Case Digest (A.C. No. 10540)
Facts:
Spouses Elmer and Mila Soriano v. Atty. Gervacio B. Ortiz, Jr. and Atty. Roberto B. Arca, A.C. No. 10540 [Formerly CBD Case No. 07-2105], November 28, 2019, Supreme Court First Division, Peralta, C.J., writing for the Court.The Spouses Elmer and Mila Soriano alleged that their registered parcel in Muntinlupa (TCT No. 162098) was fraudulently mortgaged to Gaila Montero. They traced the owner’s duplicate title to a Susan Manito (February 2006) and later learned that a Deed of Mortgage dated March 8, 2006, had been registered and annotated at the Register of Deeds (Entry No. 64418) for P60,000.00, and a Supplemental Deed of Mortgage (notarized by respondent Atty. Roberto B. Arca) was later registered (Entry No. 64467) for an additional P200,000.00. The Spouses denied signing or appearing before the notaries named in the documents and questioned the Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) shown in the acknowledgments.
The Spouses filed a civil action to recover their title and nullify the mortgages, annotated a Notice of Lis Pendens (Entry No. 64808), and filed an administrative complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) on October 23, 2007, charging respondents Atty. Gervacio B. Ortiz, Jr. and Atty. Roberto B. Arca with improper notarization under the Notarial Law and related rules.
Respondent Ortiz denied involvement, asserting that he was not commissioned as a notary in Manila on March 8, 2006: his Manila commission had been pre-terminated on June 4, 2005 after discovering signature forgeries, and although he later obtained a Makati commission (June 21, 2005–December 31, 2006), he maintained he did not prepare or notarize the March 8 documents. Respondent Arca admitted notarizing the documents but denied the Spouses’ allegations that they had not appeared or that signatures were forged; he also argued that the Executive Judge, not the CBD, had jurisdiction over notarial discipline.
The CBD Investigating Commissioner, in a Report dated September 21, 2010, recommended dismissal as to Ortiz for insufficiency of evidence and recommended suspension of Arca for one year, revocation of his notarial commission, and two years’ disqualification from reappointment. The IBP Board of Governors (BOG) on December 29, 2012 modified the recommended penalty for Arca to six months’ suspension (while dismissing Ortiz). On March 22, 2014, the BOG reverted to the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation and reinstated the one‑year suspension and related sanctions against Arca.
Arca filed a Petition for Review to the Supreme Court contesting the penalty’s severity, arguing mitigation was warranted as this was his first offense and that the misconduct...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the dismissal of the complaint against Atty. Gervacio B. Ortiz, Jr. for insufficiency of evidence proper?
- Were the findings of misconduct against Atty. Roberto B. Arca for breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility supported by the record?
- Is the penalty imposed on Atty. Roberto B. Arca—one year suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and two years’...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)