Ricafort v. Bansil
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Atty. Federico D. Ricafort filed a verified complaint against respondent Atty. Eddie R. Bansil for misconduct and violation of the right to information and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Complainant alleged that respondent, a commissioned Notary Public for Guagua, Pampanga, failed to submit his notarial book and documents for verification as required. Complainant requested Atty. Jorge Bacani, the RTC Clerk of Court, to ask respondent to bring Notarial Book No. XV, Series of 2002, for verification. Respondent repeatedly failed and refused to comply with the request, despite being notified by Atty. Bacani on several occasions and receiving a formal letter-request dated February 20, 2003. Procedural History: Respondent, in his Answer, claimed that the notarial book was lost due to heavy flooding from July 6 to 20, 2002. He stated he was willing to help if shown the particular document needing verification. Complainant countered that respondent's claim of loss was unsubstantiated and that the flood did not necessarily affect respondent's house, which is situated on higher ground. At the hearing on June 4, 2003, only the complainant appeared. The Investigating Commissioner directed parties to submit position papers. The Investigating Commissioner found respondent administratively liable and recommended a one-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but reduced the penalty to a reprimand, referring the case to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case, agreeing with the IBP Board of Governors that respondent should be held administratively liable. The Court noted procedural issues, including the failure to proceed ex parte and the respondent's failure to submit a required memorandum, deeming it a waiver of his right to a hearing. The Court also clarified that the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees did not apply, but rather the Code of Professional Responsibility and Code of Professional Ethics.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Eddie R. Bansil is guilty of unprofessional conduct for failing to allow the examination of his notarial book. Whether the claim of lost notarial book due to flooding is a valid excuse for non-compliance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Eddie R. Bansil guilty of unprofessional conduct and imposed a fine of ₱5,000.00, with a warning against future similar acts. The Court also admonished the IBP to observe Section 8, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of unprofessional conduct: The Court found respondent Atty. Eddie R. Bansil guilty of unprofessional conduct. The Court noted that respondent admitted to being a Notary Public and having the obligation to submit his notarial book and documents for verification. He also admitted to being notified by Clerk of Court Bacani regarding complainant's request to examine documents in his notarial book. Despite these admissions, respondent failed to heed the request. The Court emphasized that elementary rules of courtesy and professional obligation dictated that respondent should have at least responded to the request, especially from a colleague. His inaction, coupled with his failure to inform the Clerk of Court of the alleged loss of the notarial book, demonstrated a lack of courtesy, fairness, and candor towards his professional colleagues, violating Canons 8 and 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Canons of Professional Ethics, respectively. Such conduct is unbecoming of a member of the legal profession. On the issue of the lost notarial book: The Court found respondent's claim of a lost notarial book due to flooding to be a "lame excuse" and a "belated self-serving assertion" for which there was no evidence. Even if the book were lost, respondent could have easily informed the Clerk of Court or the complainant about the loss. His failure to do so, and his contention that he could have helped had the complainant personally seen him, smacked of arrogance and dereliction of duty. The Court stressed that a Notary Public should always place his books and documents in a safe place, and their destruction could be punishable by law. The assertion that the flood only affected the town proper and not his house, which is on higher ground, further weakened his defense. The Court concluded that his inaction and the unsubstantiated claim of loss were sufficient grounds for administrative liability.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer and notary public is administratively liable for unprofessional conduct for failing to heed a colleague's request, or the Clerk of Court's notification, to examine his notarial book, even if he claims the book was lost due to flooding, without providing proper notification or evidence thereof. Such inaction violates the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics.