Case Summary (A.C. No. 7231)
Allegations and Claims
The complainant claimed that the respondents submitted false documents in support of their application to cut coconut trees on land allocated to him. Specifically, he alleged that the Affidavits of No[n]-Encumbrance and Affidavits of Marking the Coconut Trees that were falsely notarized by Delante were critical to their application but lacked authenticity. Upon investigation, Rico found discrepancies in the notarial documents, with corresponding numbers from Delante's record referring to different documents.
Respondents' Defense
Respondent Delante denied the allegations, asserting that Madrazo and Tan appeared before him to swear to their affidavits and that any omissions in the notarial register were unintentional. Respondent Madrazo contended that the property was part of a larger estate and challenged Rico's claim regarding ownership, alleging Rico's actions were retaliatory following an earlier ejectment case. Tan, similarly, denied the allegations and cited a criminal case involving Rico for falsification of documents.
Procedural History
The IBP was tasked with investigating the complaint, during which Rico failed to attend mandatory conferences. Consequently, the IBP proceeded with the hearings, considering his absence a waiver of his right to participate. The Investigating Commissioner issued a report recommending dismissal of the complaints against Madrazo and Tan while suggesting reprimand for Delante for not adequately maintaining his notarial records.
IBP Recommendations and Court's Review
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner's findings, dismissing complaints against Madrazo and Tan due to insufficient evidence. Though it reversed the reprimand of Delante, it ordered him to be careful in the future. Rico’s motions for reconsideration were denied.
Burden of Proof and Findings
The Court reiterated that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the complainant. The Court found that Rico did not meet this burden regarding accusations against Madrazo and Tan. However, it identified enough evidence concerning Delante’s failure to properly maintain his notarial records, which constitutes a violation of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Legal Violations and Penalties
Delante’s actions — including duplicating notarial details and delegating his responsibilities improperly — violated several provisions. The Court concluded disciplinary action was warranted. Therefore, Delante was sanctioned with a three-month suspensi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 7231)
Case Overview
- The case involves a complaint filed by Edgar M. Rico against attorneys Jose R. Madrazo, Jr., Antonio V.A. Tan, and Leonido C. Delante.
- The complaint alleges grounds for suspension or disbarment, including fraud, conduct unbecoming a lawyer, and violations of the Notarial Law.
- The underlying issue centers on the respondents' application for a Permit to Cut coconut trees from a parcel of land claimed by Rico.
Allegations by the Complainant
- Rico claims to be an "allocatee" of a parcel of land in Davao City where coconut trees are grown.
- The respondents filed an application to cut these trees, attaching affidavits purportedly notarized by Delante.
- Rico discovered discrepancies in the notarization, including mismatched document and page numbers linked to other documents, suggesting the affidavits were invalid and fraudulent.
- The complainant asserts that this conduct constitutes gross misconduct and malpractice.
Responses from the Respondents
- Leonido C. Delante: Denies the allegations, stating that Madrazo and Tan appeared before him to acknowledge the affidavits. Claims the omission in the notarial register was an unintentional oversight by his secretary.
- Jose R. Madrazo: Argues that the property in question is part of a larger estate and that Rico's complaint is retaliatory, following a legal ruling against him in a related ejectment case.
- Antonio V.A. Tan: Also denies the allegations, asserting that Rico is illegally occupying the property and has been involved in falsifying documents. Tan states he was not comp