Pena v. Paterno
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Anita C. Peña (Peña), a former head of the Records Department of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), owned a parcel of land in Marikina covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-61244. In 1986, her lawyer, Atty. Christina C. Paterno (Paterno), suggested that Peña apply for a bank loan to construct townhouses, using the property as collateral. Peña entrusted her owner's duplicate title to Paterno to facilitate the loan application. Years later, Peña discovered that her apartment on the property had been demolished and replaced by houses owned by Ernesto Lampa, who had purchased the land from Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd. (Krisbuilt). Krisbuilt, managed by Paterno's employee/client Estrella Kraus, had purportedly bought the land from Peña via a Deed of Sale notarized by Paterno on November 11, 1986. Peña denied signing the deed or appearing before Paterno, alleging her signature was forged. Procedural History: Peña filed an Affidavit-Complaint against Paterno on February 14, 1994, for acts violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the Notarial Law. Paterno denied the allegations, claiming Peña voluntarily sold the property to the Spouses Kraus. During the administrative investigation, a criminal case for Estafa against Paterno was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 36, due to the absence of the original Deed of Sale and insufficient evidence of forgery. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found Paterno liable for betraying her client's trust and failing to submit notarial reports. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation for disbarment. The Petition: The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for final review of the IBP's recommendation. Paterno argued that the dismissal of the criminal case for Estafa, which was based on the same facts, should result in the dismissal of the administrative complaint. She further contended that Peña's eight-year inaction to verify the property status suggested a valid sale had occurred.
Issue(s)
Whether the dismissal of the criminal case for Estafa precludes the imposition of administrative liability upon the respondent. Whether the respondent's failure to submit notarial reports and the circumstances surrounding the 'lost' Deed of Sale constitute sufficient grounds for disbarment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ADOPTS the findings of the IBP. Atty. Christina C. Paterno is DISBARRED from the practice of law, and her name is stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. Her notarial commission is perpetually REVOKED.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the dismissal of a criminal case does not preclude administrative liability. Under Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, administrative cases require only substantial evidence, which is a lower quantum than the proof beyond reasonable doubt required in criminal proceedings. Citing Freeman v. Reyes, the Court emphasized that disbarment proceedings are intended to protect the courts and the public, not to punish the lawyer. An administrative case can proceed independently even if a trial court renders a judgment of acquittal based on the prosecution's failure to prove guilt. Therefore, the RTC's dismissal of the Estafa case for lack of the original document did not prevent the Court from finding Paterno administratively liable based on the available evidence. On Issue 2: The Court found Paterno guilty of deceitful conduct and gross violations of the Notarial Law. While the original Deed of Sale could not be produced, the Court relied on an 'unbroken chain of circumstances,' including the testimony of Maura Orosco, who witnessed Peña giving the title to Paterno. Paterno admitted preparing the deed but failed to submit her Notarial Report for November 1986 to the Clerk of Court, as mandated by Sections 245 and 246 of the Notarial Law. This failure was deemed a suppression of evidence that prevented the verification of the alleged forgery. Such conduct violates Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as it constitutes a breach of public policy and a betrayal of the lawyer-client relationship. The Court held that Paterno's actions showed she was no longer fit to practice law.
Main Doctrine
Administrative cases against lawyers are independent of criminal proceedings and require only substantial evidence for a finding of liability. A notary public's failure to submit monthly notarial reports and copies of notarized instruments to the Clerk of Court is a grave violation of the Notarial Law. When such failure facilitates the loss of a document and prevents the verification of an alleged forgery, it constitutes deceitful conduct and gross misconduct, warranting the ultimate penalty of disbarment to protect the public and the integrity of the legal profession.