SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11395. July 27, 2016.]
(Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4288)
JAMES O. BAUTISTA, complainant, vs. ATTY. VIRGILIO R. BATALLA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 27 July 2016which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11395 (Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4288) — James O. Bautista v. Atty. Virgilio R. Batalla
In his Complaint-Affidavit, 1 James O. Bautista (complainant) charged Atty. Virgilio R. Batalla (respondent) of violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 2 (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
On April 16, 2012, complainant executed a handwritten document entitled "Kasunduan sa Paghahati ng Lupa"2 wherein he agreed to transfer to Merlina Alipay (Alipay) a 55 square meter lot located at Block 348, Lot 11, Cornflower Street, Pembo, Makati City. On the same date, he executed another handwritten document titled "Waiver of Rights" 3 to facilitate and expedite the application and release of the permits necessary for a house to be constructed thereon.
Complainant possessed both documents and gave Alipay a photocopy of the "Waiver of Rights" to enable her to process the necessary permits in the appropriate local government. Alipay, however, claimed absolute ownership over the parcel of land and the improvements thereon. This prompted complainant's wife to lodge a complaint against Alipay. 4
In one of the barangay conciliation hearings, Alipay submitted documents similar to the documents executed by complainant, but they were already notarized on December 11, 2012 by respondent. Complainant was aghast that the documents were notarized as he had never appeared before respondent and because he never gave Alipay even a photocopy of the "Kasunduan sa Paghati ng Lupa." 5
Thus, complainant instituted the present administrative complaint against respondent. He averred that respondent notarized the documents in his absence and that the latter failed to ask for a competent evidence of his identity.
Respondent, on the other hand, denied having notarized the documents in question. In support thereof, he secured a certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court Notarial Section stating that his notarial registry book did not contain any entries corresponding to the page and book number indicated in the said documents. Respondent attached a certified photocopy of the loose leaf which did not contain any entries to further prove his point.
Report and Recommendation
In his Report and Recommendation, 6 dated July 23, 2015, Commissioner Eldrid C. Antiquiera (Commissioner Antiquiera) recommended the dismissal of the complaint. He opined that complainant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show that the said documents were notarized by respondent without the requisite proof of identity. He wrote that respondent was able to show that he did not notarize the documents in question.
In its Resolution No. XXII-2015-66, 7 the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation of Commissioner Antiquiera.
The issue in this case is whether complainant had sufficiently established that respondent violated the Rules of Notarial Practice.
The Court's Ruling
In Ylaya v. Atty. Gacott, 8 the Court ruled that the complainant in administrative proceedings against lawyers bears the burden to prove his case by a preponderance of evidence, to wit: aCIHcD
In administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is preponderance of evidence which the complainant has the burden to discharge. Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has a greater weight than that of the other. It means evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief compared to the presented contrary evidence.
xxx xxx xxx
We reiterate that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is on the complainant; the Court exercises its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes her case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has a greater weight than that of the other party. When the pieces of evidence of the parties are evenly balanced or when doubt exists on the preponderance of evidence, the equipoise rule dictates that the decision be against the party carrying the burden of proof.
Thus, complainant must establish by preponderant evidence that respondent violated the Rules on Notarial Practice. In Bernardo v. Atty. Ramos, 9 the Court ruled that if the document is not found in the notarial books, doubt is cast on whether the document was indeed notarized, to wit:
The notary public is further enjoined to record in his notarial registry the necessary information regarding the document or instrument notarized and retain a copy of the document presented to him for acknowledgment and certification especially when it is a contract. The notarial registry is a record of the notary public's official acts. Acknowledged documents and instruments recorded in it are considered public document. If the document or instrument does not appear in the notarial records and there is no copy of it therein, doubt is engendered that the document or instrument was not really notarized, so that it is not a public document and cannot bolster any claim made based on this document. Considering the evidentiary value given to notarized documents, the failure of the notary public to record the document in his notarial registry is tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when in fact it was not. [Emphasis supplied] AHCETa
In the case at bench, complainant failed to present sufficient evidence to counter respondent's claim that he had not notarized the said documents. For said reason, respondent should not be held liable.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner in the attached Report and Recommendation, which the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines likewise adopted and approved.
The complaint against Atty. Virgilio R. Batalla is DISMISSED.
Accordingly, the case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-5.
2. Id. at 7-8.
3. Id. at 9.
4. Id. at 3-4.
5. Id. at 4.
6. Id. at 34-35.
7. Id. at 31.
8. 702 Phil. 390, 407-408 (2013).
9. 433 Phil. 8, 16-17 (2002).