Manila
EN BANC
[ A.C. No. 7186. March 13, 2018 ]
ROMEO A. ZARCILLA AND MARITA BUMANGLAG, COMPLAINANTS, V. ATTY. JOSE C. QUESADA, JR., RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
Before us is a Petition for Disbarment1 dated February 9, 2006 filed by complainants Romeo A. Zarcilla (Zarcilla) and Marita Bumanglag (Bumanglag) against respondent Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. (Atty. Quesada) for gross misconduct.
The facts are as follows:
On August 5, 2002, complainant Zarcilla executed an Affidavit-Complaint2 against respondent Atty. Quesada and complainant Marita Bumanglag, among others, for falsification of public documents docketed as I.S. No. 02-128-SF. Zarcilla alleged that Bumanglag conspired with certain spouses Maximo Quezada and Gloria Quezada (Spouses Quezada) and Atty. Quesada to falsify a Deed of Sale3 dated April 12, 2002 by making it appear that his parents, Perfecto G. Zarcilla and Tarcela A. Zarcilla, sold a parcel of land under TCT No. T-18490 in favor of the Spouses Quezada despite knowledge that his parents were already deceased since March 4, 2001 and January 9, 1988, respectively, as per Death Certificates4 issued by the Office of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Santo Tomas, La Union. Said signing of deed of sale was allegedly witnessed by a certain Norma Zafe and Bumanglag, and notarized by Atty. Quesada.
Other than the alleged falsified deed of sale, Zarcilla also claimed that on March 20, 2002, the Spouses Quezada filed a petition for the administrative reconstitution of the original copy of TCT No. 18490 where they presented the Joint Affidavit of his then already deceased parents, the spouses Perfecto Zarcilla and Tarcela A. Zarcilla as the petitioners.5 Said Joint-Affidavit of the Spouses Quezada was again notarized by Atty. Quesada.
However, on October 9, 2002, Bumanglag executed a Counter-affidavit6 in the same case where she claimed to be the real owner of the property after Perfecto Zarcilla sold the same to her mother. Bumanglag also stated therein that she facilitated the sale transaction to the Spouses Quezada which, in effect, exonerated her co-respondents, including Atty. Quesada, the pertinent portion of which reads:
xxxx
6. That after the death of my mother I needed money to pay for the expenses she incurred when she was sick and need medication and all the (sic) to pay for the expenses of her burial. I offered to sell the property to Spouses MAX QUEZADA and GLORIA QUEZADA. I showed them the Deed of Sale between PERFECTO ZARCILLA and my mother. I also showed them the paper that my mother signed giving me the land;
7. That the Spouses Quezada told me that they will buy the land provided I will be the one to transfer the said land to their name. They gave me an advance payment so that I could transfer the land to them. I made it appear that PERFECTO ZARCILLA sold the property to the said spouses because the title of the land was still in the name of Perfecto Zarcilla. I did not have [any] criminal intent when I did it because the land no longer belong to Perfecto Zarcilla. I did all the subsequent acts like Petition for Reconstitution in the name of Perfecto Zarcilla because then, the title was still in his name. However, there was no damage to the heirs of PERFECTO ZARCILLA because the land had long been sold to my mother and the sons and daughters no longer had no legal claim to the said land;
8. That SPOUSES MAXIMO QUEZADA & GLORIA QUEZADA did not falsify any document because I was the one who facilitated the transaction knowing that the land I was selling really belonged to me. Not one of my brothers and (sic) sisters never (sic) complained when I sold the land. I just delivered the document to the Spouses MAXIMO QUEZADA & GLORIA QUEZADA including the title in their name. I was paid the balance after the Certificate of Title in their name was finally delivered.7
All other respondents in the said falsification case, except for Atty. Quesada, also filed their respective counter-affidavits where they reiterated Bumanglag's admission.8
In a Resolution9 dated April 14, 2003, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of La Union held Bumanglag only to undergo trial. All other respondents, including Atty. Quesada who did not even file his counter-affidavit, were exonerated for insufficiency of evidence.
Both Zarcilla and Bumanglag filed their respective motions for reconsideration, but both were denied. Consequently, Bumanglag was indicted for four counts of falsification of public documents before the Municipal Trial Court of Sto. Tomas, La Union, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 3594, 3595, 3597, and 3598.
However, Zarcilla later on withdrew said cases when he learned that Bumanglag was not aware of the contents of her counter-affidavit when she signed the same. He also found out that Bumanglag was deceived by her co accused, including Atty. Quesada. Thus, upon the motion of Zarcilla, in an Order10 dated July 27, 2005, the court dismissed all falsification cases against Bumanglag.
In a Resolution11 dated June 26, 2006, the Court resolved to require Atty. Quesada to file a comment on the complaint against him.
On August 28, 2006, Atty. Quesada file a Motion for Extension of Time to File Comment12 due to voluminous workload. On September 18, 2006, Atty. Quesada filed a second motion for extension to file comment. In a Resolution13 dated November 20, 2006, the Court granted Atty. Quesada's motions for extension with a warning that the second motion for extension shall be the last and that no further extension will be given.
On September 26, 2007, due to Atty. Quesada's failure to file a comment on the complaint against him within the extended period which expired on October 17, 2006, the Court resolved to require Atty. Quesada to (a) show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt from such failure, and (b) comply with the Resolution dated June 26, 2006 by submitting the required comment.14
Due to Atty. Quesada's failure to comply with the Show Cause Resolution dated September 26, 2007, the Court resolved to (a) impose upon Atty. Quesada, a fine of ₱1,000.00, and (b) require Atty. Quesada to comply with the Resolution dated June 26, 2006 by filing the comment required therein.15
No payment of fine was made as of January 13, 2009 as evidenced by a Certification16 which was issued by Araceli Bayuga, Supreme Court Chief Judicial Staff Officer.
Again, failing to comply with the directives of the Court to pay the fine imposed against him and to submit his comment, the Court, in a Resolution17 dated February 16, 2009, resolved to (a) impose upon Atty. Quesada an additional fine of ₱1,000.00, or a penalty of imprisonment of five (5) days if said fines are not paid within 10 days from notice, and (b) order Atty. Quesada to comply with the Resolution dated June 26, 2006 to submit his comment on the complaint against him. Atty. Quesada was also warned that should he fail to comply, he shall be ordered arrested and detained by the National Bureau of Investigation until he shall have made the compliance or until such time as the Court may order.
Despite repeated notices and warnings from the Court, no payment of fine was ever made as of September 3, 2010 as evidenced by a Certification18 which was issued by Araceli Bayuga, Supreme Court Chief Judicial Staff Officer. On December 28, 2010, another Certification19 was issued anew showing no record of payment of fine by Atty. Quesada.
Thus, in a Resolution20 dated March 9, 2011, the Court resolved to (1) increase the fine imposed on Atty. Quesada to ₱3,000.00, or imprisonment often (10) days if such fine is not paid within the prescribed period; and (2) require Atty. Quesada to comply with the Resolution dated June 26, 2006 by submitting the required comment on the complaint.
No payment of fine was made as of July 12, 2011, as evidenced by a Certification21 which was issued by Araceli Bayuga, Supreme Court Chief Judicial Staff Officer.
It appearing that Atty. Quesada failed to comply with the numerous Resolutions of the Court to pay the fine imposed upon him and submit comment on the complaint against him, in a Resolution22 dated August 24, 2011, the Court ordered the arrest of Atty. Quesada, and directed the NBI to arrest and detain him until he shall have compli[ed] with the Court's Resolution dated March 9, 2011. Subsequently, the Court issued a Warrant of Arrest.23
Apparently forced by his looming detention, after five (5) years, Atty. Quesada filed his Comment24 dated October 10, 2011, in compliance with Resolution dated June 26, 2006. He claimed that he is a victim of political harassment, vengeance and retribution, and that the instant case against him was filed solely for the purpose of maligning his person. Attached to his compliance was postal money order in the amount of ₱3,000.00 as payment for the fine imposed upon him.
In a Letter25 dated October 10, 2011, Atty. Ricardo S. Pangan, Jr., Regional Director of the NBI, informed the Court that Atty. Quesada voluntarily surrendered before the agents of the NBI on October 11, 2011, and claimed that he had already complied with the Resolution of the Court. Atty. Quesada submitted a copy of his comment and payment of fine, thus, on the same day, Atty. Quesada was immediately released from custody.
On February 1, 2012, the Court referred the instant case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.26
During the mandatory conference before the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), only Bumanglag and her counsel appeared. Atty. Quesada failed to appear thereto, thus, the mandatory conference was reset to July 11, 2012. However, on July 11, 2012, Atty. Quesada failed again to appear, thus, the mandatory conference was reset anew to July 25, 2012. Meanwhile, Bumanglag informed the IBP-CBD that co-complainant Romeo Zarcilla passed away in 2005.
On July 23, 2012, Atty. Quesada requested that the mandatory conference be reset due to health reasons. He submitted his Medical Certificate dated May 2, 2012 showing that he underwent a head operation and that he is still on recovery period.
On July 25, 2012, Atty. Quesada failed again to appear, thus, the parties were directed to appear on August 23, 2012 and submit their respective verified position papers. However, on August 23, 2012, only Bumanglag and her counsel appeared, and Atty. Quesada failed to appear anew. Thus, considering that the parties were duly notified of the hearing, the case was deemed submitted for resolution.
On May 30, 2014, the IBP-CBD, in its Report and Recommendation, recommended that respondent Atty. Quesada be disbarred from the practice of law.
In a Resolution No. XXI-2015-097 dated January 31, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD.
RULING
We adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
A disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal, but is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers.27 The issue to be determined is whether respondent is still fit to continue to be an officer of the court in the dispensation of justice. Hence, an administrative proceeding for disbarment continues despite the desistance of a complainant, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same, or in this case, the failure of respondent to answer the charges against him despite numerous notices.
However, in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint. Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. For the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. As in this case, 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.28
Thus, in the instant case, the allegations of falsification or forgery against Atty. Quesada must be competently proved because falsification or forgery cannot be presumed. As such, the allegations should first be established and determined in appropriate proceedings, like in criminal or civil cases, for it is only by such proceedings that the last word on the falsity or forgery can be uttered by a court of law with the legal competence to do so. A disbarment proceeding is not the occasion to determine the issue of falsification or forgery simply because the sole issue to be addressed and determined therein is whether or not the respondent attorney is still fit to continue to be an officer of the court in the dispensation of justice. Accordingly, We decline to rule herein whether or not the respondent had committed the supposed falsification of the subject affidavit in the absence of the prior determination thereof in the appropriate proceeding.29
We, however, noted that Atty. Quesada Violated the notarial law for his act of notarizing the: (1) Deed of Sale30 dated April 12, 2002 purportedly executed by and between the spouses Maximo F. Quezada and Gloria D. Quezada, the buyers, and complainant Zarcilla's parents, the spouses Tarcela Zarcilla and Perfecto Zarcilla; and the (2) Joint Affidavit31 dated March 20, 2002 purportedly executed by the spouses Tarcela Zarcilla and Perfecto Zarcilla for the reconstitution of TCT No. T-18490, when in both occasions the spouses Tarcela Zarcilla and Perfecto Zarcilla could no longer execute said documents and appear before Atty. Quesada since they have long been deceased as evidenced by their death certificates. Tarcela Zarcilla died on January 9, 1988, while Perfecto Zarcilla died on March 4, 2001.32
Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice stresses the necessity of the affiant's personal appearance before the notary public:
x x x
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document -
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
Thus, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the document in question, the notary public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act or deed. Here, Atty. Quesada's act of notarizing the deed of sale appeared to have been done to perpetuate a fraud. This is more evident when he certified in the acknowledgment thereof that he knew the vendors and knew them to be the same persons who executed the document. When he then solemnly declared that such appeared before him and acknowledged to him that the document was the vendor's free act and deed despite the fact that the vendors cannot do so as they were already deceased, Atty. Quesada deliberately made false representations, and was not merely negligent.
Thus, by his actuations, Atty. Quesada violated not only the notarial law but also his oath as a lawyer when he notarized the deed of sale without all the affiant's personal appearance. His failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only damage to those directly affected by the notarized document but also in undermining the integrity of a notary public and in degrading the function of notarization. The responsibility to faithfully observe and respect the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is more pronounced when the notary public is a lawyer because of his solemn oath under the Code of Professional Responsibility to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.33
Time and again, We have held that notarization of a document is not an empty act or routine. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, thus, making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument.34
For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined. Hence, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act and deed.35
Aside from Atty. Quesada's violation of his duty as a notary public, what this Court find more deplorable was his defiant stance against the Court as demonstrated by his repetitive disregard of the Court's directives to file his comment on the complaint. Despite several Court resolutions, notices, directives and imposition of fines for Atty. Quesada's compliance and payment, he ignored the same for more than five years. Consequently, this case has dragged on for an unnecessary length of time. More than five (5) years have already elapsed from the time the Court issued the first Resolution dated June 26, 2006 which required Atty. Quesada to file his comment until his eventual submission of comment on October 10, 2011. It took a warrant of arrest to finally move Atty. Quesada to file his Comment and pay the fines imposed upon him. While the Court has been tolerant of his obstinate refusal to comply with its directives, he shamelessly ignored the same and wasted the Court's time and resources.
And even with the submission of his comment, he did not offer any apology and/or any justification for his long delay in complying with the directives/orders of this Court.(awÞhi( We surmised that when Atty. Quesada finally complied with the Court's directives, his compliance was neither prompted by good faith or willingness to obey the Court nor was he remorseful of his infractions but was actually only forced to do so considering his impending arrest. There is, thus, no question that his failure or obstinate refusal without justification or valid reason to comply with the Court's directives constitutes disobedience or defiance of the lawful orders of Court, amounting to gross misconduct and insubordination or disrespect.36
Atty. Quesada's acts constitute willful disobedience of the lawful orders of this Court, which under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is in itself alone is a sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment. His cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution. His conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. We have repeatedly held that a Court's Resolution is "not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively." Atty. Quesada's obstinate refusal to comply with the Court's orders "not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in his character; it also underscores his disrespect of the Court's lawful orders which this Court will not tolerate."37
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. - A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
As an officer of the court, it is a lawyer's duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court. The highest form of respect for judicial authority is shown by a lawyer's obedience to court orders and processes.38 Considering Atty. Quesada's predisposition to disregard not only the laws of the land but also the lawful orders of the Court, it only shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor. Worse, with his repeated disobedience to this Court's orders, Atty. Quesada displayed no remorse as to his misconduct which, thus, proved himself unworthy of membership in the Philippine Bar. Clearly, Atty. Quesada is unfit to discharge the duties of an officer of the court and deserves the ultimate penalty of disbarment.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, We find respondent ATTY. JOSE C. QUESADA JR. GUILTY of gross misconduct and willful disobedience of lawful orders rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession. He is, thus, ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name stricken-off of the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately. We, likewise, REVOKE his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as a notary public.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, which shall forthwith record it in the personal file of respondent. All the Courts of the Philippines; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which shall disseminate copies thereof to all its Chapters; and all administrative and quasi-judicial agencies of the Republic of the Philippines.1a⍵⍴h!1
SO ORDERED.
Carpio,* Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, Caguioa, Martires, Tijam, Reyes, Jr., and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.
Sereno, C.J., on leave.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that on March 13, 2018 a Decision/Resolution, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on April 26, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018.
1 Rollo, pp. 1-5.
2 Id. at 6.
3 Id. at 21-22.
4 Id. at 23-24.
5 Id. at 25.
6 Id. at 7-8.
7 Id. at 7. (Emphasis ours)
8 Id. at 9-10.
9 Id. at 11-13.
10 Id. at 18-19.
11 Id. at 26.
12 Id. at 27-28.
13 Id. at 36.
14 Id. at 37.
15 Resolution of the Third Division of the Supreme Court, dated June 16, 2008; id. at 38.
16 Rollo, p. 39.
17 Id. at 40.
18 Id. at 42.
19 Id. at 45.
20 Id. at 46.
21 Id. at 48.
22 Id. at 64-65.
23 Id. at 66-67.
24 Id. at 52-57.
25 Id. at 63.
26 Id. at 87-88.
27 In re Almacen, No. L-27654, February 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 562.
28 Ferancullo v. Atty. Ferancullo, 538 Phil. 501, 511 (2006).
29 See Flores-Salado v. Villanueva, Jr., A.C. No. 11099, September 27, 2016.
30 Rollo, pp. 21-22.
31 Id. at 25.
32 Id. at 24, 23.
33 Agbulos v. Atty. Viray, 704 Phil. 1, 9 (2013).
34 Vda. de Rosales v. Atty. Ramos, 383 Phil. 498, 504 (2002).
35 Dela Cruz v. Atty. Dimaano, Jr., 586 Phil. 573, 578 (2008).
36 In Re: Resolution dated August 14, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94656 v. Martel, 798 Phil. 1, 9 (2006).
37 See Sebastian v. Atty. Bajar, 559 Phil. 211, 224 (2007).
38 Santeco v. Atty. Avance, 659 Phil. 48, 51 (2011).
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
