Title
Supreme Court
Malapit vs. Watin
Case
A.C. No. 11777
Decision Date
Oct 1, 2024
Edna Tan Malapit filed for disbarment of Atty. Watin due to notarizing a forged SPA allowing unauthorized property sales. The court found him guilty, leading to a two-year suspension and revocation of his notarial commission.

Case Digest (A.C. No. 11777)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background and Parties Involved
    • Complainant Edna Tan Malapit (Edna) claimed ownership of a parcel of land located at Mabini Extension, Digos City, covered by Tax Declaration No. ARF No. 96-02-019-01655.
    • Petronila Austria and her husband, Eduardo Austria, were appointed by Edna to oversee the land.
    • Edna appointed Petronila to find buyers for portions of her lot in July 1994, agreeing to a 10% commission.
  • The Special Power of Attorney (SPA)
    • Petronila suggested consulting Atty. Rogelio M. Watin (respondent) for the preparation and notarization of the SPA.
    • Atty. Watin prepared the SPA, which was to authorize Petronila to sell the land.
    • However, the executed SPA included authority to sign Transfers of Rights, which was not agreed upon by Edna.
    • Edna refused to sign the SPA and requested revisions but discovered that Atty. Watin notarized the SPA with her purported signature.
  • Discovery of Unauthorized Sales and Legal Actions
    • In 2002, Edna found settlers on her property and learned all parcels had been sold, facilitated by the allegedly forged 1996 SPA.
    • Edna filed a criminal complaint for Estafa through falsification of documents against Petronila on August 21, 2002.
    • She also filed a civil case for Declaration of Nullity of Transfer of Rights against Petronila on October 1, 2002.
    • The City Prosecutor found probable cause for Forgery and Estafa against Petronila and Eduardo Austria.
    • Atty. Watin acted as counsel for Petronila in these cases.
  • Beneficiaries of the Transactions
    • Atty. Watin's wife, Evangeline, and sons, Ronald and Richard Watin, benefited from the forged SPA through various Transfers of Rights.
    • Five lots were transferred to Evangeline; portions went to Ronald and Richard for relatively low prices.
    • A Transfer of Rights to Ariel Asturia (Petronila’s son) was allegedly notarized by Atty. Watin during the pendency of related cases, but the Office of Clerk of Court denied record of such.
  • Respondent’s Defense
    • Atty. Watin alleged harassment by Edna and claimed Edna received the proceeds of property sales.
    • He stated that Edna intended to grant the SPA and even altered the document herself.
    • He claimed Cenon Tan (Edna’s husband) was the real owner, having transferred title to Edna to keep it secret.
    • Atty. Watin maintained the SPA’s validity due to the signatures and lack of court annulment.
    • He denied notarizing the contested Transfer of Rights to Ariel, attributing a forged signature to his former secretary.
    • Submitted affidavits from his secretary and Petronila supported his claims.
  • IBP Commission on Bar Discipline Findings
    • The IBP Commissioner found Atty. Watin guilty of misconduct based on evidence and the City Prosecutor’s finding of probable cause for forgery.
    • Notarizing a deed of sale during the pendency of related Estafa cases and the benefits to his family warranted sanctions.
    • Recommended a two-year suspension from the practice of law.
  • IBP Board of Governors Resolution and Denial of Reconsideration
    • The Board of Governors adopted the Commissioner's findings and suspended Atty. Watin for two years.
    • Atty. Watin filed motions for reconsideration, denying allegations and reiterating forged signatures by his secretary.
    • The Board denied the motions, affirming the suspension.
  • Supreme Court’s Findings
    • The Court acknowledged that the forgery allegations should be resolved in proper civil or criminal proceedings, not in the disbarment case.
    • Edna’s mere denial was insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity of the SPA as a notarized public document.
    • Lawyers are presumed innocent and presumed to perform duties in good faith.
    • However, Atty. Watin violated the 2004 Notarial Rules by notarizing a document from which he and his family indirectly benefited.
    • He breached Canon 1 and related provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) regarding honesty, integrity, and propriety.
    • He violated the conflict-of-interest rule by representing Edna initially and later representing Petronila, Edna’s opponent in legal cases regarding the SPA.
    • Credited Ariel’s affidavit admitting forgery of the Transfer of Rights involving him, undermining that document’s validity.
  • Penalties Imposed
    • Suspension from practice of law for two years.
    • Revocation of notarial commission and disqualification from reappointment as a notary public for two years following suspension.
    • Stern warning against repetition of similar offenses.

Issues:

  • Whether Atty. Rogelio M. Watin committed unethical or illegal conduct warranting disciplinary action.
  • Whether the notarization of the SPA and Transfers of Rights by Atty. Watin was proper and within legal and ethical standards.
  • Whether Atty. Watin violated the conflict-of-interest rule by representing parties with opposing interests.
  • What sanctions are appropriate for the respondent’s misconduct.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.