Title
Dimayuga vs. Rubia
Case
A.C. No. 8854
Decision Date
Jul 3, 2018
Atty. Vivian G. Rubia was suspended for three years for gross negligence, facilitating the sale of a prohibited property, violating notarial rules, and willful disobedience of court orders, with her notarial commission revoked.
gross negligence
misrepresentation
property transfer
A

Case Summary (A.C. No. 8854)

Factual Background

Complainant alleged that sometime in June 2002, she and her family engaged the respondent to effect the transfer of their deceased father’s property to them. She asserted that the agreed services included preparation, notarization, and processing of the transfer document, as well as payment of taxes and other fees necessary for the transfer. The respondent prepared and had the parties sign an Amended Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights on June 17, 2002. Complainant claimed that the transfer did not materialize soon thereafter, and that upon inquiry, her family learned that the respondent paid the transfer tax only on October 25, 2007, while the donor’s tax was paid on April 2, 2007. She further alleged that contrary to the representations made to her family, the respondent entered the amended extrajudicial settlement with the Register of Deeds of Davao del Sur only on November 28, 2007, and re-entered it on December 1, 2008. Complainant’s theory was that the respondent might have misappropriated the money paid by the family for the respondent’s services in June 2002, thereby causing the belated payment of the taxes and fees.

Complainant also narrated a second transaction. In June 2003, she sought the respondent’s services for the purchase of real property in Digos City. She claimed that she was told the property would be registered in their names after about a month, yet the title was not transferred. She alleged that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 27, 2003, which the respondent prepared for the purchase of a 600-square meter parcel of land, was covered by TCT No. CARP-03000, which originated from CLOA No. 00394433. Complainant noted that the title reflected a limitation under the law applicable to land covered by CLOA, stating that the land was subject to a prohibition against sale, transfer, or conveyance except through hereditary succession, to the Government, to the Land Bank of the Philippines, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years. Since the title had been issued in February 5, 1997 and registered on February 6, 1997, complainant maintained that on June 27, 2003 the sale was still prohibited under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657. She asserted that she and her family relied on the respondent’s legal knowledge and that the respondent should not have assented to the sale despite the statutory restriction.

Initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings and Respondent’s Non-Compliance

The complaint for disciplinary action was filed and the Court issued a Resolution dated January 31, 2011, requiring the respondent to comment within ten days from notice. The respondent sought an extension to file her comment, and the Court granted it in a Resolution dated August 15, 2012. However, within the period of the granted extension, the respondent still failed to file the required comment. The Court therefore issued a Resolution dated July 14, 2014, imposing a fine of P2,000 and reiterating the order to submit a comment. The respondent neither paid the fine nor filed a comment.

In a Resolution dated January 13, 2016, the Court imposed an increased fine of P4,000 and again required the respondent to file her comment. On April 7, 2016, the respondent paid the increased fine and explained that her failure to pay the original fine was because the first notice was lost. She also informed the Court of her transfer of office. On June 29, 2016, the Court noted the respondent’s compliance, yet the Court reiterated that its January 13, 2016 Resolution should still be enforced because, according to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), no postal money orders had been enclosed in the compliance.

The Court then dealt with issues surrounding the postal money orders. In a September 19, 2016 Resolution, it noted the OBC’s letter dated July 26, 2016, which stated that two postal money orders returned to the respondent had been received by the Court’s cashier beyond the 90-day period from their validity. The Court awaited compliance with the June 29, 2016 Resolution. In a November 14, 2016 Resolution, the Court noted the respondent’s remittance of two postal money orders as replacements for the expired ones. Despite this, the respondent still failed to file her comment, prompting the Court to require her to show cause why she should not be held in contempt or disciplinarily dealt with for her continued failure, and again ordered her to comply with the January 31, 2016 Resolution.

On December 27, 2016, the respondent complied with the show cause order. She explained that she suffered from trauma and stress due to previous cases filed against her, and that she had undergone life-threatening situations related to some high-profile cases she handled. The Court nevertheless found that she continued to fail to file her comment. On June 28, 2017, the Court noted her explanation but again required her to file a comment in compliance with the January 31, 2011 Resolution. Despite receipt of the June 28, 2017 Resolution, the respondent still did not file the required comment. The Court thus proceeded to resolve the merits of the complaint, taking into account the respondent’s repeated failure to file a comment and her expressed excuses.

The Court’s Treatment of Respondent’s Conduct in the Proceedings

The Court squarely addressed the respondent’s conduct in failing to comply with multiple lawful orders. The Court held that it could no longer accept the respondent’s explanations, including trauma, stress, and life-threatening situations, because the respondent had been able to file pleadings stating those explanations yet still failed to submit the required comment. The Court concluded that nothing could be inferred other than deliberate manipulation intended to unreasonably delay its action on the case. The Court characterized these acts as willful disobedience of lawful orders of the Court. It further reasoned that such disobedience not only prejudiced the respondent’s defense by resulting in waiver of the filing of her comment, but also constituted an independent ground for suspension or disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

In support, the Court invoked the principle that a Court’s Resolution should not be treated as a mere request, nor complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively. It cited Sebastian v. Atty. Bajar, where the Court considered failure to comply with a court’s order or directive as constitutive of gross misconduct and insubordination. The Court also expressed that respondent’s attitude demonstrated utter disrespect toward the judicial institution.

The Parties’ Substantive Positions on the Allegations

On the merits, the Court noted that complainant’s claims of delayed performance and misappropriation of funds were not sufficiently substantiated. The Court emphasized that in administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required for guilt is substantial evidence, or such evidence that a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It further reiterated that the party who alleges a fact bears the burden of proving it, because mere allegations are not evidence. It accordingly held that complainant had the burden of proving her allegations by substantial evidence.

As to the claim of delayed payment of taxes and fees after the June 17, 2002 signing of the amended extrajudicial settlement, complainant alleged that she and her family paid P150,000 on June 17, 2002, inclusive of attorney’s fees and legal fees necessary for the transfer. Complainant argued that the respondent did not pay the transfer tax and donor’s tax until 2007. The Court, however, held that aside from complainant’s bare allegation, there was nothing in the record proving that the amount was indeed given on the claimed date. As a result, the Court refused to rule on alleged delay and misappropriation on the basis of assumptions, surmise, or conjecture.

Nevertheless, the Court found substantial grounds in a different aspect of the complaint. What appeared clearly from the complaint was that the respondent prepared and notarized a deed of sale covering a parcel of land that was evidently prohibited to be sold, transferred, or conveyed under R.A. No. 6657 within the statutory prohibition period.

Legal Basis for Finding Administrative Liability

The Court reiterated the rule that a lawyer must scrupulously observe both the law and legal ethics. It cited Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect for law and legal processes. The Court also invoked Rule 15.07 of the same Code, which requires that a lawyer impress upon clients compliance with laws and principles of fairness. The Court held that by preparing and notarizing a deed of sale within the prohibited period for land covered by the statutory restriction, the respondent assisted, or at least led, the contracting parties into an act constituting a blatant disregard for, or defiance of, the law.

The Court also treated the notarization aspect as a separate and serious ethical breach. It held that the respondent’s notarization of an illegal document—where illegality stemmed from the statutory prohibition—displayed lack of respect for the solemnity of an acknowledgment. The Court explained that the notarized document entitled itself to full faith and credit upon its face, even though it did not deserve such entitlement due to its illegality. In this connection, the Court relied on its reasoning in Caalim-Verzonilla v. Atty. Pascua, emphasizing that a notary public must guard against illegal or immoral arrangements or refrain from being a party to their consummation. The Court also cited Rule IV, Section 4 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which proscribed notaries public from performing no

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms