Facts:

The case involves a petition for disbarment against Atty. Virgilio R. Garcia, filed by Violeta Flores-Alitagtag. The events unfold around a fraudulent deed of donation concerning a parcel of land in Bagong Ilog, Pasig, which is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 326475 of the Register of Deeds of Pasig. The principal figure, Cesar B. Flores, was a retired military officer with two families: a legitimate one with Veronica Don, from whom he was legally separated in 1959, and a second family with Magdalena Gamad, with whom he had four children, one being Maria Eugenia Flores, Atty. Garcia's wife. In the questioned deed, Cesar is listed as the donor, while Gregorio Gamad Flores, Maria Eugenia's brother, is the donee. The deed was notarized by Atty. Garcia, who later served as attorney-in-fact for Gregorio once he acquired the title. However, a forensic analysis by the PNP Crime Laboratory indicated that the signature of Cesar B. Flores on the deed was not gen

...

Facts:

Parties and Relationships

• Complainant: Violeta Flores Alitagtag, one of the eight children of Cesar B. Flores from his legitimate family with Veronica Don.
• Respondent: Atty. Virgilio R. Garcia, a lawyer and notary public, whose wife, Maria Eugenia Flores, is part of the second family of Cesar B. Flores with Magdalena Gamad.
• Family Connections:
• Cesar B. Flores maintained two families: his legitimate family (with eight children, including the complainant) and a second family (with four children, including Maria Eugenia Flores, wife of respondent).
• Respondent, by virtue of his marriage, was related to both families and acted as the notary public in a transaction involving the donor, who was his father-in-law.

The Contested Deed of Donation

• The deed concerned a parcel of land in Bagong Ilog, Pasig, covered by TCT No. 326475 from the Register of Deeds of Pasig.
• Parties to the Deed:
• Cesar B. Flores – alleged donor (retired military officer with two families).
• Gregorio Gamad Flores – brother of Maria Eugenia, designated as the donee.
• Ma. Eugenia Gamad Flores Garcia – wife of respondent, appearing as a witness.
• Magdalena Gamad Flores – mother of Gregorio and Maria Eugenia, also a witness.
• Respondent Atty. Virgilio Garcia – notarized the document.
• Subsequent Transactions:
• Respondent was later appointed attorney-in-fact by the donee (his brother-in-law, Gregorio) to administer, and eventually sell, the donated property.

Evidentiary Findings and Falsification

• The Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, upon reviewing testimonial and documentary evidences, found that:
• The questioned deed of donation was subject to critical scrutiny concerning the signature of the donor.
• Expert analysis by the PNP Crime Laboratory’s Questioned Documents Section determined that the signature on the deed did not match the standard signatures of Cesar B. Flores.
• Regional Trial Court of Pasig (Branch 71) in Civil Case No. 65883 had earlier declared the deed of donation as falsified, nullifying its legal effect.

Respondent’s Misconduct as a Notary Public and Lawyer

• Notarial Obligations:
• As a notary public, under Act 2103, Section 1, the respondent was duty-bound to verify the identity of the signatory and ensure that the document’s signatory was genuine.
• Respondent’s failure to submit the notarized deed to the Office of the Clerk of Court, as required, compounded his misconduct.
• Defenses and Explanations:
• The respondent argued that he assisted his father-in-law in executing the deed and that the signature was genuine, contrary to expert findings.
• He attempted to absolve himself by attributing the non-submission of the notarized copy to either his secretary’s negligence or the donor’s oversight—defenses deemed trivial and unacceptable.
• Additional Acts Undermining Professional Integrity:
• The respondent’s actions included harassing the occupants of the property by demanding service disconnection from Meralco, accompanied by threats of lawsuits.
• He further demonstrated improper conduct by arranging for security personnel to intimidate the property’s occupants.
• Overall Impact:
• His act of notarizing a document proven to be forged not only violated his notarial oath but also brought dishonor to the legal profession.

Issue:

Whether the respondent’s notarization of a falsified deed of donation constituted grave misconduct and a violation of his notarial oath.

• Was the notarial act, in which the respondent signed off on a document with a disputed donor signature, in breach of the mandatory verification protocols under Act 2103?
• Did the respondent’s failure to secure and submit the required copy of the notarized document to the Office of the Clerk of Court aggravate his misconduct?

Whether the respondent’s additional acts—such as intimidating property occupants and engaging in fraudulent transactions through his appointment as attorney-in-fact—further warranted the imposition of the highest penalty, i.e., disbarment.

• Is the cumulative evidence of his active role in facilitating fraud sufficient to justify his permanent exclusion from the legal profession?
• Does his behavior demonstrate a direct contempt for the solemn oath and responsibilities inherent in being a lawyer and a notary public?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)