A.C. No. 8698 - Bernaldez vs. Anquilo-Garcia

Case Summary (A.C. No. 8698)

Factual Background

Bernaldez alleged that during the 2010 elections, Atty. Anquilo-Garcia coerced and threatened registered voters in Biri, Northern Samar into signing blank and ready-made affidavits. The affidavits allegedly stated that the signatories were illiterate or disabled voters when, according to the complainant, they were not. He further claimed that the affidavits were used to enable the voters to secure assistors in voting. The complainant asserted that the alleged scheme was intended to ensure the electoral victory of Atty. Anquilo-Garcia’s husband, Jaime Garcia, Jr. (Garcia Jr.), who ran for Mayor in Biri.

Bernaldez also averred that the affiants never appeared before Atty. Anquilo-Garcia and that it was not feasible for her to go from Biri to Catarman, Northern Samar, a distance described as 50 kilometers by land and sea, to have the affiants execute the affidavits on election day. In addition, he pointed to the affidavits as being allegedly “manufactured and/or falsified,” and he noted that the same affidavits were used as exhibits in an election protest filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Catarman, Northern Samar, docketed as Election Protest (E.P.) Case No. 38, involving Garcia Jr.’s opponents, including the complainant.

Court Actions Before IBP Investigation

On September 1, 2010, the Court issued a Resolution directing Atty. Anquilo-Garcia to submit her Comment within ten days from receipt. She denied preparing any ready-made affidavits and contended that she notarized affidavits of persons who sought her assistance as notary public so they could be allowed to vote with assistors due to difficulty reading and/or physical disability. She maintained that the affiants personally appeared before her on May 10, 2010 in Biri and voluntarily executed the affidavits without threats, intimidation, or payment.

She also argued that the affidavits attached to the complaint were fabricated or falsified to suit Bernaldez’s allegations. The Court, on December 6, 2010, referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation within 90 days from receipt of the records. On December 1, 2011, the IBP-CBD issued a notice for a mandatory conference. On March 22, 2012, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline declared the mandatory conference closed and terminated. Both parties were then required to file verified position papers within ten days from receipt.

During the pendency of the disbarment case, Bernaldez filed, on June 28, 2013, an Affidavit of Withdrawal desisting from pursuing the administrative complaint. He stated that the filing of the case resulted from a misapprehension of facts and misunderstanding of incidents.

IBP Proceedings and Recommendations

On April 29, 2015, Commissioner Giovanne T. Lim submitted his Report and Recommendation, advising the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. He reasoned that the irregularities alleged against Atty. Anquilo-Garcia were the subject of the election protest before the RTC and were already being litigated in a related case; therefore, it was premature to determine administrative liability pending resolution of the election protest.

On June 20, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Notice of Resolution adopting and approving Commissioner Lim’s recommendation, finding it supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws.

Issues Framed by the Court

The Court addressed whether the administrative case should await the final resolution of the election protest, and whether the complainant’s withdrawal could terminate or abate the disciplinary proceedings. It also considered whether the evidence satisfied the required quantum of proof to support findings against Atty. Anquilo-Garcia for the alleged misconduct and deceit, and whether the notarial charge—specifically, notarization without the affiants’ personal appearance—was established.

Court’s Ruling on Independence of Administrative Proceedings and Effect of Withdrawal

The Court emphasized that administrative proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. They are not civil or criminal actions but investigations conducted by the Court into the conduct of its officers. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the administrative case was distinct from the election case and could proceed independently. It held that E.P. Case No. 38 involved an election contest centered on fraud or irregularities in the conduct of elections, while the present case sought to discipline Atty. Anquilo-Garcia as a lawyer for gross misconduct, deceit, violation of her oath, and abuse of authority as a notary public. Thus, there was no need to await the election protest’s outcome.

The Court also held that Bernaldez’s withdrawal of the complaint during the pendency of the administrative proceedings had no controlling effect. It relied on Ventura v. Atty. Samson, where the Court ruled that affidavits of desistance cannot abate disbarment proceedings because the practice of law is imbued with public service character, and disbarment concerns public interest.

Evaluation of Evidence on Coercion and Deceit

On the merits, the Court reiterated that in administrative cases against lawyers, the required standard is preponderant evidence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. The Court found that Bernaldez failed to establish by clear preponderance of evidence that Atty. Anquilo-Garcia coerced registered voters to sign blank and ready-made affidavits. It observed that the affidavits presented by the complainant appeared to identify other persons as those responsible for the force, intimidation, or threat directed at the voters.

Finding on Abuse of Authority as Notary Public: Notarization Without Personal Presence

While the Court found insufficient proof of the alleged coercion, it ruled that the notarial charge was meritorious. It found that the affidavits prepared by Atty. Anquilo-Garcia were notarized without the personal presence of the affiants, which violated the notarial law. The Court stated that the complaint had clearly established that Atty. Anquilo-Garcia notarized the affidavits without the required personal appearance of the affiants as the law demands.

The Court rejected Atty. Anquilo-Garcia’s defense that the headings of the affidavits—indicating the Municipality of Biri and, in some instances, Catarman, Northern Samar—were merely harmless clerical or typographical errors. It held that a cursory perusal of the affidavits of the concerned registered voters showed that the affidavits were simply handed to them at the polling precinct on election day. The documents bore already the signature and notarial seal of Atty. Anquilo-Garcia, indicating that the notarization occurred without proper compliance with the personal presence requirement.

Applicable Notarial Rule and Professional Duties

The Court cited Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which prohibits a person from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary’s presence at the time of notarization and is not personally known or otherwise identified as prescribed. The Court underscored that lawyers commissioned as notaries public must not trivialize their functions. They must discharge their powers with accuracy and fidelity, inform themselves of the facts they certify, and refrain from participating in illegal transactions. It held that Atty. Anquilo-Garcia’s failure to perform her duty as a notary public undermined the integrity of notarization and degraded the function of notarization, and it constituted negligence both in her notarial capacity and as a lawyer.

Jurisprudence on Similar Notarial Violations and Sanctions Imposed

The Court referenced Gonzales v. Atty. Ramos, where it imposed a one-year suspension from the practice of law and disqualification from reappointment as notary public for two years for notarizing a deed of sale without the affiants’ presence. It noted that the same penalty was adopted in Agbulos v. Atty. Viray for preparing an affidavit and notarizing it without the affiant’

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 8698)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Manuel B. Bernaldez filed a complaint against Atty. Wilma Donna C. Anquilo-Garcia for gross misconduct, deceit, violation of the Lawyer's Oath, and abuse of authority as a notary public.
The Court issued directives for comment and later referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and recommendation.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline conducted the proceedings through mandatory conference and position-paper submission.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the investigating commissioner’s report and recommendation.
The Court resolved the administrative case on the merits, while also addressing the complainant’s withdrawal and its effect.

Key Factual Allegations

The complainant alleged that during the 2010 National and Local Elections, Atty. Anquilo-Garcia coerced and threatened registered voters in Municipality of Biri, Northern Samar to sign blank and ready-made affidavits.
The affidavits were said to state that the affiants were illiterate/disabled voters, though the complainant claimed they were not so and that they only needed assistors in voting.
The complainant alleged that the scheme was meant to ensure the electoral victory of Jaime Garcia, Jr. (Garcia Jr.), who ran for Mayor of Biri, Northern Samar.
The complainant asserted that the affiants did not appear before Atty. Anquilo-Garcia, and that Catarman, Northern Samar being around fifty (50) kilometers away made execution on election day itself implausible.
Atty. Anquilo-Garcia denied preparing ready-made affidavits and claimed the notarized documents were affidavits of individuals who personally sought her assistance.
She claimed the affiants personally appeared before her in Biri, Northern Samar on May 10, 2010, executed the affidavits voluntarily, and were neither threatened nor paid.
She maintained that affidavits attached to the complaint were manufactured or falsified for purposes of a mayoralty election dispute, and that the same affidavits were used as exhibits in an election protest before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Catarman, Northern Samar, docketed as Election Protest (E.P.) Case No. 38.
During the pendency of the case, the complainant filed an Affidavit of Withdrawal desisting from pursuing the disbarment case, stating he misunderstood the incidents and misapprehended the facts.

Related Election Protest

The Court recognized that E.P. Case No. 38 involved an election contest concerning alleged fraud or irregularities in the conduct of the elections.
The Court characterized the election protest and the administrative complaint as distinct matters, each with different purposes and standards of adjudication.
The complainant’s narrative relied substantially on the same affidavits used as exhibits in the election protest.

Statutory and Procedural Framework

The Court treated administrative proceedings against lawyers as sui generis, distinct from civil and criminal actions, and as investigations into the conduct of the Court’s officers.
The Court reiterated that in lawyer-discipline cases, the required quantum of proof is preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant.
On notarial conduct, the Court applied Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which prohibits a notary from performing a notarial act when the signatory is not in the notary’s presence personally at the time of notarization and not personally known or otherwise properly identified through competent evidence.
The Court evaluated the notary’s compliance with the personal appearance requirement and with the duty of accuracy and fidelity expected from lawyers commissioned as notaries public.

Issues Presented

The Court determined whether the complainant proved by preponderant evidence that Atty. Anquilo-Garcia coerced or threatened voters to sign blank and ready-made affidavits.
The Court assessed whether Atty. Anquilo-Garcia committed abuse of authority as a notary public by notarizing affidavits without the affiants’ personal appearance.
The Court considered whether the complainant’s withdrawal or desistance abated or otherwise extinguished the administrative proceedings.
The Court evaluated the appropriate administrative penalties for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and, by implication, related duties under the professional standards governing lawyers.

Parties’ Contentions

The complainant contended that Atty. Anquilo-Garcia employed coercion and intimidation to cause voters to sign affidavits supporting a falsified narrative of literacy or disability status.
The complainant argued that it was not possible for the affiants to appear before Atty. Anquilo-Garcia on election day given the distance between Biri and Catarman.
Atty. Anquilo-Garcia maintained that the affidavits were executed by affiants who personally appeared before her and sought assistance for voting due to difficulty in reading and/or physical disability.
Atty. Anquilo-Garcia asserted that affidavits were altered or falsified by the complainant to advance the opposing candidate in the election protest.
She also claimed that headings and stated places of execution were clerical or typographical errors, and that any