Agadan v. Kilaan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants filed a complaint against Atty. Richard Baltazar Kilaan for falsification of documents, dishonesty, and deceit. They alleged that Atty. Kilaan intercalated entries in an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) before the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB-CAR), substituting the applicant's name and submitting false documentation. They further claimed Atty. Kilaan prepared a decision based on an LTFRB resolution that dismissed their opposition and granted the application. Procedural History: The complaint was initially filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) – Baguio-Benguet Chapter, which then endorsed it to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). Atty. Kilaan submitted an answer denying the allegations. After a mandatory conference and submission of position papers, the Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Kilaan not guilty of intercalating entries but liable for violating the Notarial Law and the Lawyer's Oath due to inaccuracies in his notarial register and a false statement about a witness's whereabouts. The Investigating Commissioner recommended the revocation of his notarial commission and suspension from the practice of law. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation with modifications, revoking his notarial commission and disqualifying him for two years, but deleting the suspension from practice. A motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: This Court reviewed the case and found Atty. Kilaan liable for violating the Notarial Law, his Lawyer's Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court found his explanation that his secretary was responsible for the inaccuracies in his notarial register unpersuasive, emphasizing the notary public's personal accountability. The Court also noted his falsehood regarding the witness's location, which violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Consequently, the Court imposed a penalty of three months suspension from the practice of law and revocation and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for one year.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Kilaan is liable for falsification of documents, dishonesty, and deceit. Whether Atty. Kilaan violated the Notarial Law. Whether Atty. Kilaan violated his Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Kilaan liable for violating the Notarial Law, his Lawyer's Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His notarial commission was revoked, he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for one year, and he was suspended from the practice of law for three months.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged falsification and dishonesty: The Court found that the complainants failed to prove that Atty. Kilaan intercalated entries in the application for CPC. The Investigating Commissioner noted that while intercalation might have occurred, it was difficult to prove who was responsible, and the complainants' allegation was based on mere suspicion without credible proof. The Court acknowledged that anyone with access to the case folder could have been responsible and was not prepared to conclude it was the respondent's doing based solely on conjecture. However, the Court did find other violations. On the violation of the Notarial Law: The Court affirmed the finding that Atty. Kilaan violated the Notarial Law. His Notarial Register entry for Doc. No. 253, Page No. 51, Book No. VIII, Series of 2003, which he claimed was for the Verification of Batingwed's application, was actually recorded as a Deed of Sale. This discrepancy indicated a failure to make proper entries as required by Sections 245 and 246 of the Notarial Law. The Court emphasized that a notary public is personally accountable for the accuracy of entries in his notarial register and cannot delegate this duty to a secretary. On the violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court found that Atty. Kilaan committed falsehood in his pleadings before the IBP. His assertion in his Answer that Gary Adasing was abroad, which would prevent Adasing from corroborating the explanation, was proven untrue by Adasing's Affidavit stating he never left the country. This constituted a violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from doing or consenting to falsehood or misleading the court. Furthermore, his conduct violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01, which mandates that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court found that respondent attempted to deceive the IBP and the Court with these untrue allegations.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer is personally accountable for the accuracy of entries in his notarial register, and cannot delegate this responsibility to a secretary. Falsehood in pleadings and misrepresentation in notarial acts constitute violations of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action.