Case Digest (A.C. No. 11131)
Facts:
Dennis M. Magusara v. Atty. Louie A. Rastica, A.C. No. 11131, March 13, 2019, the Supreme Court First Division, Jardeleza, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Dennis M. Magusara filed a disbarment complaint on March 1, 2011 before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP‑CBD) charging respondent Atty. Louie A. Rastica with violating Section 20(d), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court (employing means inconsistent with truth and honor). The complaint arose from a prior electoral complaint: on November 14, 2007 Yap‑Siton Law Office filed a formal complaint before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) on behalf of Ramie P. Fabillar (Ramie) accusing Magusara of an election offense; attached were, among others, a complaint‑affidavit by Ramie and an affidavit by Wilson Fabillar that had been subscribed and sworn to before respondent Rastica.
Ramie later filed an Affidavit of Desistance with COMELEC (February 10, 2008) claiming surprise at the election complaint and asserting he thought he had signed a grave coercion complaint; he alleged the complaint‑affidavit was not translated into the local dialect. Magusara’s IBP complaint alleged that respondent prepared and had Ramie swear to a document he did not understand, thus violating Section 20(d). Magusara appended documents including two affidavits by Wilson (dated December 7, 2007 and August 5, 2008 showing differing signatures), a prior manifestation, and two documents allegedly notarized by respondent after his notarial commission had expired.
In his answer, respondent denied the charges, challenged the absence of a certification against forum shopping, and asserted that Ramie’s statements were corroborated by police and barangay blotters and by an affidavit Ramie executed (August 5, 2008) clarifying he understood the complaint‑affidavit. Respondent further argued the charge was motivated by political revenge and pointed to inconsistencies between Ramie’s affidavits of desistance in different cases.
During IBP‑CBD proceedings, Magusara added the issue of alleged unauthorized notarizations. Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero held hearings and, in a Report and Recommendation dated November 14, 2012, recommended dismissal for lack of merit, finding Ramie’s educational background and his later affidavit made it improbable he was unaware of the contents of the complaint‑affidavit and that there was insufficient proof of ethical breach. The IBP Board of Governors initially adopted the dismissal, but on motion for reconsideration (Resolution No. XXI‑2014‑245, May 3, 2014) it reversed, concluding respondent had notarized two documents prior to approval of his notarial commission and disqualifying him from being commissioned as notary public for two years and ordering revocation of any existing commission.
Respondent moved for reconsideration before the IBP Board, contending lack of notice and opportunity to be heard because...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the IBP Board of Governors err in granting reconsideration and taking into account the additional charge that respondent notarized documents without authority, where that claim had been the subject of an earlier disbarment complaint (i.e., does such action amount to forum shopping)?
- Was there sufficient evidence to establish that respondent violated Section 20(d), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court by preparing and procuring a complaint‑a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)