FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11117. June 30, 2021.][formerly CBD Case No. 12-3353]
EDITHO DUMALAG, complainant, vs. ATTY. VICTOR D. SEDERIOSA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 30, 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11117 [formerly CBD Case No. 12-3353] (Editho Dumalag, Complainant, v. Atty. Victor D. Sederiosa, Respondent.) — The instant administrative case arose from a Complaint 1 dated 20 February 2012 and Amended Complaint 2 dated 25 February 2012 filed by Editho Dumalag (complainant) against Atty. Victor D. Sederiosa (respondent).
Antecedents
According to complainant, respondent notarized a Deed of Relinquishment of Rights (Deed of Relinquishment) bearing his forged signature and without requiring his personal appearance. Said deed was used by Loreta Anota (Anota) in a forcible entry case she filed against complainant involving a land in New Matina, Davao City. 3 It was further alleged that respondent notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly executed by complainant. The SPA was likewise falsified since the signature appearing thereon was forged and complainant never appeared before respondent. Through the SPA, Anota was able to pay the amortization of the lot in Davao City. 4
Respondent denied the allegations and claimed that the questioned documents were signed in his presence by complainant, along with Anota and two (2) witnesses, Blandina A. Vigilancia (Vigilancia) and Pedro M. Maamo (Maamo), who are neighbors of complainant. In support thereof, Anota, Vigilancia and Maamo executed affidavits before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Davao City affirming that complainant indeed appeared and signed the questioned documents in the presence of the notary public, herein respondent. 5
Report and Recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the
In his Report and Recommendation 6 dated 07 June 2013, the Investigating Commissioner found no merit in the complaint. Respondent neither violated the Notarial Law nor acted in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his Lawyer's Oath. Complainant failed to adduce substantial evidence, other than his self-serving assertion, that he did not appear before respondent for the purpose of notarizing the Deed of Relinquishment and SPA.
Moreover, respondent presented Anota, Vigilancia and Maamo n on separate dates of the mandatory conference. The Investigating Commissioner conducted clarificatory questions on the witnesses, who affirmed the presence of all the parties when the questioned documents were signed and notarized before respondent. Likewise, respondent presented in evidence the resolution of the City Prosecutor of Davao City dismissing the criminal complaint filed by complainant against him for falsification of public document involving the Deed of Relinquishment and the SPA. 7
The IBP Board of Governors, in a Resolution dated 27 September 2014, 8 adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner for the dismissal of the complaint. On 05 June 2015, the IBP Board of Governors denied complainant's motion for reconsideration and affirmed the Resolution dated 27 September 2014. 9
Ruling of the Court
The recommendation of the IBP is well-taken.
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence, which is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. Mere allegation is not equivalent to proof. Likewise, charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence. 10
To recall, disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. They are neither purely civil nor purely criminal; they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. With public interest as the primary objective, the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who, by their misconduct, have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. 11
In this case, complainant seriously failed to discharge his burden of proving the errant acts of respondent. Aside from his bare allegations, complainant did not present any substantial evidence to clearly and convincingly establish respondent's alleged violation of the notarial law, the Code of Professional Responsibility or the Lawyer's Oath. On the other hand, respondent was able to present all the witnesses and his co-signatory, Anota, to the questioned documents. Said witnesses, who answered the clarificatory questions of the IBP Investigating Commissioner, categorically attested to the presence of complainant during the signing and notarization of the questioned documents. Thus, the complaint against respondent was correctly found as lacking in merit.
Finding the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, the Court resolves to DISMISS the complaint against respondent Atty. Victor D. Sederiosa. Accordingly, the case is hereby CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-3.
2.Id. at 7-8.
3.Id. at 2.
4.Id. at 8.
5.Id. at 24-26, 53-58.
6.Id. at 291-296; penned by Investigating Commissioner Roland B. Beltran.
7.Id. at 293-296.
8.Id. at 289.
9.Id. at 287.
10.See BSA Tower Condominium Corp. v. Reyes II, 833 Phil. 588, 595 (2018), A.C. No. 11944, 20 June 2018 [Per J. Peralta].
11.Id. at 595, citing Reyes v. Atty. Nieva, 794 Phil. 360-381 (2016), A.C. No. 8560, 06 September 2016 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
n Note from the Publisher: Written as "Maama" in the official document.