Mariano v. Peñas, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Jose P. Mariano (adopted son of the deceased spouses Don Macario Mariano and Doña Irene Mariano) and Francisco M. Bautista (judgment creditor of the Marianos) filed administrative complaints against respondent Judge Jose S. Peñas, Jr. (then a practicing lawyer) and Attorney Rogelio R. Udarbe. They alleged that respondents conspired with Rolando S. Relucio (second husband of the widow, Irene Mariano) to falsify a deed of sale of Irene Mariano's properties in favor of Raul Santos (brother of Rolando S. Relucio), thereby stripping her estate of valuable real properties to the prejudice of her legal heirs and creditors. Alleged indicators of falsity included the absence of an original deed, the production of a carbon copy with erasures, different ink colors used for signatures, different typewriters for different pages, and a false statement regarding the heirs' shares. Procedural History: Respondent Judge Peñas argued that the charge was premature due to pending annulment and rescission cases concerning the deed of sale. He denied forging or falsifying the deed, attributing the loss of the original to multiple office transfers and the destruction of copies to a fire at the Office of the Clerk of Court. Respondent Attorney Udarbe denied participation in the preparation or notarization, stating he merely assisted in registration unaware of any defect. The National Land Registration and Deeds Administration (NLRDA) authorized the registration after a consulta. The cases were consolidated and referred to the Court of Appeals for investigation. Justice Imperial excused himself due to a prior adverse decision against Bautista in a case where Peñas was counsel. The cases were then transferred to Associate Justice Pedro A. Ramirez, who submitted a report recommending dismissal for lack of merit. The Petition: The complainants charged respondents with "malpractice and serious violation of the law and the canons of professional ethics" for allegedly conspiring to falsify a deed of sale to defraud heirs and creditors.
Issue(s)
Whether the deed of absolute sale was falsified. Whether respondents Judge Jose S. Peñas, Jr. and Attorney Rogelio R. Udarbe conspired to falsify the deed of sale and defraud the heirs and creditors. Whether respondents committed malpractice and serious violation of the law and the canons of professional ethics.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaints for lack of merit. The Court found no proof that the deed of absolute sale was falsified. The NBI document examiner could not determine the genuineness of the signatures due to insufficient specimens. The records did not show Attorney Udarbe's participation in the preparation and notarization, only in following up its registration. The allegation of antedating the deed to frustrate the satisfaction of a judgment was unsubstantiated. Respondent Judge Peñas certified that the vendor personally appeared before him and acknowledged the document as her free act, and testified that the vendor brought the document to him for notarization. The Court reiterated that a recital in a public document notarized with legal formalities is evidence against parties and requires a high degree of proof to overcome the presumption of truth. The charge of conspiring to frustrate a judgment was rendered moot by the complainant's admission of having collected the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the deed of absolute sale was falsified: The records are bereft of proof that the deed of absolute sale was a falsified document. The testimony of the NBI document examiner, Zenaida Torres, revealed that she was unable to determine the genuineness of the signatures in the questioned document because she was not provided with sufficient specimen signatures of the vendor and the notary public. This lack of conclusive evidence from the document examiner directly undermines the complainants' assertion of forgery. Furthermore, the Registrar of Deeds, Attorney Greta F. Paraiso, did not present evidence to establish the falsity of the document. On the issue of whether respondents Judge Jose S. Peñas, Jr. and Attorney Rogelio R. Udarbe conspired to falsify the deed of sale and defraud the heirs and creditors: The records do not show that Attorney Udarbe participated in the preparation and notarization of the deed of sale; he merely followed up its registration as counsel for the parties involved. Regarding Judge Peñas, he certified on the deed of sale that the vendor, Irene P. Mariano, personally appeared before him on April 15, 1975, and acknowledged the document as her free and voluntary act and deed. He also testified that Irene herself brought the document to him, already prepared for notarization. The complainants failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome the legal presumption of truth accorded to a notarial certification. On the issue of whether respondents committed malpractice and serious violation of the law and the canons of professional ethics: The complainants failed to substantiate their allegations of conspiracy and falsification. As an officer of the court, a lawyer is presumed to have performed his duty in accordance with his oath. A recital in a public document, celebrated with all legal formalities under the safeguard of a notarial certificate, is evidence against the parties, and a high degree of proof is necessary to overcome the legal presumption that such recital is true. The oral evidence must be clear and convincing, sustained by proof of facts or circumstances tending to disclose a reasonable probability that the attack upon the document's genuineness or efficacy is well-founded. In this case, such proof was wanting. Moreover, the charge that the respondents conspired to frustrate the satisfaction of a money judgment was rendered moot by the complainant's admission of having collected the judgment with interest.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaints against a judge and a lawyer for alleged malpractice and violation of professional ethics due to lack of merit, as the complainants failed to present sufficient proof to substantiate the claims of falsification and conspiracy.