A.C. No. 6909 - Vecino vs. Ortiz, Jr.

Luz Vecino filed a Letter-Complaint on September 15, 2005, before the Office of the Bar Confidant.
The complaint charged Atty. Gervacio B. Ortiz, Jr. with notarizing a Deed of Sale even though he was aware that one of the supposed vendors, Manolito C. Espino, had long been deceased.

In his Comment dated December 5, 2005, Atty. Ortiz denied any participation in the notarization of the Deed of Sale.
He alleged that his purported signature on the document was forged, as it did not resemble his customary signature evidenced in previous specimens.
He further pointed out deficiencies in the Deed of Sale, such as the absence of his notarial seal and the failure to state the date of issue of his professional tax receipt.

On April 3, 2006, the case was referred to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation.
During the scheduled mandatory conference on October 25, 2006, Atty. Rodolfo Mapile (representing Vecino) manifested that his client was in the process of withdrawing the complaint.
At this conference, Atty. Ortiz expressed his appreciation for the withdrawal, and IBP Commissioner Cecilio A.C. Villanueva directed the submission of the necessary pleadings.

On November 9, 2006, a compromise agreement signed by Vecino was submitted by Atty. Mapile, with instructions for Atty. Ortiz to sign during the hearing; however, Atty. Ortiz refrained from signing due to his reservations regarding the document.
A subsequent hearing was held on November 29, 2006, in which the parties failed to reach a compromise.
The IBP directed both parties to submit their respective verified position papers by December 11, 2006, a requirement which was ultimately not met by either side.

In his Report and Recommendation dated June 6, 2007, Commissioner Villanueva recommended:

The dismissal of the complaint on the ground that Vecino failed to prove Atty. Ortiz notarized the Deed of Sale.
The imposition of a one-month suspension on Atty. Ortiz’s notarial commission for:

Failing to submit a disclaimer upon discovering that his name was used and his signature allegedly forged on the Deed of Sale.

ii. Failing to file his position paper, which was viewed as a blatant disrespect to the proceedings of the Commission on Bar Discipline.

The commissioner expressed his conviction that Atty. Ortiz’s signature on the Deed of Sale was indeed forged.
The IBP Board of Governors, in its Resolution dated June 19, 2007, adopted these findings and recommendations.

After careful scrutiny of the case records, the court found that there was an absence of evidence substantiating that Atty. Ortiz notarized the Deed of Sale, thereby upholding the recommended dismissal of the complaint.
On the issue of forgery, the court refrained from making a pronouncement due to a pending criminal case against Maria Elena Espino for allegedly falsifying the same Deed of Sale.
The court concurred that Atty. Ortiz was administratively liable for his failure to submit the required position paper.
However, the court modified the penalty regarding the failure to file a disclaimer, concluding it was unwarranted given that no law or rule explicitly required such a filing.
Ultimately, the administrative complaint was dismissed, and Atty. Ortiz was admonished with a stern warning regarding future misconduct.

Whether Atty. Ortiz was indeed the individual who notarized the Deed of Sale despite the evidence suggesting otherwise.

The validity of the complaint hinged on proving that his signature was indeed his and that he actively participated in the notarization process.
The discrepancies in his signature and the missing elements (notarial seal and date on the professional tax receipt) raised concerns about the authenticity of his involvement.

Whether the failure to submit a position paper constitutes a disciplinary offense warranting administrative sanction.

The significance of complying with IBP rules and directives in the context of internal discipline.
The balance between procedural noncompliance and the actual misconduct alleged.

The appropriateness of imposing a suspension versus a milder administrative penalty (admonition) given the circumstances.

Whether the recommended one-month suspension was proportional to the failure of compliance with IBP directives.
The necessity of a measurable penalty when the dismissal of the complaint was already justified by insufficient evidence.

The issue of forgery, particularly in light of pending related criminal proceedings against another party, and its impact on the administrative decision.

The decision to refrain from making a definitive ruling on the forgery allegation due to the parallel pending criminal case.