Case Summary (A.C. No. 9676)
Background of the Ombudsman Decision
The Office of the Ombudsman issued a decision on September 26, 2012, citing irregularities concerning the notarization of the Deed of Partition and subsequently forwarded the case to the Supreme Court for further action. In response, the Supreme Court required Atty. Diuyan to provide a comment on the allegations raised against him.
Respondent's Admission and Defense
In his letter dated October 30, 2013, Atty. Diuyan acknowledged that he notarized the Deed of Partition as part of his official duties. He justified his actions by explaining that he confirmed the identity of the parties involved, who were indigents without formal identification, through their Community Tax Certificates (CTCs). He noted that he provided notarization services free of charge to assist the indigent individuals seeking to formalize their document.
Proceedings with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Following the initial Supreme Court resolution, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) was tasked with investigating the case. A mandatory conference scheduled on May 29, 2014, was abandoned due to Atty. Diuyan's health issues resulting from a stroke. The respondent subsequently submitted a Position Paper, reiterating his commitment to ethical practice and declaring that there was no wrongdoing on his part.
IBP's Findings and Recommendations
On September 24, 2014, the IBP found Atty. Diuyan guilty of gross negligence in violating the notarial rules, notwithstanding his lack of malicious intent. The IBP recommended revocation of his notarial commission and cautioned against future infractions. The Board of Governors later adopted the IBP's findings but imposed a stricter penalty that included a two-year disqualification from commissioning and a six-month suspension from practicing law.
Supreme Court's Ruling on Administrative Liability
The Supreme Court ultimately found no irregularity in Atty. Diuyan’s actions when he notarized the Deed of Partition based solely on the presentation of CTCs. It clarified that at the time of notarization, the existing legal framework did not prohibit such actions and noted that the requirements at that time significan
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 9676)
Background of the Case
- The case revolves around a decision issued by the Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao) on September 26, 2012, concerning Atty. Robelito B. Diuyan.
- The Ombudsman expressed concern regarding the notarization of a Deed of Partition that occurred on July 23, 2003, involving Alejandro F. Camilo, who had passed away on August 23, 2001.
- The Ombudsman decided to inform the Supreme Court of the potential irregularities relating to the notarization.
Proceedings and Initial Findings
- The Supreme Court treated the Ombudsman’s decision as an administrative complaint against Atty. Diuyan, requiring him to submit a comment.
- Atty. Diuyan acknowledged that he notarized the Deed of Partition as the District Public Attorney and stated that he did so for free for the indigent parties involved.
- He explained that he verified the identities of the signatories through their Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) before notarizing the document.
Investigation by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
- The Supreme Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation and recommendation.
- A mandatory conference was scheduled but could not proceed due to Atty. Diuyan's health issues stemming