Title
Malapit vs. Watin
Case
A.C. No. 11777
Decision Date
Oct 1, 2024
Edna Tan Malapit filed for disbarment of Atty. Watin due to notarizing a forged SPA allowing unauthorized property sales. The court found him guilty, leading to a two-year suspension and revocation of his notarial commission.
disbarment
unethical behavior
notarial misconduct
A

Case Summary (A.C. No. 11777)

Factual Background

Edna Tan Malapit owned a parcel of land in Mabini Extension, Digos City, covered by Tax Declaration ARF No. 96-02-019-01655, and she engaged Petronila Austria and Eduardo Austria to oversee and find buyers for portions of the lot for a commission. Edna went to Atty. Rogelio M. Watin to prepare and notarize an SPA delegating authority to sell. Edna refused to sign the final SPA upon discovering provisions she alleged were never agreed upon, including authority to execute Transfers of Rights. Edna later learned that multiple Transfers of Rights were executed purporting to transfer lots to Petronila’s family and to respondent’s immediate family—his wife Evangeline Watin and sons Ronald V. Watin and Richard V. Watin—and that portions had been sold for modest sums. Edna alleged that her signature on the June 11, 1996 SPA was forged and that the notarization by Atty. Watin facilitated the unauthorized transfers.

Criminal and Civil Cases Initiated

Following discovery of the transfers, Edna filed a criminal complaint for estafa through falsification of documents on August 21, 2002, and a civil action for declaration of nullity of the Transfers on October 1, 2002 before the RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 4201. The Office of the City Prosecutor of Digos City found probable cause on April 22, 2004 that Petronila and Eduardo committed forgery and multiple counts of estafa, resulting in Informations filed in MCTC Criminal Case No. 241(04). Those pending proceedings bore upon the genuineness of the SPA and related Transfers.

Allegations Against the Respondent

Edna charged Atty. Watin in an administrative complaint for preparing and notarizing the purportedly forged SPA, and for notarizing subsequent Transfers of Rights while cases challenging the SPA were pending. She alleged that respondent’s wife and sons benefited from transfers that stemmed from the SPA. She also asserted that a Transfer of Rights in favor of Ariel Asturia was notarized by respondent during the pendency of the criminal and civil cases.

Respondent’s Position

Atty. Watin denied wrongdoing and characterized the complaint as harassment and bad faith. He asserted that Edna received proceeds from the sales through Petronila and later disowned her own signature after property values increased. He maintained that he prepared the SPA at Edna’s request, that Edna signed it, and that he acted as counsel for Petronila in the later criminal and civil cases. He denied notarizing the Transfer in favor of Ariel, submitting that Ariel’s affidavit recounted forgery of respondent’s signature by a former secretary and that respondent had terminated that employee for forging his signature. Respondent also submitted affidavits from his secretary and from Petronila to support his account and claimed willingness to submit signatures for expert examination.

IBP Proceedings and Recommendation

The Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala, reviewed the records and credited Edna’s version and the City Prosecutor’s finding of probable cause as indicating misconduct. The IBP Report and Recommendation dated October 3, 2014 found respondent guilty of misconduct for notarizing the SPA and for notarizing a Deed of Sale executed by Petronila in favor of Ariel during the pendency of cases where respondent was defense counsel. The IBP recommended suspension from the practice of law for two years.

IBP Board Resolutions on Reconsideration

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation in Resolution No. XXI-2015-166 dated February 20, 2015 and suspended Atty. Watin from the practice of law for two years. Respondent filed motions for reconsideration, asserting among other points that the Transfer to Ariel was not notarized by him during the pendency of the estafa cases and reiterating the alleged forgery by his former secretary. The IBP denied reconsideration in Resolution No. XXII-2016-634 dated November 29, 2016.

Issues Presented to the Court

The material issues were whether Atty. Watin committed ethical violations warranting discipline: whether he was disqualified from notarizing the SPA under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, whether his notarization improperly produced direct or indirect benefits to his immediate family, whether he committed a conflict of interest by representing Petronila after preparing and notarizing the SPA for Edna, and whether he notarized the Transfer in favor of Ariel while the cases were pending.

The Court’s Approach to Forensic Questions of Forgery

The Supreme Court emphasized that a disbarment proceeding is not the proper forum to conclusively determine whether a document is forged. The Court noted that the Office of the City Prosecutor’s finding of probable cause is not equivalent to a judicial determination and that the dispute over the SPA’s genuineness should be resolved in the civil or criminal proceedings pending before the RTC and the MCTC. The Court recalled the presumption of regularity that attaches to notarized public documents and stated that allegations of forgery require clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant evidence to overcome that presumption.

Notarial Disqualification under the 2004 Notarial Rules

Applying Section 3, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the Court held that a notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act when he will receive, directly or indirectly, any advantage or when the notary is related to the principal within the fourth civil degree. The Court found that transfers traced to the SPA benefited respondent’s immediate family, specifically his sons and wife, and that Section 3(b) prohibits not only direct but also indirect benefits resulting from a notarial act. The Court concluded that Atty. Watin was disqualified from notarizing the SPA because his notarization produced indirect benefits to members of his immediate family and thus violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the then-applicable Code of Professional Responsibility, now subsumed in the CPRA.

Conflict of Interest and Ethical Violations

The Court found that Atty. Watin established a lawyer-client relationship with Edna when he prepared and notarized the SPA and later represented Petronila in litigation directly opposing Edna’s interests in Civil Case No. 4201 and Criminal Case No. 241(04). Such successive representation without written informed consent of all concerned contravened the conflict-of-interest prohibition in Canon 15.03 of the CPR and Section 13, Canon III of the CPRA, which forbids representing conflicting interests except by written informed consent after full disclosure. The Court held that respondent’s representation of Petronila transgressed that prohibition.

Credibility Determination Regarding the Transfer to Ariel

Regarding the alleged notarization of the Transfer of Rights in favor of Ariel Asturia, the Court observed that notarized documents enjoy a presumption of regularity but that Ariel’s own affidavit dated November 4, 2015 admitted irregularity and recounted that respondent’s former secretary forged respondent’s signature and sought payment. The Court treated Ariel’s admission against interest as credible and determinative insofar as it undermined the presumption of regularity of that particular Transfer. The negative certification from the Clerk of Court, which reflected no file copy of the June 2004 notarized Transfer, further negated Edna’s specific accusation that respondent notarized that document while counsel for Petronila. Consequently, the Court found no substantial evidence to hold respondent accountable for notarizing the Transfer in Ariel’s favor.

Legal Basis for Discipline and Penalty Assessment

The Court found that respondent’s failure to comply with

...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