EN BANC
[A. C. No. 4738.
VIOLETA FLORES ALITAGTAG, complainant, vs. ATTY.
VIRGILIO R. GARCIA, respondent.
RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM:
Now before us is a petition for disbarment[1] against respondent Atty. Virgilio R. Garcia
for the falsification of a deed of donation and notarizing the same.
The facts, as found by the Investigating Commissioner of the
Integrated Bar of the
"Upon a thorough and careful review of the records of this case, including the testimonial and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, we have noted the following undisputed facts, to wit:
1. Cesar B. Flores was a retired military officer who had two (2) families, namely:
(a) His
legitimate family with his lawful spouse Veronica Don from whom he was legally
separated on
(b) His second family with one Magdalena Gamad with whom he had four children including Maria Eugenia Flores, who is the wife of respondent Atty. Virgilio Garcia.
2. In the questioned Deed of
Donation covering a parcel of land in Bagong Ilog,
(a) Cesar B. Flores - as the alleged Donor;
(b) Gregorio Gamad Flores - the brother of Maria Eugenia, hence, the brother-in-law of respondent Atty. Virgilio Garcia, as the DONEE;
(c) Ma. Eugenia Gamad Flores Garcia - the wife of respondent Atty. Virgilio Garcia, as a witness to the Deed of Donation;
(d) Magdalena Gamad Flores - the mother of Gregorio and Maria Eugenia and the mother-in-law of respondent Atty. Virgilio Garcia, as a witness to the Deed of Donation;
(e) Respondent Atty. Virgilio Garcia – as the Notary Public who notarized the Deed of Donation.
3. Respondent Atty. Virgilio Garcia was later on appointed as attorney-in-fact of the Donee, his brother-in-law Gregorio, who upon acquiring title in his name over the property, authorized respondent Atty. Virgilio Garcia to administer the property, and, later by a second special power of attorney, to sell the property.
4. The PNP Crime
Laboratory's Questioned Document Report No. 128-96 certified that the
questioned signature in the Deed of Donation and the standard signatures of the
late Cesar B.
5. Under date of October 1, 1999, the Regional Trial court of Pasig, Branch 71, in Civil Case No. 65883 entitled "Heirs of Cesar Flores, et al. vs. Gregorio Flores, et al.," an action brought to nullify the Deed of Donation, rendered its decision [declaring the deed of donation falsified and hence, null and void] xxx."
Notwithstanding his findings, investigating commissioner Victor
V. Fernandez recommended the dismissal of the charges. However, the Board of Governors, Integrated
Bar of the
We find the facts narrated above to be fully supported by the evidence. However, the penalty recommended is not acceptable. Respondent's conduct warrants his severance from the legal profession for life.
Act 2103, Section 1[4] provides that a notary public "shall
certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to
him and that he is the same person who executed it, and acknowledged that the
same is his free act and deed." Respondent
submitted that the deed of donation is authentic. He assisted his father-in-law, the donor, in
executing the same. By notarizing the
document, he likewise acknowledged that the signature therein is the donor's
true signature.
The evidence revealed the contrary. After examining several specimen signatures,
the PNP Crime Laboratory, Questioned Documents Section,[5] found that the signature in the deed of
donation is different from the usual signature of the donor, Cesar Flores.
Respondent as notary did not submit a copy of the notarized deed
of donation to the Office of the Clerk of Court,
Respondent lawyer is privy to the donor, his father-in-law. He cannot feign innocence in the execution of
the document, considering that he was appointed attorney-in-fact by the donee,
his brother-in-law, with the broad power of administering and selling the
property donated. Respondent and his
wife, an illegitimate daughter of Cesar Flores, were negotiating the sale of
the property in question.[8] His notarization of the falsified deed of
donation, with intent to gain by his appointment as attorney-in-fact,
demonstrates an "active role to perpetuate a fraud, a deceitful act to
prejudice a party."[9]
"Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver
responsibility is placed upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey
the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any."[10] In Maligsa v. Cabanting, we held, thus:
"As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent is
mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties appreciating to his office, such
duties being dictated by public policy impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the
legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment of jurat is sacrosanct. Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent
upon and failing therein, he must now accept the commensurate consequences of
his professional indiscretion. By his
effrontery of notarizing a fictitious or spurious document, he has made a
mockery of the legal solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment."[11]
In the case at bar, respondent violated his solemn oath as a
lawyer not to engage in unlawful, dishonest or deceitful conduct.[12] He maintained that the signature of the
donor was a genuine despite the finding of experts to the contrary. He also tried to make a mockery of the legal
profession by advancing the flimsy excuse that his failure to submit a copy of
the document to the Clerk of Court was his secretary's fault.
There is also a showing that respondent harassed the occupants of
the property subject of the donation. He
asked Meralco to disconnect its services to the property, threatening law suits
if his demands were not heeded.[13] He also posted security guards to intimidate
the occupants of the property.[14] Clearly, respondent's acts caused dishonor
to the legal profession.[15]
A notary who acknowledged a document that was a forgery destroys
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. He does not deserve to continue as member of
the bar.[16]
IN VIEW WHEREOF, we find respondent VIRGILIO R. GARCIA guilty of grave misconduct rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession. We order him DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant, who
shall forthwith record it in the personal file of respondent; the Court
Administrator, who shall inform all courts of the
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,
Mendoza, Panganiban, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
Quisumbing, and Carpio,
JJ., on official business abroad.
[1] Rollo, pp.
1-3.
[2] Rollo, pp.
90, et seq.
[3] Ibid.
[4] "An Act
providing for the Acknowledgment and Authentication of Instruments and
Documents within the Philippine Islands," cited in
[5] Petition, Annex
"E", Rollo, p. 14.
[6] Petition, Annexes
"F", "F-1" and "F-2", Rollo, pp. 15-17.
[7] Comment to Petition
(Rollo, pp. 31-40, at p. 38).
[8] Reply to Comment,
pp. 66-74, at p. 70.
[9] Flores v.
Chua, 366 Phil. 132, 152 (1999).
[10] Ibid., at p.
153.
[11] Maligsa v.
Cabanting, 338 Phil. 912, 917 (1997).
[12] Rule 1.01, Code of
Professional Responsibility.
[13] Exh. "I",
Reply to Comment (Rollo, p. 85).
[14] Reply to Comment (Rollo,
pp. 66-74, at p. 71).
[15] Gonato v. Adaza, 328 SCRA 694
(2000); Tapucar v. Tapucar, 355 Phil. 66 (1998).
[16] Flores v.
Chua, supra, Note 9; Villarin v.
Sabate, Jr., 325 SCRA 123, 128 (2000).