Case Summary (A.C. No. 5426)
Allegations Against Atty. Flores
The core of the complaint revolves around an Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale prepared by Atty. Flores for Chita Pantoja-Mumar and 11 other co-heirs concerning a three-hectare property in Pangdan, Cambanay, Danao City. Chita alleges that the transaction did not occur as claimed, as the deed was allegedly not notarized and the respondent falsely represented that it was, violating his obligations under notarial law.
Details of Falsification
Chita asserts that Atty. Flores notarized a document that misrepresented the authenticity of a thumbmark from a co-heir, Maximina Pantoja, and that the deed was prepared fraudulently after the purported transaction date. The notarial act took place on December 29, 1987, while the actual transaction occurred later, according to declarations from the spouses involved in the sale.
Respondent's Defense
Atty. Flores denies all allegations, claiming the transaction was legitimate and that he had clear communication with Chita's representatives. He asserts that the delay in her signing did not invalidate the notarization, and he emphasizes that other co-heirs were present and participated accordingly.
Proceedings and Investigation
Following the filing of the complaint, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, where several hearings occurred. The Investigating Commissioner, Teresita J. Herbosa, noted that the validity of the sale is still contested in a civil action but established that Flores acted negligent in his duties as a notary.
Findings of the Investigating Commissioner
The commissioner highlighted several missteps by Atty. Flores, including that he performed notarization without all required parties being present and without confirming the authenticity of all signatures, including that of Maximina Pantoja. This raised serious questions about the legal integrity of the notarized document.
Recommendations by the Investigating Commissioner
In her report, the Commissioner recommended severe sanctions against Atty. Flores, including revoking his notarial commission and suspending him from law practice. This recommendation was based on Flores’ breaches of notarial law and ethical responsibilities as a lawyer.
Approval of Sanctions by the IBP
The IBP adopted the recommendations but modified the suspension duration from two years to one year. The board affirmed the respondent's failures in his notarial duties, reinforcing the importance of maintaining the integrity of notarizations in public interest.
Court Decision on Appeal
In the Supreme Court’s decision, Atty. Flores was found guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 5426)
Background of the Case
- The administrative case arises from a complaint filed by Chita Pantoja-Mumar against Atty. Januario C. Flores.
- The complaint includes serious allegations such as fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, falsification of documents, breach of duty, and violation of the attorney's oath.
- Complainant Chita Pantoja-Mumar is a compulsory heir of the late Jose Pantoja, Sr.
- Atty. Flores prepared an Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale for Chita and 11 other co-heirs concerning a three-hectare property in Pangdan, Cambanay, Danao City.
- The deed was executed in favor of spouses Filomena and Edilberto Perez, who later obtained a Torrens title over the property.
Allegations Against the Respondent
- Chita Pantoja-Mumar alleged that the transaction for the Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale did not occur, and the deed was not notarized.
- It was claimed that Atty. Flores notarized the document despite the absence of a legitimate transaction between the Pantojas and the Perezes.
- The complainant emphasized that the document was falsified, including a thumbmark that did not belong to Maximina Pantoja.
- Further allegations include that the notarization was done after June 13, 1988, while the document indicated December 29, 1987, as the notarization date.
- The complainant provided evidence, including declarations from the spouses Perez confirming the actual date of purchase.
Respondent's Defense
- Atty. Flores denied all charges and claimed that the notarization of the document was legitimate.
- He stat