Sabayle v. Tandayag
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Ambrosio Sabayle charged respondent Teodulo C. Tandayag (Judge), Atty. Carmelito B. Gabor, and Atty. Pablo B. Badong with various offenses. Judge Tandayag was charged with misconduct, inefficiency, and incompetence. Atty. Gabor was accused of violating his duties as a Notary Public by acknowledging a Deed of Sale in the absence of purported vendors and purchasing part of the land covered by a fictitious Deed of Sale. Atty. Badong was charged with negligence for failing to file an Opposition to a Motion and failing to take an appeal in a case handled for the complainant. Procedural History: The Supreme Court initially dismissed the charges against Judge Tandayag. The case against Atty. Gabor and Atty. Badong was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation. Due to the parties' residence in Iligan City, the case was later referred to the City Fiscal of Iligan City. The City Fiscal found that Atty. Badong had died and recommended the dismissal of charges against both Atty. Badong and Atty. Gabor for failure to prove the allegations. The Solicitor General later filed his report, recommending dismissal of charges against the deceased Atty. Badong. The Supreme Court, however, decided to rule on the merits for both respondents. The Petition: The complaint stemmed from allegations of misconduct and professional negligence against the respondents. Specifically, Atty. Gabor was accused of participating in a simulated sale of land, and Atty. Badong was accused of failing to protect the complainant's interests in an appeal. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the Solicitor General and the City Fiscal.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Pablo B. Badong was negligent in the performance of his professional duties. Whether respondent Atty. Carmelito B. Gabor committed misconduct in office and violated his duties as a Notary Public, specifically by notarizing a simulated deed of sale and subsequently acquiring property from it. Whether the Deed of Sale executed by complainant Sabayle in favor of Teopisto Salcedo was simulated and fictitious.
Ruling
The charges against the deceased respondent Pablo B. Badong were dismissed as moot and academic and for lack of merit. Respondent Carmelito B. Gabor was DISBARRED and his name was ordered to be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. The Resolution was made immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charges against Atty. Pablo B. Badong: The Court agreed with the evaluation of the Iligan City Fiscal that Atty. Badong was not negligent and had exhausted all available remedies under the Rules of Court. The complainant himself had retracted his charges against Atty. Badong, admitting he was mistaken and was satisfied with the services rendered. The Court noted that Atty. Badong's family was entitled to know the outcome of the proceedings, despite the delay. The Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by the complainant and Atty. Badong, though initially dismissed by the Solicitor General on the ground that settlement does not preclude inquiry into an attorney's acts, was considered in light of the subsequent findings of non-negligence. On the charges against Atty. Carmelito B. Gabor: The Court found respondent Gabor guilty of misconduct in violation of his oath as a member of the bar. The Court found that Gabor knowingly took part in the false and simulated transaction, not only by notarizing the simulated Deed of Sale but also by acquiring half of the property from Salcedo, who had no right to transfer it. This conduct constituted a willful disregard of his duty to act with truth and honor. The Court emphasized the importance of lawyers, as officers of the court, behaving consistently with truth and honor, and not profiting from dishonest acts, especially for Notaries Public who warrant the genuineness of instruments they acknowledge. The trial court's decision in the annulment case, which declared the Deed of Sale between Sabayle and Salcedo as simulated and fictitious for lack of consent and consideration, was considered highly credible evidence. The Court noted that Gabor did not attend hearings, present evidence, or appeal the decision in the annulment case, indicating his agreement with the findings. On the simulated nature of the Deed of Sale: The trial court's decision in the annulment case declared the Deed of Sale between Sabayle and Salcedo as simulated and fictitious for lack of consent and consideration.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who knowingly takes part in a false and simulated transaction, not only by notarizing a simulated Deed of Sale but also by sharing in the profits flowing from defrauding the victim through such transaction by acquiring half of the property sought to be transferred by the false transaction, is guilty of serious dishonesty and professional misconduct. Notaries Public are authorized by law to convert private writings into public instruments and to warrant the genuineness and voluntariness of such instruments by acknowledging them.