SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12016. April 10, 2019.]
SPS. STEVE AND JACQUELINE BUENO, petitioners, vs.ATTY. SERVILLANO A. ABENES, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 April 2019which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12016 — SPS. STEVE AND JACQUELINE BUENO vs. ATTY. SERVILLANO A. ABENES, JR.
Spouses Steve Bueno (Steve) and Jacqueline Bueno (Jacqueline) (collectively Spouses Bueno) filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Baguio-Benguet Chapter a Joint Affidavit-Complaint 1 dated March 26, 2012 for disbarment against respondent Atty. Servillano A. Abenes, Jr. (respondent) for "violation of the Lawyer's Oath and lawyer-client relationship/privilege." 2 Spouses Bueno alleged the following: they are the "actual possessors and owners" of three parcels of land, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. T-61964, T-61965, and T-61966 registered under the name of Northwest Investors, Incorporated; they have the original Owner's Duplicate copies of said TCTs; and they sought respondent's services for the transfer to their names thereof. The engagement of respondent's services was evidenced by the following signed note (subject note): 3
February 18, 2011
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The bearer of this letter, MS. JACQUELINE P. BUENO has sought my advice and assistance regarding the eventual transfer of three (3) parcels of land (covered by TCT T-61964, TCT T-61965, TCT T-61966) registered under the name of Northwest Investors, Incorporated, to her name.
This letter is being issued for whatever legal purpose it may serve.
Respectfully,ATTY. SERVILLANO A. ABENES, JR.B202 LOPEZ BLDG., SESSION RD., BAGUIO CITY 4
Spouses Bueno further alleged: that respondent tried to convince them to surrender the said titles to a certain Ms. Sevilla who claimed to be the secretary of Northwest Investors, Incorporated; that they refused to surrender their titles because Ms. Sevilla had no such authority since the registration of said corporation was revoked in 2003; that they were surprised and alarmed when they discovered in 2012 that respondent notarized an Affidavit of Loss on June 9, 2011 for Rhodora J. Sevilla, Vice President of Northwest Investors, Incorporated regarding the alleged loss of the original Owner's Duplicate copies of the subject TCTs; and that respondent's notarization of the said Affidavit of Loss violated the Lawyer's Oath and the lawyer-client relationship/privilege. 5
The Committee on Ethics of the IBP-Baguio-Benguet Chapter conducted preliminary conference on April 10 and 13, 2012, where Spouses Bueno and respondent asked time for amicable settlement, and thus, they were given 60 days to do so. 6 During the compliance hearing on June 29, 2012, the parties again agreed to try to reach an amicable settlement within another 30 days. 7 On February 19, 2013, the Committee on Ethics received a handwritten letter from Jacqueline, requesting that the case records be forwarded to the IBP National Office for proper disposition. 8
Upon its receipt of the case records, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) ordered respondent to submit his Answer within 15 days pursuant to Bar Matter No. 1755 (Re: Rules and Procedures of the Commission on Bar Discipline). 9 In his Answer, 10 respondent denied the charges and alleged that: when he notarized the subject Affidavit of Loss, he was not aware that Spouses Bueno were the actual possessors and owners of the subject parcels of land and that they have the subject TCTs in their possession; when he first met Jacqueline on February 18, 2011, she had some general questions about the process of transferring the subject parcels of land which were allegedly sold by a corporation to her husband; he informed Jacqueline of the process for the said transfer; Jacqueline asked him for a written note (which is the subject note) to show someone in Manila that she consulted a lawyer about the matter; there was no lawyer-client relationship between him and Jacqueline and that the subject note was a mere accommodation to her, and not an engagement agreement; on February 21, 2011, Jacqueline again visited the respondent's office and she showed him an unnotarized 1997 Deed of Absolute Sale which shows that the subject parcels of land were consolidated then subdivided into three lots, and only one lot was sold to Spouses Bueno; Jacqueline wanted all three lots transferred in their names, but respondent told her that he did not offer the said services; he referred her to a freelance realtor, but she was free to hire any reactor of her choice to process the said transfer; thereafter, on the first week of June 2011, he was retained by Rhodora Sevilla to represent a company in a case; Sevilla wanted to file a petition for issuance of lost title in behalf of Northwest Investors, Incorporated, and she asked respondent to notarize the subject Affidavit of Loss on June 9, 2011; he said that had he recalled Jacqueline's consultation in February 2011, he would not have notarized the same; his lapse in memory had no badges of bad faith and he never intended to violate the lawyer-client privilege; he filed the said petition on June 10, 2011 before the RTC-Baguio; during the last week of September 2011, when he chanced upon the subject note on his computer, he then recalled that the subject TCTs were in Spouses Bueno's possession; thus, he informed Sevilla about the matter and recommended the withdrawal of the subject petition; Sevilla instructed him to set an appointment with Spouses Bueno; on October 1, 2011, Sevilla met with respondent and Spouses Bueno, who produced the original owner's duplicate copies of the subject TCTs; the parties agreed that Spouses Bueno would turn over the two titles and retain one title, while Northwest Investors, Incorporated would execute a Deed of Conveyance in their favor; thus, on October 4, 2011, respondent filed a Notice of Dismissal to withdraw the subject petition which was given due course by the court; another meeting between the Spouses Bueno and a representative of Sevilla took place on the second week of January 2012, where Steve asked for time to talk to his siblings about the case; thus, respondent felt deceived when Spouses Bueno filed an affidavit-complaint against him. 11
The mandatory conference/hearing for the case was reset for several times, until the Investigating Commissioner issued an Order dated April 2, 2014 which directed the parties to submit their respective position papers within 15 days, and thereafter, the case shall be deemed submitted for report and recommendation. 12
In a Report and Recommendation 13 dated August 10, 2015, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended for one year, and his commission as a notary public, if he held one, be revoked, with the further directive that he be disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years. 14 The Investigating Commissioner's findings are as follows: respondent admits being consulted by Jacqueline as shown by the subject note; respondent's claim that there was no lawyer-client relationship between him and Spouses Bueno must fail since to establish the professional relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and is received in any matter pertaining to his profession, citing Hilado v. David15 and Dee v. Court of Appeals, 16 regarding the charge of violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice 17 "by notarizing a document that he knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction is a falsehood and a fraudulent misrepresentation of facts which he personally knew to be otherwise"; thus, revocation of the notarial commission, not necessarily disbarment, may ensue. 18
In a Resolution No. XXII-2015-58 19 dated October 28, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the above Report and Recommendation. Aggrieved, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which the IBP Board of Governors denied in a Resolution No. XXII-2017-1145 20 dated May 27, 2017.
In view of the facts of the case and considering that this is the first offense of respondent, the Court adopts and approves with modification the Resolution No. XXII-2015-58 of the IBP Board of Governors by reducing the penalty to reprimand and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public or from performing any notarial act if he is presently commissioned as a notary public for a period of three (3) months. In determining the penalty to be imposed, the Court considers the facts and factors which may serve as mitigating circumstances, such as respondent's length of service, respondent's acknowledgment of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances, respondent's advanced age, humanitarian and equitable considerations, among others. 21 Respondent is hereby reminded to be more circumspect in performing his duties as a notary public.
WHEREFORE, the Court adopts and approves with modification the Resolution No. XXII-2015-58 dated October 28, 2015 of the IBP Board of Governors in CBD Case No. 13-3772. Atty. Servillano A. Abenes, Jr. is GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and is hereby REPRIMANDED, and his notarial commission, if still existing, is immediately REVOKED and he is disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of three (3) months, to commence immediately upon receipt of this resolution.
Atty. Abenes, Jr. is DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this resolution to enable this Court to determine when his disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public shall take effect.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the IBP, and all courts in the country for their information and guidance. Let also a copy of this Resolution be appended to Atty. Servillano A. Abenes, Jr.'s personal record as a member of the Bar.
SO ORDERED. (PERLAS-BERNABE, J., on leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 6-8.
2.Id. at 6.
3.Id.
4.Id. at 10.
5.Id. at 7.
6.Id. at 13-14.
7.Id. at 15.
8.Id. at 3-4.
9.Id. at 16.
10.Id. at 17-22.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 32, 36, 39, 42, 46, 56, 65, 66.
13.Id. at 193-197.
14.Id. at 197.
15. 84 Phil. 569 (1949).
16. 257 Phil. 661 (1989).
17. A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, July 6, 2004.
18.Rollo, p. 196.
19.Id. at 192.
20.Id. at 190-191.
21.Office of the Court Administrator v. Egipto, Jr., A.M. No. P-05-1938, January 30, 2018, citing Arganosa-Maniego v. Salinas, 608 Phil. 334 (2009).