A.C. No. 6909 - Vecino vs. Ortiz, Jr.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 6909)

Factual Background

Vecino charged Atty. Ortiz with notarizing the Deed of Sale although one of the purported vendors, Manolito C. Espino, had already died long before the notarization. In his Comment dated December 5, 2005, Atty. Ortiz denied participation in the notarization of the Deed of Sale. He asserted that the signature attributed to him in the deed was forged, pointing out a disparity between the deed’s signature and his usual and customary signature specimens. He likewise noted that the deed did not bear his notarial seal and that the acknowledgment portion failed to state the date of issuance of his professional tax receipt.

Before the IBP, the proceedings initially moved toward settlement. On October 25, 2006, during the scheduled mandatory conference, Atty. Rodolfo Mapile manifested that Vecino was withdrawing the complaint. Atty. Ortiz expressed appreciation for the withdrawal. Commissioner Cecilio A.C. Villanueva then directed the parties to submit the necessary pleadings relating to the withdrawal at the next hearing set for November 9, 2006.

Before the November 9, 2006 hearing, Atty. Mapile submitted to the IBP stenographer a compromise agreement signed by Vecino, and he instructed the stenographer to ask Atty. Ortiz to sign during the hearing. Atty. Mapile allegedly had to leave early due to a scheduled medical check-up. Atty. Ortiz did not sign the compromise agreement because he had concerns regarding it. A subsequent hearing was therefore set on November 29, 2006.

At the November 29, 2006 hearing, the parties failed to reach a compromise. Commissioner Villanueva then required the filing of respective verified position papers on or before December 11, 2006. Both parties failed to submit their position papers.

IBP Proceedings and Report

In the Report and Recommendation dated June 6, 2007, Commissioner Villanueva recommended two principal outcomes: (1) the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that Vecino failed to prove Atty. Ortiz’s participation in the notarization of the Deed of Sale; and (2) the imposition of a one-month suspension of Atty. Ortiz’s notarial commission for failing to submit, as viewed by the Commissioner, both (a) a disclaimer at the moment he learned of the alleged use of his name and the forgery, and (b) his position paper. Commissioner Villanueva also stated that he was fully convinced that Atty. Ortiz’s signature in the Deed of Sale was forged.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Commissioner’s findings and recommendations in a Resolution dated June 19, 2007. The Supreme Court received a copy of that resolution on September 27, 2007.

The Supreme Court’s Assessment of the Evidence

Upon careful scrutiny of the records, the Court held that the recommended dismissal of the complaint was in order. The decisive point was the absence of any evidence substantiating Vecino’s allegation that it was Atty. Ortiz who notarized the Deed of Sale. The Court therefore sustained the dismissal on evidentiary grounds.

On the question of forgery, the Court declined to make a pronouncement. It explained that there was a pending case against Maria Elena Espino, the widow of Manolito Espino, for allegedly falsifying the same Deed of Sale. The Court thus refrained from resolving the forgery issue within the administrative complaint while the criminal or separate case remained pending.

Liability for Failure to Comply with IBP Directives

The Court nevertheless addressed administrative responsibility for procedural noncompliance. It agreed with the general proposition that Atty. Ortiz should be administratively liable for failing to submit his position paper, emphasizing that he was duty-bound to comply with all lawful directives of the IBP. The Court underscored that the IBP served as the Court-designated investigator of the case and that members of the Bar were obliged to cooperate with its lawful orders.

However, the Court modified the recommended penalty. It found the recommendation to hold Atty. Ortiz administratively liable for failure to submit a disclaimer to be unwarranted because, according to the Court, there was no law or rule requiring him to file such a disclaimer. Consequently, the Court treated the omission of a position paper as the administratively cognizable lapse, while excluding the “failure to file a disclaimer” as a basis for sanction.

Ruling and Disposition

The Court dismissed the administrative complaint. It did so in accordance w

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 6909)

This is a disciplinary proceeding under A.C. No. 6909 involving a complaint for notarial misconduct and alleged participation in the notarization of a Deed of Sale.
The case was initiated by Luz Vecino as Complainant and prosecuted against Atty. Gervacio B. Ortiz, Jr. as Respondent.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Luz Vecino filed a Letter-Complaint dated September 15, 2005 before the Office of the Bar Confidant accusing Atty. Gervacio B. Ortiz, Jr. of notarizing a Deed of Sale.
Atty. Ortiz filed a Comment dated December 5, 2005 denying participation and seeking dismissal.
The Court issued a Resolution dated April 3, 2006 referring the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
The IBP held scheduled proceedings including a mandatory conference on October 25, 2006, subsequent hearings on November 9, 2006 and November 29, 2006, and directed the parties to submit verified position papers due December 11, 2006.
The IBP Commissioner Cecilio A.C. Villanueva submitted a Report and Recommendation dated June 6, 2007.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report and recommendations in a resolution dated June 19, 2007.
The Supreme Court received a copy of the IBP resolution on September 27, 2007, and it rendered the final disposition by modifying the recommended penalty.

Key Factual Allegations

The complaint alleged that Atty. Ortiz notarized a Deed of Sale despite knowing that one of the supposed vendors, Manolito C. Espino, had long been dead.
The complaint implied wrongdoing tied to the notarization and the credibility of the transaction documents.
Atty. Ortiz denied participation in the notarization and asserted that his signature on the Deed of Sale was forged.
Atty. Ortiz supported his denial by pointing to the alleged disparity between the signature on the deed and specimens of his signature.
Atty. Ortiz also claimed evidentiary defects in the notarized document, including the absence of his notarial seal and an acknowledgment portion that allegedly failed to state the date of issue of his professional tax receipt.
Atty. Ortiz initially sought dismissal by denying that he signed or notarized the challenged deed.

Events During IBP Proceedings

At the October 25, 2006 mandatory conference, Atty. Rodolfo Mapile manifested that the complainant Vecino was withdrawing the complaint.
Atty. Ortiz expressed appreciation for the withdrawal.
IBP Commissioner Villanueva directed the parties to submit the necessary pleadings to effect the withdrawal on the next scheduled hearing on November 9, 2006.
Before the November 9, 2006 hearing, Atty. Mapile submitted a compromise agreement signed by Vecino to the IBP stenographer and asked Atty. Ortiz to sign it during the hearing.
Atty. Ortiz did not sign the compromise agreement because he had concerns regarding it.
When the case was heard again on November 29, 2006, the parties failed to re