Title
Alitagtag vs. Garcia
Case
A.C. No. 4738
Decision Date
Jun 10, 2003
A lawyer’s negligence in notarizing a falsified deed and unprofessional conduct, including harassment, led to a three-year suspension and revocation of his notarial commission.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 4738)

Facts:

  1. Background of the Case:
    This case involves an administrative complaint filed by Violeta Flores Alitagtag against Atty. Virgilio R. Garcia. The complaint stemmed from the alleged falsification of a deed of donation and the respondent's conduct as a notary public and lawyer.

  2. Allegations of Falsification:
    The complainant alleged that the respondent notarized a falsified deed of donation, which bore the forged signature of the donor, Cesar Flores. The complainant further claimed that the respondent was involved in the falsification scheme.

  3. Respondent's Admission of Negligence:
    The respondent denied any involvement in the falsification but admitted negligence in his duties as a notary public. He acknowledged his failure to diligently verify the authenticity of the donor's signature and expressed remorse for his actions.

  4. Harassment Allegations:
    The respondent was also accused of harassing the occupants of the property subject to the donation by requesting the disconnection of Meralco services and posting security guards to intimidate them.

  5. Criminal and Civil Proceedings:
    A criminal case for falsification was filed against the respondent and others, but the city prosecutor found insufficient evidence to indict him. Similarly, a civil case for the nullification of the deed of donation did not specifically implicate the respondent in the falsification.

Issue:

  1. Whether the respondent is guilty of falsifying the deed of donation:
    The primary issue is whether the respondent actively participated in or conspired to falsify the deed of donation.

  2. Whether the respondent's negligence as a notary public warrants disciplinary action:
    The Court must determine if the respondent's failure to verify the authenticity of the donor's signature and his other lapses as a notary public constitute grave misconduct.

  3. Whether the respondent's conduct, including harassment, reflects adversely on his fitness to practice law:
    The Court must assess whether the respondent's actions, such as intimidating property occupants, violate the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  4. Whether the penalty of disbarment is appropriate:
    The Court must decide if the respondent's actions warrant disbarment or if a lesser penalty, such as suspension, is sufficient.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.