Case Digest (A.C. No. 8395)
Facts:
Lorna C. Basagan v. Atty. Domingo P. Espina, A.C. No. 8395, July 08, 2020, Supreme Court Third Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Lorna C. Basagan (a taxpayer and resident of Libagon, Southern Leyte) filed an administrative complaint with the Supreme Court against respondent Atty. Domingo P. Espina (a lawyer, former mayor’s spouse and then-notary public), accusing him of notarizing three contracts connected with the Libagon Water System Level III project and thus violating Rule IV, Section 3(c) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC), which disqualifies a notary who is a spouse of the principal within the fourth civil degree. Basagan sought preventive suspension and disciplinary sanctions.
Basagan attached photocopies of the Subsidiary Loan Agreement, the Contract for Consultancy Services, and the Project Agreement, together with an affidavit of one Tito E. Calooy and an affidavit of Dolores Cahucom who claimed knowledge that Atty. Espina notarized the documents. She alleged anomalies in project procurement and that the documents were notarized by respondent, who was married to the mayor who signed the contracts.
The Court issued an initial Resolution (Oct. 7, 2009) requiring respondent to comment; after respondent failed timely to comment the Court issued another show‑cause resolution (July 11, 2011). Respondent subsequently filed manifestations contending he did not receive the complaint and explaining his domicile in Cebu City; the Court noted compliance (Dec. 7, 2011) and later (Aug. 1, 2012) directed Basagan to furnish a copy of the complaint to respondent and for respondent to comment. Basagan later said original records were destroyed during Typhoon Yolanda.
Because the matter had been pending for years, the Court (Aug. 24, 2016) referred the complaint to the Office of the Bar Confidant and then to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Investigating Commissioner (Dec. 10, 2018) found respondent guilty of the notarial disqualification and recommended one (1) year suspension from the practice of law and two (2) years suspension as notary public. The IBP Board of Governors (Feb. 15, 2019) adopted the findings with modification, imposing six (6) months suspension from the practice of law and two (2) years disqualification as ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are the factual findings and recommendations of the IBP binding on the Court or merely recommendatory?
- Did the complainant present substantial and admissible evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence and support disciplinary sanctions against respondent?
- Did respondent violate Rule IV, Section 3(c) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing documents signed by his spouse such that ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)