Jose, Jr. v. Cabredo

FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 12778. March 3, 2021.][Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5024]

JUVENAL R. ALMA JOSE, JR., ATTY. SYLVIA R. ALMA JOSE, AND SYLVIA M. RAMIREZ VDA. DE ALMA JOSE, complainants,vs. ATTY. AGUSTIN B. CABREDO, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 3, 2021which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 12778 [Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5024] (Juvenal R. Alma Jose, Jr., Atty. Sylvia R. Alma Jose, and Sylvia M. Ramirez vda. De Alma Jose, Complainants, v. Atty. Agustin B. Cabredo, Respondent). — Before the Court is the administrative complaint filed by complainants Juvenal R. Alma Jose, Jr., Atty. Sylvia R. Alma Jose, and Sylvia M. Ramirez vda. de Alma Jose (collectively, complainants) against Atty. Agustin B. Cabredo (respondent) for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (Notarial Rules).

Antecedents

On 03 August 2016, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) received an administrative complaint 1 for disbarment filed by complainants against respondent. The complaint charged the latter with violation of the Oath of Attorney, CPR, and Notarial Rules, as well as gross misconduct. Complainants mainly alleged that respondent notarized two (2) Deeds of Absolute Sale on 11 September 2014 (first deed) and 24 April 2015 (second deed) and acknowledged that the parties to the deeds appeared before him as a commissioned Notary Public in Manila when, in fact, they did not.

The first deed was executed between Priscilla Alma Jose (Priscilla), as vendor, and Vanessa D. Jaleco (Vanessa), married to Michael Jaleco (Michael), as vendee, and entered in respondent's Notarial Register as Document No. 139, 2 Page No. 29, Book No. XXXIII, Series of 2014. Meanwhile, the second deed was executed between Priscilla and Marcelo L. Alma Jose (Marcelo), as vendors, and Vanessa, married to Michael, as vendee, and entered in the Notarial Register as Document No. 287, Page No. 59, Book No. 10, Series of 2015.

Complainants asserted that both documents were falsified. At the time of the first deed's notarization, Priscilla was confined in the hospital, specifically from 15 July to 15 September 2014. As to the second deed, one of the sellers, Marcelo, had died on 15 May 1990, or twenty-five (25) years prior to the date of the notarization and execution of the same. 3

Respondent denied notarizing the said deeds of sale. He claimed that the signatures appearing in said deeds were different from his true signature. He could not have affixed his signature to the said documents because they had never been presented to him. 4

Recommendation of the IBP

In his Report and Recommendation 5 dated 06 April 2017, the Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the complaint, as complainants failed to prove their allegations by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence.

By Resolution No. XXII-2017-1067 6 dated 27 May 2017 and Extended Resolution 7 dated 05 June 2017, the IBP Board of Governors found that an analysis of respondent's supposed signature with the specimen signature he submitted confirmed that the purported signatures in the subject documents were different from his true signature. Nonetheless, it reversed the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, as respondent was unable to explain how his notarial certificate had been stamped and his seal used on the subject documents. Thus, finding respondent guilty of violating Canon 1 8 of the CPR and the Notarial Rules, the IBP Board of Governors recommended the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months, revocation of existing notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years.

Aggrieved, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, 9 which the IBP Board of Governors denied on 05 October 2018. 10 Thereafter, he filed a petition for certiorari11 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before Us, seeking to reverse and set aside the twin Resolutions dated 27 May 2017 and 05 October 2018 of the IBP Board of Governors. According to respondent, the IBP Board of Governors committed grave abuse of discretion and acted with manifest partiality when it failed to rule that complainants were unable meet the required standard of proof in disbarment cases.

Ruling of the Court

Prefatorily, it must be stressed that respondent's filing of a petition for certiorari with the Court does not conform with the standing procedure for the investigation of administrative complaints against lawyers. 12

Under Section 12 (b) and (c) 13 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, as amended by Bar Matter No. 1645, the IBP Board of Governors' resolution, arising from its review of the report of the IBP Investigating Commissioner, and which either recommends the dismissal of the complaint or the imposition of disciplinary action, shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court, together with the entire records and evidence, for final action within ten (10) days from the issuance thereof. Bar Matter No. 1645 did away with the procedure of filing a motion for reconsideration as well as a petition from the adverse finding of the IBP Board of Governors. 14

Notably, the IBP Board of Governor's resolution is merely recommendatory regardless of the penalty imposed on the lawyer. The amendment stresses the Court's authority to discipline a lawyer who transgresses his ethical duties under the CPR. Hence, any final action on a lawyer's administrative liability shall be done by the Court based on the entire records of the case, including the IBP Board of Governor's recommendation, without need for the lawyer-respondent to file any additional pleading. 15

Consequently, respondent's filing of a petition for certiorari is unnecessary. Pursuant to the current rule, the IBP Board of Governor's resolution and the case records were eventually forwarded to the Court. Thus, We are then bound to fully consider all documents contained therein, regardless of any further pleading filed by any party — including respondent's petition for certiorari, which We shall nonetheless consider if only to completely resolve the merits of this case and determine respondent's actual administrative liability. 16

Procedural matters aside, the Court still finds no reason to depart from the IBP's findings and recommendations. Based on the attendant facts of this case and relevant jurisprudence, there is substantial evidence to conclude that respondent violated the CPR and Notarial Rules.

Time and again, the Court has emphasized that notarization of documents is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties; otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined. 17

Section 2 (c), Rule VII of the Notarial Rules provides that, when not in use, the official seal of the notary public must be kept safe and secure and shall be accessible only to him or the person duly authorized by him. 18 Here, the IBP Board of Governors found that the signatures appearing on the subject documents were dissimilar to the specimen signatures of respondent. This notwithstanding, respondent cannot be absolved from any administrative liability considering that the subject deeds bore his notarial seal. However, he was unable to provide any credible explanation as to why his seal was used in, not just one, but two instances. In his Position Paper, he denied notarizing the subject deeds and that the signatures thereon were his. He likewise stated his surprise as to why "his name, seal and signature were used by unknown individuals to ply their illegal [wares]."

The Court finds that respondent was negligent in performing his functions as a notary public. Had he properly secured his notarial equipment, unauthorized persons could not have accessed his notarial seal and stamp. Because of his negligence, his notarial seal was affixed to the subject deeds of sale, converting the same from being private documents into public documents. 19 Respondent's failure to solemnly perform his duty as a notary public not only damaged those directly affected by the notarized documents but also undermined the integrity of a notary public and degraded the function of notarization. He should, thus, be held liable for such negligence not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer. 20

Jurisprudence dictates that a notary public who fails to discharge his duties as such may be meted out the following penalties: (1) revocation of notarial commission; (2) disqualification from being commissioned as notary public; and (3) suspension from the practice of law — the terms of which vary based on the circumstances of each case. 21 Considering that respondent was not only remiss in his duties as a notary public but had also breached Canon 1 of the CPR, he must suffer the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, immediate revocation of his notarial commission, if subsisting, and his disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years.

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Court finds respondent Atty. Agustin B. Cabredo GUILTY of violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 2 (c), Rule VII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, effective upon his receipt of this Resolution. His current notarial commission, if any, is IMMEDIATELY REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. Further, he is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon Atty. Agustin B. Cabredo's receipt of a copy of this Resolution. He shall inform this Court and the Office of the Bar Confidant in writing of the date he received a copy of this Resolution. Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to his personal record, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Office of the Court Administrator is directed to circulate copies of this Resolution to all courts concerned.

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, unnumbered.

2. Document No. 140, in some parts of the record.

3.Rollo, unnumbered.

4.Id., unnumbered.

5.Id., unnumbered; signed by Gilbert L. Macatangay.

6.Id., unnumbered.

7.Id., unnumbered.

8. CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.

9.Id., unnumbered.

10.Id., unnumbered.

11.Rollo, unnumbered.

12.See Festin v. Zubiri, 811 Phil. 1-12 (2017); A.C. No. 11600, 19 June 2017 [Per J. Perlas Bernabe].

13. Section 12. Review and Recommendation by the Board of Governors. —

xxx xxx xxx

b) After its review, the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, shall recommend to the Supreme Court the dismissal of the complaint or the imposition of disciplinary action against the respondent. The Board shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations, clearly and distinctly stating the facts and the reasons on which it is based. The resolution shall be issued within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the next meeting of the Board following the submission of the Investigator's report.

c) The Board's resolution, together with the entire records and all evidence presented and submitted, shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action within ten (10) days from issuance of the resolution.

14.Tan v. Alvarico, A.C. No. 10933, 03 November 2020 [Per CJ Peralta] citing Rico v. Madrazo, Jr., A.C. No. 7231, 01 October 2019 [Per J. Peralta].

15.Supra at note 12.

16.See Id.

17.Spouses Elmer and Mila Soriano v. Atty. Gervacio B. Ortiz, Jr., A.C. No. 10540, 28 November 2019 [Per CJ Peralta].

18.Ang v. Belaro, Jr., A.C. No. 12408, 11 December 2019 [Per J. Hernando].

19.Id.

20.Angeles, Jr. v. Bagay, 749 Phil. 114-124 (2014); A.C. No. 8103, 03 December 2014 [Per J. Mendoza].

21.Roa-Buenafe v. Lirazan, A.C. No. 9361, 20 March 2019 [Per J. Gesmundo].