[A.C. No. 5436. September 29, 2004]

BON vs. ZIGA

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEP 29 2004 .

A.C. No. 5436 (Alfredo Bon vs. Atty. Victor Ziga and Antonio A. Arcangel.)

For resolution are the Motion for Reconsideration dated June 10, 2004 and Addendum to Motion for Reconsideration dated June 16, 2004 filed by respondent, Atty. Antonio A. Arcangel (Atty. Arcangel) urging the Court to reconsider its Decision dated May 27, 2004 which revoked his commission as a Notary Public, disqualified him from being commissioned as such for a period of two (2) years, and suspended him from the practice of law for six (6) months.

Atty. Arcangel insists that in its Resolution dated March 19, 2003, this Court affirmed Resolution No. XV-2002-604 dated December 14, 2002 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) which adopted the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner which, in turn, dismissed the case against Atty. Arcangel (and his co-respondent, Atty. Victor Ziga) for lack of merit.

He likewise asserts that the Motion for Reconsideration filed by complainant was denied with finality in IBP Resolution No. XV-2003-149 dated March 22, 2003, a copy of which was allegedly received by complainant on May 10, 2003. Hence, Atty. Arcangel argues that complainant's Motion for Re-Examination of the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines dated September 10, 2003 was filed out of time and should have been denied.

Atty. Arcangel would also have the Court believe that he was denied due process.

We are not persuaded.

Under the Rules, ^[1] if respondent is exonerated by the IBP, the case shall be deemed terminated unless the Court orders otherwise upon petition of the complainant filed with it within 15 days from notice of the IBP Board's resolution.

In this case, complainant averred that he received notice of the IBP's denial of his Motion for Reconsideration on August 25, 2003. Taking into account the foregoing Rule, he had until September 9, 2003 within which to file a petition with the Court. Thus, his Motion for Re-Examination of the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines filed on September 11, 2003 was admittedly filed two (2) days late. However, this lapse does not prevent the Court from taking cognizance of the case especially as the circumstances call for a relaxation of procedural rules.

Significantly, our Resolutions dated March 19, 2003 and July 23, 2003 merely noted the IBP Resolutions dated December 14, 2002 and March 22, 2003 which respectively dismissed the complaint against respondents and denied complainant's Motion for Reconsideration. We did not, as Atty. Arcangel asserts, affirm these Resolutions. In effect, the Court reserved its right to review and evaluate the IBP Resolutions and impose an appropriate penalty as the facts may warrant.

We likewise find unmeritorious Atty. Arcangel's contention that he was not accorded due process.

The essence of due process is an opportunity to be heard. One may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also, and perhaps even many times more creditably and practicable than oral argument, through pleadings. In administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied. After all, administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense. ^[2]

In this case, respondents Arcangel and Atty. Victor Ziga were given ample opportunity to meet the allegations of complainant. In fact, they filed a Joint Comment dated October 6, 2001 and Comment on Complainant's Reply dated April 12, 2002. Moreover, it appears from the records that the IBP duly considered the submissions of the parties before it came up with its Resolution dated December 14, 2002.

It should also be emphasized that the basis for the disciplinary action taken against Atty. Arcangel was his admission ^[3] that he notarized a Waiver and Quitclaim without requiring all the persons who executed the document to personally appear before him and acknowledge that the same is their free act and deed. We found this to be a grave infringement of his duty as a Notary Public and a violation of Rules 1.01 and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well. Clearly, it was his own admission that resulted in his undoing.

In any event, in the interest of compassionate justice, the Court is disposed to modify the penalty imposed upon Atty. Arcangel taking into account his advanced age and the fact that this is his first offense. ^[4]

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration dated June 10, 2004 and Addendum to Motion for Reconsideration dated June 16, 2004 are GRANTED in part. The Decision dated May 27, 2004 is MODIFIED only with regard to the penalty of disqualification from being commissioned as a Notary Public for a period of two (2) years, which we hereby reduce to six (6) months.

Very truly yours,

LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.)MA. LUISA L. LAUREA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] Sec. 12 (c), Rule 139-B, Rules of Court.

^[2] Ocampo v. Ombudsman, 379 Phil. 21 (2000).

^[3] In the Joint Comment dated October 6, 2001, which he reiterates in his Addendum to Motion for Reconsideration dated June 16, 2004.

^[4] Abad v. Judge Antonio Belen, 310 Phil. 832 (1995); Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Delia H. Panganiban, 343 Phil. 276 (1997); Judge Emerito M. Agcaoili v. Judge Jose O. Ramos, 311 Phil. 238 (1995).

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011