G.R. No. 160316 - Punzalan vs. Plata

Complainant Elizabeth Recio, the bonds manager of Oriental Assurance Corporation (ORASCO), filed a complaint against Atty. Joselito I. FandiAo seeking his disbarment for alleged grave misconduct, gross dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.
The complaint arose from spurious bail bonds allegedly issued under ORASCO’s name.

On or about early 2003, ORASCO started receiving orders from various courts (including branches of the Regional Trial Court of Naga and Legazpi, and some Municipal Trial Courts) indicating that bail bonds had been issued and confiscated.
ORASCO, upon verifying the bail bonds, found several irregularities:

The bail bond form used was not genuine.
Signatures on the bonds were forged, differing markedly from the authorized signature of Conrado B. Sicat.
A conspicuous notice stated “SEND ALL NOTICES AT RM 303 PNB BLDG. NAGA CITY,” an address where ORASCO maintained no office.

Complainant specifically alleged that respondent notarized these spurious bonds and that the law office of respondent was used in the process.

A sworn affidavit from Sheriff Rolando Borja of Naga City affirmed that respondent misrepresented himself as both the manager and counsel of ORASCO, and indicated involvement in settling amounts subject to a writ of execution.
These circumstances pointed toward respondent’s direct involvement in the forgery and misrepresentation connected to the issuance of bail bonds.

In his Comment dated September 27, 2005, respondent explained that he maintained an insurance business in his office, including the issuance of bail bonds, which he had delegated to his secretary, Jeanette Cruz.
He claimed that Cruz operated both within and independently of his insurance business, maintaining additional offices in Legazpi City and Daet, Camarines Norte.
Respondent admitted to being introduced into certain transactions through a referral from Willy Vargas, but asserted that he had no actual participation in the issuance of the contested bonds.
He further contended that:

He did not notarize the bonds personally; his signature was affixed by Cruz.
The address printed on the bond was merely for convenience in an arrangement between Cruz and Vargas.
His appearance as counsel in court was only upon the solicitation of Vargas.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) was tasked to investigate the matter.
IBP Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo, Jr. noted that:

The authenticity of respondent’s signature on the bonds was difficult to ascertain since the evidence consisted of photocopies.
Despite the uncertainty regarding the signatures, respondent was quick in admitting the bonds were issued by Vargas through Cruz.
The delegation of operational control to Cruz provided her with unfettered access to respondent’s notarial paraphernalia, ultimately facilitating the alleged forgery.

The Commissioner concluded that respondent’s oversight in securing his notarial tools and his unauthorized appearances in court on behalf of ORASCO indicated negligence and misconduct.
The IBP recommended a suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the IBP Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation through Resolution No. XIX-2011-182 dated May 14, 2011.
Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration, filed on August 10, 2011, was subsequently denied by the IBP Board of Governors in March 2014.

Whether respondent was negligent in safeguarding his notarial paraphernalia by delegating significant control to his secretary, Cruz.
Whether such negligence directly facilitated the forgery or falsification of ORASCO bail bonds.

Whether respondent’s appearance in court on behalf of ORASCO without proper appointment or verification of Vargas’ authority amounts to misrepresentation and malpractice of law.
The extent to which respondent’s actions amounted to unauthorized representation of ORASCO.

Whether respondent’s conduct, including the unsupervised use of his official seal and allowing unauthorized access to his notarial instruments, violated Section 2(a) and (c) of Rule VII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

Whether the gravity of the misconduct and the resultant prejudice to ORASCO and other parties justify not only suspension from the practice of law, but also revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification from future appointment as a notary public.