Title
Tejada vs. Herdo
Case
A.C. No. 2427
Decision Date
May 8, 1992
A lawyer was suspended for grave misconduct after notarizing a forged deed of sale and participating in a fraudulent revocation, despite the complainant's withdrawal.
A

Case Summary (A.C. No. 2427)

Allegations Against Respondent

The Complaint, filed on February 19, 1992, charges Judge Harold M. Hernando with gross dishonesty and malpractice. The allegations primarily stem from actions that reportedly occurred while Respondent was still a practicing lawyer before his appointment to the judiciary on October 25, 1975. The acts in question involve the preparation and notarization of a Deed of Sale that allegedly contained the forged signature of a deceased individual, Vitaliano Quetulio.

Circumstances of Forgery

On October 29, 1973, Respondent notarized a Deed of Sale that bore the signature of Quetulio, who had died 18 years prior to the document's execution. Respondent was previously the legal counsel for Quetulio's widow, Felipa, making it implausible for him to be unaware of Quetulio's death. The alleged forgery remained undiscovered until the resolution of Civil Case No. 4743-II, where the validity of the disputed properties was questioned.

Additional Acts of Malpractice

The Complaint further alleges that, on July 2, 1977, Respondent acted as a witness for a Deed of Revocation and Acknowledgment of Ownership that also carried a forged signature of Fermin Edra, the vendee, who had died a month prior. This act further complicates the case against him, as it indicates potential involvement in multiple acts of forgery.

Respondent's Defense

In response to the allegations, Respondent denied all charges while asserting that the Deed of Sale was revoked and thus considered void. He also attempted to shift blame for the alleged forgery to the notary who notarized the Deed of Revocation, claiming he had no involvement with its disputed signatures.

Withdrawal of Complaint

On November 9, 1982, Complainant filed a motion to withdraw the Complaint, citing a realization of a mistake in judgment. However, Respondent then changed his narrative, claiming that Quetulio had actually returned from the United States in 1973, contrary to the established facts regarding Quetulio’s death.

Administrative Proceedings and Findings

The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) under Rule 139-B, and a hearing took place. Despite Complainant’s absence, the IBP recommended a six-month suspension for Respondent for his involvement in fraudulent documentation. The initial motion to withdraw the complaint did not absolve the Respondent from the administrative charges.

Court's Ruling

In its decision, the Court rejected Respondent's defenses and reiterated that sufficient evidence corroborated Quetul

...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.