Case Digest (A.C. No. 6186)
Case Digest (A.C. No. 6186)
Facts:
Vicente Follosco and Hermilina Follosco v. Atty. Rafael Mateo, A.C. No. 6186, February 03, 2004, Supreme Court Second Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court. Complainants Vicente and Hermilina Follosco filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Rafael Mateo originally with the Commission on Human Rights in 1994; the CHR referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). A separate disbarment complaint (Administrative Case No. 4375) was also filed based on the same acts. The administrative matter was raffled to Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo, Jr., who received position papers and other pleadings and rendered a Report and Recommendation dated July 24, 2003.The Commissioner found that respondent Mateo, who was a notary public for Rizal during 1992–1993, notarized several documents connected to a P50,000 mortgage transaction between the Folloscos (owners of a house and lot in Tanay, Rizal) and Dr. Epitacio R. Tongohan. The documents notarized by Mateo included various sworn statements and a promissory note (listed in the record). The Folloscos alleged the signatures on those documents were forged and filed criminal complaints for falsification of public documents, docketed I.S. Nos. 94‑269 and 94‑2064 at the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office of Rizal.
One prosecutorial resolution dismissed I.S. No. 94‑269; I.S. No. 94‑2064 was initially dismissed as to respondent Mateo but later elevated on petition for review to the Department of Justice. The DOJ, through Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuo, reversed and ordered forensic examination by the NBI or PNP Crime Laboratory and a re‑investigation. The NBI’s Questioned Documents Report No. 661‑900 concluded that the questioned signatures were not written by the same person as the standard samples. The forged documents were used to effect new tax declarations in Dr. Tongohan’s name, canceling the Folloscos’ tax declarations.
Commissioner Magpayo found respondent guilty of negligence in his duties as notary public and recommended a three‑month suspension from the practice of law. The IBP Board of Governors approved the report but modified the penalty: suspension of respondent’s notarial commission for one year and a reprimand with warning. The matter was before the Court as A.C. No. 6186 for resolution of the administrative charges against respondent Mateo.
Issues:
- Did the Court have cause to hold Atty. Rafael Mateo administratively liable for negligence in his duties as a notary public for notarizing the questioned documents?
- If liable, what disciplinary sanctions are appropriate for respondent as a notary public and as a lawyer?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)