Concepcion v. Fandiño, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Danilo M. Concepcion filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Daniel P. Fandiño, Jr. for gross misconduct, deceit, and malpractice, alleging that the respondent notarized several documents without being commissioned as a notary public. Specifically, the complaint cited a Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 1989, purportedly notarized by the respondent, and another Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 10, 1987, also allegedly notarized by the respondent without a commission. The complainant also alleged that the respondent failed to pay his share of the commission from the sale of a lot, leading to civil and criminal suits. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the investigating commissioner's report and recommendation to dismiss the complaint for lack of merit. The complainant filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Supreme Court treated as such, and also filed motions to declare an IBP Commissioner in contempt. The Petition: The complainant prayed for the disbarment of the respondent. The respondent denied the allegations, claiming the complaint was a form of harassment to pressure him into paying a commission. He asserted that the criminal complaint was dismissed for lack of probable cause and that a demurrer to evidence was filed in the civil case. The respondent also questioned the authenticity of the documents presented by the complainant, alleging they were mere photocopies and potentially falsified.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent committed gross misconduct, deceit, and malpractice by notarizing documents without a commission as a notary public. Whether the evidence presented by the complainant is sufficient to warrant disciplinary action against the respondent. Whether the complainant's motions for reconsideration and contempt should be granted.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the complainant's motion for reconsideration and motion for contempt, upholding the IBP's dismissal of the complaint. The Court found that the complainant failed to present clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof to establish the charges against the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent committed gross misconduct, deceit, and malpractice by notarizing documents without a commission as a notary public: The Court found that the complainant failed to discharge the burden of proof required in disbarment proceedings. The primary evidence presented by the complainant consisted of mere photocopies of the alleged deeds of sale. The Court reiterated the general rule that photocopies of documents are inadmissible in evidence, citing Heirs of Severa P. Gregorio v. Court of Appeals and Intestate Estate of the Late Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban v. Court of Appeals, and that such documents have no probative value unless the originals are proven lost or destroyed, or their unavailability is established. The complainant did not present any original copies, nor did any of the parties involved in the alleged transactions testify to establish the authenticity of the documents. Furthermore, the complainant failed to account for the source of these documents, raising doubts about their authenticity, especially in light of the respondent's assertion that the complainant might have falsified the signatures. The Court also noted that criminal complaints for usurpation of official functions filed by the complainant based on the same allegations were dismissed by the prosecutor for failure to produce the original copies, violating the Best Evidence Rule. On the issue of whether the evidence presented by the complainant is sufficient to warrant disciplinary action against the respondent: The Court held that the evidence presented was insufficient. It emphasized that in disbarment proceedings, the quantum of proof required is clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence, or clear preponderant evidence, due to the serious consequence of disbarment or suspension. The complainant's failure to present original documents, to have them authenticated by witnesses, or to explain their provenance, rendered the evidence weak and inadmissible. The Court also considered the respondent's allegation that the complaint was filed for harassment and blackmail, noting that the complainant failed to substantiate his claims despite the lapse of time. The Court found the respondent's explanation regarding his non-involvement in the transactions and his denial of notarizing the documents to be plausible, especially given the lack of credible evidence against him. The Court also pointed out that the parties to the alleged deeds of sale remained silent, which further weakened the complainant's case. On the issue of whether the complainant's motions for reconsideration and contempt should be granted: The Court denied the complainant's motion for reconsideration, finding no compelling reason to set aside the IBP's findings. The Court also denied the motion for contempt against IBP Commissioner Benjamin Bernardino. While acknowledging the significant time taken by the IBP to resolve the case (seven years), the Court found no proof of malice or bad faith in the reassignment of the case among four different commissioners due to retirements or resignations. The Court concluded that the delays were not whimsical or deliberate attempts to delay the complainant's case, and thus, there was no basis for holding the commissioner in contempt.
Main Doctrine
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof. Mere photocopies of documents, without proof of the loss or unavailability of the originals, are inadmissible in evidence and have no probative value, especially when the authenticity of the documents and the complainant's possession thereof are questionable.