Manubay v. Garcia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Ricardo B. Manubay charged respondent Atty. Gina C. Garcia with misconduct as a notary public. Manubay alleged that Garcia, in confabulation with Lolita M. Hernandez and two unknown witnesses, made it appear in a Contract of Lease that Manubay appeared and signed before her on March 5, 1996, when in truth, he signed it in his office when presented by an agent of Hernandez. Manubay also stated he did not sign the document in February 1996 as indicated in the contract. Procedural History: Manubay filed a Civil Case to declare the Contract of Lease null and void ab initio, which was pending before the RTC of Makati City. The Supreme Court directed respondent Garcia to comment on the administrative complaint. Garcia filed a Motion to Dismiss, citing non-compliance with Administrative Circular No. 04-94, and later an Extended Comment denying misconduct, asserting Manubay appeared before her and signed the contract. The Court, considering the extensive pleadings and lack of necessity for further factual determination, resolved to decide the case on the merits without referral to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The Petition: The core of the complaint was the alleged fraudulent notarization of a Contract of Lease by respondent Atty. Garcia.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Gina C. Garcia may be held administratively liable for misconduct as a notary public. Whether the complainant successfully discharged the burden of proof to establish the alleged misconduct.
Ruling
The Complaint is hereby DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondent Atty. Gina C. Garcia may be held administratively liable for misconduct as a notary public: The Court ruled that the complainant failed to show misconduct on the part of the respondent. It reiterated that a lawyer's guilt cannot be presumed, and allegations are never equivalent to proof. The burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and a bare charge cannot be equated with liability. The complainant's assertion that he did not appear before the notary public was deemed insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions, especially when the complainant himself admitted signing the document when presented by an agent. The Court found no evidence of malice or irregularity in the notarization. On Whether the complainant successfully discharged the burden of proof to establish the alleged misconduct: The Court found that the complainant failed to discharge the burden of proof. It is a settled rule that one who denies the due execution of a deed where one's signature appears has the burden of proving that, contrary to the recital in the jurat, one never appeared before the notary public. The complainant's bare allegation was insufficient to prove any irregularity. Furthermore, the Court noted that the complainant assailed the contract only after it had expired and after he had allegedly benefitted from it. The Court also observed that the administrative complaint appeared to be part of a strategy to stymie an ejectment suit filed by the respondent and her client, citing the complainant's filing of multiple related cases.
Main Doctrine
In administrative cases against lawyers, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. Administrative complaints that are prima facie groundless need not be referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for further investigation and may be summarily dismissed for utter lack of merit.