SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11376. November 24, 2021.][formerly CBD Case No. 17-5400]
MARIA PAZ O. VILLANUEVA, complainant,vs. ATTY. LIBERATO G. CASILAN, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated24 November 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11376 [formerly CBD Case No. 17-5400] (Maria Paz O. Villanueva v. Atty. Liberato G. Casilan, Jr.) — The Court is called upon to resolve the instant disbarment Complaint1 filed by complainant Maria Paz O. Villanueva (complainant) against respondent Atty. Liberato G. Casilan, Jr. (respondent) for notarizing the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate among Heirs with Simultaneous Waiver and Transfer of Rights (Deed)2 bearing her name and forged signature without her knowledge, personal presence, or consent.
Complainant avowed that she was residing in Manila when respondent notarized the aforementioned document in the Province of Bohol in 2008. She argued that the passport containing her personal information appended thereto was spurious as it could not have been available at the time of the notarization since the same was issued only in March 2010. 3
For his part, respondent admitted having notarized the subject document, but asserted that complainant's signature thereon was not forged. 4 To refute the imputation hurled against him, he proffered the Counter-Affidavit5 of Grace Jesusa Oppus-Villanueva (Grace), complainant's mother and one of the signatories of the notarized Deed, who attested that her daughter indeed signed the document.
Respondent further avowed that he was merely caught in the crossfire of the long standing feud between complainant and her mother whom he represented in a barrage of cases filed by the former. He disclosed that the notarized document was the subject matter of a criminal complaint for falsification by a private individual 6 filed by complainant against her mother before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Tagbilaran City, Bohol. The complaint, docketed as NPS No. VII-14-INV-14A-033, was dismissed on 4 March 2014. Respondent avouched that despite the dismissal of the subject case, complainant instituted another case for falsification based on the same set of facts against her mother and impleaded him as an additional respondent. 7
In the Report and Recommendation8 dated 21 February 2018, Investigating Commissioner Oliver Cachapero of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline noticeably discerned that the page containing the signatures of the parties in the notarized Deed was missing. He elucidated that such absence deprived him of the opportunity to appreciate the alleged forged signature of the complainant making the same fatal to her cause. He also brought to fore the dearth of evidence substantiating complainant's asseverations of forgery and that she was actually in Manila when the document was notarized in 2008. 9 In due course, the IBP disposed in this wise: CAIHTE
"Foregoing premises, it is recommended that the complaint against Respondent be DISMISSED." 10
On 6 December 2018, the IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution11 adopting the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner to dismiss the complaint.
The Court adopts the findings of fact and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.
The purpose of disbarment proceedings is mainly to determine the fitness of a lawyer to continue acting as an officer of the court and as participant in the dispensation of justice. 12
An assiduous study of the case reveals that complainant adduced insufficient evidence to prove her claims against respondent. In a plethora of cases, 13 the Court held that the quantum of proof in disbarment cases is substantial evidence, or "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion." 14 Equally important is the rule that the burden of proof lies on the part of the complainant; thus, mere postulations and conjectures will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. 15
When the Complaint was filed, complainant appended, inter alia, the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate among Heirs with Simultaneous Waiver and Transfer of Rights which respondent had notarized. As correctly observed by the IBP, however, the page that supposedly contained the signatures of all parties is missing. Lamentably, no other evidence supporting complainant's allegation of forgery was presented. Moreover, she cannot take shelter on her Travel Records Verification Slip16 as the note at the bottom thereof expressly provides that its sole purpose is for internal verification by the Bureau of Immigration, and that it cannot be used as an official document outside the agency. Indubitably, her claim that the passport annexed thereto is fictitious necessarily fails. Finally, the records are bereft of any proof reinforcing that complainant was indeed in Manila during the notarization of the Deed.
In précis, complainant failed to discharge the onus of proving that respondent committed the act complained.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of facts, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the IBP in the Resolution dated 6 December 2018. The Complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Liberato G. Casilan, Jr., in A.C. No. 11376 [formerly CBD Case No. 17-5400] is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED." (Hernando, J., on official leave)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 1.
2.Id. at 4-5.
3.Id. at 1.
4.Id. at 16.
5.Id. at 33-79.
6. See Comments, Rollo, pp. 15-16.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 160-163.
9.Id. at 162-163
10.Id. at 163.
11.Id. at 158-159.
12.Office of the Court Administrator v. Liangco, 678 Phil. 305, 327 (2011).
13. See Arsenio v. Tabuzo, 809 Phil. 206, 212 (2017); Goopio v. Maglalang, 837 Phil. 585, 31 July 2018; Perito v. Baterina, A.C. No. 12631, 8 July 2020.
14. Section 6, Rule 133 of the Rules on Evidence as amended by A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC.
15. See Guanzon v. Dojillo, A.C. No. 9850, 6 August 2018.
16.Rollo, p. 6.