The issue is one of credibility. Complainants claim they never appeared before respondent for the notarization of their authority to Atty. Villanueva to handle the criminal case. On the other hand, respondent claims they appeared before him.
Complainants should be sustained. Napoleon Gonzaga positively testified that he signed the questioned authority in the San Antonio Church at Forbes Park in the afternoon of August 1, 1977 (pp. 30-33, tsn., Aug. 24, 1979); that Napoleon never met respondent before August 1, 1977 and it was only during the instant investigation that he met respondent (p. 84, tsn., Ibid); that Napoleon Gonzaga did not appear before respondent for ratification, first because the document did not contain a jurat when he signed it; second, because it was already 6:30 in the evening of August 1; that there was no hurry for them to have the document notarized; third after signing the document, Atty. Villanueva took the same from them, without giving them a copy; fourth, if they wanted it notarized, they could have gone to Atty. Arturo Alafriz who offered his help to them (pp. 30-32, tsn., Oct. 26, 1979; pp. 32-33, tsn., Aug. 24, 1979; pp. 45-50, tsn., May 31, 1983).
Likewise, Ricardo Gonzaga, who co-signed with his brother Napoleon (Exhs. E, D, pp. 130, 131, Inv.), positively testified that he never appeared before respondent for the notarization of said document on August 1, 1977, and it was only during the instant investigation that he met respondent (pp. 33-36, tsn., Jan. 5, 1980); that Atty. Villanueva did not give him nor his brother Napoleon, a copy of said document after they signed the same (p. 36, tsn., Ibid); that they were so busy with their parents' coffins at the Forbes Park Church, that they were not in a hurry to notarize said authorization (pp. 37-38, tsn., Ibid).
Dionisio Jakosalem Buencamino also positively testified that Napoleon Gonzaga was beside him at about 6:00 to 6:20 in the afternoon of August 1, 1977, just before the start of the 6:30 requiem mass at the Sanctuario de San Antonio for the parents of Napoleon Gonzaga, on the eve of their departure for the interment in Bacolod the following day; that he noticed Napoleon stepping aside a few moments before the start of the mass, and he (Buencamino) saw Napoleon signing a piece of paper, which Napoleon told him later, was the authority for Atty. Villanueva to file the criminal case against the killers of Napoleon's parents (pp. 10, 16-23, tsn., March 25, 1983).
As against said three (3) witnesses, namely Napoleon Gonzaga, Ricardo Gonzaga and Dionisio Jakosalem Buencamino, is the lone testimony of respondent, claiming that the document was not yet signed when the Gonzaga brothers presented the same to him for notarization at respondent's Padre Faura office at about 9:00 o'clock of August 1, 1977 (pp. 6, 9-10, 14, tsn., Aug. 7, 1980); that after examining the residence certificates of the Gonzagas which tallied with the residence certificates appearing in the prepared authorization, the Gonzaga brothers affixed their signatures in respondent's presence (pp. 14-17, tsn., Ibid).
Respondent's lone denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of said three (3) witnesses. Respondent could have presented his secretaries who were allegedly present when the alleged notarization took place to corroborate his testimony (pp. 271-272, Inv.). He chose not to present any of them. The testimony of Atty. Villanueva could have been availed of by respondent because complainants claim that their signatures were procured by Atty. Villanueva (see p. 40-41, tsn., June 26, 1980). Yet respondent did not present Atty. Villanueva.
Furthermore, the evidence is indisputable that respondent was in the practice of leaving blank spaces between entries in his Notarial Register with only the consecutive numbers of the documents listed (Exhs. L-1, M-1, N-1, N-2, O-1, O-2, P-1, Q-1, R-1, pp. 197-203, Inv.). He did not note on said spaces why they were left blank. From August 2, 1977 to August 11, 1977, he left no less than eleven (11) spaces blank between entries.
This is clear violation of Section 246 of the Revised Administrative Code, which states:
"No blank line shall be left. between entries."
This practice would make easy the ante-dating of documents for the convenience of the parties and of the Notary Public.
It is clear that the respondent has violated the oath he took as a member of the Bar that has resulted in extreme delay, inconvenience and damage to the complainants. There is no justification for this violation and corresponding penalty is called therefor.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.
(pp. 049-052, Rollo.)
