SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10964. January 20, 2016.]
KIM YUNG GU, REPRESENTED BY MYRNA BUENAVENTURA, petitioners,vs. ATTY. RYANN T. RUEDA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 20 January 2016 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10964 — Kim Yung Gu, represented by Myrna Buenaventura vs. Atty. Ryann T. Rueda
On June 6, 2012 complainant Kim Yung Gu, through his representative Myrna Buenaventura (Buenaventura), filed a Verified Complaint 1 against respondent Atty. Ryann T. Rueda. According to the complainant, respondent notarized a document entitled "Cancellation and Discharge of Mortgage" purporting to have been executed by him when, on the date of the supposed execution of subject document on December 14, 2009, he was not in the Philippines. Also, he never appeared before the respondent.
In his Answer 2 dated July 19, 2012, respondent specifically denied the allegations in the Complaint and sought its dismissal for lack of authority of Buenaventura to file the same and falsity of the allegations therein. Respondent claimed that his secretary always reviewed the documents before ushering the parties to his office. He will then verify their identities and ascertain the genuineness of the documents to be notarized. He added that there were several witnesses who can attest to complainant's presence on the day that the latter had the documents notarized. Finally, respondent alleged that the instant case was filed against him as a scapegoat for complainant's failure to recover the money from a mortgagor.
During the mandatory conference held on October 29, 2012, both parties appeared. However, only complainant filed his verified position paper through Buenaventura.
In a Report and Recommendation 3 dated January 2, 2014, the Commissioner 4 recommended that the Complaint be dismissed for failure to present any concrete and substantial evidence. The Commissioner ruled that complainant was not able to substantially prove his absence in the Philippines on December 14, 2009 when he could have simply presented his passport. "Thus, absent any clear and convincing proof to the contrary, a notarized document enjoys the presumption of regularity and is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents." 5 CAIHTE
In the Notice of Resolution 6 dated October 11, 2014, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) accepted and adopted the Report and Recommendation of the Commissioner.
The Court adopts the October 11, 2014 resolution of the IBP Board of Governors.
"[T]he Court has consistently held that in suspension or disbarment proceedings against lawyers, the lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to prove the allegations in his complaint." 7 "[F]or the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by convincing and satisfactory proof." 8
Here, the IBP already ruled that complainant failed to present proof that he was not in the Philippines when respondent notarized subject "Cancellation and Discharge of Mortgage" on December 14, 2009. Despite such finding, No motion for reconsideration or petition for review was filed by complainant as of October 19, 2015, per report 9 of the Office of the Bar Confidant.
WHEREFORE, the Complaint against respondent Atty. Ryann T. Rueda is DISMISSED. This case is further declared CLOSED and TERMINATED, considering that no motion for reconsideration or petition for review was filed with the court per records of the Office of the Bar Confidant. (Perlas-Bernabe, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2312 dated January 19, 2016).
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. 2-4.
2. Id. at pp. 25-29.
3. Id. at pp. 91-94.
4. Commissioner Peter Irvin C. Corvera.
5. Rollo, p. 94, citing Ocampo vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, 609 Phil. 337, 348.
6. Id. at p. 90.
7. Aba, et al. vs. Atty. De Guzman, Jr., et al., 678 Phil. 588, 601 (2011).
8. Id. at 600, citing Santos vs. Dichoso, 174 Phil. 115, 119 (1978) and Noriega vs. Sison, 210 Phil. 236, 240 (1983).
9. Rollo, at p. 95.