Title
Rico vs. Madrazo, Jr.
Case
A.C. No. 7231
Decision Date
Oct 1, 2019
Complainant accused respondents of fraud and notarial violations over affidavits for a land permit. Atty. Delante found guilty of notarial misconduct; Madrazo and Tan cleared due to insufficient evidence. Delante’s penalties noted but unenforceable due to prior disbarment.

Case Digest (A.C. No. 7231)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the Case
    • Edgar M. Rico, the complainant, filed a Complaint for suspension or disbarment against three lawyers: Atty. Jose R. Madrazo, Jr.; Atty. Antonio V.A. Tan; and Atty. Leonido C. Delante.
    • The Complaint arose from issues involving a parcel of land in Tulip Drive, Matina, Davao City, on which coconut trees were being cultivated.
  • Alleged Misconduct and Documentary Irregularities
    • Complainant asserted that:
      • He was the "allocatee" of the disputed land.
      • Respondents Madrazo and Tan filed an application for a Permit to Cut coconut trees before the Philippine Coconut Authority (PHILCOA).
      • Several affidavits—attesting to No[n]-Encumbrance and marking the coconut trees—were attached to the application, and these affidavits were acknowledged by Delante.
    • The complainant contended that upon verification the notarial details (document and page numbers in Delante’s Notarial Register) did not correspond with the affidavits; rather, they matched other documents like a deed of sale, a secretary’s certificate, and other affidavits executed by different persons.
    • These irregularities formed the basis for alleging fraud, deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct against the respondents.
  • Defenses and Arguments of the Respondents
    • Respondent Delante denied all material allegations and asserted:
      • On the dates in question, both Madrazo and Tan personally appeared before him, swore to the truth of their affidavits, and he properly notarized those affidavits.
      • An inadvertent omission by his office secretary led to the failure in recording the affixed details in his Notarial Register, which he maintained was unintentional and without malice.
      • Cited settled jurisprudence that the absence of notarial register entries does not necessarily render documents spurious or non-existent.
    • Respondent Madrazo’s Comment further argued:
      • The property in question was part of a larger inherited tract, originally titled to Francisco Villa Abrille Juna and later held by Milagros Villa Abrille, from whom the complainant leased the lot.
      • The complaint was retaliatory in nature, following the complainant’s failure to pay rentals and subsequent eviction by court orders.
      • The issuance of the PHILCOA permits was validated by on-site inspections, and he personally acknowledged the documents notarized by Delante.
    • Respondent Tan also denied the allegations and stated:
      • He was appointed as judicial administrator over the estate of his grandfather, one of the heirs, which included the disputed lot.
      • Complainant was illegally occupying the property, and he was involved in exposing alleged falsification of documents which purportedly maintained the public, alienable status of the property.
      • Tan adopted Madrazo’s argument and denied any conspiracy with Delante regarding the notarial register entries.
  • Procedural History and IBP/In-house Disciplinary Proceedings
    • The case was referred by the Court to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and resolution pursuant to a 2007 Resolution.
    • The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP set mandatory conferences in January and March 2009, both of which were missed by the complainant, resulting in his waiver of participation.
    • A subsequent Order required the parties to submit verified position papers, after which the Investigating Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation on April 19, 2011:
      • The report recommended dismissal of the complaints against Madrazo and Tan due to lack of evidence.
      • It recommended that Delante be reprimanded and warned for his oversight in not properly recording notarized affidavits.
    • The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Commission’s recommendations in its Resolution dated March 20, 2013, subsequently issuing further resolutions in March 2014.
    • Complainant’s subsequent motions (for reconsideration and to declare IBP resolutions null and void) were adjudicated by this Court, which eventually set aside its earlier procedural ruling and moved to directly resolve the Complaint.
  • Court’s Inquiry and Investigations
    • The central inquiry focused on whether sufficient evidence existed to find the respondents guilty of fraud, malpractice, violation of the Notarial Law, and other gross misconduct linked to the submission and notarization of allegedly spurious documents.
    • The Court revisited the evidentiary record and arguments, particularly emphasizing:
      • The presumption of innocence in disbarment and suspension proceedings.
      • The mandate that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to establish guilt by clear and convincing evidence.
    • The Court also revisited prior cases on similar matters involving evidentiary standards and relevant rules governing notarial practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Issues:

  • Sufficiency of Evidence
    • Whether there exists sufficient clear and convincing evidence to prove that respondents, particularly Madrazo, Tan, and Delante, engaged in fraud, malpractice, and violations of the Notarial Law by submitting allegedly spurious documents.
  • Accountability and Notarial Irregularity
    • Whether the failure by Delante (or his delegation thereof) to properly enter notarized documents in his Notarial Register constitutes a violation significant enough to attract administrative sanctions under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
  • Procedural Validity of IBP Disciplinary Resolutions
    • Whether the contested motions challenging the IBP Board of Governors’ Resolutions can be subsumed by the existing procedural framework (notably under the amended Section 12, Rule 139-B and BM No. 1645) for faster resolution.
  • Impact of Previous Disbarment
    • Whether the previous disbarment of respondent Delante precludes or affects the imposition of administrative sanctions for his current infractions.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms