Case Digest (A.C. No. 9807)
Case Digest (A.C. No. 9807)
Facts:
Sistual, Erlinda C., Flordelisa S. Leysa, Leonisa S. Espabo and Arlan C. Sistual v. Atty. Eliordo Ogena, 780 Phil. 125; 112 OG No. 50, 8531 (December 12, 2016); A.C. No. 9807, February 02, 2016, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.In a complaint dated June 1, 2006 filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), complainants Erlinda C. Sistual, Flordelisa S. Leysa, Leonisa S. Espabo, and Arlan C. Sistual alleged that respondent Atty. Eliordo Ogena, who acted as legal counsel for their late father Manuel A. Sistual, wilfully falsified several instruments — including a Special Power of Attorney (SPA), extrajudicial settlements, affidavit of identification of heirs, deeds of donation, and a deed of absolute sale — by making it appear that all the children of Manuel and their mother had executed them; they further alleged that such falsification led to the cancellation and subdivision of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-60467 and the sale of the subdivided lots.
Atty. Ogena denied the allegations. He explained his 1987 engagement to represent the heirs of Martin Sistual in Civil Case No. 230, recounted the favorable judgment that resulted in issuance of TCT No. T-60467, and described subsequent events including multiple SPAs executed by the heirs (some in favor of Bienvenido Sistual, others favoring Erlinda), the subdivision of the original lot into nine new titles (TCT Nos. 76078–76086), extrajudicial settlements and deeds of donation executed in 1996–1997, and an Absolute Deed of Sale dated July 18, 1989; he maintained that the challenged documents were actually executed and signed and that the subdivision and issuance of separate titles benefitted all heirs.
The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found itself without jurisdiction to adjudicate alleged forgery but identified irregularities in the notarizations performed by Atty. Ogena: absent signatures on some SPAs, missing Community Tax Certificate (CTC) entries for various signatories across multiple instruments, and other notarial deficiencies. The IBP-CBD recommended revocation of Atty. Ogena’s notarial commission, permanent disqualification from reappointment as notary, and a one-year suspension from the practice of law. The IBP Board of Governors, on December 10, 2011, adopted the IBP-CBD report with modification: it revoked his notarial commission and permanently disqualified him from reappointment, but deleted the one-year suspension. Atty. Ogena moved for reconsideration; the Board denied it on November 10, 2012 and affirmed indefinite revocation of his notarial commission.
The matter was brought to the Supreme Court as Administrative Case No. 9807. The Court reviewed the record, including complainants’ affidavits alleging falsification, memoranda from the City Prosecutor, and Bureau of Lands documents, and the IBP recommendations. The Court agreed with the IBP’s factual findings except as to penalty: it held that the evidence did not clearly substantiate forgery or show concrete prejudice to the complainants, but that Atty. Ogena had violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice—specifically Rule IV, Section 2(b)—by notarizing documents without personal presence or proper identification of signatories. Citing precedents on the public importance of notarization, the Court found his conduct unlawful and negligent and imposed discipline accordingly.
Issues:
- Was the allegation that Atty. Eliordo Ogena committed forgery/falsification of documents sufficiently proved?
- Did Atty. Ogena violate the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, particularly Rule IV, Section 2(b), by notarizing documents without personal presence or proper identification?
- If a violation occurred, what discipline is appropriate for Atty. Ogena?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)