Rico v. Madrazo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Edgar M. Rico filed a complaint for suspension or disbarment against Attys. Jose R. Madrazo, Jr., Antonio V. A. Tan, and Leonido C. Delante, alleging fraud, conduct unbecoming a lawyer, and violation of the Notarial Law. Complainant claimed that Madrazo and Tan attached invalid and spurious affidavits to their application for a Permit to Cut coconut trees, which were supposedly notarized by Delante. Complainant asserted that the document and page numbers on these affidavits, as per Delante's Notarial Register, corresponded to other documents, indicating falsification. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) initially scheduled mandatory conferences, but the complainant failed to appear. The IBP-CBD proceeded with the proceedings and required the parties to submit position papers. The Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Madrazo and Tan, and a reprimand for Delante. The IBP Board of Governors (BOG) adopted the recommendation to dismiss the case against Madrazo and Tan but reversed the recommendation against Delante, issuing a warning instead. Complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. The IBP BOG's resolutions were transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action. The Petition: Complainant filed a Motion to Declare the IBP BOG's Resolution Null and Void, which the Supreme Court treated as a petition for review on certiorari. Subsequently, the Court recalled and set aside its resolution, opting to proceed with final action on the complaint and the IBP BOG's resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that respondents Madrazo and Tan are guilty of fraud, malpractice, violation of the Notarial Law, and other gross misconduct. Whether respondent Delante is liable for violations of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility in connection with the notarization of the affidavits and the maintenance of his notarial register.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against Attys. Jose R. Madrazo, Jr. and Atty. Antonio V. A. Tan for lack of merit. The Court found Atty. Leonido C. Delante guilty of violating Canons 1 and 9, Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Section 2, Rule VI, in relation to Section 1, Rule XI, of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. While the Court initially imposed a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for three months, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from re-appointment as a notary public for one year, it noted that Delante had already been disbarred in a previous case. Therefore, the penalties could no longer be imposed but would be considered if he applied for the lifting of his disbarment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the liability of respondents Madrazo and Tan: The Court held that the complainant failed to discharge the burden of proving the liability of respondents Madrazo and Tan. The Court reiterated the principle that in disbarment and suspension proceedings, the complainant bears the burden of proof and must present substantial evidence. Mere allegations, suspicion, or speculation are insufficient to establish guilt. No proof was presented to show that the affidavits submitted by Madrazo and Tan were spurious, nor was there evidence of their complicity in any alleged illegal act by respondent Delante regarding the notarial entries. Consequently, for lack of sufficient, clear, and convincing evidence, Madrazo and Tan were not held liable. On the liability of respondent Delante: The Court found respondent Delante administratively liable. The complainant presented evidence showing that Delante assigned identical notarial details to several distinct documents. Delante failed to explain these duplications and, instead, admitted that his secretary failed to enter the details of the notarized affidavits into his notarial register due to inadvertence. The Court emphasized that failure to make proper entries in the notarial register is a violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice. Furthermore, the Court found Delante guilty of violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (promoting respect for law and legal processes) and Canon 9, Rule 9.01 (prohibiting delegation of tasks that must be performed by a lawyer to unqualified persons), as he delegated the recording of notarial entries to his secretary. The Court noted that notarization is a substantial public function requiring utmost care, and Delante's actions undermined public confidence in the integrity of notaries public.
Main Doctrine
Lawyers are presumed to be innocent of misconduct, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to establish guilt through substantial evidence. Failure to present such evidence warrants dismissal of the complaint. However, a notary public is administratively liable for infractions related to notarial acts, including failure to make proper entries in the notarial register, assigning identical notarial details to distinct documents, and delegating notarial functions to unqualified persons.