SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12974. November 10, 2021.]
JOEL D. MANIWAN, complainant,vs. ATTY. ROBERTO K. SANTOS, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 November 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12974 (Joel D. Maniwan v. Atty. Roberto K. Santos, Jr.) — This is a Complaint-Affidavit 1 filed by complainant Joel D. Maniwan (complainant) against respondent Atty. Roberto K. Santos, Jr. (respondent) for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, in relation to the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. 2 The case stemmed from the alleged deliberate falsehoods committed by respondent when he notarized eight promissory notes in the absence of the two signatories therein, the complainant in this case and his son. 3
Antecedents:
In his Complaint-Affidavit, complainant alleged that in 2013, he obtained several loans from the Mandaue branch of the Philippine Business Bank. 4 In connection with his loans, complainant, together with his son Roel Ryan P. Maniwan, executed a total of 18 promissory notes, 5 and signed the documents in the Mandaue branch with no lawyer present. 6
Later on, complainant learned that eight of the promissory notes had been notarized in Caloocan City by respondent, a notary public for the City of Caloocan. 7 The acknowledgment portion of the promissory notes stated that complainant and his son appeared before respondent and acknowledged that the promissory notes had been executed voluntarily and of their own free will. 8
While complainant admitted that he indeed signed the promissory notes, 9 he alleged (1) that he never signed such notes before respondent, (2) that he never appeared before respondent, and (3) that he never signed the notarial book of respondent. 10 He also stressed that the documents had been executed in the Mandaue branch and that he and his son never left such branch when they executed the promissory notes. 11 According to complainant, his allegations are supported by the fact that the witness to the execution of the promissory notes was an "Account Officer of Cebu Downtown Branch." 12
As to the injury caused by respondent's act, complainant explained that after he failed to pay his loans, the Philippine Business Bank filed an estafa case against him in the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City. 13 Allegedly, the case was filed in such court because the promissory notes and the representations therein were all made at the bank's main branch in Caloocan City. 14 Because the case was filed so far away from the real location of the execution of promissory notes (Cebu province), complainant was unable to answer the allegations. 15 Thus, a warrant for his arrest was issued. 16
Complainant therefore prayed for respondent's immediate disbarment or the imposition of disciplinary action against him. 17
In his Answer 18 to the Complaint, respondent admitted notarizing the promissory notes, but denied the rest of complainant's allegations, including the latter's supposed non-appearance before him during the notarization. 19 By way of special and affirmative defenses, respondent averred:
First, complainant's claim of irregularity — that the documents were notarized without his and his son's presence — does not suffice to overthrow the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty, in the absence of any indication of irregularity in the notarial acknowledgment. 20 Without clear and convincing proof that complainant and his son indeed did not appear during the notarization, the presumption of regularity stands. 21
Second, the alleged defect has already prescribed pursuant to the rule that a complaint for disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys prescribes in two years from the date of misconduct. 22 Here, complainant obtained a copy of the notarized promissory notes as early as 2013. 23 Thus, the action filed in 2017 24 has long prescribed. 25
Third, notarization is not necessary to make the promissory notes legal, binding, and enforceable. 26 A promissory note, being partially executed by the other party, is not among the documents required to be notarized by law to be considered legal and enforceable in courts. 27
Fourth, as to the supposed injury to complainant, the estafa case was filed in Caloocan City not because the promissory notes were notarized in such place, but because the element of damage transpired in Caloocan City when complainant failed to pay his loan in the "bank's office in CALOOKAN, Philippines" as he agreed to do in the promissory notes. 28 The transaction in the Mandaue branch was merely for the convenience of the parties. 29
Fifth, the disbarment case was a harassment suit against respondent whose father was the head of the bank's legal department and the bank's lead counsel in the estafa case. 30
Respondent further added that the complainant was similarly involved in another case concerning fraudulent loans. 31
Thereafter, a mandatory conference was conducted that was attended by both complainant and respondent along with their respective counsels. 32 Both parties were then ordered to file their verified position papers. 33
In complainant's Position Paper, 34 be explained that during the conference where he came face-to-face with respondent, he realized that the latter was very familiar to him. 35 He was able to recall that he had already met him on several occasions in the bank's main office when he executed the promissory notes. 36 Thus, the disbarment case was filed on account of misapprehension of facts as in the first place, he admitted that he has duly executed the promissory notes, and in the second place, he now remembers that he indeed physically appeared before respondent during the notarization of such promissory notes in the head office.37 Accordingly, he requested that such supervening event be considered in the disposition of the case. 38
Respondent, on the other hand, reiterated his previous arguments in his Position Paper. 39
Issue
Is respondent guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, in relation to the 2004 Notarial Rules?
Our Ruling
The complaint lacks merit. We dismiss.
Preliminarily, it is important to note that disciplinary cases against members of the Bar may proceed regardless of the complainant's lack of interest. 40 This is because disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no private grievance as they are undertaken solely for public welfare, unlike civil actions which are undertaken for the interest of the complainant or the plaintiff. 41 In disciplinary proceedings, the lawyer is called to answer to the court for his or her conduct as an officer of the court, while the complainant is not considered a party. 42 As applied here, complainant's seeming lack of interest in pursuing the case does not prevent us from taking cognizance of the complaint.
This notwithstanding, the complaint should still be dismissed for failure of complainant to prove his allegations.
In disbarment cases, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to prove his or her allegations by substantial evidence,·43 or "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion." 44 Here, the question is whether there is substantial evidence to prove that respondent committed the charges against him.
An examination of the records shows that complainant failed to discharge this burden. The only direct evidence to support his claim that he did not appear before respondent during the notarization is his affidavit. However, he later on renounced his averments when "[h]e came to recall and realize the truth that he indeed appeared before herein respondent in the latter's capacity as notary public and acknowledged under oath the due execution of all subject promissory notes." 45 Certainly, this does not amount to evidence that is adequate to support the conclusion that respondent notarized the documents in the absence of complainant and his son, or overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty by a notary public. 46
Similarly, the other evidence adduced by complainant — the signature of the witness to the promissory notes who was an "Account Officer of Cebu Downtown Branch" — does not suffice. On its own, and viewed in light of complainant's subsequent renunciation, it fails to prove that respondent is indeed guilty of the alleged violation.
Nonetheless, it should be pointed out that respondent's claims that there was no injury to complainant, and that notarization was not necessary to make the promissory notes binding and legal, fail as defenses in this case. As we have previously held, notarization in the absence of the signatory not only constitutes a violation of the notarial rules as well as the CPR, but is also considered a conduct fraught with dangerous possibilities, considering that notarization is invested with public interest:
In notarizing a document in the absence of a party, Atty. Baylosis violated not only the rule on notarial practice but also the Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any unlawful, ·dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. By affixing his signature and notarial seal on the document, he attested that Roldan personally appeared before him on the day it was notarized and verified the contents thereof. His conduct is fraught with dangerous possibilities considering the conclusiveness on the due execution of a document that our courts and the public accord to notarized documents.
It must be emphasized that a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, is mandated to discharge with fidelity the sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. It is for this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties; otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of the document would be undermined. In Gonzales v. Atty. Ramos, it was written:
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest. The notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. A notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties; otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of the document would be undermined. 47 (Citations omitted)
Thus, regardless of the lack of injury to complainant, or the fact that the promissory notes are nevertheless binding, respondent could still be held liable if he indeed notarized the documents in the absence of complainant and his son.
Likewise, respondent's defense of prescription fails. Administrative complaints against lawyers do not prescribe because otherwise, they would be emboldened to disregard their oath owing to the possibility of exoneration when no complainant comes forward immediately. 48
But then again, complainant still failed to discharge his burden of proving his allegations. Hence, the complaint should be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, this Court resolves to DISMISS the complaint.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-10.
2.Id. at 2.
3.Id. at 2-6.
4.Id. at 3.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 3-4.
7.Id. at 4.
8.Id. at 11a.
9.Id. at 3.
10.Id. at 4.
11.Id. at 4-5.
12.Id. at 5.
13.Id. at 6.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Id. at 9.
18.Id. at 42-61.
19.Id. at 42.
20.Id. at 43.
21.Id. at 45-46.
22.Id. at 48.
23.Id. at 49.
24.Id. at 9.
25.Id. at 49.
26.Id.
27.Id.
28.Id. at 49-50.
29.Id. at 53.
30.Id. at 54-55.
31.Id. at 56.
32.Id. at 104.
33.Id.
34.Id. at 107-110.
35.Id. at 108.
36.Id.
37.Id.
38.Id.
39.Id. at 114-132.
40.Ang v. Belaro, Jr., A.C. No. 12408, December 11, 2019, citing Loberes-Pintal v. Baylosis, 804 Phil. 14, 20 (2017).
41.Id.
42.Id.
43.Domingo-Agaton v. Cruz, A.C. No. 11023, May 4, 2021, citing Reyes v. Nieva, 794 Phil. 360, 379 (2016).
44. 2019 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE, Rule 133, Section 6.
45.Rollo, p. 108.
46.See Elanga v. Pasok, A.C. No. 12030, September 29, 2020, citing Lozano v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 212979, February 18, 2019.
47.Loberes-Pintal v. Baylosis, 804 Phil. 14, 19-20 (2017).
48.Bengco v. Bernardo, 687 Phil. 7, 15 (2012), citing Frias v. Bautista-Lozada, 523 Phil. 17, 19 (2006).