A.C. No. 10132 - Heirs of Alilano vs. Examen

Case Digest (A.C. No. 10132)
Standard Advanced

Facts:

Parties and Transaction Background

Complainants: The heirs of Pedro Alilano, represented by David Alilano.
Respondent: Atty. Roberto E. Examen, who acted as a notary public and lawyer.
Property Details:

The property involved was a 98,460 sq. m. parcel of land identified as Lot No. 1085 Pls-544-D located in Paitan, Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat.
Originally titled under OCT No. P-23261 in the names of Pedro Alilano and his wife, Florentina Pueblo.

Execution of Deeds and Notarization

Absolute Deeds of Sale:

Two deeds executed on March 31, 1984, and September 12, 1984 by the spouses Alilano in favor of Ramon Examen and his wife, Edna.
Both deeds were notarized by Atty. Roberto Examen, who was also a relative (brother to the vendee).

Subsequent Events:

The spouses Examen obtained possession of the property in September 1984.
Pedro Alilano and Florentina Pueblo passed away in 1985 and 1989, respectively.

Initiation of Litigation

Recovery of Possession:

On January 12, 2002, the heirs of Alilano filed a suit for recovery of possession before the Regional Trial Court against Edna Examen and Atty. Examen.

Disbarment Complaint:

On November 15, 2003, a complaint for disbarment was filed against Atty. Examen alleging misconduct and malpractice in notarizing and presenting falsified documents as evidence.

Allegations Against Atty. Examen

Falsification and Notarial Misconduct:

Notarized the Absolute Deeds of Sale despite being related by consanguinity within the prohibited degree under prior notarial rules.
Allegedly used the wrong residence certificate by notarizing Ramon Examen’s documents with Florentina’s certificate number.
Falsely acknowledged the personal appearance of witnesses when they did not appear in person.

Violation of Professional Standards:

Breach of the Lawyer’s Oath, specifically the duty to uphold the law and maintain integrity.
Violation of several Canons (Canon 1, 10, and 19) and Rules (1.01, 1.02, 10.01, and 19.01) of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Respondent’s Defense and IBP Proceedings

Atty. Examen’s Defense:

Argued that under the Revised Administrative Code there was no prohibition against notarizing documents involving a relative by consanguinity, as the prohibition stemmed from the now-repealed Spanish Notarial Law of 1889.
Claimed he acted in good faith, relying on standard office practice whereby his secretary prepared the documentation details without his personal re‑examination.
Maintained that the alleged error regarding the residence certificate was not a ground for disbarment and was barred by a prescription period pursuant to IBP resolutions.

Findings of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD):

Determined that Atty. Examen was liable for breaching the Notarial Law and for introducing documents with falsified elements into court proceedings.
Noted clear evidence that the deeds did not reflect the true intention of the parties, such as denials under oath by attesting witnesses and a handwriting expert’s report on signature discrepancies.
Found that the residence certificate details were falsified.

IBP Board of Governors (BOG) Resolution:

Initially recommended a penalty of disbarment.
Modified the penalty to suspension from the practice of law for a period (first two years, later adjusted to one year for law practice) and imposed suspension/disqualification on his notarial commission for two years.

Additional Jurisprudential and Statutory Considerations

Prescription in Bar Discipline:

The Court reiterated, referencing cases such as Frias v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada and Heck v. Santos, that no prescription period applies in administrative cases involving acts of erring members of the bar.

Evolution of Notarial Laws:

Established that the Spanish Notarial Law of 1889 had been repealed by the Revised Administrative Code effective 1917.
Emphasized that notarization must adhere to the current legal requirements set out under the Revised Administrative Code and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

Duty of Diligence:

Notaries are mandated to perform their duties diligently, which includes personally verifying details in documents.
Failure to make proper notations and certifications constitutes grounds for administrative sanctions and potential disbarment.

Issues:

Administrative Liability of Atty. Examen

Whether Atty. Examen’s conduct in notarizing the Absolute Deeds of Sale constituted misconduct and malpractice under the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law.
Whether his act of using an incorrect residence certificate number (Florentina’s instead of Ramon’s) amounted to falsification of documents intended for court evidence.

Validity of the Defense

Whether the defense asserting the absence of a prohibition under the Revised Administrative Code regarding notarizing documents involving relatives can justify his actions.
Whether the good faith reliance on his secretary’s work and the argument of prescription (limitation period) are acceptable grounds to mitigate or absolve his administrative liability.

Appropriate Disciplinary Action

Whether the penalty imposed (suspension and disqualification from notarial practice) was appropriate given the gravity of the violations.
Whether the case should be resolved on the merits of the administrative complaint without delving into issues regarding the conveyance of real property or alleged forgery of signatures.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Case Digest (A.C. No. 10132) Concise

Facts:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 10132) Standard Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 10132)
Concise

Case Digest (A.C. No. 10132)
Standard Advanced