Case Summary (A.C. No. 11777)
Background of the Dispute
Edna Tan Malapit owned a parcel of land in Digos City, which she authorized Petronila Austria and her husband, Eduardo, to manage. In July 1994, Edna entered into an agreement with Petronila for the sale of her property, detailing a 10% commission for the sale. Edna sought Atty. Watin’s help to prepare the SPA to facilitate the sale. Upon reviewing the SPA, Edna discovered it contained provisions allowing Petronila to sign a Transfer of Rights, which Edna had not consented to, leading her to refuse to sign the document. Atty. Watin notarized the SPA without her consent, and unbeknownst to her, it was later used to transfer her land to third parties.
Allegations of Fraud and Forgery
Edna discovered in 2002 that her property had been sold through purportedly forged documents, stemming from the SPA Atty. Watin had notarized in 1996. Subsequent actions against Petronila for estafa and civil suits to declare the transactions void were initiated. The City Prosecutor found probable cause for forgery and estafa charges against Petronila and Eduardo.
Respondent’s Defense and Counterclaims
Atty. Watin maintained that Edna's complaints were baseless and constituted harassment. He asserted that Edna had initially approved the SPA and received payment from Petronila after its execution. Watin claimed inconsistencies in Edna’s recollections and pointed out that her husband, Cenon, was implicated in the ownership and transaction of the property. He asserted that Edna had erased Eduardo's name from the document before signing.
Findings of the IBP Commission
The Investigation Commission of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Atty. Watin guilty of misconduct. The Commission underscored that the validity of the notarized SPA was questioned due to probable forgery, and Atty. Watin's involvement in notarizing the Transfer of Rights during ongoing legal proceedings constituted a serious violation of ethical standards. The IBP recommended a two-year suspension.
Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors
The IBP Board of Governors ratified the findings of the investigative commission, imposing a two-year suspension on Atty. Watin for his unethical actions. The Board upheld the misconduct related to the notarization of fraudulent documents and the conflict of interest arising from his dual representation.
Motion for Reconsideration
Atty. Watin filed motions for reconsideration, arguing that the Transfer of Rights he was accused of notarizing was executed outside the pendency of the criminal and civil cases, and denying he was representing Petronila at that time. His claims were countered by testimony from Ariel Asturia, who indicated that Atty. Watin's secretary forged his signature on documents. The IBP denied the motion, affirming the original decision to suspend Watin.
Court Ruling
The court recognized
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 11777)
Background and Context
- This is an administrative disbarment complaint filed by Edna Tan Malapit against Atty. Rogelio M. Watin for unethical behavior violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
- The land in dispute is located in Mabini Extension, Digos City, covered by Tax Declaration No. ARF No. 96-02-019-01655.
- Edna appointed Petronila Austria and her husband Eduardo Austria to manage and eventually sell portions of her property, with a 10% commission agreement.
- Atty. Watin prepared and notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly giving Petronila authority not only to sell but also to sign Transfer of Rights documents, which Edna never agreed upon.
Factual Allegations and Claims
- Edna refused to sign the SPA after discovering the unauthorized provisions but Atty. Watin notarized the document as if signed by her.
- Various parcels of the land were sold under SPAs allegedly forged by Petronila, who was also accused of estafa and falsification of documents.
- Atty. Watin acted as legal counsel for Petronila in related civil and criminal cases.
- Members of Atty. Watin's family, namely his wife Evangeline and sons Ronald and Richard, benefitted from the disputed property transfers.
- A disputed Transfer of Rights to Ariel Asturia was allegedly notarized by Atty. Watin during pending criminal cases involving Petronila.
Defense and Counterclaims by Atty. Watin
- Denies forgery allegations and claims the complaint is harassment.
- Asserts Edna received proceeds from the sale and later disowned her signature upon property appreciation.
- Claims the SPA was prepared according to Edna's instructions and signed by her and witnesses including her husband Cenon Tan.
- Argues that the real owner of the property was Cenon Tan, transferred nominally to Edna.
- Denies notarizing the Transfer to Ariel Asturia; the signature on the document was forged by his office secretary.
- Counterclaimed for damages against Edna for malicious filing of the complaint.
Investigation and Findings of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
- Commissioner Villanueva-Maala recommended a two-year suspension for Atty. Watin.
- Found probable cause supporting Edna's forgery allegations and Petronila's estafa charges.
- Noted Atty. Watin notarized a Deed of Sale to Ariel Asturia despite pending cases.
- The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation suspending Atty. Watin for two years.
Court's Analysis on Administrative Liability
- Disbarment proceedings are not proper for resolving forgery allegat