G.R. No. 172589 - Nacague vs. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.

Flordeliza E. Coquia filed a Petition for Disbarment dated February 6, 2012 against Atty. Emmanuel E. Laforteza for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer, docketed as A.C. No. 9364.
At the time of the alleged acts, Atty. Laforteza was Clerk of Court of RTC Branch 68, Lingayen, Pangasinan (Nov. 17, 2004–Jan. 31, 2011), transferring to the Department of Justice on Feb. 1, 2011.

Coquia alleged that on January 7, 2009, while in office, Atty. Laforteza conspired with Clemente Solis to falsify and notarize two documents:

Coquia claimed forgery as she was attending classes at Centro Escolar University, evidenced by faculty time records.
She further asserted that Atty. Laforteza was not authorized to administer oaths outside his official functions as Clerk of Court, rendering the notarizations unauthorized and grounds for disbarment.

The Office of the Bar Confidant referred the complaint to the Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant for action.
Atty. Laforteza denied the allegations, explaining that Luzviminda Solis (wife of Clemente) and others requested him to notarize the documents as proof of settlement among blood relatives. Initially hesitant, he acquiesced in good faith, believing the parties before him were those identified in the documents.
He denied conspiracy with the Solises, citing lack of evidence except bare allegation.
Joint Affidavit of Clemente and Luzviminda denied conspiracy; they stated Laforteza initially refused but was convinced to assist, and Clemente affirmed Coquia genuinely signed the documents.

The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and recommendation.
During the mandatory conference, both parties agreed Atty. Laforteza was authorized to administer oaths, but Laforteza admitted he did not personally know Coquia and Clemente and relied on Luzviminda and another court employee to identify signatories.
He admitted Coquia did not sign in his presence and the signature was represented by someone present who claimed it was hers.

IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended dismissal for lack of evidence.
The IBP Board of Governors reversed, reprimanding and cautioning Laforteza for carelessness as subscribing officer.

Whether Atty. Laforteza committed conduct unbecoming of a lawyer by notarizing documents without personal knowledge and beyond his official authority.
Whether the notarization performed by Atty. Laforteza was unauthorized under existing notarial law and rules.
Whether conspiracy to falsify documents with Clemente Solis was established.
The appropriate penalty, if liability is found.