Case Digest (A.C. No. 9385)
Facts:
Mariano Agadan, Eden Mollejon, Arsenio Igme, Jose Numbar, Cecilia Langawan, Pablo Palma, Joselito Claveria, Miguel Flores and Albert Gaydowen v. Atty. Richard Baltazar Kilaan, A.C. No. 9385, November 11, 2013, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.On September 12, 2005, the nine complainants (operators/opponents before the LTFRB) filed an administrative complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Baguio-Benguet Chapter (IBP-Baguio-Benguet Chapter) against respondent Atty. Richard Baltazar Kilaan, accusing him of falsification of documents, dishonesty and deceit in connection with an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) docketed as LTFRB Case No. 2003-CAR-688. The complainants alleged that Atty. Kilaan intercalated entries in the CPC application folder—substituting the applicant’s name from Gary Adasing to Joseph Batingwed—and submitted false or insufficient documentary requirements; they also alleged that Atty. Kilaan prepared a Decision adopting an LTFRB Central Office resolution dismissing the complainants’ opposition and granting Batingwed’s application.
The IBP-Baguio-Benguet Chapter endorsed the complaint to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) on February 27, 2006. The IBP-CBD directed respondent to file an answer. In his April 8, 2006 Answer, Atty. Kilaan denied participation in drafting the LTFRB decision, explained that the Regional Director of DOTC-CAR drafts and signs such decisions after LTFRB recommendation, and asserted he could not have intercalated LTFRB records because filings remain with the LTFRB. He further claimed that Batingwed had abandoned his application, that an LTFRB cashier mistakenly recorded Adasing as payor, and that he only learned of the LTFRB decision when Batingwed showed it to him; he also contended the complainants filed the administrative action in retaliation.
After a mandatory conference, the parties submitted position papers. Complainants produced evidence that the Verification in Batingwed’s application—allegedly notarized by Atty. Kilaan as Doc. No. 253, Page 51, Book VIII, Series of 2003—did not correspond to the notarial entry in his Notarial Register (which referred to a Deed of Sale). Complainants also filed an affidavit of Gary Adasing stating he never left the country, contradicting Atty. Kilaan’s statement that Adasing was abroad and therefore unavailable.
The Investigating Commissioner (Comm’r Jose Roderick F. Fernando) recommended dismissal of the charge that respondent intercalated entries, finding complainants’ proof speculative and noting a DOTC-CAR receiving clerk’s certification that Adasing’s application was continued by Batingwed—presumptively in the regular course of business. However, the Commissioner found respondent liable for notarial violations: the notarial entry for the Verification did not correspond to the document in the register, and respondent had falsely claimed Adasing was abroad. The Commissioner recommended revocation of respondent’s notarial commission and prohibition from appointment as notary for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for two months.
The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution No. XVIII-2007-82 (Sept. 19, 2007), adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation with modification: it revoked ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the complainants prove that Atty. Kilaan intercalated entries in the LTFRB CPC application folder (i.e., commit document falsification)?
- Did Atty. Kilaan violate the Notarial Law and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by making inaccurate entries in his Notarial Register and antedating/notarizing improperly?
- Did Atty. Kilaan violate the Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by making false statements under oath and in his pleadings?
- If violations are proven...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)