Case Digest (A.C. No. 6767)
Facts:
Elizabeth Recio, Complainant, vs. Atty. Joselito I. Fandino, Respondent, A.C. No. 6767, October 05, 2016, Supreme Court Third Division, Jardeleza, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Elizabeth Recio, bonds manager of Oriental Assurance Corporation (ORASCO), filed an undated Complaint Affidavit received by the Court on June 28, 2005, seeking disbarment of Atty. Joselito I. Fandino for alleged grave misconduct, gross dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. Recio alleged that in early 2003 various trial courts returned confiscated ORASCO bail bonds which, upon ORASCO’s verification, proved to be fake: they used non-genuine ORASCO bond forms, bore forged signatures unlike those of ORASCO’s authorized signatory, and contained a stamped notice directing correspondence to “RM 303 PNB BLDG. NAGA CITY,” an address at which ORASCO had no office.
Recio alleged that respondent was the notary public on the spurious bonds and that the “RM 303” address was respondent’s law office; she further alleged respondent signed pleadings and represented himself as ORASCO’s counsel though he was never appointed. A Naga City sheriff executed an affidavit stating respondent had represented himself as ORASCO’s manager and counsel and offered to settle execution amounts. Recio also alleged respondent solicited and received bond premiums illegally.
Respondent, in his September 27, 2005 Comment, admitted he maintained an insurance business from his law office and had delegated its operation to a Ms. Jeanette Cruz, who also conducted her own insurance activities and maintained offices in Legazpi and Daet. He said Cruz handled actual transactions with a Mr. Willy Vargas, who had referred clients, and that Cruz might have affixed his signature to the bonds and made notarial arrangements with Vargas; respondent denied notarizing the bonds or knowing when they were issued. He admitted appearing as counsel in certain bond-related court matters but claimed his appearances followed Vargas’ solicitation and that Cruz prepared the pleadings.
The Court referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. IBP Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo, Jr., in a March 18, 2009 Report, found it difficult to forensically verify the challenged signatures because only photocopies of the bonds were available, but concluded that respondent had been negligent in entrusting the operation of his insurance business and unfettered access to his notarial paraphernalia to Cruz. The Commissioner found such access and respondent’s failure of prudence opened the door to forgery by Cruz and Vargas and that respondent’s practice of signing motions and pleadings prepared by Cruz, and appearing as if representing ORASCO without verifying authority, showed lack of due diligence. The Commissioner recommended suspension from the practice of law for six months for negligence and unauthorized appearance.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approv...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was respondent guilty of negligence or other professional misconduct in relation to the notarization and use of the spurious ORASCO bail bonds and in appearing in court for ORASCO without authority?
- If respondent was guilty, what penalty sh...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)