Case Digest (A.C. No. 1327)
Facts:
A.C. No. 1327. July 27, 1987. Supreme Court En Banc. Cortes, J., writing for the Court. This administrative proceeding concerns Atty. Octavio D. Fule, a notary public, who was the subject of a referral originating from a decision of the Court of Appeals in a commercial suit (captioned Prudential Bank and Trust Co. v. Sy Chi & Co., et al., C.A.-G.R. No. 34810-R, whose dispositive portion advised that a copy of the decision be furnished the Solicitor General “with respect to the questionable actuation of notary public Octavio D. Fule”). The Court of Appeals language (also referred to as C.A.-G.R. No. 34816-R in the final resolution) prompted administrative inquiry into respondent’s notarial acts.
The Court of Appeals had found apparent tampering and intercalations on the reverse side (acknowledgment clauses) of three printed trust receipt forms (Exhs. D, E and F), noting differences in typewriter impressions, absence of spacing before “WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL,” and that the notarial register showed only the acknowledgment of Sy Chi Eng and not the alleged guarantor Isidro Ongsip. The appellate court observed that these discrepancies “could have been explained only by the notary public, Octavio D. Fule,” but the bank plaintiff did not present Fule as a trial witness.
Upon receipt of the Court of Appeals decision the Solicitor General forwarded it to the Supreme Court for action. By resolution dated June 4, 1974 the Court required Atty. Fule to comment on the referred portion; after his Comment the Court referred the matter to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. The Solicitor General’s report and recommendation were filed March 6, 1987.
In his Comment and in sworn explanation, respondent related that he was secretary to the bank president and head of its Collection Section, appointed notary public on January 13, 1958; that the bank had, during part of 1958–1961, required acknowledgment on trust receipts; that his typist/clerk prepared the typed acknowledgments on the printed trust receipt forms for his correction and that, where necessary, he instructed insertions rather than retyping whole forms because of volume. He recounted that on January 28 and February 27, 1959 he personally notarized the three trust receipts after the acknowledgments — typed by his typist Mr. Rodolfo Manalese — were corrected or supplemented (including adding Ongsip’s residence tax certificate data) in his presence and with Ongsip’s participation. He explained he did not testify at trial because the bank’s lawyer did not call him as a witness.
The Solicitor General’s investigation found (1) the receipts were standard bank forms with front (main trust agreement) and reverse (guaranty and acknowledgment) portions; (2) the alleged intercalations appeared to have been made with the knowledge and consent of Isidro Ongsip and therefore did not constitute falsification; and (3) respondent’s omission to enter Ongsip’s name in his notarial re...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent commit misconduct amounting to falsification in his notarization of the trust receipts?
- Did the respondent’s failure to enter the name of Isidro Ongsip in his notarial register constitute neglect of duty warranting disc...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)