following subscription:

In the City of Iloilo, Philippines, this 4th day of January, 1980, personally appeared before me, Isabel Roces with Residence Certificate No. A-9-9079133 issued at Manila on February 1, 1980 known to me to be the same person who executed the foregoing instrument known as Deed of Sale, consisting of two (2) pages signed by her and (sic) her instrumental witnesses, each and every page thereof and she acknowledged to me that the same is her true, free and voluntary act and deed.

On September 30 , 1986, a verified Complaint for Disbarment was flied with this Court against respondent alleging, inter alia, that he caused the execution of the Deed of Sale and made it appear that Isabel had participated therein by forging her signature thereon, and notarizing it through the use of a fictitious Residence Certificate. Complainant's averments were supported the findings of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Western Visayas Regional Office. As embodied in a report, dated April 1, 1986, the NBI found that: (1) respondent admitted he notarized the deed although it was not signed by Isabel Roces in his presence, and although he knew she was hospitalized at that time; (2) handwriting examinations showed that the signature of Isabel Roces appearing in the deed is a forgery; (3) when the deed was notarized in Iloilo on January 4, 1980, Isabel Roces was confined at. the Hospital de San Juan de Dios in Pasay City, and could not have personally appeared before respondent in Iloilo City: and (4) Residence Certificate No. A-9079133, listed in the subscription portion of the Deed of Sale as that presented by Isabel Roces to respondent at that time of notarization, was fictitious as it was issued on February 1, 1980, at which time Isabel Roces had already passed away.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In a Resolution, dated November 24, 1986, respondent was required by this Court to comment on the charges levied against him. He did not comply. On April 13, 1987, the case was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSC) for investigation, report and recommendation.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The OSG set the case for hearing several times, from September, 1987 through March, 1988, but these were postponed at the instance of respondent. The case was eventually transferred from the OSG to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) by virtue of this Court's Resolution, dated April 12, 1988.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On August 23, 1988, respondent received notice from the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (National Grievance Investigation Office) of a hearing set for the afternoon of September 29, 1988. On the morning of the hearing, the IBP received a telegram from respondent requesting resetting to October 17, 1988, for the reason that he "is busy in election case as party intervenor and has hearing in People vs. Gamgam, RTC Iloilo." The hearing officer, IBP Commissioner Ernesto L. Pineda allowed the rescheduling "with a warning that no further postponement shall be entertained." Despite the caveat, respondent was again granted a second resetting from October 17, 1988 ¹to November 25, 1988.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On November 25, 1988, respondent, again failed to appear before the IBP Commission Bar Discipline. On even date; Commissioner Pineda ordered the case submitted for resolution, viz.:

When this case was called for hearing, only the complainant appeared. The respondent, Atty. Jose Aportadera, did not appear although it was he who chose the date November 5, 1988 as the date of the hearing. His telegram to this effect is attached to the record of the case.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

This case was filed on September 30, 1988 and despite receipt by respondent of the copy of the complaint and the annexes thereto, the said respondent to date has not filed his answer. He is deemed therefore to have waived his right to file his answer.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Considering that the complaint is supported by documentary evidence submitted by the National Bureau of Investigation consisting of 55 pages and acting upon the motion of the complainant that the case be deemed submitted for resolution, the instant case is now considered so submitted on the basis of the documentary evidence forming part of the record of the case.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Two weeks later, or on December 9, 1988, respondent moved for reconsideration of the Order by way of a telegram which motion was opposed by complainant, through counsel. Without acting on the telegraphic motion, Commissioner Pineda, on September 4, 1989, forwarded to the IBP Board of Governors his Report finding respondent guilty of malpractice and gross negligence, and recommending his indefinite suspension from the practice of law. The Commissioner noted in the Report, dated August 28, 1989, that:

After going minutely over the records particularly the findings of the NBI, the following appears undisputed -chanrobles virtual law library

1). The subject deed of sale . . . of sub-lot no. 12-C-2-B in favor of Gregorio Licauan is a FORGERY. The supposed seller, Isabelo Roces did not sign the Deed of Sale.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

2). The deed of sale was notarized by the respondent on January 4, 1980 at which date Isabel Roces was confined at. the San Juan de Dios Hospital.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

3). The number of the Residence Certificate (No. A-9079233 purportedly issued at Manila on February 1, 1980) used by the supposed seller Isabel Roces is fictitious because the date of issue is February 1, 1980 and Isabel Roces was already dead at that time, she having died on January 1, 1980 at the San Juan de Dios Hospital. . . .chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In his Sworn Statement before the NBI Regional Director in Iloilo City, the respondent puts up the defense of lack of knowledge of the foregory of the signature of the supposed seller Isabel Roces. Thus:

26. Q: For your information, we have established in the course of this investigation that the signature of ISABEL ROCES appearing in the Deed of Sale dated January 4, 1980 in favor of GREGORIO LICAUAN covering Lot No. 12-C-2-B was a complete forgery May I have your comment on this?chanrobles virtual law library

A: I knew of the alleged forgery when I came to the office of the NBI that one (of the) heirs of ISABEL ROCES complained that the signature of ISABEL ROCES was forged. Before that time, I fully believed that the signature appearing on the document is the signature of ISABEL ROCES that is why I notarized the document. And believing that the consideration of the sale was fully received by ISABEL ROCES or her representative.

The respondents defense of good faith is untenable.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

As a notary public, he should not have notarized the deed of sale without seeing first seller the signatory parties - particularly the seller - sign or affix their signatures on a serious document of conveyance of a real property.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In the subscription part of the deed of sale, the respondent represented that Isabel Roces, "personally appeared" before him with Residence Certificate No. A-9079133. As stated elsewhere, the residence certificate is fictitious.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

At the time of the notarization of the deed of sale in Iloilo City on January 4, 1980, Isabel Roces was confined at the San Juan de Dios Hospital as per the Certification of the Medical Records Clerk in said Hospital. . . . Isabel Roces died in said Hospital on January 21, 1980 per the Certification of Dra. Amalia M. Villanueva. . . .

On the basis of Commissioner Pineda's report and recommendation, the IBP Board of Governors, on March 26, 1994:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report of the Investigating Commissioner in the above entitled case (referring to the case at bench), herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex "A"; however, after a consideration of the findings of facts, the evidence on record and the applicable law and rules, the respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for TWO (2) YEARS, instead of indefinite suspension as recommended in the Report.

A copy of the IBP Order/Decision and Commissioner Pineda's Report were received by this Court on June 29, 1994.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Dissatisfied with the IBP ruling, respondent, on July 15, 1994, filed a "Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Allow the Respondent to Present His Evidence." He alleged that he was not given a fair hearing or accorded due process by the IBP when the case was deemed submitted for resolution without letting him adduce his evidence. Furthermore, he averred that suspension is too harsh a penalty for his one-time infraction of the notarial law. He claims that he deserves no more than a reprimand for his actions.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

After a review of the case at bench, we affirm of respondent's two-year suspension.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Commissioner Pineda did not deprive respondent of his right to procedural due process in ordering the case at bench submitted for decision on November 25, 1988. His actions were in accord with the provisions of Sec. 8, Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court, as follows:

Sec. 8. Investigation. - Upon joinder of issues or upon failure of the respondent to answer, the Investigator shall, with deliberate speed, proceed with the investigation of the case. He shall have the power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths. The respondent shall be given full opportunity to defend himself, to present witnesses on his behalf and be heard by himself and counsel. However, if upon reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear the investigation shall proceed ex parte.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The Investigator shall terminate the investigation within three (3) months from the date of its commencement, unless extended for good cause by the Board of Governors upon prior application.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Willful failure refusal to obey a subpoena or any other lawful order issued by the Investigator which shall be dealt with as for indirect contempt of Court. The correspondent charge shall be filed by the Investigator before the IBP Board of Governors which shall require the alleged contemnor to show cause within ten (10) days from notice. The IBP Board of Governors may thereafter conduct hearings, if necessary, in accordance with the procedure set forth in this Rule for hearings before the Investigator. Such hearing shall as far as practicable be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its commencement. Thereafter, the IBP Board of Governors shall within a like period of fifteen (15) days issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations, which shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court final action and if warranted, the imposition of penalty.

The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard. ²There is no violation of due process even if no hearing was conducted, where the party was given a chance to explain his side of the controversy and he waived his right to do so. ³In the case at bench, respondent first failed to file his Comment to the Complaint with this Court; and then, when the case was referred to the OSG and IBP for investigation, report and recommendation, he moved to postpone and reset the hearing on the case several times over a span of more than a year. Respondent as lawyer is presumed to understand the gravity of the disbarment proceedings filed against him. His failure to ventilate his side of the controversy, inspite of all opportunities for him to do so, constitutes a waiver by him to exercise such right.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Respondent's contention that he should have been, if at all, only reprimanded for his actions in respect of the Deed of Sale over Isabel's property deserves scant consideration. His dubious involvement in the preparation and notarization of the falsified sale of his client's property merits the penalty of suspension imposed on him by the IBP Board of Governors.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On its face, the subscription part of the questioned deed bears eloquent testimony to respondents knowing falsification thereof for it stated that Isabel appeared before him on January 4, 1980, while it listed her Resident Certificate as having been issued on February 1, 1980. Respondent's misconduct is also shown by his statement to NBI Regional Director Federico H. Opinion, Jr. on September 6, 1985, to wit:

15. Q: Were you the one who prepared the Deeds of Sale executed
in favor of the four buyers you mentioned?chanrobles virtual law library

A: Yes, your honor. After I was advised by the Hontiveros
Realty that full payments of the lots sold were received by
JOHN HONTIVEROS.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

16. Q: I am showing to you xerox copies of the following Deeds of
Sale: 1) Deed of Sale dated January 4, 1980 executed by
ISABEL ROCES in favor of GREGORIO LICAUAN
married to FELIZA DALDE as Vendee covering Lot No. 12-
C-2-B with an area of 835 square meters more or less for a
consideration of P6,930.00; 2) Deed of Sale executed by
ISABEL ROCES in favor of RAYMUNDO SEROPIA
married to MYRNA MUYCO covering Lot. No. 12-C-2-C
with an area of 299 square meters more or less for a
consideration of P5,400.00 dated January 5, 1979; 3) Deed
of Sale executed by ISABEL ROCES in favor of
FLORENTINA MUYCO married to MANUEL ORTIZO
and LOURDES VDA. DE CAMANAY for Sub-lot No. 12-
C-2-D with an area of 300 square meters more or less for
a consideration of P5,100.00 dated November 3, 1976; 4)
Deed of Sale executed by ISABEL ROCES in favor of
ELIZA DAYOT covering Sub-Lot No. 12-C-2-E with an
area of 342 square meters more or less for a consideration
of P5,472.00 dated November 4, 1976, all notarized before
JOSE G. APORTADERA, Notary Public. Will you please
examine these and tell me what relation do these documents
have to Deeds of Sale you claimed to have been prepared?chanrobles virtual law library

A: This first sale refers to the sale in favor of GREGORIO
LICAUAN and estates that the consideration is P6,930.00,
but the amount actually received by ISABEL ROCES or her
representative is only P4,620.00 minus deduction of one per
cent notarial fee and expenses in securing the Manager's
Check or Telegraphic Transfer to Manila. Because
according to the Authority to Sell this Lot No. 12-C-2-B
should be sold for P12.00 per square meter. So the
Hontiveros Realty has an overprice of 6% and 10% from
P4,620.00 as agreed in the Authority to Sell. After the
Hontiveros Realty received the full amount of P6,930.00 and
the remaining amount after deducting the commission (10%)
and overprice and other expenses which amount is due to
ISABEL ROCES, JOHN HONTIVEROS advised me to
prepare the documents to be signed by ISABEL ROCES. So
I prepared this document and considering that ISABEL
ROCES was an old woman, rich and aristocratic, she
seldom went to my office, but somebody instructed me
instead to bring the document to her house in front of the
Colegio del Sagrado Corazon Jesus, Iloilo City. I used to do
that because ISABEL ROCES had been my old client before
and during this transaction. So, several days after I received
this document and believing in all honesty and good faith that
it is the signature of ISABEL ROCES and furthermore
believing that the consideration of this sale which were
received by me were turned over to Hontiveros Realty and
upon advise of Hontiveros Realty, I notarized this document.
With respect to the three other Deeds of Sale, believing to
be the true signatures of ISABEL ROCES, I notarized them
after I was advised by Hontiveros Realty. And from those
amounts appearing are deductible 10% commission and
overprice of 6% because the authorized sale as stated in the
Authority to Sell is 12% your honor.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

17. Q: Were you the one the one who personally delivered these
Deeds of Sale to the house of ISABEL ROCES for the
purpose of letting her affix her signatures on these
documents?chanrobles virtual law library

A: Several days after I was called by somebody to go the house
of ISABEL ROCES and believing that it is the true
signature of ISABEL ROCES and that the consideration of
the sale was duly received by Hontiveros Realty, I notarized
said documents, your honor. As for the other three Deeds of
Sale, when I got those copies it was already signed by
ISABEL ROCES.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

18. Q: In other words, do I understand correctly that the purported
signatures of ISABEL ROCES appearing in these four
Deeds of Sale were affixed therein not in your presence, and
that you subscribed or notarized these documents without
the presence of ISABEL ROCES?chanrobles virtual law library

A: In the case of the first three documents not including the
sale of LICAUAN because that was the last document I
notarized. Several days after I received those three
documents, I went to the house of ISABEL ROCES and
asked her to confirm whether those three documents were
signed by her and whether the money representing the
proceeds of the sale were received by her. She answered
yes. That was before she died and when she was in Iloilo
City. With regard to the last document, I was not able to
meet her anymore to ask for confirmation because when I
went to her house, I was informed that she was in Manila and
she died there later.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

19. Q: Who gave you this Deed of Sale in favor of Gregorio
Licauan with the signature of ISABEL ROCES already
affixed therein?chanrobles virtual law library

A: I do not remember the name the person who gave that
document to me, . . . may be a member of the household
of ISABEL ROCES.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

20. Q: Did you get this Deed of Sale in favor of LICAUAN from
the house of ISABEL ROCES or was it delivered to you?chanrobles virtual law library

A: The document of LICAUAN, first I received a telephone call
to get the document so I went there first to ask ISABEL
ROCES whether she received the amount, and also to
renew the Authority to Sell. But when I arrived there,
somebody gave me this document and I was informed that
ISABEL ROCES was in Manila.

xxx xxx xxx

26. Q: For your information, we have established in the course of
this investigation that the signature of ISABEL ROCES
appearing in the Deed of Sale dated January 4, 1980 in
favor of GREGORIO LICAUAN covering Lot No. 12-C-2-
B was a complete forgery. May I have your comment on
this?chanrobles virtual law library

A: I knew of the alleged forgery when I came to the office of
the NBI that one (of the) heirs ISABEL ROCES
complained that the signature of ISABEL ROCES was
forged. Before that time I fully believed that the signature
appearing on the documents is the signature of ISABEL
ROCES that is why I notarized the document. And believing
that the consideration of the sale was fully by ISABEL
ROCES or her representative.

Furthermore the NBI investigation reveals that: (1) respondent misrepresented to Gregorio Licauan as being duly-authorized by Isabel Roces to sell her property; (2) it was respondent who prepared the various deeds of sale over Isabel's subdivision lots; (3) Isabel was already confined at a hospital in Metro Manila on January 4, 1980, the deed's date of Execution; (4) respondent knew that Isabel was hospitalized in Metro Manila when he subscribed the deed; (5) he knew that Isabel died in Metro Manila soon after her confinement; and (6) he did not give the seller a copy of the questioned deed of sale.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In the face of all the evidence, this Court cannot accept respondent's claim that he notarized the questioned Deed of Sale in good faith, without knowledge of any defect therein. He undoubtedly knew that Isabel Roces could not have executed the deed in Iloilo City on January 4, 1980 because she was hospitalized in Metro Manila. Nevertheless, he notarized the same, expressly subscribing that Isabel had appeared before him in Iloilo City on January 4, 1980 exhibiting a Residence Certificate issued on February 1, 1980 (at which time Isabel was already dead) and acknowledging to him that it was her free and voluntary act. Clearly, respondent's conduct is not an accord with the Canons of Professional Ethics.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

PREMISES CONSIDERED, respondent ATTY. JOSE G. APORTADERA is found GUILTY of malpractice and gross misconduct, and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza and Francisco, JJ., concur.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Bellosillo, J., took no part.

1 At about this time, typhoon Yumang was battering the Visayas, and all trips from there to Manila by air and water were suspended.chanrobles virtual law library

2 See Stayfast Sunset View Condominium Corporation v. NLRC, 228 SCRA 466 (1993); Villareal v. Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 292 (1993); Philippines Corporation v. NLRC, 218 SCRA 596 (1993).chanrobles virtual law library

3 See Palagpag v. NLRC, 218 SCRA 510 (1993); Esber v. Sto. Tomas, 225 SCRA 664 (1993).