Ocampo v. Cuba
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Ricardo S. Ocampo charged respondent Alfredo N. Cuba, a lawyer admitted to the bar in 1961, with notarizing a deed of extrajudicial settlement although Ocampo allegedly did not appear before him. A National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) report dated April 23, 1976, found Ocampo's signature in the deed to be not genuine. The deed, acknowledged before Cuba on September 30, 1970, involved the conjugal lot and house of Basilio Ocampo and his sons Ricardo and Jose, as heirs of Juliana Sunglao. Basilio and Ricardo transferred their interests to Jose in consideration of his assumption of a mortgage debt. The deed was signed by Jose's wife Andrea and Ricardo's wife Francisca, and included Ricardo's residence certificate number. Procedural History: The Secretary of Justice, in an opinion dated February 11, 1977, found that Cuba's indictment for falsification in a criminal case pending in the Manila Court of First Instance appeared unjustified. The complainant filed this disbarment case. The Petition: The complainant alleged that respondent Cuba notarized the deed of extrajudicial settlement despite Ricardo Ocampo not appearing before him.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Alfredo N. Cuba acted with malice or bad faith in notarizing the deed of extrajudicial settlement. Whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant disciplinary action against respondent Cuba.
Ruling
The Court dismissed the complaint for disbarment, finding that respondent Cuba acted in good faith and that there is no cause for disciplinary action against him.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent Alfredo N. Cuba acted with malice or bad faith in notarizing the deed of extrajudicial settlement: The Court found that respondent Cuba acted in good faith. Cuba, a lawyer in the legal department of Philippine American Life Insurance Company, notarized the deed at the instance of Jose S. Ocampo, his fellow employee. When the deed was presented to him, it was already signed. Cuba testified that he asked the parties and witnesses, including Ricardo, whether they acknowledged the signatures appearing therein, and they answered in the affirmative. He also asked them to produce their residence certificates and instructed his clerk to enter the document in his notarial register. Furthermore, he did not charge any notarial fee. The Court noted that the father, Basilio, owned a two-thirds interest in the property and the sons, Ricardo and Jose, a one-sixth interest each, making it difficult to believe that the father would sanction an injustice against Ricardo to favor Jose. The Court also considered the conflicting reports on the genuineness of Ricardo's signature: the NBI report (Exh. D) found it not genuine, while the Constabulary Crime Laboratory report (Exh. 7) found it genuine. The Court emphasized that strong, complete, and conclusive proof is necessary to overthrow a notarial document. On whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant disciplinary action against respondent Cuba: The Court found no cause for disciplinary action. The conflicting findings of the NBI and the Constabulary Crime Laboratory regarding the genuineness of Ricardo Ocampo's signature created doubt. However, the testimony of respondent Cuba regarding the acknowledgment of signatures and the presentation of residence certificates, coupled with the absence of a notarial fee, supported his claim of good faith. The principle that strong, complete, and conclusive proof is required to overturn a notarial document was applied. Given the conflicting evidence and the respondent's explanation of his notarial act, the Court concluded that the complainant failed to establish the necessary proof for disciplinary action.
Main Doctrine
A respondent lawyer who notarized a deed of extrajudicial settlement acted in good faith and without cause for disciplinary action when evidence presented showed conflicting findings on the genuineness of a signature, and the lawyer testified that the parties acknowledged their signatures and presented their residence certificates, and no notarial fee was charged.