Facts:

The case revolves around Atty. Liberato Yambao, who served as the Clerk of Court for the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 80. This administrative action emerged from a letter dated November 12, 1990, from Alfredo Lim, the then Director of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), which informed the Office of the Court Administrator regarding the results of their investigation into Yambao's conduct. The NBI recommended that charges be filed against Yambao for falsification of public documents, which were subsequently initiated on January 29, 1991, and docketed as A.M. P-91-593. The complaint stemmed from an affidavit-complaint filed on July 11, 1990, by Joselito P. Garaycay, who alleged that Yambao, along with Jess Morales, had committed falsification of public documents, theft, and grave threats concerning a property transaction involving a piece of land in Matandang Balara, Quezon City.

Garaycay outlined in his complaint that he had purchased Lot 23, FLS-2804-D

...

Facts:

Background and Initiation of the Case

• The case originated when the then NBI Director Alfredo Lim forwarded a letter dated November 12, 1990—with an attached evaluation, agent’s report, and annexes—to the Office of the Court Administrator recommending administrative discipline against Atty. Liberato Yambao.
• On January 29, 1991, the Court directed the Office of the Court Administrator to file administrative charges against respondent Yambao for falsification of public documents, docketed as A.M. P-91-593.

Underlying Transaction and Property Dispute

• Complainant Joselito P. Garaycay, through his affidavit dated July 11, 1990, alleged multiple transgressions involving the sale and reconstitution of a property:
• On April 17, 1979, he purchased lot 23, FLS-2804-D (covered by TCT No. 9780 [693]) in Matandang Balara, Quezon City from his uncle, Vicente T. Garaycay.
• Due to a fire in 1988 that destroyed many records at the Registry of Deeds, Vicente Garaycay sought the reconstitution of the title, resulting in a new title (TCT No. RT-1764 [9780][693]) issued on February 7, 1990.
• In accordance with the Deed of Absolute Sale, the reconstituted title was later cancelled and replaced by TCT No. 12183 in Garaycay’s name.
• Subsequently, lot 23 was subdivided into three lots (23-A, 23-B, and 23-C) with corresponding titles (TCT Nos. 14414, 14415, and 14416) issued on April 18, 1990.
• Dispute over the Property Boundary and Interference in Construction
• Garaycay sold lot 23-A subject to a condition requiring the lot to be fenced before full payment to a buyer, Lillian Tondjis.
• On June 19, 1990, Garaycay hired a labor contractor, Ernesto T. Sala, to erect a concrete perimeter fence.
• Four days later, respondent Yambao, then Clerk of Court at RTC Branch 80, Quezon City, intervened at the construction site claiming ownership of the land and presenting what he claimed was the original title.
• Conflicts escalated when, on June 30 and July 3, 1990, armed men led by Jess Morales and accompanied by Jaime Anido forcibly halted the fencing construction and removed materials.

Evidentiary Submissions and Investigative Findings

• The investigation, spurred by Garaycay’s affidavit complaint, led to multiple subpoenas and the submission of various documentary and testimonial evidence:
• Documents from the Office of the Registrar of Deeds, Land Registration Authority, and certifications from the Office of the Election Registrar regarding the authenticity of titles and the identity of Vicente T. Garaycay.
• Affidavits and sworn statements by key witnesses including Joselito Garaycay, Ernesto T. Sala, Romulo D. Florencio, and others, establishing discrepancies in the documents presented by respondent Yambao.
• Evidence highlighted that the copy of TCT No. 9780 (693) allegedly possessed by Yambao was inconsistent with the genuine title, showing clear differences in numbering, condition, and annotations.
• The NBI concluded from its exhaustive investigation that respondent Yambao was in possession of—and had made use of—a falsified Transfer Certificate of Title, thereby raising a presumption of his authorship in the falsification.

Respondent’s Defense and Inconsistent Statements

• Respondent Yambao contended that he did not forge the Deed of Sale dated February 11, 1986, attributing any discrepancies to an honest mistake based on the misrepresentation of Vicente T. Garaycay’s identity.
• He asserted that a fraudulent sale had been perpetrated against him, and therefore, his possession and use of the disputed documents did not indicate culpability in falsification.
• Additionally, Yambao mentioned filing a civil case for “Quieting of Title and Annulment of Defendant’s Fake Title” prior to the administrative proceedings, thereby attempting to distance himself from the falsification issues.
• However, his statements proved contradictory—at one point affirming the genuineness of the original title and at another disavowing it—and he failed to offer evidence (e.g., testimony of non-participating notaries or co-vendees) to dispel the presumption against him.

Issue:

Whether sufficient evidence exists to establish that respondent Yambao was in possession of and utilized falsified public documents in connection with the disputed property transactions.

• Did respondent Yambao knowingly use documents that were forged or altered?
• Is the presumption that possession and use of a falsified document implicate its holder as the forger applicable even if he claims an honest mistake?

The credibility and consistency of respondent Yambao’s explanations and defenses.

• Can his account of being misled by a purported Vicente Garaycay be reconciled with the documentary discrepancies observed?
• Do his contradictory statements regarding the authenticity of TCT No. 9780 (693) undermine his defense?

Whether the failure of respondent Yambao to provide satisfactory evidence or witness testimony to counter the presumption of falsification justifies disciplinary action.

• Did Yambao’s inaction or refusal to adequately comment on the affidavit-complaint further implicate him in the falsification?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)