Mendoza v. Mercado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 1, 1975, Arsenio V. Mendoza filed a complaint against Arsenio Mercado, an assistant provincial fiscal, for professional incompetence. The charge stemmed from Mercado's notarization in 1957 of a deed of donation mortis causa. This deed was later declared void by the Court of First Instance of Bulacan in 1974 for not being executed in the form of a last will and testament. The donation involved Agueda Mendoza's share in a house and lot to her sister, Felisa P. Mendoza. Allegedly due to the nullity of the deed, the devise of that share to complainant Arsenio V. Mendoza and Generoso Mendoza in Felisa P. Mendoza's last will and testament became ineffectual. Procedural History: The decision of the Court of First Instance declaring the donation void was under appeal in Mendoza vs. Mendoza, CA-G.R. No. 57057-R. In that appeal, the complainant Arsenio V. Mendoza, as a defendant, argued that the donation was valid because it was executed in accordance with law. The Petition: The issue before the Solicitor General's Office was whether respondent Mercado prepared the deed of donation mortis causa or merely notarized it. The Solicitor General found that the deed was prepared by lawyer Dioscoro M. Juan, who had died in 1961, and that Mercado acted in good faith in notarizing it.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Arsenio Mercado may be held administratively liable or disbarred for professional incompetence for notarizing a deed of donation mortis causa that did not comply with the formal requirements of a last will and testament.
Ruling
The complaint for disbarment is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that disciplinary action is not warranted against the respondent. First, the Court noted that 'professional incompetence' is not among the specific grounds for disbarment listed in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court (ROC), although it acknowledged that inexcusable ignorance of the law could be a basis for discipline in extreme cases. Second, the Court emphasized the complexity of the legal issue involved, noting that the distinction between donations inter vivos and mortis causa has been a subject of extensive and controversial litigation in Philippine jurisprudence. Third, the Court pointed out that even learned lawyers and judges can be excusably unfamiliar with the rule that a donation mortis causa must strictly follow the form of a last will and testament under the Civil Code of the Philippines (CCP). Fourth, applying the principle from In re Filart (40 Phil 205), the Court held that an attorney-at-law is not expected to know all the law and cannot be held liable for an honest mistake or error. Fifth, considering that the respondent did not prepare the document but merely notarized it in good faith, his failure to identify the formal defect did not rise to the level of gross or inexcusable negligence required for disbarment.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer may not be disbarred for professional incompetence unless it amounts to inexcusable ignorance of the law, and an honest mistake or error does not make an attorney liable.