Leaño v. Andico
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Manuel Leaño filed a verified letter-complaint against Attorney Ernesto Andico, charging him with notarizing a forged Deed of Real Estate Mortgage of Leaño's house and lot. The property was subsequently foreclosed and sold, leading to the ejectment of Leaño and his wife. Leaño alleged that Atty. Andico was negligent in failing to ascertain the identity of the persons who executed the deed. Procedural History: The complaint was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Solicitor General conducted an investigation and hearing, and submitted a report containing the following findings: 1. Leaño's allegation that he and his wife never executed any Deed of Real Estate Mortgage involving their land was false, as he admitted to mortgaging the land to the Rural Bank of Salinas on September 30, 1966, and acknowledged his and his wife's signatures on that deed. 2. Leaño's claim of discovering the "forged" 1974 deed of real estate mortgage in 1980 was contradicted by his own testimony about receiving notices regarding the mortgage and foreclosure sale in 1978-1979 and 1976, respectively. 3. Statements in an affidavit by Jacinto Ilas, the alleged mortgagee, were contradicted by other testimonies, indicating Leaño already knew Ilas prior to the affidavit's execution. Atty. Espiritu's testimony confirmed that Leaño and his wife brought Ilas to his office to execute the affidavit, proving Leaño's prior acquaintance with Ilas. 4. Atty. Andico's claim of political motivation was credible, as Leaño admitted to being a henchman of Mayor Calixto Enriquez, who prepared and administered the oath for the complaint. The Petition: Based on the Solicitor General's findings, the administrative complaint against Attorney Ernesto Andico was dismissed for being completely devoid of factual basis, frivolous, and intended merely to harass, annoy, and maliciously besmirch the reputation of the respondent.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Ernesto Andico was remiss and grossly negligent in the performance of his duties as a notary public by failing to ascertain the identity of the persons who executed the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage. Whether the administrative complaint filed by Manuel Leaño against Atty. Ernesto Andico is factually baseless and politically motivated.
Ruling
The administrative complaint against Atty. Ernesto Andico is dismissed for being completely devoid of factual basis, frivolous, and intended merely to harass, annoy, and maliciously besmirch the reputation of the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of negligence in notarization: The Court found that the complainant's allegations were false and unsubstantiated. The investigation revealed that the complainant himself admitted to having previously mortgaged the property and acknowledged his signatures on a prior deed of mortgage. Furthermore, the complainant's timeline for discovering the alleged forged deed was contradicted by his own testimony regarding notices of payment and foreclosure. The Solicitor General's findings, which were adopted by the Court, demonstrated that the complainant's claims regarding the forged deed and the notary's alleged negligence lacked factual basis. The evidence presented did not support the assertion that Atty. Andico failed to properly ascertain the identity of the mortgagor, especially given the respondent's assertion that he personally knew the complainant. On the issue of the complaint being factually baseless and politically motivated: The Court found credible Atty. Andico's claim that the administrative complaint was politically motivated. The complainant admitted to being a supporter of Atty. Andico's political opponent, Mayor Calixto Enriquez. It was also established that Mayor Enriquez, with the assistance of Atty. Maguigad, prepared the complainant's letter-complaint, and the complainant subscribed to it before Mayor Enriquez. This direct involvement of a political rival in the preparation and filing of the complaint strongly indicated a motive beyond the pursuit of justice, suggesting an intent to harass and damage the respondent's reputation. The Solicitor General's recommendation for dismissal was based on these findings, highlighting the frivolous nature of the complaint.
Main Doctrine
An administrative complaint against a notary public will be dismissed if it is found to be completely devoid of factual basis, frivolous, and intended merely to harass, annoy, and maliciously besmirch the reputation of the respondent.