Ocampo-Ingcoco v. Yrreverre, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Leilani Ocampo-Ingcoco and Baltazar D. Ocampo filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Alejandro G. Yrreverre, Jr. for unethical and unprofessional conduct. They alleged that on April 17, 2000, the respondent notarized a falsified Deed of Absolute Sale involving a parcel of land registered under their parents' names. The alleged vendee, Rosita S. Billones, falsified the father's signature, and the mother was in Isabela at the time of notarization, making her appearance impossible. Furthermore, the father had been dead for over a year. The respondent compounded the illegal act by using a Community Tax Certificate (CTC) not belonging to the vendor. As a consequence, the Billones Spouses were able to transfer the property despite non-payment of the purchase price. The respondent also had a personal interest as the property was mortgaged to his company, JCY Loans and Mortgage, Inc., from which the Billones Spouses obtained a loan. The respondent later entered his appearance as counsel for the Billones Spouses in a civil case filed by Pacita Ocampo for nullification of the deed and reconveyance, and also acted as counsel for JCY Loans and Mortgage, Inc. in a separate civil case against the same spouses, which the latter moved to intervene in the former case. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found the respondent guilty of notarizing a document without the affiants appearing before him and for using an incorrect Community Tax Certificate. However, the IBP found the respondent not guilty of conflict of interest. The Petition: The complainants prayed for the disbarment and/or administrative sanction of the respondent.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent committed conflict of interest by representing clients with opposing interests. Whether the respondent is guilty of notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale without the appearance of the parties thereto and for using an incorrect Community Tax Certificate.
Ruling
The respondent Atty. Alejandro G. Yrreverre, Jr. is found guilty of violating notarial law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His commission as Notary Public is revoked, and he is disqualified from being commissioned as such for two (2) years. He is also suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of representing clients with conflicting interests: The respondent is not liable for representing conflicting interests. The evidence showed that the Billones Spouses were made fully aware of the pertinent facts and circumstances and gave their written consent after full disclosure. This falls under a recognized exception to the rule against representing clients with conflicting interests, where clients knowingly consent after full disclosure. The Court cited Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which allows such representation with the express consent of all parties concerned given after a full disclosure of facts. On the issue of notarizing a deed without requiring the parties to be present to attest to the truth of the matters contained therein: The respondent is guilty of notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale without the appearance of the parties. He admitted that Mr. Hermilindo Ocampo did not appear before him and claimed he acted in good faith, believing Mr. Ocampo was merely ill. However, the law is clear that a notary public must not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same personally appeared before the notary public to attest to the contents and truth of the statements therein. Notarization is a significant public function, and the respondent's actions undermined public confidence in notarial documents. By acknowledging that the parties personally appeared, the respondent made an untruthful statement, violating Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his lawyer's oath. This act also exposes him to prosecution for falsification of a public document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court reiterated that as a lawyer commissioned as notary public, the respondent is mandated to observe the sacred duties of his office, which are impressed with public interest.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer commissioned as a notary public is mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties appertaining to his office, which are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sancrosanct. Failing therein, the lawyer must accept the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion.