Villanueva v. De la Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Filoteo Villanueva filed an administrative action against respondent Attorney Florante C. de la Cruz, a member of the Philippine Bar and lawyer for Rang-ay Rural Bank, Inc. The complaint alleged that respondent refused to furnish complainant with notarized documents related to loans obtained by the complainant from the bank, failed to submit copies of these documents to the Court, and acted impolitely by shouting at the complainant. Procedural History: The complaint was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General, which conducted an investigation and submitted a report with recommendations to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court based on the report and recommendation of the Office of the Solicitor General, which summarized the evidence and findings regarding the allegations of refusal to furnish documents, failure to submit reports, and discourteous conduct.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Attorney Florante C. de la Cruz committed malpractice by refusing to furnish complainant Filoteo Villanueva with copies of notarized documents. Whether respondent failed in his duty to submit periodical reports of his actuations as a notary public. Whether respondent was guilty of discourteous conduct towards the complainant.
Ruling
The Court dismissed the case against respondent Attorney Florante C. de la Cruz but admonished him to be more careful in the future in his actuations as a notary and to observe faithfully the requirements of the law. A copy of the resolution was ordered to be spread on his record.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that the charge that respondent Atty. de la Cruz refused to give copies of notarial documents he notarized upon the request of complainant appeared to have been proven. The complainant testified that respondent refused to give him copies and shouted at him, stating he had already told him multiple times that he could not provide them. The Court noted that the complainant had to resort to securing copies from the Register of Deeds, which suggested that obtaining them from the respondent was not easy. However, the Court also noted that there was no serious damage from respondent's refusal, as the complainant was able to secure copies from other sources. The report also stated that the respondent was retained by the bank and notarized several documents for the complainant, including real estate mortgages and a promissory note, though there was no clear showing that the promissory note itself was notarized by the respondent. On Issue 2: The respondent was absolved of the charge that he failed to submit periodical reports of his actuations as a notary. The report did not provide clear evidence to support this accusation. On Issue 3: The charge of discourtesy was not sufficiently demonstrated. The Court stated that the discourteous act imputed to the respondent was not an act of malpractice by a lawyer. It was further stated that the evidence merely proved that both parties did not employ the language of moderation in their confrontation. The Court accepted the recommendation for dismissal of the case, with a warning to the respondent.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the duties of a notary public, including the obligation to provide copies of notarized documents and to comply with reporting requirements. It reiterated that while a notary public must act with diligence and integrity, administrative charges require substantial evidence. Minor lapses or unproven allegations of discourtesy, especially in the context of a heated exchange, may not constitute malpractice warranting disciplinary action.