THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11742. February 21, 2018.]
JAY-AR R. CAYABYAB, complainant,vs. ATTY. IMELDA M. ABADILLA-BROWN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 21, 2018, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11742 (Jay-Ar R. Cayabyab, complainantv. Atty. Imelda M. Abadilla-Brown, respondent) — For the resolution of the Court is the Complaint 1 filed by complainant Jay-Ar R. Cayabyab against respondent Atty. Imelda M. Abadilla-Brown for failure to observe the provisions of the Rules on Notarial Practice. 2
Complainant's averments, as concisely summarized by Investigating Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala, are as follows:
Complainant alleged that he is one (1) of the heirs of the late Jerry C. Cayabyab, who was an employee of Mitsubishi Motors at the time of his death last 20 August 2013. As a consequence, all the benefits due to the heirs including complainant were duly computed as reflected in the Release and Quitclaim. Complainant was made to sign the said Release and Quitclaim by the Head of the Human Resources of Mitsubishi, Ms. Jocelyn Calica, but he was not given a copy of the said document. Prior to the signing of the Quitclaim, Ms. Calica handed to complainant a Security Bank Check in the amount of P117,379.05. Complainant reacted on why he was given only the said amount when his other siblings got a higher amount. He was pacified when Ms. Calica told him to come back after three (3) weeks so as to show him the document complainant's father signed leaving an instruction that he was only to be given such amount of P117,379.05.
However, when he came back, Ms. Calica failed to show him the aforementioned document but instead delivered to him a copy of the Release and Quitclaim. To his [surprise], the said Quitclaim was already notarized by respondent when he never appeared nor has he met the latter. Complainant claims that he was only a high school graduate and he didn't know the effect of said Quitclaim but signed the same on the pretext [that] all the benefits as heir would be given to him. Had he appeared before respondent in the notarization of the Quitclaim, complainant would not have been deprived of the information he had to obtain and would have the chance to object as to how the benefits were distributed among his co-heirs. 3
Respondent, on her part, admits that as legal counsel of Mitsubishi, part of her functions is to notarize contracts, papers, and other documents related to company operations. However, it is the Human Resources Department (HRD) that takes charge of computing and releasing the benefits of deceased employees, including the preparation of checks and the corresponding Release and Quitclaim. 4
Respondent also clarifies that at the inception of employment, Mitsubishi employees are required to fill out a Benefits Enrolment Form wherein the employees list and designate their respective dependents and beneficiaries, as well as the type of benefits and the percentage of shares in said benefits which each dependent/beneficiary would receive in case of the employee's death. Respondent then states for the record that, based on the Benefits Enrolment Form accomplished by complainant's father, complainant was given a smaller share of the retirement benefits compared to the other beneficiaries listed therein; and that he was not given any share by his father with regard to the latter's life insurance benefit. Pursuant to the cited Benefits Enrolment Form, the HRD issued checks corresponding to each of the heir/beneficiaries, including complainant. 5
Respondent maintains that on 4 February 2014, complainant personally went to the Mitsubishi office to claim his share in his father's benefits, and was attended to by Ms. Jocelyn Calica (Ms. Calica) of the HRD. Complainant voluntarily signed a Release and Quitclaim upon receiving a check amounting to P117,379.05, representing his share in his father's benefits. Following established company practice in the notarization of documents, complainant proceeded to respondent for the notarization of the Release and Quitclaim. Complainant exhibited his competent evidence of identity which was his SSS ID No. 33-7677758-5 and signified that the Release and Quitclaim was his own free act and deed. He also signed the Notarial Register of respondent which was witnessed by Ms. Calica and the legal staff of respondent, Mr. Jayson James Barcelona. Both signed as witnesses to the document and attested that complainant personally appeared before respondent; and executed a Sworn Statement regarding this fact. 6
After a review of the records, we dismiss the complaint.
In Lanuza v. Magsalin III, et al., 7 the Court had the opportunity to reiterate the well-established doctrine that the burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings always rests on the complainant. The Court held that it will exercise its disciplinary power "only if the complainant establishes the complaint by clearly preponderant evidence that warrants the imposition of the harsh penalty." 8
In the present case, complainant failed to prove that respondent was guilty of violating the provisions of the Rules of Notarial Practice.
We quote with approval the ruling of the Investigating Commissioner:
From the facts and evidence presented, we find no clear, convincing and satisfactory proof to warrant administrative sanction against respondent. Complainant made untruthful statements when he alleged that he did not appear before respondent when the Release and Quitclaim was notarized, however, the Notarial Register of respondent shows that he presented his SSS ID to show his identity and he signed the said Notarial Register. Moreover, two (2) witnesses swore under oath that they were present together with complainant when the said Release and Quitclaim was notarized. Besides, the administration, computation, distribution and release of the benefits including the preparation of the corresponding checks and Release and Quitclaim devolves upon the Human Resources Department of which Ms. Calica is the personnel specifically charged with this duty and this is not part of the duties of respondent. 9
WHEREFORE, the Court NOTES the letter dated 5 June 2017 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines transmitting the documents pertaining to this case. The Court further NOTES the Notice of Resolution No. XXII-2016-383 dated 26 August 2016 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and RESOLVES to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, the conclusions of law, and the recommendation of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in the said resolution which, in turn, adopted and approved the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. The complaint against Atty. Imelda M. Abadilla-Brown is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Accordingly, this case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-6.
2.Id. at 5.
3.Id. at 118-119; Report and Recommendation.
4.Id. at 119.
5.Id. at 119-120.
6.Id. at 120.
7. 749 Phil. 105, 112 (2014).
8.Id.
9.Id. at 121; Report and Recommendation.