JOCELYN A. SAQUING,
Complainant,
A.C. No. 6678
October 9, 2006
- versus
-
ATTY. NOEL A. MORA,
Respondent.
x ------------------------------------- x
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Complainant Jocelyn A. Saquing seeks the disbarment of respondent Atty.
Noel A. Mora for grave misconduct for allegedly conspiring with spouses
Paulino and Manuela Mora in inducing her to buy an unregistered parcel
of land, and for performing a notarial act without a commission, he
being a lawyer of the Public Attorney’s Office
(PAO). chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Complainant alleged that in June 2004, she bought from the spouses Mora
7,828 square meter parcel of allegedly registered land located at Sitio
Paquiel, Camasi, Peñablanca, Cagayan, for P782,800.00.[1]
On July 8, 2004, she paid the amount of P550,000.00 to the spouses Mora
at the house of the respondent, who prepared a handwritten
acknowledgment receipt, which reads:[2]
chan robles virtual law library
ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT
This is to acknowledge receipt the amount of FIVE HUNDRED
FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P550,000.00) from MS. JOCELYN [A.] SAQUING as
partial payment of the Lot 108-3, PSU-(2f) 02-165983 Amd3 with an area
of Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Eight (7,828) square meters
located at Camasi, Peñablanca, Cagayan.
The balance in the amount of TWO HUNDRED THIRTY TWO THOUSAND
EIGHT HUNDRED PESOS (P232,800.00) shall be paid within the period of
three (3) months.
Executed this 8th day of July, 2004 at Tuguegarao City.
(Sgd.) JOCELYN [A.] SAQUING (Sgd.) PAULINO MORA
(Sgd.) MANUELA ASPA MORA
SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:cralaw:red
____________________________
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 8th day of July, 2004 at Tuguegarao.
(Sgd.) ATTY. NOEL A. MORA[3]
After payment of the remaining balance,
respondent prepared the Deed of Absolute Sale of a Portion of
Unregistered Land,[4] but complainant refused to affix her signature on
the deed because it was stated therein that the land was unregistered,
contrary to the representations of the spouses and the respondent.[5]
When the spouses Mora refused to return the contract price, complainant
filed a complaint for estafa against them at the City Prosecutor’s
Office, Tuguegarao City, and an administrative case for disbarment
against the respondent at the Office of the Bar Confidant.[6]
chan robles virtual law library
Respondent denied conspiring with spouses
Mora regarding the sale of the land. He alleged that before he
prepared the acknowledgment receipt, the parties had already agreed on
the terms of the contract; thus, there was no need for him to convince
complainant to buy the land. He admitted that he asked the
parties to subscribe the acknowledgment receipt and swear before him
but claimed that he did it only for complainant’s protection in case
any problem would arise. He denied giving any assurance that the
land was registered. In fact, he explained to her the status of
the case with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) and that the spouses were facilitating the titling of the
property in their names.[7] chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Complainant filed a Reply[8] to respondent’s comment, after which the
case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation.[9] In its Resolution
No. XVII-2006-238, dated April 27, 2006, the IBP Board of Governors
approved the report and recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner, Lolita A. Quisumbing, finding respondent guilty of
violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
for notarizing the Acknowledgment Receipt without notarial commission
and recommending that he be reprimanded with warning that repetition of
the same act will be dealt with more severely.[10]
This resolution is now before us for review.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of
proof is upon the complainant and this Court will exercise its
disciplinary power only if the former establishes its case by clear,
convincing, and satisfactory evidence.[11] Considering the
serious consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the
Bar, this Court has consistently held that clear preponderant evidence
is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative
penalty.[12]
Complainant’s evidence consists mainly of her Affidavit-Complaint,
Acknowledgment Receipt, Deed of Absolute Sale of a Portion of
Unregistered Land and her testimony before the Commission attesting to
the truth of the allegations in her affidavit.
We agree with the Investigating Commissioner that while the evidence of
complainant is sufficient to support the charge that respondent
notarized the Acknowledgment Receipt without a notarial commission, the
same however is insufficient to prove that respondent conspired with
spouses Mora in inducing her to purchase the land. Thus,
Other than complainant’s bare allegation, there is no extant proof
adequately showing that respondent told her that the property was
registered land. Instead, we find sufficient evidence to support
the finding that there was no connivance and that complainant was aware
that the property was still to be titled:
1. The
Acknowledgment Receipt describes the property as “Lot 108-3, PSU (2f)
02-165983 xxx” and not by TCT or OCT Number.
2. The Acknowledgment Receipt provides
that the balance shall be paid within a period of three (3)
months. Thus, complainant had sufficient time to demand or verify
if the property was registered with the Registry of Deeds. But
instead of doing so, she made further payments on 16 August 2004 and 8
September 2004.
3. Complainant was present when the property was
being surveyed for the purpose of segregating the lot to be adjudicated
to her. The status of the property was further explained to her
by Engr. Camb[r]i during the segregation survey of the property she
bought.
chan robles virtual law library
4. The Lot Descriptions attached to the
Survey Plan prepared by Engr. Cambri specifically states that Lot No.
15 was complainant’s.
5. The property was adjudicated to the
spouses Mora by the DENR in the Order dated 5 October 2001 which
already became final and executory. In a way, the title of
spouses of the lot was confirmed and in the process of making it
perfect through the approval of the subdivision plan and the
appropriate public land application. This was explained by
respondent to complainant since he is the lawyer of the spouses in the
DENR case.[13]
Anent the charge of notarizing a document
without a notarial commission, we agree that such an act violates Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which reads:
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
In Nunga v. Viray,[14] the Court held that:
Where the notarization of a
document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he
has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be
subjected to disciplinary action. For one, performing a notarial
without such commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the
laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making
it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all
legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which
the lawyer’s oath similarly proscribes. These violations fall
squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides: “A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”
For such misconduct, the Court has
sanctioned erring lawyers with suspension from the practice of law,
revocation of the notarial commission and disqualification from acting
as such, and even disbarment.[15]
Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, and, as
such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution
for only the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct
affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer
of the court and a member of the bar. Accordingly, disbarment
should not be decreed where any punishment less severe – such as a
reprimand, suspension, or fine – would accomplish the end desired.[16]
chan robles virtual law library
In Joson v. Baltazar,[17] the Court suspended a lawyer for three months
for unauthorized notarization of a deed of sale. Considering,
however, that in the instant case, it was only an Acknowledgment
Receipt that was notarized; that it was done to protect the
complainant; that it was the first offense of the respondent; and the
heavy workload of the respondent as Public Attorney, we find the
recommended penalty of reprimand sufficient under the present
circumstances. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing, Resolution No. XVII-2006-238, dated April 27, 2006, of the
IBP Board of Governors which adopted and approved the report and
recommendation of Investigating Commissioner Lolita A. Quisumbing,
finding respondent Atty. Noel A. Mora GUILTY
of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for notarizing an acknowledgment receipt without a
notarial commission and recommending that he be REPRIMANDED with warning that repetition of the same act will be dealt with more severely, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
PANGANIBAN, (C.J.), Chairperson, Martinez Callejo, Sr., Chico-Nazario,
JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, p. 2.
[2] Id.
[3] Id. at 10.
[4] Id. at 11.
[5] Id. at 3.
[6] Id.
[7] Id. at 45-47.
[8] Id. at 86-91.
[9] Id. at 92.
[10] Id. Notice of Resolution, IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, Board of Governors.
[11] Arienda v. Aguila, A.C. No. 5637, April 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 282, 287.
[12] Tabang v. Gacott, A.C. No. 6490, September 29, 2004, 439 SCRA 307, 312.
[13] Report of Investigating Commissioner Lolita A. Quisumbing, pp. 4-5.
[14] 366 Phil. 155, 161 (1999).
[15] Zoreta v. Simpliciano, A.C. No. 6492, November 18, 2004, 443 SCRA 1, 10.
[16] Suzuki v. Tiamson, A.C. No. 6542, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 129, 140.
[17] A.C. No. 575, February 14, 1991, 194 SCRA 114.
|