Prospero v. Delos Santos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Pilar C. Prospero and Clarinda P. Castillo sought the disbarment of Atty. Joaquin L. Delos Santos and Atty. Roberto A. San Jose for alleged falsification and notarization of documents leading to the fraudulent conveyance of a parcel of land owned by Pilar. Fermina Prospero, the original owner, sold a portion to Pilar. After Fermina's death, Atty. Delos Santos, posing as a municipal official, gained Pilar's trust and convinced her to sign a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) that, unbeknownst to her, included the portion bequeathed to her by Fermina. Atty. Delos Santos then falsified a Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 20, 2008, counterfeiting the signatures of Pilar and the deceased Fermina, and notarized it as if Fermina appeared before him. He also falsified another Deed of Absolute Sale on the same date for the remaining portion. Using these falsified deeds, he secured a new Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in Pilar's name for the entire lot. Subsequently, Atty. Delos Santos, acting as Attorney-in-Fact, facilitated the illegal transfer of the property to Hauskon Housing and Construction Products Corporation through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 13, 2008, which was irregularly notarized by Atty. San Jose. Later, Atty. Delos Santos falsified another Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 5, 2008, again counterfeiting Pilar's signature, to cancel Pilar's TCT and secure a new TCT in favor of Hauskon. Procedural History: Complainants filed a Complaint-Affidavit on February 1, 2011. Atty. San Jose filed a Comment denying the accusations, claiming he notarized the June 13, 2008 Deed of Sale without knowledge of any defect in Atty. Delos Santos' authority. Atty. Delos Santos, however, failed to file his Comment and Position Paper despite multiple extensions, citing illnesses and an accident. He was declared in default. The Investigating Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended the dismissal of the case against Atty. San Jose and the disbarment of Atty. Delos Santos. The IBP Board of Governors (BOG) adopted and approved this recommendation. Atty. Delos Santos filed a Motion for Reconsideration, reiterating his excuses and explaining his alleged good intentions, pleading for a lesser penalty. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case based on the Complaint-Affidavit, the respondents' pleadings, and the IBP's Report and Recommendation. The Court considered the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, including Atty. Delos Santos' belated explanations and excuses for his failure to comply with procedural requirements. The central issue was whether the respondents committed gross professional misconduct, deceit, malpractice, and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Joaquin L. Delos Santos is guilty of gross professional misconduct, deceit, malpractice, and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Lawyer's Oath for falsifying and notarizing documents, including those involving a deceased person, and facilitating fraudulent land transactions. Whether Atty. Roberto A. San Jose is guilty of misconduct for notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale without competent evidence of identity and despite warnings.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the case against Atty. Roberto A. San Jose but declared Atty. Joaquin L. Delos Santos guilty of gross professional misconduct, deceit, malpractice as a notary public, and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Lawyer's Oath. Atty. Delos Santos was disbarred from the practice of law, his name was ordered stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys, and he was perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Atty. Delos Santos): The Court found Atty. Delos Santos guilty of gross professional misconduct, deceit, and malpractice. His failure to file an Answer and appear at hearings, despite receiving notices, was not countenanced, and his excuses were deemed unsubstantiated. Even considering his belated explanation, the evidence overwhelmingly proved his fraudulent infractions. The most damning evidence was his preparation and notarization of documents supposedly signed by Fermina Prospero, who had been dead since May 8, 1983, long before the execution of the deed of sale on May 20, 2008. This act alone, akin to the misconduct in Fabay v. Atty. Resuena, warrants disbarment. Furthermore, the falsification of notarial entries, making it appear that unrelated documents were entered under a specific entry number, compounded his deceit. These fraudulent deeds enabled the registration of the property first in Pilar's name and subsequently in Hauskon's name, demonstrating a pattern of deception. The Court rejected his claim of acting out of pity, noting that the checks for the property sale were made payable to him, not Pilar. His actions constituted a mockery of the integrity of a notary public and a degradation of the function of notarization, thus warranting disbarment. On Issue 2 (Atty. San Jose): The Court found no sufficient basis to impose the penalty of disbarment on Atty. Roberto A. San Jose. His good faith in discharging his duty as a notary public was apparent. The fact that he notarized the falsified June 13, 2008 Deed of Sale did not, in itself, indicate a wilful violation of his duty, as he had reasonable grounds to believe that the SPA granted to Atty. Delos Santos was still in force and effect. There was no showing that Pilar had revoked the SPA through any legally recognized mode. Therefore, the complaint against Atty. San Jose was dismissed, affirming the IBP's recommendation.
Main Doctrine
The Court reiterated that a lawyer who falsifies documents and notarizes them without the personal appearance of the signatories, particularly when one of the signatories is deceased, commits gross professional misconduct, deceit, and malpractice. Such actions violate the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disbarment and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. The integrity of notarization is paramount, and any breach thereof undermines public trust and the legal system.