A.C. No. 9385 - Agadan vs. Kilaan

Case Summary (A.C. No. 9385)

Factual Background

The complainants alleged that Atty. Kilaan intercalated entries in the CPC application filed with the LTFRB-CAR, docketed as Case No. 2003-CAR-688. They claimed that the name of the original applicant, Gary Adasing (Adasing) (also referred to in some parts as Odasing and Agasing), was substituted with Joseph Batingwed (Batingwed). They further alleged that Atty. Kilaan submitted false and/or insufficient documentary requirements to support Batingwed’s CPC application.

The complainants also asserted that Atty. Kilaan prepared a decision based on the LTFRB Central Office resolution dismissing their opposition and that the decision granted Batingwed’s application, which was adopted by the LTFRB-CAR. In addition, they alleged that the verification in Batingwed’s application was notarized by Atty. Kilaan and referenced as Doc. No. 253, Page No. 51, Book No. VIII, Series of 2003. According to the complainants, an inquiry into Atty. Kilaan’s notarial registry showed that the entry actually referred to a Deed of Sale rather than the verification required for Batingwed’s CPC application.

After review, the Court noted that on February 27, 2006, the IBP-Baguio-Benguet Chapter formally endorsed the complaint to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), which required Atty. Kilaan to submit an answer. Atty. Kilaan denied violating the Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He denied participating in the preparation of the decision. He explained that the Regional Director of the DOTC-CAR approved the application and drafted the decision after LTFRB-CAR gave a favorable recommendation. He also denied influence over DOTC-CAR or the LTFRB.

As to the alleged intercalation, Atty. Kilaan maintained that once an application was filed, the application and records remained with the LTFRB and could no longer be retrieved by the applicant or counsel, making intercalation highly improbable. He also claimed that Batingwed had decided to abandon the application and no longer submitted necessary requirements. He further stated that he discovered the favorable decision only when Batingwed showed it to him. Concerning the discrepancy involving the payor name in the filing fee, Atty. Kilaan claimed that Adasing paid on Batingwed’s behalf but the cashier erroneously indicated Adasing instead of Batingwed.

Atty. Kilaan added that complainants filed the administrative case as retaliation for the dismissal of their opposition to CPCs he had filed for other clients. In their subsequent position papers, complainants alleged that the notarial verification was incorrectly recorded as a deed of sale in Atty. Kilaan’s notarial registry and that Adasing was actually in the Philippines, substantiated by Adasing’s affidavit stating that he never left the country.

IBP Proceedings and Investigating Commissioner’s Findings

After the mandatory conference and submission of position papers, the Investigating Commissioner found that the complainants had miserably failed to prove that Atty. Kilaan intercalated the entries in Batingwed’s CPC application. The Investigating Commissioner observed that the charge was grave and that the evidence presented amounted to mere suspicion. It stressed that anyone with access to the case folder could have been responsible for the alleged intercalation and that it would be speculative to attribute it to respondent. The Investigating Commissioner also considered a certification submitted by complainants showing that Gary Odasing’s application was continued by Joseph Batingwed and found no adequate allegation that such continuity violated LTFRB rules and procedures. Accordingly, the Investigating Commissioner declined to conclude that respondent caused the alleged intercalation.

Despite this, the Investigating Commissioner did not fully absolve Atty. Kilaan. It held him liable for violating the Notarial Law because the verification Atty. Kilaan notarized under the notarial reference Doc. No. 253, Page No. 51, Book No. VIII, Series of 2003 was recorded in his Notarial Register as a Deed of Sale. The Investigating Commissioner also found that Atty. Kilaan lied under oath regarding Adasing’s alleged absence, because Adasing’s affidavit—submitted by complainants—contradicted respondent’s claim that Adasing was abroad.

The Investigating Commissioner reasoned that respondent had made it appear that he notarized a verification when, in truth, the entry in his Notarial Register showed a different document. It considered that respondent proceeded to file a defectively verified petition despite knowledge of the defect. It further found that respondent’s pleading-assertion that Adasing was abroad was rebutted as untrue by Adasing’s affidavit, which the Investigating Commissioner treated as evidence of deliberate falsehood and an attempt to deceive.

The Investigating Commissioner thus recommended the revocation of respondent’s notarial commission, if still existing, and prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years, along with a two (2) month suspension from the practice of law.

IBP Board of Governors Resolution and Denial of Reconsideration

The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioner’s report in a resolution dated September 19, 2007 (Resolution No. XVIII-2007-82), but modified the penalty by revoking Atty. Kilaan’s notarial commission and disqualifying him from being appointed as Notary Public for two years, while deleting the recommended suspension from the practice of law.

Atty. Kilaan moved for reconsideration. The IBP Board of Governors denied the motion through Resolution No. XX-2012-41 dated January 15, 2012.

Parties’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court

On review, the Court found that Atty. Kilaan committed: (1) violation of the Notarial Law, (2) violation of the Lawyers Oath, and (3) violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In his motion for reconsideration, Atty. Kilaan attempted to shift responsibility to his secretary, asserting that as a private practitioner he was burdened with cases and delegated recording in the Notarial Register to his secretary. He also sought leniency based on his alleged status as a first-time offender and invoked the dependence of his family on his income.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court held that the notary public was personally accountable for the accuracy of entries in the Notarial Register. It relied on the provisions of the Notarial Law, particularly Sections 245 and 246, which require every notary public to keep a register of official acts and to make required entries. It emphasized that Section 249(b) makes the failure to make the proper entries in the Notarial Register a ground for revocation of the notary’s commission. The Court found the statutory language conclusive that personal accountability could not be avoided by delegating the recording function.

In rejecting respondent’s excuse that he delegated the work due to case load, the Court referenced Lingan v. Attys. Calubaquib and Baliga (524 Phil. 60, 68-70 [2006]), which had already rebuffed the “passing the buck” approach. The Court observed that inaccuracies in Notarial Register entries and failure to enter documents that a notary admittedly notarized constituted dereliction. It stated that the lawyer himself, not the secretary, must be held accountable for such misdeeds. It further underscored that notarization is not a routine act; it is imbued with substantive public interest because it converts private documents into public ones and enables their admissibility in evidence without further proof of genuineness and due execution.

The Court also found doctrinal support in Gemina v. Atty. Madamba (A.C. No. 6689, August 24, 2011, 656 SCRA 34, 41-43), which the Court cited for the proposition that the lawyer cannot escape liability by blaming a secretary. It reiterated that notarization requires carefulness and faithfulness, and that notaries must not allow themselves to be part of illegal transactions. It added that the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice impose duties that include keeping and maintaining the Notarial Register and recording every notarial act properly. The Court considered that respondent’s failure to make proper entries was a ground for revocation.

Beyond the Notarial Law, the Court treated respondent’s conduct as violating the Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility because respondent committed falsehood in pleadings submitted in the administrative cas

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 9385)

Nine complainants (Mariano Agadan, Eden Mollejon, Arsenio Igme, Jose Numbar, Cecilia Langawan, Pablo Palma, Joselito Claveria, Miguel Flores, and Albert Gaydowen) initiated an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Richard Baltazar Kilaan before the IBP-Baguio-Benguet Chapter.
The complaint alleged falsification of documents, dishonesty, and deceit connected to an application for issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) for public utility jeepneys.
The matter reached the Supreme Court for resolution after the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s findings with modifications.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The complainants filed the complaint on September 12, 2005 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Baguio Benguet Chapter (IBP-Baguio-Benguet Chapter).
On February 27, 2006, the IBP-Baguio-Benguet Chapter endorsed the complaint to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).
The IBP-CBD required respondent Atty. Kilaan to file an Answer.
After mandatory conference, the parties submitted their respective Position Papers.
The Investigating Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation finding liability for notarial-related and pleading-related falsehood offenses.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Report and Recommendation on September 19, 2007 through Resolution No. XVIII-2007-82, modifying the earlier recommended penalty by deleting the suspension from the practice of law portion.
Respondent moved for reconsideration, which the IBP Board of Governors denied on January 15, 2012 through Resolution No. XX-2012-41.
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled on notarial and professional responsibility infractions and imposed a revised set of penalties.

Key Factual Allegations

The complainants alleged that respondent Atty. Kilaan intercalated entries in the CPC application filed before the LTFRB-CAR, specifically by substituting the applicant’s name from Gary Adasing to Joseph Batingwed.
They further alleged that respondent submitted false and/or insufficient documentary requirements supporting Batingwed’s CPC application.
They claimed respondent prepared a decision based on an LTFRB Central Office resolution that dismissed the complainants’ opposition, and that the grant was adopted by the LTFRB-CAR.
The complainants also alleged that the Verification in Batingwed’s application was notarized by respondent as Doc. No. 253, Page No. 51, Book No. VIII, Series of 2003.
They alleged that verification of respondent’s notarial registry entry showed it actually referred to a Deed of Sale rather than the Verification.
They belied respondent’s claim that Adasing was abroad by submitting Adasing’s Affidavit stating that Adasing never left the country.
The complainants’ intercalation theory was treated as a grave charge supported, in their view, by the mismatched notarial recording and the supposed substitution of names and records.

Respondent’s Defense Theory

Respondent denied violating the Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
He disclaimed participation in the preparation of the Decision regarding Batingwed’s CPC application.
He explained that the Regional Director of the DOTC-CAR approved the application and drafted the decision after the LTFRB-CAR gave a favorable recommendation.
He denied exercising influence over the DOTC-CAR or the LTFRB.
He claimed that Batingwed abandoned the application, which allegedly led to respondent’s non-submission of further requirements.
He denied knowledge that Batingwed’s application had been forwarded to the LTFRB Central Office for approval.
He asserted he learned of the favorable decision only when Batingwed showed it to him.
He argued that, due to incomplete documents, the LTFRB mistakenly approved the application and later revoked the CPC grant upon discovery of the error.
He denied intercalating entries and asserted that once an application is filed, the application and records remain with the LTFRB and cannot be retrieved by the applicant or counsel.
He attributed an alleged payment discrepancy to an error by the cashier, stating that Adasing paid the filing fee but was erroneously recorded as payor.
He argued that Adasing being abroad prevented corroboration of his explanation.
He also maintained that the complaint was retaliation for the dismissal of the complainants’ opposition to the CPC applications he filed for other clients.

Findings of the Investigating Commissioner

The Investigating Commissioner found the complainants’ proof of intercalation insufficient, describing the evidence as mere suspicion without credible confirmation.
The Investigating Commissioner emphasized that anyone with access to the case folder could have caused whatever intercalation occurred, and declined to base guilt on conjecture.
The Investigating Commissioner noted a DOTC-CAR receiving clerk certification dated 18 October 2006 stating that Gary Adasing’s application was continued by Joseph Batingwed.
The Investigating Commissioner found complainants did not allege that this continuation violated LTFRB rules and procedures, and thus presumed it occurred in the regular course of business.
Despite rejecting intercalation as unproven, the Investigating Commissioner held respondent liable for violating the Notarial Law.
The Investigating Commissioner found that the Verification respondent notarized and recorded as Doc. No. 253, Page No. 51, Book No. VIII, Series of 2003 was actually recorded as a Deed of Sale in his notarial register.
The Investigating Commissioner treated this mismatch as showing that respondent made it appear that he notarized a Verification when his notarial registry showed a different document.
The Investigating Commissioner concluded that respondent must be sanctioned for falsehood and defective n