Basagan vs. Espina

A notary public cannot be disciplinarily sanctioned for violating notarial disqualification rules absent substantial and admissible evidence overcoming the presumption of innocence in administrative proceedings.

Complainant Lorna C. Basagan is a taxpayer and resident of Libagon, Southern Leyte, while respondent Atty. Domingo P. Espina is a lawyer, the spouse of a former mayor, and a then-notary public. The administrative dispute stems from Espina's notarization of three contracts connected with the Libagon Water System Level III project, which were purportedly signed by his spouse in her capacity as mayor.

Complainant Lorna C. Basagan, a taxpayer and resident of Libagon, Southern Leyte, filed an administrative complaint with the Supreme Court against respondent Atty. Domingo P. Espina, a lawyer and then-notary public. Basagan accused Espina of notarizing three contracts connected with the Libagon Water System Level III project, thereby allegedly violating Rule IV, Section 3(c) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which disqualifies a notary who is a spouse of the principal within the fourth civil degree. She sought preventive suspension and disciplinary sanctions against the respondent.

Basagan attached photocopies of the Subsidiary Loan Agreement, the Contract for Consultancy Services, and the Project Agreement to her complaint. She also submitted an affidavit of Tito E. Calooy and an affidavit of Dolores Cahucom, who claimed knowledge that Espina notarized the documents. Basagan alleged anomalies in the project procurement and asserted that the documents were notarized by Espina, who was married to the mayor who signed the contracts.

The Supreme Court issued an initial Resolution on October 7, 2009, requiring Espina to comment. After Espina failed to comment timely, the Court issued a show-cause resolution on July 11, 2011. Espina subsequently filed manifestations contending he did not receive the complaint and explaining his domicile in Cebu City. The Court noted compliance on December 7, 2011, and on August 1, 2012, directed Basagan to furnish Espina a copy of the complaint and for Espina to comment. Basagan later reported that the original records were destroyed during Typhoon Yolanda.

Because the matter had been pending for years, the Court referred the complaint to the Office of the Bar Confidant and subsequently to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation on August 24, 2016. The IBP Investigating Commissioner, on December 10, 2018, found Espina guilty of the notarial disqualification and recommended one year suspension from the practice of law and two years suspension as notary public. The IBP Board of Governors, on February 15, 2019, adopted the findings with modification, imposing six months suspension from the practice of law and two years disqualification as notary public.

• Nature of IBP Findings: Whether the factual findings and recommendations of the IBP are binding on the Court or merely recommendatory.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the complainant presented substantial and admissible evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence and support disciplinary sanctions against respondent.
• Violation of Notarial Rules: Whether respondent violated Rule IV, Section 3(c) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing documents signed by his spouse.

• Rule IV, Section 3(c), 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC) — Disqualifies a notary public who is a spouse of the principal within the fourth civil degree from performing a notarial act. This provision served as the substantive basis for the administrative complaint against the respondent.