Castro v. Barin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Cesar C. Castro filed a criminal complaint for Estafa/Swindling against Perlita G. Calmiong. During the pendency of the case, Castro discovered a motion to withdraw information with an attached affidavit of desistance, allegedly notarized by Atty. Enrico G. Barin, counsel for Ms. Calmiong. Castro denied preparing or signing these documents and alleged forgery, stating he did not personally appear before Atty. Barin for notarization. Procedural History: The Supreme Court required Atty. Barin to file a Comment. Atty. Barin refuted the forgery allegations, stating that Castro, accompanied by Ms. Calmiong, appeared in his office on June 15, 2012, subscribed to the affidavit of desistance, and presented his Senior Citizen card and Philippine passport as identification. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP CBD) required the parties to file position papers. The IBP CBD found Atty. Barin liable for violating Rule 15.01, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended a reprimand. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but modified the penalty to a three (3) month suspension. Atty. Barin filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. The Petition: The complainant prayed for the disbarment of Atty. Barin for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Barin violated the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice for his act of notarizing an affidavit of desistance without the complainant's personal appearance, potentially creating a conflict of interest. Whether the complainant proved by clear and preponderant evidence that his signature in the affidavit of desistance was forged or falsified.
Ruling
The Court found that the complainant failed to prove by clear and preponderant evidence that his signature in the affidavit of desistance was forged or falsified. However, the Court found Atty. Barin's act of notarizing the complainant's affidavit of desistance to be violative of Rule 15.01, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility due to a conflict of interest. Accordingly, Atty. Enrico G. Barin was suspended from the practice of law for two (2) months.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of conflict of interest and violation of Rule 15.01, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the act of notarizing the affidavit: The Court found Atty. Barin's act of notarizing the complainant's affidavit of desistance to be violative of Rule 15.01, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This rule mandates that a lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client. The Court reiterated the definition of conflict of interest, stating that it exists when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. In this case, Atty. Barin admitted to being the counsel for Ms. Calamiong in the Estafa case filed by the complainant. His act of notarizing the affidavit of desistance of the complainant, which was intended to be submitted to the investigating prosecutor, created a conflict of interest. The Court emphasized that the affidavit of the complainant should have been subscribed and sworn to before the investigating prosecutor to allow the latter to assess its veracity and voluntariness. Considering this was Atty. Barin's first offense, the Court deemed a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two (2) months to be appropriate. On the issue of forgery: The Court held that in administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is preponderant evidence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. Bare allegations of misconduct cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions in the absence of cogent proof. The Court found that the complainant failed to prove by clear and preponderant evidence that his signature in the affidavit of desistance was forged or falsified. Mere suspicion and speculation are insufficient to establish forgery.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who notarizes an affidavit of desistance of the complainant in a case where the lawyer represents the accused commits a violation of Rule 15.01, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility due to a conflict of interest, even if the complainant's signature was not forged.