Bernaldez v. Anquilo-Garcia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Manuel B. Bernaldez charged respondent Atty. Wilma Donna C. Anquilo-Garcia with gross misconduct, deceit, violation of her Lawyer's Oath, and abuse of authority as a notary public. The complainant alleged that during the 2010 National and Local Elections, Atty. Anquilo-Garcia coerced and threatened registered voters in Biri, Northern Samar to sign blank affidavits falsely stating they were illiterate or disabled and required assistance to vote. This scheme was allegedly employed to ensure the victory of her husband, who was running for Mayor. The complainant also asserted that the affiants never appeared before Atty. Anquilo-Garcia, and it was geographically improbable for her to have executed the affidavits on election day. Procedural History: Atty. Anquilo-Garcia denied the allegations in her Comment, asserting that the affiants personally appeared before her and voluntarily executed affidavits seeking assistance due to reading difficulties or physical disabilities. She claimed the affidavits attached to the complaint were falsified and used in an election protest filed by the complainant against her husband. The Supreme Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) conducted proceedings, including a mandatory conference and required position papers. Subsequently, the complainant filed an Affidavit of Withdrawal, citing a misapprehension of facts and misunderstanding. The IBP Commissioner recommended dismissal without prejudice, deeming it premature to rule pending the election protest, but noted that complainant's withdrawal does not terminate disbarment proceedings. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. The Petition: While the IBP recommended dismissal, the Supreme Court clarified that administrative proceedings are sui generis and independent of the election case. The Court also held that the complainant's withdrawal is inconsequential due to the public interest nature of disbarment cases. The Court found the complainant failed to prove coercion by a preponderance of evidence. However, the Court found Atty. Anquilo-Garcia liable for notarizing affidavits without the personal appearance of the affiants, violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Despite the breach, considering the absence of bad faith and it being a first infraction, the Court revoked her notarial commission, disqualified her from reappointment as notary public for one year, and suspended her from the practice of law for six months.
Issue(s)
Whether the disbarment case should be dismissed due to the complainant's withdrawal. Whether the complainant established by preponderant evidence that Atty. Anquilo-Garcia coerced voters to sign blank affidavits. Whether Atty. Anquilo-Garcia abused her authority as a notary public by notarizing affidavits without the personal appearance of the affiants; and the appropriate penalty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court resolved to note the IBP's resolution dismissing the complaint without prejudice, note the transmittal of documents, revoke Atty. Anquilo-Garcia's notarial commission, disqualify her from reappointment as notary public for one year, and suspend her from the practice of law for six months. The Court found that while the charge of coercion was not sufficiently proven, Atty. Anquilo-Garcia committed a violation of notarial law by notarizing affidavits without the personal appearance of the affiants.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of complainant's withdrawal: The Court held that administrative proceedings against lawyers are sui generis and are not abated by the complainant's withdrawal or desistance due to their public service character and public interest concern. The withdrawal does not prevent the Court from investigating the conduct of its officers. The Court cited Ventura v. Atty. Samson to support the principle that a complainant's affidavit of desistance cannot abate administrative proceedings. On the charge of coercion and signing of blank affidavits: The Court found that the complainant failed to establish by clear preponderance of evidence that Atty. Anquilo-Garcia coerced registered voters to sign blank and ready-made affidavits. The affidavits presented by the complainant appeared to implicate other individuals in the alleged coercion. The burden of proof rests upon the complainant in administrative cases against lawyers, and this burden was not met for this specific charge. On the charge of abuse of authority as a notary public and the penalty: The Court found that Atty. Anquilo-Garcia violated notarial law by notarizing affidavits without the personal presence of the affiants, which is a clear breach of Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The Court rejected the defense of clerical errors regarding the place of execution. The affidavits were found to have been handed to voters at polling precincts on election day, already bearing the notary's signature and seal. This failure to require personal appearance undermines the integrity of notarization and is a violation of the lawyer's duty. The Court cited Maria v. Atty. Cortez and Dela Cruz-Sillano v. Atty. Pangan in emphasizing the importance of personal appearance and the consequences of negligence in notarial functions. Considering the absence of bad faith and that this was Atty. Anquilo-Garcia's first infraction after long years of practice, the Court imposed the less severe penalties of suspension from the practice of law for six months and disqualification from reappointment as notary public for one year, citing jurisprudence such as Gonzales v. Atty. Ramos and Agbulos v. Atty. Viray which imposed similar penalties for similar violations.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer commissioned as a notary public must ensure that affiants personally appear before them for notarization, as failure to do so violates notarial law and undermines the integrity of the function. Such negligence warrants disciplinary action, including suspension from the practice of law and disqualification from reappointment as a notary public.