A.C. No. 11889 - Talaboc vs. Agcaoili and Oliveros

Case Summary (A.C. No. 11889)

Origins of the Ombudsman Complaint

The complainants alleged that certain MOAs were “notarized” using notarial particulars of the respondents. They asserted that Ben Hur Luy forged the signatures of the respondents and used their registers, stamps, and seals. They further alleged that Atty. Oliveros—described as Janet Lim Napoles’s (JLN) wedding godson—was aware of the use of his name, register, and seal, and that JLN paid for his “services” in cash or checks issued in his name. As to Atty. Talaboc and Atty. Agcaoili, the complainants alleged that their names, registers, stamps, and seals were provided by one Tess Rodino, and that JLN issued checks in the names of the latter two notaries public, which were picked up by Tess Rodino and/or her husband.

The complainants characterized the alleged acts as a “blatant violation of the rules on notarial practice,” contending that the respondents allowed, for a fee, the use of their notarial seals, stamps, and registers and the forging of their signatures in documents used for the release and liquidation of the PHP 900 million Malampaya Fund.

The OMB’s Joint Resolution and Joint Order

In its Joint Resolution, the OMB made critical findings and qualifications. It pronounced that the respondents “did not notarize the documents used in the request and release” of the PHP 900 million Malampaya Fund, and it credited testimony that supported that conclusion. It also found “insufficient proof” that the respondents had knowledge or were part of the scheme. Despite these conclusions, the OMB recommended disciplinary action to the Supreme Court for violating the Notarial Rules by allegedly allowing the use of their signatures, notarial seals, and notarial registers in return for a fee or retainer.

After the filing of motions for reconsideration, the OMB resolved them in a Joint Order dated August 30, 2017, reiterating that recommendation and forwarding the resulting record to the Supreme Court through the Office of the Bar Confidant.

Referral to the IBP and the Procedural Course

The Supreme Court referred the matter to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation. The IBP-CBD ordered the respondents to submit their respective answers to the OMB’s complaint. Only Atty. Agcaoili submitted an Answer. The IBP scheduled a Mandatory Conference on December 3, 2018, but only counsel for the OMB appeared; the mandatory conference was then reset to January 28, 2019, upon motion of the respondents. Atty. Talaboc moved to reset the conference to February 25, 2019, and later, on March 4, 2019, the IBP held the mandatory conference with counsel for the OMB appearing and only Atty. Agcaoili present for the respondents.

Because Atty. Talaboc and Atty. Oliveros were absent and Atty. Agcaoili denied the allegations, the IBP terminated the mandatory conference and required the respondents to submit verified position papers within a non-extendible period of ten days from March 4, 2019.

Issues Framed by the Ombudsman and the Parties’ Defenses

In its Position Paper, the OMB alleged administrative liability for violating the 2004 Notarial Rules. The OMB’s theory consisted of three main strands: first, that the respondents—commissioned notaries public in 2009 and 2010, except for Atty. Agcaoili—performed notarial acts outside their place of work or business by allegedly allowing employees at the JLN Corporation office to do so using their stamps, seals, registers, and specimen signatures, in alleged contravention of Rule IV, Section 2(a); second, that they allowed notarial acts without the signatories appearing personally, and that the proofs of identities were merely Community Tax Certificates (cedula), allegedly violating Rule IV, Section 2(b); and third, that the respondents profited from the scheme, allegedly violating Section 4(a) of the Notarial Rules as a refusal to notarize when the notary knows or has good reason to believe the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or immoral.

Atty. Agcaoili filed a Belated Position Paper (with Apology) denying that he notarized the questioned documents. He averred that he ascertained the identities and qualifications of persons appearing before him and required valid and authorized identification documents. He further stated that all his notarial paraphernalia were kept in a safe and locked drawer. He claimed that, during an investigation by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on Luy to determine who signed above the name “Delfin Agcaoili, Jr.” as notary public, Luy admitted that he did so. He also alleged that after Luy caused the request for a spurious affidavit of loss and the notarization of that affidavit, the culprit looked for another person who could imitate the notary’s dry seal and rubber stamp.

Atty. Talaboc filed several motions for extension to file her position paper but failed to comply. Atty. Oliveros filed no pleading, and notices sent to him at the address provided by the OMB were returned unserved. The IBP later directed the respondents to file position papers to specified addresses, including to Atty. Oliveros’s residence as appearing in IBP records.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner’s Findings and Recommended Penalties

In the IBP’s Report and Recommendation, the IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner found all three respondents guilty of violating the Notarial Rules. The Investigating Commissioner recommended that each be suspended from the practice of law for six months, that their notarial commission, if subsisting, be immediately revoked, and that they be disqualified as notaries public for two years.

The Investigating Commissioner pointed out that there were 95 documents appearing to have been notarized by Atty. Oliveros, 132 by Atty. Talaboc, and 104 by Atty. Agcaoili. He emphasized that in the questioned documents, cedula appeared as the proof of identities, while some documents did not indicate competent evidence of identity at all. He further reasoned that the OMB’s findings, as encapsulated in its Joint Resolution, would lead a reasonably prudent person to believe that Atty. Oliveros had actual knowledge that JLN Corporation, through Luy, used his notarial details, while Atty. Agcaoili and Atty. Talaboc were allegedly negligent in safekeeping their notarial details. The Investigating Commissioner concluded that the respondents may have allowed JLN Corporation to use their names and notarial details to facilitate notarization in blatant violation of the Notarial Rules. He also noted the alleged receipt of cash or checks issued in their names.

The Investigating Commissioner rejected full deniability as a basis to avoid administrative liability because the notarial seals on the documents bore the respondents’ seals. He also concluded that the respondents offered no justifiable reasons to prove that they performed their mandatory duties under the Notarial Rules, including the duty to safeguard notarial seals to prevent tampering or misuse. He held that, had the respondents been more vigilant, their seals would not have been affixed in the questioned documents.

The IBP Board of Governors Resolution

The IBP Board of Governors, in Resolution No. CBD-XXV-2022-03-21 dated March 17, 2022, adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation, imposing the same penalties on each respondent: a six-month suspension, immediate revocation of their notarial commissions if subsisting, and disqualification for two years to be commissioned as notaries public.

The Supreme Court’s Evaluation of Burden of Proof and Substantial Evidence

Upon review, the Supreme Court set aside the IBP’s findings and recommendation. The Court framed the analysis around the evidentiary burden in administrative disciplinary proceedings against lawyers. It reiterated that an attorney is presumed innocent of charges until the contrary is proved and that complainants carry the burden of establishing the allegations by substantial evidence. It stressed that reliance on mere allegations, conjectures, and suppositions cannot sustain an administrative complaint. It further held that charges based merely on suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.

The Court referenced the principles stated in cases such as Tan v. Atty. Alvarico, emphasizing that in disbarment and disciplinary contexts the quantum of proof is substantial evidence and that complainants must provide adequate relevant evidence. It also relied on decisions holding that mere allegation is not equivalent to proof, and that the respondents in lawyer-discipline matters enjoy the presumption of innocence. The Court also reiterated that failure to answer a complaint is not tantamount to admission of allegations.

In the case at bar, the Court held that the OMB failed to discharge its burden of proof. It found that the portion relied upon by the Investigating Commissioner consisted of “whistleblowers’ statements,” which were characterized as mere allegations. The Court found no sufficient proof that the respondents consented to the use of their signatures, notarial seals, and notarial registers in return for a fee. Critically, the Court noted that although the complaint alleged that respondents allowed use of their notarial registers for a fee, no notarial register was presented before the IBP. It likewise found no proof that the respondents received money in exchange for the alleged use of their names and notarial paraphernalia.

Doubts Raised by Irregularities in Notarial Certificates and Notarial Commission Details

The Supreme Court also found that irregularities in the documents and their notarial details cast doubt on the conclusions regarding negligence and liability. It examined summaries of notarial certificates and concluded that the contents did not fully comply with the Notarial Rules. For Atty. Talaboc, the Court found that the notarial certificates did not contain the serial number of her notarial commission, her office address, her IBP chapter, and the place where her profe

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 11889)

Nature of the Proceedings

The case arose as a disciplinary action against Attys. Editha P. Talaboc, Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr., and Mark S. Oliveros for alleged irregular notarization of documents involved in criminal complaints for plunder.
The alleged irregular notarization implicated purported violations of Republic Act No. 3019, Republic Act No. 6713, Republic Act No. 9184, and Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code, as well as administrative liability for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) docketed and consolidated the complaints as OMB-C-C-13-0357, and the OMB ultimately forwarded a recommendation for action to the Court.
The Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) for investigation, report, and recommendation.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The complainants before the OMB were the National Bureau of Investigation, represented by Medardo De Limos, Levito D. Baligod, and Lourdes P. Benipayo.
The respondents were Atty. Editha P. Talaboc, Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr., and Atty. Mark S. Oliveros.
The OMB recommended disciplinary action based on a Joint Resolution dated December 19, 2016 and reiterated the recommendation in an August 30, 2017 Joint Order.
The IBP-CBD required respondents to submit their answers to the OMB complaint, and only Atty. Agcaoili submitted an Answer.
The IBP conducted a mandatory conference, which proceeded despite the absence of Atty. Talaboc and Atty. Oliveros, and the conference was terminated with an order for respondents to submit verified position papers within a non-extendible period.
Atty. Talaboc filed motions for extension but did not file the position paper, while Atty. Oliveros failed to file any pleading or motion.
The Court reviewed the complete records after the IBP issued a Report and Recommendation and after the IBP Board of Governors adopted it.

Key Factual Allegations

The complainants alleged that the MOAs were “notarized” by Ben Hur Luy (Luy) through forgery of the signatures of Attys. Talaboc et al., using their registers, stamps, and seals.
The complainants alleged that Atty. Oliveros was aware of the use of his name, register, and seal, and that JLN allegedly paid for “services” in cash or checks issued in his name.
The complainants alleged that the names, registers, stamps, and seals of Atty. Talaboc and Atty. Agcaoili were allegedly provided by Tess Rodino, and that JLN issued checks in their names picked up by Tess Rodino and/or her husband.
The complainants asserted that the respondents “allowed, for a fee,” the use of their notarial paraphernalia and the forging of their signatures in documents tied to the release and liquidation of the PHP 900 million Malampaya Fund.
The OMB concluded in its resolution that the evidence did not sufficiently prove respondents’ knowledge or participation in the scheme, but still recommended discipline for violation of the rules on notarial practice through the alleged allowance of their signatures, seals, and registers for a fee or retainer.

Statutory and Rules Framework

The Court treated the administrative inquiry as one governed by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice under SC Administrative Matter No. 02-8-13-SC (August 1, 2004).
The OMB and IBP invoked Notarial Rules, Rule IV, Section 2(a), which prohibits a notary public from performing notarial acts outside the notary’s regular place of work or business.
The OMB and IBP also invoked Notarial Rules, Rule IV, Section 2(b), which prohibits notarization when the signatory is not in the notary’s presence and is not personally known or identified through competent evidence of identity.
The charge included Notarial Rules, Section 4(a) on refusal to notarize when the notary knows or has good reason to believe the transaction is unlawful or immoral.
The Court assessed the contents of notarial certificates under Notarial Rules, Rule VIII, Section 2.
The Court considered the jurisdiction and term of notarial authority under Notarial Rules, Rule III, Section 11, stating that a notarial commission is valid for two years.
In the disciplinary portion related to procedure and compliance, the Court relied on the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), especially Canon III, Section 2, and Canon VI on less serious offenses, sanctions, and modifying circumstances.

OMB Findings and Recommendation

The OMB’s Joint Resolution and subsequent Joint Order focused on alleged irregularities tied to notarial practice connected to the Malampaya Fund documents.
The OMB pronouncement stated that respondents did not notarize the documents, as allegedly shown by witness testimony.
The OMB found insufficient proof that respondents had knowledge or were part of the scheme.
Despite the OMB’s lack of proof on knowledge and participation, it recommended disciplinary action for violating the rules on notarial practice by allegedly allowing the use of signatures, notarial seals, and notarial registers in return for a fee or retainer.

IBP-CBD Investigation

The IBP CBD ordered respondents to submit answers, but procedural noncompliance shaped the development of the record.
The Investigating Commissioner reported that there were 95 documents appearing to be notarized by Atty. Oliveros, 132 documents by Atty. Talaboc, and 104 documents by Atty. Agcaoili.
The Investigating Commissioner found that some documents lacked competent evidence of identity in the notarized records and that the only proof of identities written in the documents was the cedula.
The Investigating Commissioner treated the OMB findings as showing that a reasonably prudent person would believe Atty. Oliveros had actual knowledge of the use of his notarial details.
The Investigating Commissioner concluded that Attys. Agcaoili and Talaboc were negligent in the safekeeping of their notarial details.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended that each respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months, that their notarial commissions, if subsisting, be immediately revoked, and that they be disqualified from being commissioned as notaries public for two years.
The Investigating Commissioner ruled that respondents could not claim full deniability because their notarial seals appeared on the documents.
The Investigating Commissioner also found no justifiable reasons for notarial compliance, emphasizing the duty to safeguard notarial seals against tampering or misuse.

IBP Board of Governors Resolution

The IBP Board of Governors, in Resolution No. CBD-XXV-2022-03-21 passed on March 17, 2022, approved and adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation.
The IBP Board of Governors imposed the same three-fold penalties on Atty. Editha P. Talaboc, Atty. Delfin Agcaoili, Jr., and Atty. Mark S. Oliveros, subject to the “if subsisting” proviso for commission revocation.

Court’s Standards of Proof

The Court reiterated that in disbarment and related administrative proceedings, a lawyer enjoys a presumption of innocence and that the complainant bears the burden of proof by substantial evidence.
The Court underscored that substantial evidence requires relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
The Court held that reliance on mere allegations, conjectures, and suppositions cannot support a finding of guilt.
The Court stressed that a failure to answer does not automatically constitute an admission of the allegations in a complaint.
The Court relied on precedent to state that an administrative complaint should not succeed wher