Facts:

This case involves Hipolito Balbarona as the petitioner and Atty. Herminio Santos as the respondent. The complaint was formally filed on January 25, 1965, alleging deceit and gross violation of the lawyer's oath. It arose from a Workmen's Compensation Case (No. RO4-78787) concerning Balbarona against T. Santos Transportation Co. The Regional Office No. 4 of the Department of Labor, based in Manila, issued an award on August 23, 1963, directing the employer to pay Balbarona compensation benefits totaling P2,662.63 for the loss of his left arm. Allegedly, on September 25, 1963, Balbarona was misled by the owner and manager of T. Santos Transportation Co. into signing a document under false pretenses, purportedly necessary for his social security claim. This document claimed that Balbarona had received the full compensation amount, which he denied. Herminio Santos, a notary and legal counsel at the Rural Bank of Malabon, allegedly notarized this document, falsely indicating

...

Facts:

Background and Parties

• Petitioner:
• Hipolito Balbarona, a claimant in a workmen’s compensation case (Case No. RO4-78787) against T. Santos Transportation Co.
• Alleged to have suffered loss (loss of left arm) and entitled to compensation benefits.
• Respondent:
• Atty. Herminio Santos, a member of the Philippine Bar.
• Accused of deceit and gross violation of his oath of office as a lawyer by allegedly notarizing a document under questionable circumstances.

Allegations in the Complaint

• The complaint, filed on January 25, 1965, charged respondent with:
• Deceit: By intentionally providing aid and consent to commit falsehoods.
• Gross violation of his oath of office as a lawyer.
• Specific acts alleged include:
• Inducing the petitioner to affix his signature on a document purportedly related to his workmen’s compensation claim.
• Notarizing the document in connivance with relatives (Teodoro Santos and Dionisio Santos) associated with T. Santos Transportation Co.
• Fabricating evidence to suggest that the petitioner had been sworn in and had received a compensation amount of P2,662.63 for the loss of his left arm, when in fact the petitioner claimed he neither swore nor received any such compensation.

Proceedings and Evidence Presented

• Order for Answer:
• On February 22, 1965, the court ordered respondent to file an answer to the complaint within 10 days, expressly directing an answer and not a motion to dismiss.
• Respondent’s Answer (filed April 7, 1965):
• Vehement and emphatic denial of the charge of deceit and gross violation of his oath.
• Admitted that an award dated August 23, 1963, directed the payment of P2,662.63 to the petitioner, but:
• Contended that the alleged notarization occurred during the first meeting with the petitioner in the company of Mr. Dionisio Santos and Mr. Teodoro Santos.
• Stated that the petitioner was explained the contents and the nature of the document in the vernacular.
• Asserted that the petitioner affirmed his understanding and signed the document willingly, with his signature subsequently notarized by the respondent.
• Emphasized that the process followed the usual procedure where the petitioner’s comprehension and consent were confirmed.

Investigation and Hearings

• Referral to the Solicitor-General:
• On April 21, 1965, the matter was referred to the Solicitor-General for further investigation, report, and recommendation.
• The then Solicitor-General, Hon. Antonio P. Barredo, submitted his report on January 16, 1968.
• Key Points from the Investigation Report:
• The case involved a public document notarized, challenged on the ground that the petitioner purportedly did not understand its contents.
• The respondent asserted that he explained the document in the vernacular, and the petitioner acknowledged understanding and consent.
• Testimony from the petitioner was recorded at a February 9, 1966, hearing; however, the petitioner was not cross-examined and failed to appear in subsequent hearings.
• The last hearing took place on April 29, 1967, with only the respondent appearing, with no further moves from the petitioner to continue the proceedings or formally offer additional evidence.

Final Developments and Resolution

• On January 31, 1968, the court sought a comment from the petitioner regarding the Solicitor-General’s report, but no such comment was filed.
• Due to the petitioner’s apparent loss of interest, and the incomplete presentation of evidence, the court found the conditions justified for a provisional dismissal.
• The petition for disbarment against Atty. Herminio Santos was provisionally dismissed by the resolution rendered by the court.

Issue:

Whether Atty. Herminio Santos committed deceit and gross violation of his oath of office by notarizing the document allegedly without ensuring that the petitioner understood its contents.

• Did the respondent fail to meet the standard of care expected of a legal officer in his notarial duties?
• Was there any affirmation or proof that the petitioner did not understand or did not consent to the document's contents during notarization?

Whether the procedural anomalies, particularly the petitioner’s failure to continue the prosecution of his complaint, affect the merits of the case.

• What is the significance of the petitioner’s non-appearance in subsequent hearings after initial testimony?
• How does the absence of the petitioner’s further evidence or comment on the Solicitor-General’s report impact the pursuit of disbarment?

• Whether the evidence presented, including the respondent’s explanation and the petitioner’s initial testimony, is sufficient to warrant disciplinary action against the respondent.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)