Roces v. Aportadera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A Deed of Sale dated January 4, 1980, purportedly executed by Isabel Roces in favor of Gregorio Licauan, was notarized by respondent Atty. Jose G. Aportadera. The notarization stated that Isabel Roces personally appeared with Residence Certificate No. A-9079133 issued on February 1, 1980. A disbarment complaint was filed alleging that the respondent caused the execution of the deed by forging Isabel Roces' signature, notarizing it with a fictitious residence certificate, and knowing that Isabel Roces was hospitalized at the time and could not have personally appeared. Procedural History: The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) report corroborated the allegations, finding the signature to be a forgery, that Isabel Roces was hospitalized in Pasay City on January 4, 1980, and that the residence certificate was fictitious as it was issued after Isabel Roces' death on January 1, 1980. The respondent failed to file a comment with the Supreme Court and repeatedly sought postponements of hearings before the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, after the respondent's failure to appear at scheduled hearings, submitted the case for resolution based on documentary evidence. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report finding the respondent guilty of malpractice and gross negligence and recommended suspension. The respondent moved for reconsideration, alleging denial of due process and that the penalty was too harsh. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case based on the IBP's findings and recommendation.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent was deprived of due process. Whether the respondent is guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP's finding of guilt and the two-year suspension from the practice of law. The Court held that the respondent was not deprived of due process as he was given ample opportunities to be heard but waived his right through repeated failures to appear and file pleadings. The Court found the respondent guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct for notarizing a deed of sale under circumstances that clearly indicated falsification and misrepresentation.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of due process: The respondent was not deprived of his right to procedural due process. The essence of due process is an opportunity to be heard, which was afforded to the respondent multiple times. His failure to file a comment with the Supreme Court, his repeated requests for postponements before the OSG and IBP, and his ultimate failure to appear at scheduled hearings constituted a waiver of his right to present his side. The rules of procedure, specifically Section 8 of Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court, allow for proceedings to continue ex parte upon reasonable notice and failure to appear. Therefore, the submission of the case for resolution by the IBP Commissioner was in accordance with the rules. On the issue of malpractice and gross misconduct: The respondent, as a notary public, committed acts constituting malpractice and gross misconduct. The evidence clearly showed that the Deed of Sale was a forgery, with Isabel Roces' signature being falsified. Furthermore, the respondent admitted to notarizing the deed without Isabel Roces signing in his presence and while knowing she was hospitalized. The residence certificate used was fictitious, and it was issued on a date after Isabel Roces had already died. The respondent's claim of good faith was untenable, as a notary public is expected to exercise due diligence and ensure the personal appearance of the signatory. His misrepresentation in the notarial acknowledgment that Isabel Roces personally appeared before him in Iloilo City on January 4, 1980, when she was hospitalized in Metro Manila and had already died, constitutes a serious breach of his duties and violates the Canons of Professional Ethics. The IBP's finding of guilt and the imposed penalty of two years suspension were therefore justified.
Main Doctrine
A notary public is guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct for notarizing a deed of sale when the signatory did not personally appear before him, was hospitalized at the time of notarization, and used a fictitious residence certificate, especially when the notary public had knowledge of these defects.