A.C. No. 10132 - Heirs of Alilano vs. Examen

Case Summary (A.C. No. 10132)

Petitioner / Complainants

The heirs of Pedro Alilano filed a complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) alleging that Atty. Examen falsified documents and presented them in court, thereby violating his Lawyer’s Oath, Canons 1, 10 and 19, and Rules 1.01, 1.02, 10.01 and 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. They also asserted specific notarial infirmities: (a) prohibition under older notarial law against notarizing documents involving relatives, (b) use of Florentina’s residence (cedula) certificate number for Ramon, and (c) false attestations that witnesses personally appeared.

Respondent

Atty. Roberto E. Examen denied culpable intent. He argued that (a) the prohibition in the Spanish Notarial Law no longer applied because the Revised Administrative Code governed at the time of notarization, (b) the alleged cedula number error resulted from office practice and secretary input and was made in good faith, and (c) prescription barred disciplinary action based on an IBP resolution proposing a two‑year prescription for misconduct.

Property and Documents at Issue

The challenged instruments are the March 31, 1984 and September 12, 1984 Absolute Deeds of Sale transferring Lot No. 1085 Pls‑544‑D from the Spouses Alilano to Ramon and Edna Examen. The deeds were introduced into evidence in a civil suit for recovery of possession filed by the heirs on January 12, 2002; the IBP complaint was received November 24, 2003. Allegations included denial under oath by attesting witnesses and a handwriting expert’s report suggesting the signature of Pedro Alilano on the September 1984 deed differed significantly from specimens.

Procedural History before IBP and the Supreme Court

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) investigated and recommended disbarment. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation but modified the penalty to suspension; after motion for reconsideration, the IBP imposed a one‑year suspension from the practice of law and a two‑year disqualification from reappointment as notary public. The Supreme Court reviewed the administrative case on certiorari, focused on the fitness of the lawyer to remain in the profession, and resolved the disciplinary sanctions.

Applicable Law (including 1987 Constitution)

Because the decision date is after 1990, the 1987 Constitution governs the Court’s exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction. Relevant statutes and rules relied upon include the Revised Administrative Code (Sections 231–259, especially Sections 241, 249, 251), the 2004 Revised Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02‑8‑13‑SC), the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canons and Rules cited in the complaint), and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court (granting the Supreme Court authority to disbar or suspend attorneys for deceit, malpractice or violation of oath). Controlling jurisprudence referenced includes Frias v. Atty. Bautista‑Lozada, Calo, Jr. v. Degamo, Heck v. Santos, Kapunan v. Casilan, Nunga v. Atty. Viray, Soriano v. Atty. Basco, and others cited by the Court.

Primary Allegations and Legal Questions

The central disciplinary allegations were: (1) notarization of the sale deeds despite a familial relationship between notary and vendee; (2) use of an incorrect cedula number (Florentina’s) in documents for Ramon; (3) false acknowledgments concerning witness appearance; and (4) presenting these instruments in court despite knowledge of their infirmities. Legal questions included whether prescription bars the complaint, whether the Spanish Notarial Law prohibition remained controlling, whether the cedula irregularity and other notarial lapses constituted grounds for administrative sanction (including disbarment or suspension), and whether good faith or office practice could mitigate responsibility.

Court’s Ruling on Prescription and IBP Resolution

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that no prescriptive period applies to disciplinary cases against members of the bar. Citing prior rulings, the Court held that Rule VIII, Section 1 of the IBP CBD Rules seeking to impose a two‑year prescription was ultra vires and void. The Court emphasized public interest in disciplining errant members and concluded that Atty. Examen’s prescription defense had no merit.

Ruling on Applicability of Spanish Notarial Law and Notary Competence

The Court held that the Spanish Notarial Law of 1889 had been repealed by the Revised Administrative Code (Act No. 496) and that the law prevailing at the time of the 1984 notarizations was the Revised Administrative Code. Thus, the old prohibition disqualifying a notary from notarizing when related to a party by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree did not apply. Under that reasoning, Atty. Examen was not per se incompetent to notarize the deeds merely because the vendee was his brother.

Duty and Standard Expected of Notaries Public

The Court reiterated that notarization is not a rote clerical act but one invested with substantive public interest; a notarial acknowledgement converts a private document into a public document entitled to full faith and credit. Notaries must perform duties with utmost care and fidelity, including personal inspection and certification of the presentation of proper cedula (residence) certificates as required by Section 251, Chapter 11 of the Revised Administrative Code and the later Notarial Rules.

Findings on Cedula Irregularity and Personal Responsibility

The Court accepted the evidence that the cedula number entered in both Absolute Deeds of Sale did not belong to Ramon but to Florentina. It rejected respondent’s reliance on secretary error and good faith as mitigation, holding the duty to verify was personal and nondelegable. The failure to personally check the cedula and other notarial formalities evidenced negligence and disregard for notarial solemnities, which cannot be excused by office practice.

Breach of Notarial Law as Violation of Lawyer’s Oath and CPR

The Court concluded that violating notarial requirements implicated not only administrative remedies for the notary commission but also the lawyer’s oath and professional responsibilities under the Code of Professional Responsibility. By negligently performing notarial duties and by presenting questionable documents to the court, Atty. Examen transgressed Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 (undermining respect for legal processes and public confidence) and other CPR provisions cited in the complaint, and therefore administrative discipline appropriate to an attorney followed.

Scope of Disciplinary Inquiry and Limitations

The Court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings before the Supreme Court focus on the attorney’s fitness to continue pr

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 10132)

Case Citation and Procedural Posture

Reported at 756 Phil. 608, En Banc; A.C. No. 10132; Decision rendered March 24, 2015.
Complaint for disbarment docketed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) as CBD Case No. 03-1168; civil action between the parties docketed as Civil Case No. 1013.
Complaint received by the IBP on November 24, 2003.
Supreme Court Notice of Judgment: Decision rendered March 24, 2015; original received April 13, 2015 at 4:05 p.m.; Deputy Clerk of Court FELIPA B. ANAMA signed notice.
The matter reached the Supreme Court on the IBP CBD report, IBP Board of Governors’ resolutions, respondent’s motions, and petitioners’ allegations concerning notarial acts and presentation of documents in court.

Parties

Complainants: Heirs of Pedro Alilano, represented by David Alilano.
Respondent: Atty. Roberto E. Examen.
Other persons of interest: Pedro Alilano and Florentina (Pueblo) Alilano (owners of property; deceased March 6, 1985 and October 11, 1989, respectively); Ramon Examen and his wife Edna (vendees; Ramon is respondent’s brother); attesting witnesses and handwriting expert Jennifer Dominguez.

Material Facts

Pedro and Florentina Alilano were holders of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-23261 covering a 98,460 sq. m. parcel, Lot No. 1085 Pls-544-D, Paitan, Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat.
Absolute Deeds of Sale dated March 31, 1984 and September 12, 1984 were executed by the Spouses Alilano in favor of Ramon and Edna Examen.
Both Absolute Deeds of Sale were notarized by Atty. Roberto E. Examen, who is the brother of the vendee (Ramon Examen).
Spouses Examen obtained possession of the property around September 1984.
On January 12, 2002, the heirs of Alilano filed a suit for recovery of possession before the Regional Trial Court of Sultan Kudarat; during that proceeding Atty. Examen introduced the March 31 and September 12, 1984 Absolute Deeds of Sale into evidence.
The heirs filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Examen (received by IBP November 24, 2003).

Nature of the Complaint and Specific Allegations

The heirs alleged that Atty. Examen committed misconduct and malpractice by falsifying documents and presenting them as evidence in court, thereby violating:
- the Lawyer’s Oath;
- Canons 1, 10, and 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR);
- Rules 1.01, 1.02, 10.01, and 19.01 of the CPR.
Particular allegations included:
- Notarizing Absolute Deeds of Sale despite being related to a party (Ramon) — alleged violation of the notarial prohibition under Barretto v. Cabreza (33 Phil. 112 (1916)) as applied under Spanish Notarial Law.
- Using Florentina’s residence (cedula) certificate number in place of Ramon Examen’s cedula number when notarizing the deeds.
- Falsely acknowledging that two witnesses personally appeared before him when they did not.
- Introducing the defective/infirm documents into evidence despite knowledge of the infirmities, thereby violating his oath and the CPR.

Respondent’s Defenses and Contentions

Respondent Atty. Examen argued:
- There was no longer any prohibition under the Revised Administrative Code (effective 1917) against a notary public notarizing a document where one of the parties is related to him by consanguinity/affinity; thus he was not incompetent to notarize despite being related to the vendee.
- He acted in good faith regarding the use of Florentina’s cedula number, asserting it was office practice for his secretary to type details without his personal examination.
- The use of another’s cedula is not a ground for disbarment and is barred by prescription, relying on IBP Resolution No. XVI-2004-13 (January 26, 2004) proposing a two-year prescription for professional misconduct (i.e., Rule VIII, Section 1, of the IBP CBD Rules as revised).

IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) Findings and Recommendation

The IBP CBD found Atty. Examen administratively liable for breach of the Notarial Law and for introducing false Absolute Deeds of Sale before the court proceedings.
Evidence underpinning the CBD’s findings included:
- Denials under oath by attesting witnesses that the Spouses Alilano voluntarily and knowingly conveyed their property.
- An NBI handwriting expert (Jennifer Dominguez) reported that Pedro Alilano’s signature on the September 1984 Absolute Deed of Sale was significantly different from specimen signatures.
- The cedula/residence certificate number, date, and place of issue in the deeds were falsified; the residence certificate actually belonged to Florentina Pueblo.
The IBP CBD recommended the penalty of disbarment.

IBP Board of Governors’ Actions

The IBP Board of Governors (BOG), by Resolution dated June 26, 2007, adopted the IBP CBD report but modified the recommended penalty:
- Initially modified to suspension from the practice of law for two years and suspension of respondent’s Notarial Commission for two years.
After respondent’s motion for reconsideration, the IBP BOG denied the motion and further modified the penalty (Notice of Resolution) to:
- Suspension from the practice of law for one year; and
- Disqualification from re-appointment as Notary Public for two years.

Supreme Court’s Scope of Review and Preliminary Observations

The Supreme Court noted that in disbarment/administrative cases the sole issue is whether the member of the bar is fit to continue enjoying the privileges of the bar; such proceedings are not the proper venue to adjudicate substantive disputes over property conveyance or to determine directly whether witnesses’ signatures were forged.
The Court emphasized that the outcome of civil or criminal determinations regarding the deeds or signatures does not preclude administrative discipline for breach of professional duties.

Prescription Argument and Court’s Rulings on Prescription

The Court reiterated established jurisprudence that administrative actions against members of the bar do not prescribe:
- Cited Frias v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada (523 Phil. 17, 19 (2006)), Calo, Jr. v. Degamo (126 Phil. 802 (1967)), and Heck v. Santos (467 Phil. 798 (2004)), stating the policy that putting a prescriptive period on bar discipline would embolden erring lawyers to disregard their oath.
- Ruled that Rule