Sia v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ruben S. Sia (petitioner) filed a complaint against respondent Atty. Tomas A. Reyes (respondent) for grave misconduct and/or conduct unbecoming of a notary public. The complaint stemmed from the respondent's notarization of five deeds of absolute sale, which petitioner alleged were done without his knowledge, consent, and physical presence. Petitioner averred that he signed the deeds of absolute sale in blank as part of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Roberto L. Obiedo and Romeo Y. Tan, wherein the corporation he represented acknowledged a debt and agreed to settle it by executing deeds of sale over mortgaged properties. The deeds were to be uniformly dated January 2, 2006, and if the debt was not paid, Obiedo and Tan could present the deeds for registration. Petitioner claimed that negotiations to correct errors in the debt computation were ongoing on January 3, 2006, the date the deeds were allegedly notarized, and that no notarization took place on that date. Consequently, petitioner claimed he was unlawfully deprived of ownership and possession of the properties. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) dismissed the complaint, adopting the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner who gave credence to the affidavits of Atty. Avelino V. Sales, Jr. and Atty. Salvador Villegas, Jr. These affidavits corroborated the respondent's claim that petitioner was present during the notarization, acknowledged his signature, and affirmed the execution of the deeds as his voluntary act. The IBP-BOG denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition with the Supreme Court assailing the IBP-BOG's resolution, arguing that while he was present and acknowledged his signature, he was not apprised that the respondent was about to notarize the deeds, and his consent was not for the purpose of notarization but for ongoing negotiations.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent is administratively liable for grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a notary public. Whether the deeds of absolute sale were notarized without the petitioner's knowledge, consent, and physical presence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP-BOG and dismissed the complaint against respondent Atty. Tomas A. Reyes for lack of merit. The Court found that the petitioner failed to establish with the requisite degree of proof that the subject deeds were notarized without his consent, knowledge, and physical presence. The Court noted that petitioner admitted his presence before the respondent and acknowledged his signature, but denied consent to the notarization. However, except for his bare allegation, petitioner failed to adduce sufficient proof of lack of consent. Furthermore, the Court considered the petitioner's inaction or delay of four years and eight months in filing the administrative complaint, which cast doubt on the validity of his claim.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of administrative liability for grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a notary public: The Court reiterated the established principle that the burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings rests with the complainant. It emphasized that disciplinary power over lawyers should only be exercised if the charges are convincingly established by clearly preponderant evidence. The Court found that petitioner failed to meet this standard. Petitioner admitted being present before the respondent and acknowledging his signature on the deeds of absolute sale. While he claimed he was not apprised of the notarization and did not consent to it for that purpose, this was a bare allegation unsupported by sufficient proof. The Court highlighted that the serious consequences of disbarment or suspension necessitate clear, convincing, and preponderant evidence, which was absent in this case. The presumption of innocence in favor of the attorney was not overcome by the petitioner's evidence. On the issue of notarization without knowledge, consent, and physical presence: The Court agreed with the IBP that the petitioner failed to establish his claim. Petitioner's admission of physical presence and acknowledgment of his signature before the respondent on January 3, 2006, was a crucial point. However, his denial of consent to the notarization itself was unsubstantiated. The affidavits of Atty. Sales and Atty. Villegas corroborated the respondent's account that the petitioner was present and affirmed his signature. The Court also took into serious consideration the petitioner's delay in filing the administrative complaint. The fact that he waited for four years and eight months after the alleged spurious notarization to file the complaint significantly weakened his claim. Such inordinate delay cast doubt on his motive, sincerity, and the truthfulness of his allegations, suggesting it might be an afterthought. Therefore, the Court found no convincing evidence to support the claim that the notarization was done without the petitioner's knowledge and consent.
Main Doctrine
The burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings lies with the complainant. The Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the charges are convincingly established by clearly preponderant evidence. Mere allegations without sufficient proof, especially when coupled with inordinate delay in filing the complaint, are insufficient to warrant disciplinary action against a lawyer.