Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28870)
Facts:
In the case of A.C. No. 11238, filed on September 21, 2016, before the Supreme Court of the Philippines, Atty. Mylene S. Yumul-Espina (complainant) lodged a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Benedicto D. Tabaquero (respondent). The complaint was predicated on alleged violations of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 1.03. The case emerged from a transaction involving Shirley Atkinson, who is married to British citizen Derek Atkinson. Shirley purchased two properties in the Philippines, which she intended to mortgage. To facilitate the mortgage on one property under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 142730, Derek supposedly executed an Affidavit of Waiver of Rights before Yumul-Espina on October 25, 1999. However, Derek claimed that he was out of the country on that date and could not have sworn before the complainant, leading him to file falsification cases against both Shirley and Yumul-Espina. While the criminal complaintCase Digest (G.R. No. L-28870)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- A complaint for disbarment was filed by Atty. Mylene S. Yumul-Espina (Complainant) against Atty. Benedicto D. Tabaquero (Respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
- The disbarment complaint alleged that respondent violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 1.03, by engaging in conduct that was unlawful, deceitful, and improper in the practice of law.
- Factual Background of the Disputed Transaction
- Shirley Atkinson, married to Derek Atkinson (a British citizen), purchased two properties identified by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 142730 and 151683.
- Shirley intended to mortgage the properties; for TCT No. 142730, it was necessary that Derek execute an Affidavit of Waiver of Rights.
- It is alleged that Derek allegedly executed the affidavit before the complainant, acting as a notary public, on October 25, 1999, thereby enabling the mortgage to proceed without his marital consent.
- Contesting the Authenticity of the Affidavit
- Derek Atkinson later asserted that he was out of the country on October 25, 1999, and thus could not have personally appeared to execute the affidavit.
- Based on these allegations, Derek initiated criminal cases against complainant and Shirley for falsification of documents, arguing that the affidavit was executed fraudulently.
- Procedural History and Initiation of Disbarment Proceedings
- Amid the pending criminal actions, complainant filed a complaint-affidavit before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline against respondent.
- The complainant contended that respondent’s representation of Derek in filing the falsification cases was intended to assert alleged non-existent rights over the property, and in so doing, violated professional standards and the constitutional limitation on foreign land ownership.
- Respondent, in his Answer, maintained that he was engaged as counsel for Derek long after the acquisition of the properties and that he acted strictly on Derek’s instructions after becoming aware of the alleged irregularities in the mortgage transaction.
- Subsequent Developments and Affidavits of Desistance
- During the course of the proceedings, both parties submitted affidavits of desistance.
- Complainant’s Affidavit of Desistance stated her withdrawal of allegations, with an intent to have her complaint removed from the records.
- In parallel, respondent also filed his Affidavit of Desistance/Withdrawal regarding his counter-complaint alleging complainant’s non-compliance with the Notarial Law.
- The Investigating Commissioner, based on the parties’ desistance filings, recommended the dismissal of both the complaint and counter-complaint, reasoning that the controversies could not be resolved after the parties’ withdrawal.
- On April 18, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XXI-2015-283 approving the dismissal based on these affidavits.
- Controversial Notarial Act
- A key matter of contention arose regarding the notarization of the Affidavit of Waiver of Rights:
- Evidence, including passport entries and certification by the Bureau of Immigration, showed that Derek departed the Philippines on September 27, 1999, and only re-entered on December 17, 1999.
- This raised substantial doubts about the personal appearance of Derek before the complainant on the crucial notarization date.
- The incident was flagged as a potential violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice which require personal appearance or competent evidence of identity during notarization.
Issues:
- Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
- Whether respondent’s filing of criminal cases against complainant and Shirley, on behalf of his client Derek, constituted a violation of Canon 1 — specifically engaging in conduct that undermines the integrity of the legal profession.
- Whether such conduct was motivated by vengefulness or base motives, given the context of the ongoing dispute over the mortgage and notarization.
- Validity and Effect of Affidavits of Desistance in Disbarment Proceedings
- Whether the filing of affidavits of desistance by both parties should terminate or suspend the disbarment proceedings.
- Whether the IBP Board of Governors was justified in dismissing the complaint and counter-complaint solely on the basis of these desistance affidavits.
- Notarial Practices and Violations
- Whether complainant, acting as notary public, violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the Affidavit of Waiver without the requisite personal appearance of the affiant.
- Whether the evidence (Derek’s travel records and other documents) sufficiently demonstrates that the complainant’s notarial act was invalid.
- Impact on Public Interest and Disciplinary Proceedings
- Whether administrative disciplinary proceedings, which are meant to serve public interest, should depend solely on the parties’ withdrawal of allegations.
- Whether allowing desistance to dispose of disbarment cases undermines the purpose of cleansing the ranks of the legal profession.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)