Case Summary (A.C. No. 6909)
Allegations and Initial Response
In his response dated December 5, 2005, Atty. Ortiz denied any involvement in the notarization. He claimed that his signature on the Deed of Sale was forged, citing discrepancies with his known signature specimens and the absence of his notarial seal on the document. Despite requesting the dismissal of the complaint, the case continued through the IBP's investigation process.
Proceedings Before the IBP
During a scheduled conference on October 25, 2006, Atty. Vecino’s counsel indicated a withdrawal of the complaint. However, complications arose when a compromise agreement was submitted, and Atty. Ortiz expressed concerns, refusing to sign the agreement on November 9, 2006. A subsequent hearing on November 29, 2006, failed to yield a resolution, leading to directives from Commissioner Cecilio A.C. Villanueva for position papers from both parties.
IBP Recommendation and Findings
Commissioner Villanueva's Report and Recommendation, dated June 6, 2007, concluded that the complaint should be dismissed due to insufficient evidence proving Atty. Ortiz's involvement in notarizing the deed. Nevertheless, he recommended a one-month suspension of Atty. Ortiz's notarial commission for noncompliance with IBP directives concerning a position paper and a disclaimer regarding the alleged forgery.
Court's Decision and Modification of Penalty
The IBP Board of Governors adopted Commissioner Villanueva's findings and recommendations in a resolution dated June 19, 2007, received by the court on September 27, 2007. After thorough examination, the court concurred with the dismissal of the complaint due to lack of evidence against Atty. Ortiz but held him administratively liable for not su
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 6909)
Background of the Case
- The case originates from a Letter-Complaint dated September 15, 2005, filed by Luz Vecino against Atty. Gervacio B. Ortiz, Jr.
- Vecino accused Ortiz of notarizing a Deed of Sale in which one of the vendors, Manolito C. Espino, was deceased at the time of notarization.
- The complaint was submitted to the Office of the Bar Confidant.
Respondent's Denial and Claims
- In his Comment dated December 5, 2005, Atty. Ortiz denied any involvement in the notarization of the Deed of Sale.
- He asserted that his signature on the document was forged, evidenced by discrepancies when compared to his usual signatures.
- Ortiz noted that the Deed of Sale lacked his notarial seal and did not include the date of issue for his professional tax receipt.
- He requested the dismissal of the complaint based on these assertions.
IBP Investigation and Proceedings
- The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for further investigation and recommendations by a resolution dated April 3, 2006.
- During a scheduled mandatory conference on October 25, 2006, Atty. Rodolfo Mapile indicated that Vecino intended to withdraw the complaint.
- Atty. Ortiz expressed gratitude for the withdrawal, leading IBP Commissioner Cecilio A.C. Villanueva to direct both parties to submit necessary pleadings regarding the withdrawal.
Compromise Agreement and Subsequent Hearings
- Before the hearing set for November 9, 2006, Atty. Mapile submitted a compromise agreement signed