A.C. No. 11889 - Talaboc vs. Agcaoili and Oliveros

Case Digest (A.C. No. 11889)
Advanced

Facts:

Origin of the disciplinary action before the Office of the Ombudsman

A disciplinary action before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) arose from the alleged irregular notarization of various documents subject of criminal complaints for plunder; alleged violations of Republic Act No. 3019, Republic Act No. 6713, Republic Act No. 9184, and Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code; and alleged malversation through falsification of documents against several persons, including Atty. Editha P. Talaboc, Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr., and Atty. Mark S. Oliveros (Atty. Talaboc et al.).
The case was docketed and consolidated as OMB-C-C-13-0357.
The complainants in OMB-C-C-13-0357 were the National Bureau of Investigation, represented by Medardo De Limos, Levito D. Baligod, and Lourdes P. Benipayo.

Allegations in the OMB complaint

The complainants alleged that the MOAs were “notarized” by Ben Hur Luy (Luy).
The complainants alleged that Luy forged the signatures of Atty. Talaboc et al. and used their registers, stamps, and seals.
The complainants alleged that Atty. Oliveros, as Janet Lim Napoles’ (JLN) wedding godson, was aware of the use of his name, register, and seal, and that JLN paid for his “services” in cash or checks issued in his name.
The complainants alleged that the names, registers, stamps, and seals of Atty. Talaboc and Atty. Agcaoili were provided by one Tess Rodino.
The complainants alleged that JLN issued checks in the names of Atty. Talaboc and Atty. Agcaoili, which were picked up by Tess Rodino and/or her husband.

The OMB pronouncement and the recommendation for disciplinary action

In the Joint Resolution recommending disciplinary action against Atty. Talaboc et al. for violation of the rules on notarial practice (Complaint), the OMB pronounced that Atty. Talaboc et al. “did not notarize the documents used in the request and release of the PHP 900 million Malampaya Fund,” as proven by witness testimony.
The OMB found insufficient proof that Atty. Talaboc et al. had knowledge of, or were part of, the scheme.
The OMB recommended that, notwithstanding the foregoing, Atty. Talaboc et al. be recommended for disciplinary action to the Supreme Court for violating the rules on notarial practice because they allegedly allowed the use of their signatures, notarial seals, and notarial registers in return for a fee or retainer.

IBP proceedings after transmittal to the Court

The OMB resolved motions for reconsideration by Joint Order.
The recommendation that disciplinary action be taken for violation of the rules on notarial practice was reiterated, and copies of the Joint Resolution and Joint Order, with certified photocopies of pertinent documents, were forwarded to the Court through the Office of the Bar Confidant.
In a Court Resolution, the matter was referred to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation.

IBP order, mandatory conference, and orders to file responsive pleadings

The IBP-CBD ordered Atty. Talaboc et al. to submit their respective answers to the OMB’s Complaint, but only Atty. Agcaoili submitted an Answer.
A Notice of Mandatory Conference scheduled on December 3, 2019 was sent, but only counsel for the OMB appeared and submitted its Mandatory Conference Brief.
The mandatory conference was reset to January 28, 2019.
Atty. Talaboc moved to reset the conference to February 25, 2019.
On March 4, 2019, counsel for the OMB appeared; on the respondents’ side, only Atty. Agcaoili was present.
Due to the absence of Atty. Talaboc and Atty. Oliveros, and considering the denial by Atty. Agcaoili, the mandatory conference was terminated.
Atty. Talaboc et al. were required to submit their respective verified position papers within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from March 4, 2019.

Position paper allegations and documentary submissions by the OMB

In its Position Paper, the OMB alleged administrative liability for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (Notarial Rules).
The OMB asserted three main grounds:

Atty. Talaboc et al., commissioned notaries public in 2009 and 2010 (except Atty. Agcaoili), performed notarial acts outside their place of work or business by allowing these acts to be performed by employees at JLN Corporation Office, using their stamps, seals, and registers, in contravention of Rule IV, Section 2(a) of the Notarial Rules.
The OMB alleged that they allowed notarial acts without the signatories appearing personally and, since the proofs of identity were merely Community Tax Certificates (cedula), they violated Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the Notarial Rules.
The OMB asserted that Atty. Talaboc et al. profited from the scheme despite unlawful and improper notarial acts, thereby violating Section 4(a) of the Notarial Rules.

The OMB submitted documents supporting its position, consisting of:

Copies of documents allegedly notarized by Atty. Oliveros.
A list of documents allegedly notarized by Atty. Talaboc et al., with names of signatories and notarization details.
Certifications from the cities where Atty. Talaboc et al. were commissioned as notaries public.

Responses filed by Atty. Agcaoili and lack of responses by the other respondents

Atty. Agcaoili filed a Belated Position Paper (with Apology) denying notarizing the questioned documents.
Atty. Agcaoili asserted that in all his notarial acts, he ascertained identities and qualifications of persons involved and had them present valid and authorized identification documents.
Atty. Agcaoili claimed that all notarial paraphernalia were kept in a safe and locked drawer in his office.
Atty. Agcaoili alleged that during an NBI investigation on Luy to determine who signed above the name “Delfin Agcaoili, Jr.” as notary public, Luy admitted that he was the one who signed.
Atty. Agcaoili also asserted that, based on OMB resolutions, JLN or Luy requested an employee to prepare a spurious affidavit of loss to be notarized.
Atty. Agcaoili alleged that after the affidavit of loss was notarized, the culprit looked for another person who could manufacture or imitate the dry seal and rubber stamp of the notary public.
Atty. Talaboc filed several motions for extension to file her position paper, but failed to file it.
Atty. Oliveros did not file any pleading or motion to contradict the charge.
Notices sent to Atty. Oliveros at the address provided by the OMB were returned unserved.

IBP Investigating Commissioner’s findings and recommendation

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Talaboc et al. guilty of violating the Notarial Rules.
The Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation sought:

Suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months for each respondent.
Immediate revocation of their notarial...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

Whether the OMB and the IBP established by the required quantum of proof that respondents committed violations of the Notarial Rules

Whether the complainants discharged the burden of proof by substantial evidence to establish respondents’ consent to the use of their signatures, notarial seals, and notarial registers in return for a fee or retainer.
Whether the evidence showed respondents’ negligence in safeguarding notarial details that would warrant administrative liability for violation of the Notarial Rules.

Whether the notarization irregularities and defects in notarial details justified a finding of administrative liability

Whether deficiencies in the notarial certificates (including missing or incorrect entries of particulars required by the Notarial Rules) supported a finding of guilt, rather than mere suspicion.
Whether discrepancies in n...(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Digest (A.C. No. 11889)
Concise Detailed

Facts:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 11889)
Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 11889) Concise Detailed

Facts:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 11889) Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 11889)
Concise Detailed

Case Digest (A.C. No. 11889)
Advanced