SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 7318. August 10, 2016.]
RUBY RUFINA T. SADURAL, complainant, vs. ATTY. ERICK ALIADO SADURAL and ATTY. ELFREN AGUSTIN GARCIA II, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 10 August 2016 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 7318: RUBY RUFINA T. SADURAL v. ATTY. ERICK ALIADO SADURAL and ATTY. ELFREN AGUSTIN GARCIA II
This resolves a complaint for disbarment against respondents Atty. Erick Aliado Sadural (Sadural), for allegedly being an accessory to a forged deed of sale, and Atty. Elfren Agustin Garcia II (Garcia), for notarizing a deed of sale even if the parties never appeared before him.
On August 14, 2006, complainant Ruby Rufina T. Sadural filed a Petition for Disbarment 1 against respondents Sadural and Garcia.
Complainant alleged that she was the wife of the late Gerardo A. Sadural (Gerardo) who died on July 21, 2003. 2 Before Gerardo died, he and complainant were able to purchase a house and lot in Almanza, Las Piñas. The property was registered under their names as spouses in Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-30858. 3
On October 2, 2004, complainant left the country to work in Kuwait and worked there continuously for almost two (2) years. She went back to the Philippines on July 5, 2006 and discovered that TCT No. T-30858 had been cancelled. In its place, TCT No. T-98917 4 was issued in the names of her brother-in-law, Arnulfo A. Sadural (Arnulfo), and his wife Nerissa. 5
The transfer was based on a Deed of Absolute Sale 6 dated October 3, 2005, which complainant and her late husband allegedly executed in favor of Arnulfo and Nerissa. 7
Respondent Sadural, brother-in-law of complainant and brother of Arnulfo and the late Gerardo, was the witness in the Deed of Absolute Sale, while respondent Garcia notarized the document.
Complainant alleged that there was no way that she could have signed the Deed of Absolute Sale since she was in Kuwait at the time of its execution on October 3, 2005, while her husband passed away on July 21, 2003.
She maintained that respondent Sadural, together with Arnulfo and Nerissa, connived and conspired with each other to execute a fictitious and falsified deed of sale. Complainant likewise maintained that respondent Garcia, who notarized the falsified deed of sale, should be penalized for making it appear that the parties to the document appeared before him when they did not. 8
In his Answer, 9 respondent Sadural denied being a witness to the Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 3, 2005. 10 He claimed that he was at work at the Public Attorney's Office in Angeles City, Pampanga 11 on that date; hence, there was no way he could have witnessed the transaction. He also claimed that the property covered by TCT No. T-30858 (now TCT No. T-98917) was the subject of an earlier sale between the same parties, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 1, 1993. 12
Respondent Garcia failed to file an answer or comment despite several opportunities given to him to do so by this Court. 13
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation. 14
On June 13, 2011, complainant died due to multiple organ failure caused by cervical cancer. She was substituted by her daughter. 15
On October 14, 2014, the Investigating Commissioner stated 16 that he was not prepared to conclude that respondents exhibited acts unworthy of the legal profession or that they facilitated the supposed forged sale on October 3, 2005. 17 However, he recommended that respondent Sadural be held guilty of contempt and fined with P1,000.00 for his unexplained failure to file his verified position paper. 18
As for respondent Garcia, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months for his repeated failure to follow the lawful orders of a court and a quasi-judicial office. 19 SDAaTC
In the Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2015-241 20 dated April 18, 2015, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors adopted and approved with modification the Investigating Commissioner's Report and Recommendation. The Board of Governors further resolved thus:
[F]or Respondent's failure to submit verified position paper and comply with the lawful orders of the Commission, Atty. Erick Aliado Sadural is hereby REPRIMANDED with stern Warning.
FURTHERMORE, considering Respondent Garcia's failure to comply with the lawful orders of the Supreme Court and this Commission which greatly contributed to the delay in the resolution of the administrative case and consistent with the ruling in Rolando Saa vs. Integrated Bar of the Philippines, G.R. No. 132826, September 3, 2009, Respondent Garcia II violated Rule 1.03, Canon 12, and Rule 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Hence, Atty. Elfren Agustin Garcia is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months. 21 (Emphasis in the original)
We adopt with modification the recommendations of the Board of Governors.
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence, or evidence that a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint. 22
Here, complainant failed to prove by substantial evidence that respondent Sadural, her brother-in-law, had a hand in the alleged fraudulent and fictitious Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 3, 2005. As shown by the evidence, an earlier Deed of Sale dated July 1, 1993 over the same parcel of land and executed by the same parties came before the October 3, 2005 Deed of Absolute Sale, yet complainant did not comment on its authenticity.
The two (2) deeds of sale raised more questions that complainant was unable to sufficiently answer. We affirm the findings of the Investigating Commissioner:
An examination of the evidence adduced by the parties shows that the parcel of land previously covered by TCT-30858, and now covered by TCT-98917, was sold by the complainant and her spouse on July 1, 1993 to Arnulfo A. Sadural for valuable consideration. Given that the said parcel of land subject of an alleged forgery — supposedly facilitated by the herein respondents — was earlier sold to and bought by the very same parties at a much earlier date, the undersigned is not prepared to conclude that the herein respondents "exhibited acts unworthy of the legal profession." Neither is the undersigned prepared to conclude that the herein respondents facilitated the supposed forged sale over the said parcel of land on October 3, 2005.
As far as the allegations of this administrative complaint are concerned the undersigned respectfully recommends that the same are insufficient to support the charge that the respondents are guilty of acts unworthy of the legal profession; dismissal of this administrative case is therefore recommended. 23
Finally, aside from the penalty of six (6)-month suspension from the practice of law, we impose a fine of P500.00 on respondent Garcia for his repeated failure to comply with this Court's directives. As held in this Court's Resolution dated February 2, 2009:
It appearing that respondent Atty. Elfren Agustin Garcia II failed to comply with the show cause Resolution dated 30 April 2008 within the period which expired on 03 July 2008, the Court resolves: (a) to IMPOSE upon the said respondent a FINE of P500.00 payable to this Court within ten (10) days from notice; and (b) to REQUIRE said respondent to COMPLY with the Resolutions dated 11 October 2006 and 27 June 2007 by filing the comment required therein, also within ten (10) days from notice hereof. 24 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, the Complaint is DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence. However, for his failure to comply with the directives of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, respondent Atty. Erick Aliado Sadural is REPRIMANDED with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
Respondent Atty. Elfren Agustin Garcia II is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months for his repeated failure to comply with the lawful orders of this Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Respondent Garcia is ORDERED to pay a fine of P500.00, payable to this Court.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be recorded in respondent's file as attorney, to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and to the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country. acEHCD
SO ORDERED.(Brion, J., on leave; Mendoza, J., on official leave.)"
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 1-5.
2. Id. at 1. See rollo, p. 7, Death Certificate of Gerardo Aliado Sadural.
3. Id. at 2. See rollo, pp. 9-10, TCT No. T-30858 with the stamp "Cancelled".
4. Id. See rollo, p. 11, TCT No. T-98917.
5. Id. at 2.
6. Id. at 12-13.
7. Id. at 2.
8. Id. at 2-3.
9. Id. at 15-21.
10. Id. at 17.
11. Id. See rollo, p. 24, Record of Daily Attendance.
12. Id. at 16. See rollo, p. 22, Deed of Absolute Sale.
13. Id. at 54 and 63-64.
14. Id. at 68.
15. Id. at 90-92, TSN, November 15, 2011.
16. Id. at 120-124. The Report and Recommendation was prepared by Commissioner Hannibal Augustus B. Bobis.
17. Id. at 122.
18. Id. at 123.
19. Id. at 123-124.
20. Id. at 118-119.
21. Id. at 119.
22. De Jesus v. Guerrero, 614 Phil. 520, 528-529 (2009) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
23. Rollo, pp. 122-123.
24. Id. at 64.