A.C. No. 10249 - Rigon, Jr. vs. Subia

An Affidavit Complaint dated November 11, 2013, was filed by Virgilio C. Rigon, Jr., seeking the disbarment of Atty. Eric P. Subia for alleged violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
The complaint was filed pursuant to an authority granted by a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by the heirs of Placido Rigon, the registered owner of a parcel of land in Cabatuan, Isabela.

The subject land was originally covered under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. T-20, later transferred under TCT No. T-30352, and subsequently reconstituted in 1976 under TCT No. T-99481.
On June 24, 2011, a Deed of Absolute Sale covering a portion of this land was allegedly executed between Placido Rigon (with the conformity of his wife, Telesfora Aczon) and Pete Gerald L. Javier.
The deed, known as the subject Deed, was notarized by Atty. Subia, with its notarial register indicating Document (Doc.) No. 20, Page No. 04, Book No. 06, Series of 2011.
However, verification with the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) in Cauayan City revealed that the referenced docket number pertained to a Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons rather than to the subject Deed.

It was alleged that the notarized subject Deed falsely presented the signatures of Placido Rigon and Telesfora Aczon as if they were alive, notwithstanding the fact that Placido had died on February 5, 1940, and Telesfora on December 8, 1961.
The absence of the requisite two (2) witnesses in the execution of the subject Deed compounds the irregularity of the notarization.
Atty. Subia denied preparing or notarizing the subject Deed and claimed that his signature had been falsified, asserting that someone had imitated his signature.

The heirs of Placido, through the SPA, authorized Virgilio, Jr. to institute both administrative and disbarment proceedings against Atty. Subia for alleged violations of the Notarial Rules.
On March 17, 2014, Atty. Subia submitted his Comment denying the allegations and alleging forgery of his signature.
On July 7, 2014, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
Despite Virgilio, Jr.’s death on August 13, 2014, as communicated by his father, Virgilio Sr., the proceedings continued because disbarment cases are considered sui generis and do not rely on the presence of a living complainant.
In December 2014, Atty. Subia filed a further Comment before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), arguing that the SPA was defective and that, due to the death of Virgilio, Jr., the case should be dismissed.
An undated IBP Report and Recommendation by Commissioner Ramsey M. Quijano found that Atty. Subia had indeed violated the Notarial Rules, citing negligence in verifying the identities of the signatories and in ensuring the presence of required witnesses.
On February 22, 2018, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings and recommended revocation of Atty. Subia’s notarial commission, a two-year disqualification as notary public, and a six-month suspension from the practice of law.

Whether the death of the complainant, Virgilio, Jr., affects the validity or continuation of the disbarment proceedings.
Whether the defect in the SPA, concerning the identification of the heirs (naming heirs of Cornelio instead of Placido), undermines the authority of the complaint.

Whether Atty. Subia’s notarization of the subject Deed constitutes a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically in terms of:

Failing to verify that the persons signing as vendors were indeed alive.
Not complying with the requirement of having two witnesses present during the notarization.

Whether Atty. Subia’s denial of notarizing the deed and his claim of forgery are sufficient to rebut the evidence, given that his signature and seal appear on the document.

Whether the presence of Atty. Subia’s notarial seal and signature on the defective document implies his accountability for the notarization, even if his claim of forgery were substantiated.