Case Digest (A.C. No. 5281)
Facts:
In Manuel L. Lee v. Atty. Regino B. Tambago (568 Phil. 363, February 12, 2008), complainant Manuel L. Lee alleged that respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago notarized a spurious last will and testament of the decedent Vicente Lee, Sr. which the testator never executed. The contested will, dated June 30, 1965, bore a residence certificate from January 5, 1962, and signatures allegedly forged from genuine documents. Only two witnesses signed instead of the mandatory three, and their residence certificates were not noted. No copy of the will was found in the National Commission for Culture and the Arts archives. Respondent denied forgery charges, claiming the will’s authenticity through affidavits of Gloria Nebato and the decedent’s children, and argued that complainant, an illegitimate son, lacked standing and had not first sought nullity of the will in court. The Supreme Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), where an investigating commissioner fouCase Digest (A.C. No. 5281)
Facts:
- Complainant’s allegations
- On April 10, 2000, Manuel L. Lee filed a letter-complaint against Atty. Regino B. Tambago for notarizing a spurious last will and testament.
- Alleged defects in the contested will:
- Testator Vicente Lee, Sr. never executed the will.
- Forged signatures of witnesses Cayetano Noynay and Loreto Grajo.
- Purported execution date (June 30, 1965) conflicted with residence certificate dated January 5, 1962.
- Testator’s signature differed from that in a genuine deed of donation.
- No notation of residence certificates for the two witnesses.
- No copy on file at the NCCA archives (certification dated September 19, 1999).
- Respondent’s position
- In his July 6, 2001 comment, Tambago denied the allegations as false—claiming the will was validly executed and notarized, supported by:
- Affidavit of Gloria Nebato (common-law wife of decedent).
- Joint affidavit of Elena N. Lee and Vicente N. Lee, Jr.
- He argued the complaint was filed to harass him and that no copy exists at the NCCA because none was filed.
- He asserted that Lee lacked cause of action, having not first sought nullity of the will and his inheritance share.
- IBP investigation and recommendation
- On October 17, 2001, the Supreme Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.
- The IBP investigating commissioner found violations of the old Notarial Law, Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, recommending a three-month suspension.
- The IBP Board of Governors, in Resolution No. XVII-2006-285 (May 26, 2006), adopted the report with modification: one-year suspension, revocation of notarial commission for two years.
Issues:
- Validity of the contested will
- Whether attestation by only two witnesses and other formal defects render the will void.
- Whether the acknowledgment complied with mandatory requirements (testator’s and witnesses’ residence certificates).
- Compliance with notarial duties and professional ethics
- Whether respondent properly required and recorded residence certificates of testator and witnesses.
- Whether respondent made the mandatory entries in his notarial register.
- Whether failure to file a copy with the archives division is sanctionable.
- Appropriate disciplinary sanction
- What sanction is warranted for respondent’s alleged professional misconduct.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)