Facts:

The case involves Venson R. Ang (complainant) against Atty. Salvador B. Belaro, Jr. (respondent), with the decision rendered on December 11, 2019, by the Second Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. The complainant, Venson, sought the disbarment of Atty. Belaro for alleged violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The factual background reveals that the late Peregrina Dela Rosa owned a parcel of land in San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 52899. In 1982, Peregrina appointed Venson as the administrator of the property. Following her death on November 24, 2002, the property was inherited by Venson and his siblings, who never partitioned the property. On March 6, 2015, they discovered that Peregrina's title had been canceled due to an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs, allegedly executed on March 26, 2014, and notarized by Atty. Belaro. Venson and his ...

Facts:

Background of the Property and Inheritance

• Peregrina Dela Rosa owned a parcel of land with a building in San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, which was evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 52899.
• In 1982, Peregrina appointed Venson R. Ang as administrator of the property.
• Upon her demise on November 24, 2002, the property was inherited by Venson and his siblings: Virginia Ang Ting, Venhart Dela Rosa Ang, Villy Ang Teng Him Buenaventura (Villy), and Vermont Dela Rosa Ang (Vermont).
• The siblings never partitioned the property nor assigned their respective rights to any one co-owner.

Emergence of the Notarial Controversy

• On March 6, 2015, Venson and his siblings discovered that Peregrina’s title had been cancelled due to an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights, allegedly executed on March 26, 2014.
• The Extrajudicial Settlement was notarized by respondent Atty. Salvador B. Belaro, Jr., before whom the heirs purportedly personally appeared and subscribed.
• Three different versions of the document exist: one submitted to the Land Registration Authority, one to the Manila Electric Company (MERALCO), and one to the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC-Quezon City.
• Irregularities were noted in the documents, including:
• Misspelling of names (e.g., Virginia Dela Rosa Ang-Ting was erroneously rendered as Verginia Rosa Ang-Ting).
• Absence of details (e.g., the husband of Villy was not mentioned).
• Discrepancies in execution dates and content (e.g., the property still being in Peregrina’s name as late as July 2014, execution dates not matching with fact patterns).
• Inconsistencies in witness attestations across versions (e.g., lack of witnesses in one version, two unknown witnesses in another, and the sole appearance of Ma. Shiela Dioneda in a third version).
• Inclusion of a signature (Villy’s) even though she had died two years before the alleged date of execution.

Additional Notarized Documents and Findings

• Respondent Atty. Belaro also notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale and an Acknowledgement Receipt, both dated December 16, 2014, relating to the purported sale of the property.
• The Deed evidenced a transaction between Vermont and Rowena Ang as sellers and several buyers; the Acknowledgement Receipt admitted a purchase price of ₱5,000,000.00.
• Discrepancies were found in the way these documents were entered in the Notarial Registry Book, with inconsistent document numbers and book entries, raising further doubts about their legitimacy.

Administrative Proceedings Initiated

• Venson filed a letter-complaint, attaching copies of the questioned documents, specimen signatures from respondent Atty. Belaro, and a certification from the RTC-Quezon City.
• On April 8, 2015, the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) directed the parties to submit verified position papers, scheduling a mandatory conference on June 25, 2015, which was attended only by Venson.
• Atty. Belaro later submitted a Manifestation with Motion for Reinvestigation, citing alleged delay in receiving the CBD’s order, and subsequently filed his Answer denying his role in notarizing the questioned documents and asserting that the signatures were forgeries.
• The parties then filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss, with Venson executing an Affidavit of Desistance, while Atty. Belaro indicated his intention to withdraw his motion for reinvestigation.

Report and Recommendations from the Investigating Commissioner and IBP-BOG

• The Investigating Commissioner found that the signatures on the Extrajudicial Settlement were falsified, being markedly different from Atty. Belaro’s specimen signatures submitted for notarial commission.
• In the case of the Deed of Absolute Sale and the Acknowledgement Receipt, although the signatures appeared similar at first glance, a detailed comparison revealed significant differences, supporting the conclusion of forgery.
• Aside from the forgery, Atty. Belaro was found negligent in failing to safeguard his notarial seal, a lapse that allowed unauthorized use and improper notarization of documents.
• Accordingly, the Investigating Commissioner recommended a suspension from the practice of law for six months and disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for one year.
• The Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) adopted these findings with modifications, imposing revocation of the current commission, a two-year disqualification as notary public, and a three-month suspension from law practice.
• Atty. Belaro contested these findings on due process grounds and argued that his subsequent election as a party-list representative should mitigate the imposition of penalties.

Issue:

• Whether Atty. Belaro’s right to due process was violated during the administrative proceedings, particularly concerning the timing and manner of notifications and handling of his motion for reinvestigation.
• Whether the evidence of forgery and negligence in notarization sufficiently establishes Atty. Belaro’s liability under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Whether the joint motion to dismiss, including the execution of an Affidavit of Desistance by Venson, and Atty. Belaro’s election to public office, affect or mitigate the imposition of the proposed disciplinary sanctions.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)