Facts:
Luz Vecino (“Vecino”) filed a
Letter-Complaint dated September 15, 2005 before the
Office of the Bar Confidant, charging
Atty. Gervacio B. Ortiz, Jr. (“Atty. Ortiz”) with
notarizing a Deed of Sale despite his knowledge that one of the supposed vendors,
Manolito C. Espino, had long been dead. In his
Comment dated December 5, 2005, Atty. Ortiz denied any participation in the notarization of the Deed of Sale, asserting that the signature attributed to him was
forged, as it allegedly differed from his usual and customary signature specimens. He also invoked that the Deed of Sale did not bear his
notarial seal and that the acknowledgment portion failed to state the date of issue of his
professional tax receipt. Atty. Ortiz thus prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. By
Resolution dated April 3, 2006, the Supreme Court referred the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (“IBP”) for investigation, report, and recommendation. During the scheduled mandatory conference on October 25, 2006, Atty. Rodolfo Mapile, appearing for Vecino, manifested that Vecino was withdrawing the complaint, and Atty. Ortiz expressed his appreciation. Commissioner Cecilio A.C. Villanueva directed the parties to submit the necessary pleadings regarding the withdrawal at the next hearing on November 9, 2006. Before that hearing, Atty. Mapile submitted a compromise agreement, signed by Vecino, to the IBP stenographer and instructed the stenographer to request Atty. Ortiz to sign it during the hearing. Atty. Ortiz did not sign the agreement due to his concerns, and the IBP set another hearing on November 29, 2006. The parties failed to reach a compromise on November 29, 2006; consequently, Commissioner Villanueva required both parties to submit their respective
verified position papers on or before December 11, 2006, but both failed to do so. In his
Report and Recommendation dated June 6, 2007, Commissioner Villanueva recommended dismissal on the ground that Vecino failed to prove Atty. Ortiz’s participation in the notarization of the Deed of Sale, and recommended a
one-month suspension of Atty. Ortiz for failing to submit (a) a
disclaimer immediately upon learning that his name was used and his signature was forged, and (b) his
position paper, which Commissioner Villanueva treated as blatant disrespect to the proceedings. Commissioner Villanueva further stated that he was convinced that Atty. Ortiz’s signature in the Deed of Sale was forged. The
IBP Board of Governors, in a Resolution dated June 19, 2007, adopted the commissioner’s findings and recommendations. The Supreme Court received a copy on September 27, 2007. Upon review, the Court found the recommended dismissal proper due to the lack of evidence substantiating that Atty. Ortiz notarized the Deed of Sale. As to the issue of forgery, the Court refrained from ruling because a pending case existed against
Maria Elena Espino, Manolito Espino’s widow, for allegedly falsifying the Deed of Sale. The Court agreed that Atty. Ortiz should be administratively liable for failing to submit his position paper, but modified the penalty to
admonition, holding that the recommendation to penalize him for not filing a disclaimer was unwarranted because no law or rule required such a filing.
Issues:
Whether
Atty. Gervacio B. Ortiz, Jr. should be held administratively liable for the complaint involving the alleged notarization of a
Deed of Sale and for his failure to submit the required pleadings during the IBP proceedings.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: