Title
Magusara vs. Rastica
Case
A.C. No. 11131
Decision Date
Mar 13, 2019
Atty. Louie A. Rastica faced a disbarment complaint for allegedly misleading a client and unauthorized notarization, but the Supreme Court dismissed it for lack of merit and forum shopping.
disbarment complaint
lack of evidence
due process

Case Summary (A.C. No. 11131)

Factual Background

On November 14, 2007, Yap-Siton Law Office filed a formal complaint with the Commission on Elections on behalf of Ramie P. Fabillar charging the petitioner with an election offense under Section 261(e) of the Omnibus Election Code. The formal complaint included a complaint‑affidavit by Ramie, a medical certificate, a police blotter, and an affidavit by Wilson Fabillar. Ramie’s complaint‑affidavit and Wilson’s affidavit were subscribed and sworn to before respondent. On February 10, 2008, Ramie filed an affidavit of desistance before COMELEC stating that he had been surprised to discover a complaint for election offense and that he thought he had signed a complaint for grave coercion; he asserted that the complaint prepared by respondent was not translated into his local dialect and that he did not understand its contents when he signed.

Complaints Before the IBP

Complainant filed the present disbarment complaint on March 1, 2011 before the IBP‑CBD, alleging that respondent violated Section 20(d), Rule 138 by employing means inconsistent with truth and honor in preparing and notarizing the complaint‑affidavit. Complainant also relied on documents he had previously submitted in a 2008 disbarment complaint filed before the IBP Negros Oriental Chapter, including two affidavits by Wilson showing differing signatures, a manifestation accusing the IBP Negros Oriental Chapter of delay, and two documents alleged to have been notarized by respondent after his notarial commission expired.

Respondent’s Answer and Contentions

In his answer respondent denied the allegations and argued for dismissal on procedural and substantive grounds. He contended that the complaint lacked a certification of non‑forum shopping and that complainant filed the complaint out of revenge for an electoral defeat. Respondent pointed to corroborating records — the police and barangay blotters and a complaint‑affidavit filed before the provincial prosecutor charging the petitioner with grave coercion — and to Ramie’s education and employment as evidence that Ramie understood the complaint‑affidavit. Respondent also noted an affidavit by Ramie dated August 5, 2008 in which Ramie stated that he fully understood the contents of the complaint‑affidavit for the election offense. Respondent challenged the authenticity and relevance of the notarization allegations.

Pleadings and Proceedings Before the IBP‑CBD

Complainant filed a preliminary conference brief on June 22, 2011 and expanded the issues to include alleged notarization without authority. On September 9, 2011 complainant filed a verified complaint “in compliance” with the Investigation Commissioner’s order, again asserting notarial violations and describing the same two documents earlier presented before the IBP Negros Oriental Chapter. At the scheduled clarificatory hearing only respondent appeared. Both parties failed to submit position papers.

Investigating Commissioner’s Report and IBP Board Action

Investigating Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero recommended dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit in a Report and Recommendation dated November 14, 2012. The Commissioner found it incredible that Ramie, who graduated from high school and worked in Metro Manila, would understand the contents of a complaint in one case but not another, and he relied on Ramie’s August 5, 2008 affidavit in concluding that respondent had rebutted the charge under Section 20(d), Rule 138. The Commissioner excluded the notarization allegation from consideration as it related to matters previously investigated by the IBP Negros Oriental Chapter. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation in Resolution No. XX-2013-250. Complainant moved for reconsideration.

IBP Board Reconsideration and Disciplinary Relief

By Resolution No. XXI-2014-245 dated May 3, 2014 the IBP Board of Governors granted complainant’s motion for reconsideration. The Board found that respondent had notarized two documents prior to approval of his notarial commission, disqualified respondent from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years, and ordered revocation of any existing notarial commission. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration asserting that he had not been given opportunity to be heard because the notarization issue was not part of the original complaint and because no investigation was conducted to verify the alleged documents.

Issues Presented to the Court

The Supreme Court addressed whether respondent violated Section 20(d), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court in preparing and notarizing the complaint‑affidavit and whether the IBP Board of Governors erred in taking into consideration and adjudicating notarial practice violations already the subject of a prior IBP proceeding. The Court also considered whether disciplinary action could be imposed in light of due process and the prohibition against forum shopping.

The Parties’ Positions Before the Court

Complainant maintained that respondent prepared and notarized a complaint‑affidavit that was not translated into the affiant’s local dialect and that respondent notarized documents despite an expired notarial commission. Respondent maintained that the allegations were baseless, that supporting records corroborated the complaint‑affidavit, and that Ramie’s education and his own documentary evidence, including Ramie’s August 5, 2008 affidavit, refuted the claim that the affidavit was signed without comprehension. Respondent further argued procedural infirmities in the IBP Board’s reconsideration.

The Court’s Findings on the Section 20(d) Charge

The Court agreed with Commissioner Cachapero and found no substantial evidence that respondent violated Section 20(d), Rule 138. The Court observed that respondent’s narration and documentary evidence, notably Ramie’s August 5, 2008 affidavit confirming comprehension, substantiated respondent’s claim of innocence. The Court held that the record did not show respondent’s breach of ethical duties under that provision.

Forum Shopping and the Notarial Practice Allegation

The Court found that the notarization allegations and the supporting documents were already the subject of an earlier disbarment complaint before the IBP Negros Oriental Chapter. The Court explained that including the notarial practice issue in the present complaint would amount to forum shopping because it would place two separate complaints before different IBP bodies concerning the same offense and based on substantially the same facts. The Court cited De la Cruz v. Joaquin and other precedent to define forum shopping and to underscore that a complainant may not institute successive actions on the

...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