A.C. No. 12081 - Lopez vs. Ramos

A complaint-affidavit dated May 27, 2014, was filed by Alberto C. Lopez before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
Lopez charged Atty. Rosendo C. Ramos with violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) for allegedly abetting a transaction designed to evade the proper payment of taxes and for gross negligence as a notary public.

Lopez claimed to be the vendee of a parcel of land located at No. 362-A L. Ibarra Street, Tondo, Manila.
The property was originally titled under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 143583 in Aurea Munar Masangkay’s name.
It was discovered that TCT 143583 was cancelled and replaced by TCT 184238 in the name of Placida Ronquillo, through a deed of sale that Lopez alleged was forged and notarized by the respondent.

Lopez asserted that two deeds of sale were prepared: one indicating a price of ₱130,000.00 and another for ₱30,000.00.
The lower amount was allegedly used to reduce the capital gains tax liability, triggering suspicions of tax evasion.
The deeds had identical notarial entries—including registration, page, and book numbers—despite differing consideration amounts.
Inconsistencies were noted regarding the signatures, particularly that of the vendor, where the impostor’s signature (“Aurea Munar”) was different from the proper name on record (“Aurea Munar Masangkay”).

In Criminal Case No. 90-83237 for Falsification of Public Document, Aurea Munar Masangkay, along with Ronquillo and Benjamin M. Masangkay, were named as defendants.
Testimonies and affidavits, including one executed by Ms. Masangkay in Vancouver, Canada, confirmed that her signature was falsified and that she was not present during the execution of the deeds.
The original deed of sale for ₱130,000.00 was entered in the criminal case records and certified by the Court of Appeals (CA) as genuine.

During the administrative investigation, respondent’s own secretary, Consolacion de los Santos, testified that two deeds of sale were prepared and notarized on the same occasion.
Evidence showed that respondent notarized both documents without properly verifying the identities and signatures of the parties involved.
The IBP, in its Report and Recommendation dated January 28, 2015, found respondent administratively liable for notarizing a document without ensuring proper identity verification and for abetting tax evasion.
Subsequent resolutions by the IBP Board of Governors led to disciplinary measures, including the revocation of his notarial commission and a recommendation for suspension from practice.

Despite respondent’s contention that only one deed of sale was notarized and that photocopies were insufficient evidence, the CA certified the original deed as part of the criminal records.
The discrepancies in the deeds, as highlighted during cross-examinations, corroborated that a second deed with fraudulent intent was indeed executed.
The duality of the entries and the purpose behind the lower-valued deed underscored the respondent’s failure to comply with proper notarial procedures and lawful practices.

Whether respondent, Atty. Rosendo C. Ramos, notarized a forged deed of sale knowingly or negligently.

Was the preparation of two deeds of sale—one reflecting the actual price and the other a lower amount—intended to facilitate tax evasion?
Did the respondent’s actions constitute a violation of his duty as a notary public by failing to verify the identity and authenticity of the signatories?

Whether the introduction of photocopies of the deeds of sale, as opposed to certified true copies, affects the evidentiary value in establishing the dispute.

Can the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the signatures and notarial entries be substantiated despite reliance on secondary evidence?
Is the evidence sufficient to impose administrative discipline on the respondent for aiding in an unlawful transaction?