A.C. No. 1327 - Re: Attorney Octavio D. Fule

Case Summary (A.C. No. 1327)

Factual Background and Nature of the Allegations

The Court of Appeals’ referral identified apparent irregularities in trust receipts that were notarized by Atty. Fule. The trust receipts involved intercalations in the documents and an alleged failure to enter in the notarial registry the names of the persons executing the instruments—specifically Isidro Ongsip—as party acknowledgers.

As summarized by the Court of Appeals, the “questionable actuation” was based on discrepancies observed in the back portions of trust receipts Exh. “D,” “E,” and “F.” The Court of Appeals found indications of tampering through inserted portions that purportedly altered the role of Isidro Ongsip in the acknowledgment. It also noted differences in the typewriter used in preparing the acknowledgment clause compared with the typewriter used in filling blanks on the face of the trust receipts. It further observed that the reference to Isidro Ongsip appeared, in both Exh. “D” and “E,” at the last sentence, and that the spacing suggested insertion “afterthought” into the printed acknowledgment.

The Court of Appeals also asserted that in Exh. “F,” the words “guaranteed by:” and the acknowledgment were typed after Isidro Ongsip had signed, inferred from the typewriter differences and the position and construction of the words.

Finally, the Court of Appeals declared that the notary register pages of Atty. Fule—identified as Exhs. “6-0ngsip” and “6-D Ongsip”—recorded only Sy Chi Eng as acknowledging, and made no mention of Isidro Ongsip. It treated these as violations of the notary’s duty under Section 246 of the Revised Administrative Code, which the Court of Appeals characterized as elementary.

Respondent’s Comment and Explanations

After being required to comment, Atty. Fule did not testify at the trial stage because, as he stated, the bank’s lawyer did not call him as witness. He nevertheless provided explanations of the circumstances surrounding the preparation and notarization of the trust receipts and of the notarial register entries.

His explanation addressed three themes. First, he asserted he had no motive to prejudice Mr. Ongsip, who was described as a significant businessman and a substantial stockholder of Prudential Bank, where Atty. Fule served. Second, he explained his workflow and delegation arrangements: he was appointed notary public in January 13, 1958, with biennial renewals, and the trust receipts were notarized by him in January 28, 1959 (two trust receipts) and February 27, 1959 (one trust receipt). At that time, he was secretary to the president of Prudential Bank and head of the collection section, and his duties included notarizing documents of the same kind. Due to volume of work, he used two clerk-typists assigned to assist him, and those typists performed parts of the typing and corrections required in preparing the printed acknowledgments.

Third, he explained why corrections and insertions occurred. He stated that the trust receipts were printed forms, and that the printed acknowledgments were typed by his clerk-typist for correction prior to notarization. When corrections were inadequate, he instructed insertions rather than retyping entire forms because retyping would increase workload. He added that only when corrections were extensive did he require new forms to be typed.

Atty. Fule then gave detailed narratives for each trust receipt. For trust receipts Exhibits D and E notarized on January 28, 1959 and acknowledged as Documents 184 and 185, he stated that the foreign department brought the drafts and printed forms for notarization, that his desk was near the foreign department without partitions, and that his typist, Mr. Rodolfo Manalese, typed the acknowledgments on the back sides of Exhs. D and E. Atty. Fule stated that he initially noticed that the acknowledgment did not include the joint and several guarantor, Mr. Isidro Ongsip, although Ongsip had accepted the drafts as joint and several guarantor as shown on their faces. Accordingly, he instructed Manalese, in the presence of both Mr. Ongsip and Mr. Sy Chi Eng, to add Ongsip’s residence tax certificate details into the acknowledgments. He claimed Ongsip presented a residence tax certificate dated January 14, 1959, after which Manalese typed the addition into both acknowledgments. Only after both Ongsip and Sy Chi Eng signed did Atty. Fule notarize the trust receipts.

For trust receipt Exhibit F notarized on February 27, 1959 as Document 271, he stated that the acknowledgment clause was likewise typed by Manalese in his section and that in this instance the typist did not omit Ongsip’s guaranty details. He stated that once Sy Chi Eng and Ongsip signed, he notarized the receipt.

Solicitor General’s Investigation and Findings

The Solicitor General examined the documents and the established facts, including Atty. Fule’s explanation and the surrounding circumstances. The Solicitor General found that the trust receipts were the standard forms used by Prudential Bank and Trust Company in the ordinary course of banking business. The receipts were described as consisting of two parts: the main trust agreement on the front page and a subsidiary guaranty provision on the reverse side, where the notarial acknowledgment clause was also written.

On the principal charge—misconduct in office approximating falsification—the Solicitor General concluded that the evidence on record did not support the conclusion that intercalations amounted to falsification. The Solicitor General accepted the explanation that the intercalations were made with the knowledge and consent of Mr. Ongsip, and therefore held that Atty. Fule’s acts did not warrant disciplinary sanctions on the falsification theory.

However, the Solicitor General reached a different conclusion on a separate issue: Atty. Fule allegedly failed to enter in his notarial register the name of Mr. Ongsip as the person who executed, swore to, or acknowledged the trust receipts. The Solicitor General held that Atty. Fule could not escape legal duty by delegating the typing or preparation tasks to another person. It recommended a warning for failing to make the proper entry in the notarial registry and cautioned that a similar lapse would justify a stiffer penalty.

Court’s Disposition and Reasoning

The Court examined the full record. It found the respondent’s explanation satisfactory. The Court accepted the Solicitor General’s report and recommendation. It also addressed the complaint as framed by the referral in the Court of Appeals’ dispositive portion, treating it as the operative complaint in the administrative case.

As to the allegations of tampering or intercalations that supposedly made Ongsip appear as a party rather than a witness, the Court found no basis for disciplinary action. It adopted the Solicitor General’s conclusion that the evidence did not show falsification and that the intercalations did not warrant sanctions in light of the explanation given and the circumstances described.

The Court, nonetheless, found merit in the portion of the charge relating to the notarial registry. It held that Atty. Fule failed to make the appropriate entry in the notarial registry. The Court treated this failure as an actionable lapse in the performan

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 1327)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Atty. Octavio D. Fule served as a notary public and faced an administrative case.
The administrative case originated from a Court of Appeals decision in C.A.-G.R. No. 34810-R involving Prudential Bank and Trust Co. and Sy Chi & Co., et al.
The Court of Appeals dispositive portion included a directive to furnish the Honorable Solicitor General information regarding the questionable actuation of notary public Octavio D. Fule.
Upon receipt, the Solicitor General forwarded a copy to the Court for appropriate action.
On June 4, 1974, the Court required Atty. Fule to Comment on the portion of the Court of Appeals decision referring to his questionable actuation.
After receiving the Comment, the Court referred the case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation.
The Solicitor General submitted the report and recommendation on March 6, 1987.
The Court resolved to dismiss the complaint when it found no basis for disciplinary action, while issuing an admonition for a specific lapse in notarial record-keeping.

Key Factual Allegations

The alleged questionable acts involved specified trust receipts notarized by Atty. Fule.
The allegations included apparent intercalations in the trust receipts.
The allegations also included failure to enter in the notarial registry the names of the persons executing the instruments.
The Court of Appeals observed that the back portions of certain trust receipts, identified as Exhs. "D," "E," and "F," were tampered with.
The Court of Appeals concluded that intercalations were inserted to make it appear that defendant Isidro Ongsip signed the trust receipts as a party, not as a mere witness.
The Court of Appeals found discrepancies in the typewriter used for the acknowledgment compared with the typewriter used on the face of the trust receipts.
The Court of Appeals treated the placement of words and the lack of space before "WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL" as indicative of late insertion.
The Court of Appeals asserted that in one trust receipt, the phrase "this document as guarantor" was on the same line as "WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL."
The Court of Appeals similarly reasoned that in another trust receipt, words such as "guaranteed by:" over the signature and the acknowledgment were typed after Isidro Ongsip had signed.
The Court of Appeals stated that the typewriter used for those inserted words and the acknowledgment was different from the typewriter used for other words on the face.
The Court of Appeals emphasized that the notarial registry entries for the relevant documents showed that only Sy Chi Eng acknowledged the documents.
The Court of Appeals observed that Isidro Ongsip was not mentioned at all in the notarial registry pages corresponding to the numbered documents.

Procedural Findings and Evidence

The respondent did not testify at the trial, and he explained that it was because the bank’s lawyer did not call him as a witness.
Atty. Fule explained his duties and the operational circumstances at Prudential Bank, including his role as secretary to the president and head of the Collection Section.
The respondent asserted that he had a large volume of work and used two clerk-typists assigned to assist him, including in entering documents into the notarial book.
The respondent stated that the trust receipts were printed forms containing printed acknowledgments on the back.
The respondent explained that his clerk-typist typed the acknowledgments for his correction prior to notarization.
The respondent described that corrections were sometimes handled through insertions, and that only when corrections were extensive were new forms typed to avoid greater workload.
The Solicitor General reported that the trust receipts were standard forms used by the bank in ordinary course.
The Solicitor General described the receipts as having a main trust agreement on the front and a guaranty provision and notarial acknowledgment on the reverse side.
The Court of Appeals’ theory characterized the acts as misconduct approximating falsification based on claims that intercalations were made to show that Isidro Ongsip signed as a party.
The Solicitor General evaluated the respondent’s e