Sultan v. Macabanding
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Domado Disomimba Sultan filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Casan Macabanding for allegedly notarizing a falsified affidavit of withdrawal of his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Mayor. Sultan had filed his COC on March 29, 2007. On April 10, 2007, an Affidavit of Withdrawal, purportedly executed by Sultan, was notarized by respondent and submitted to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), withdrawing Sultan's candidacy without his knowledge or authorization. Procedural History: Sultan learned of the withdrawal and wrote to the COMELEC Acting Election Officer, asserting he never executed the document and requesting his candidacy be reinstated. He also filed a criminal complaint for Falsification of Public Documents against Abdulmojib Moti Mariano (another candidate), respondent, and the Election Officer. The COMELEC Second Division ordered the reinstatement of Sultan's name and the counting of his votes. Mariano elevated the matter to the COMELEC en banc, which requested the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to examine the signature on the Affidavit of Withdrawal. The NBI report concluded that the questioned signature and Sultan's specimen signatures were not written by the same person. The Petition: Sultan filed the present administrative complaint seeking respondent's disbarment. Respondent claimed the case was political harassment and admitted notarizing the affidavit after it was signed by the complainant in the presence of witnesses, but stated Sultan changed his mind later. The Investigating Commissioner recommended suspension for six months and two years as a notary public. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent should be held administratively liable for misconduct. Whether the NBI's finding regarding the forged signature is valid, and whether the examiner needs to be an Arabic language expert to determine forgery.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the findings of the IBP but modified the penalty. Respondent Atty. Casan Macabanding was found administratively liable for misconduct. He is suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, his notarial commission, if any, is revoked, and he is disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two (2) years, with a stern warning against repetition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of administrative liability for misconduct: The Court found that the complainant adduced preponderant evidence that his signature was forged on the affidavit of withdrawal, which the respondent notarized and submitted to the COMELEC. The respondent's admission that the affidavit was notarized in his office without the complainant's presence further supported this finding. The Court emphasized that a lawyer commissioned as a notary public bears a graver responsibility, bound by their oath to obey the laws and uphold the integrity of the legal profession. Notaries must discharge their duties with accuracy and fidelity, and should not participate in illegal transactions. The respondent's actions fell short of these exacting standards, constituting misconduct. On the validity of the NBI's finding regarding the forged signature and the necessity of Arabic language expertise: The Court upheld the validity of the NBI's finding, citing the case of Mayor Abdulmojib Moti Mariano v. Commission on Elections and Domado Disomimba Sultan. In that case, the Court clarified that a handwriting expert does not need to be a linguist to provide an expert opinion on a signature. The examination of handwriting involves the comparison of strokes, pressure points, and other identifying details, which can be done regardless of the language used. The NBI's conclusion that the signature was forged was based on fundamental and significant differences in writing characteristics, which was sufficient to establish the forgery. The Court reiterated that the quantum of proof required in administrative cases against lawyers is preponderance of evidence, which was met in this case.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer commissioned as a notary public is held to a higher standard of responsibility due to the public nature of his duties. Failure to discharge these duties with accuracy and fidelity, such as notarizing a falsified document without the affiant's personal appearance, constitutes misconduct for which administrative sanctions may be imposed.