A.C. No. 5281 - Lee vs. Tambago

Case Summary (A.C. No. 5281)

Factual Background

Manuel L. Lee alleged that a last will and testament purporting to have been executed by his deceased father, Vicente Lee, Sr., was spurious and contained forged signatures. The contested will purportedly was executed and acknowledged before Atty. Regino B. Tambago on June 30, 1965, devised the testator’s estate chiefly to his wife Lim Hock Lee and a parcel to Vicente Lee, Jr. and Elena Lee, and was attested only by two witnesses, Cayetano Noynay and Loreto Grajo. Complainant pointed out that the residence certificate of the testator noted in the acknowledgment bore the date January 5, 1962, and that the signature of the testator in the will differed markedly from his signature in a deed of donation alleged to be genuine. Complainant also alleged that the signatures of the witnesses were forged and merely copied from their voters affidavits, and that no copy of the will was on file in the archives division of the Records Management and Archives Office of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts, save for a certification noting an affidavit of Bartolome Ramirez in the 1965 series.

Procedural History

Manuel L. Lee filed his letter-complaint with the Court on April 10, 2000. Atty. Regino B. Tambago filed a comment on July 6, 2001. The Court referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation by resolution dated October 17, 2001. The investigating commissioner submitted a report and recommendation dated February 27, 2006. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and modified that report in Resolution No. XVII-2006-285 dated May 26, 2006. The Supreme Court resolved the matter by decision dated February 12, 2008.

Investigating Commissioner's Findings and IBP Action

The investigating commissioner found that Atty. Regino B. Tambago violated pertinent provisions of the old Notarial Law and committed breaches of legal ethics, specifically Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and recommended suspension for three months. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors adopted and modified the recommendation, finding the recommendation supported by the evidence and applicable law, and resolved to suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year, revoke his notarial commission, and disqualify him from reappointment as notary public for two years.

Parties' Contentions

Manuel L. Lee contended that the will was not executed by his father, that the signatures of the testator and the witnesses were forged, that the residence certificate noted was inconsistent and dated earlier than the acknowledgment, and that no copy of the will was in the archives. Atty. Regino B. Tambago asserted that complainant was not a legitimate son of the decedent and that the contested will was validly executed and notarized, supporting his position with the affidavit of Gloria Nebato and a joint affidavit of Elena N. Lee and Vicente N. Lee, Jr. Respondent alleged the complaint sought to harass him after a failed criminal case before the Office of the Ombudsman, admitted that no copy was found in the NCCA archives because none had been filed, and argued that complainant lacked a valid cause of action for administrative discipline without first pursuing nullity of the will or an inheritance demand.

Issues Presented

The Court framed and addressed whether the contested notarial will complied with the formalities required by law; whether Atty. Regino B. Tambago committed derelictions of duty in his capacity as acknowledging officer and notary public; whether respondent’s failure to file a copy of the will in the archives constituted disciplinary misconduct; whether the omissions in the acknowledgment and notarial register invalidated the will; and whether respondent was amenable to disciplinary sanctions for violations of the old Notarial Law, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Rules of Court.

Court's Findings on Formalities of Wills

The Court emphasized that a will must comply with statutory formalities because the solemnities close the door on fraud and guarantee authenticity. Under Civil Code, a notarial will must be subscribed at its end by the testator and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another (Art. 804). The will in question was attested by only two witnesses, and on that ground alone the Court held the will void. The Court further stressed that acknowledgment before a notary public is a separate and distinct requirement (Art. 806) and explained that the acknowledgment secures the testator’s declaration that the instrument is his free act and deed and thereby safeguards his testamentary wishes.

Court's Findings on Notarial Duties and Defects in Acknowledgment

The Court found conspicuous defects in the acknowledgment executed by Atty. Regino B. Tambago. The acknowledgment lacked notation of the residence certificates of the notarial witnesses, and the notation of the testator’s residence certificate showed an expired date. The Court held these omissions breached the old Notarial Law and the Residence Tax Act and invalidated the acknowledgment. The Court cited the mandatory duty of notaries to certify presentation of proper residence certificates, to record their number, place of issue, and date as provided in the Revised Administrative Code, Sec. 251, and reinforced by Commonwealth Act No. 465.

Court's Findings on Notarial Register and Evidence

The Court held that respondent failed to make the entries required by the old Notarial Law in his notarial register, which must chronologically record the nature of instruments, persons executing them, witnesses, dates, fees collected, and consecutive numbers (Revised Administrative Code, Sec. 246). Respondent produced a photocopy of his notarial register and a photocopy of a certification to support his claim of entry, but the Court ruled the photocopy was secondary evidence inadmissible without proof of unavailability of the original and the cause of such unavailability as required by Rule 130, Sec. 5, Rules of Court. The Court therefore found respondent’s purported register entries unproven.

On Filing of Copies in the Archives Division

The Court considered whether respondent’s failure to file a copy of the notarized will in the archives division warranted discipline. Citing Civil Code, Art. 806, the Court noted that a notary public is not required to retain a copy of the will or to file one with the clerk of court; consequently the absence of a filed copy in the archives did not, by itself, constitute disciplinary ground. Nevertheless, the Court held that respondent’s other omissions in the acknowledgment and notarial register were culpable.

Ethical and Disciplinary Conclusions

The Court concluded that Atty. Regino B. Tambago’s failures undermined public confidence in notarized documents and constituted gross violations of the law and of his duties as a lawyer. The Court found respondent liable for violation of the Lawyers Oath, Rule 138, Sec. 20(a), Rules of Court, Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and pertinent provisions of the old Notarial Law. The Court invoked the grounds for revocation of a notary commission set forth in the Revised Administrative Code, Sec. 249, including failure to make proper entries in the n

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 5281)

Parties and Posture

MANUEL L. LEE filed a letter-complaint dated April 10, 2000 alleging notarization of a spurious last will and testament by ATTY. REGINO B. TAMBAGO.
The complaint charged violation of the old Notarial Law and breaches of legal ethics for notarizing the contested will.
The case was referred by the Court to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
The IBP investigating commissioner recommended suspension for three months and found violations of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report with modification and resolved to suspend respondent for one year, revoke his notarial commission, and disqualify him from reappointment as notary for two years.
The Court affirmed with modification and entered final disciplinary disposition against respondent.

Key Facts

The contested will bore an attestation dated June 30, 1965 and purportedly was acknowledged before ATTY. REGINO B. TAMBAGO on that date.
The acknowledgment recited a residence certificate of the testator dated January 5, 1962, which was thus expired at the time of acknowledgment.
The will was subscribed by only two attesting witnesses, Cayetano Noynay and Loreto Grajo, instead of the three or more required by law.
MANUEL L. LEE alleged that the signatures of the testator and of the witnesses were forged and that the testator’s signature did not match his signature in a deed of donation.
No copy of the contested will was found in the archives division of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts, but the archives certified the availability of an affidavit by Bartolome Ramirez dated June 30, 1965.
ATTY. REGINO B. TAMBAGO submitted affidavits purportedly corroborating the will and alleged that complainant was not a legitimate son and that the complaint was filed to harass him.

Issues Presented

Whether the notarization and acknowledgment of the contested will complied with the formalities required by the Civil Code and the old Notarial Law.
Whether the omissions in the acknowledgment and in the notarial register rendered the will void.
Whether a notary public is required to file a copy of a notarial will with archives and whether failure to file is disciplinary.
Whether the photocopy of the notarial register and respondent’s certifications were admissible to prove compliance with notarial formalities.
What disciplinary sanctions, if any, should be imposed for violations of notarial and ethical duties.

Parties' Contentions

MANUEL L. LEE contended that the will was spurious, that the signatures of the testator and witnesses were forged, and that the acknowledgment and notarial entries were defective.
ATTY. REGINO B. TAMBAGO contended that the will was valid and was notarized by him, that affidavits of witnesses corroborated its execution, and that the complaint was malicious because a prior criminal charge did not prosper.
Respondent also contended that no copy of the will was found in archives because none was filed and that complainant lacked cause of action for direct challenge without first seeking nullity of the will.

Statutory Framework

Civil Code, Art. 783 defined a will as an act to control the disposition of estate after death.
Civil Code, Art. 804 required that a notarial will be attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses.
Civil Code, Art. 806 required acknowledgment of a will before a notary public by