Natanauan vs. Tolentino

A lawyer found to have possessed and used forged documents, without satisfactory explanation, is presumed to be the forger and guilty of falsification, warranting suspension from the practice of law for violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The filing of pleadings such as a comment and motions for reconsideration in a disciplinary proceeding cures any defect in procedural due process, precluding a successful claim of denial of the right to be heard.

Dolores Natanauan and her siblings Rafaela, Ernestina, and Romulo were co-owners of a 50,000-square-meter parcel of land in Tagaytay City, originally registered under Original Certificate of Title No. 0-1822 in the name of their father Jose Natanauan and Salud Marqueses. On January 3, 1978, they sold the property to Alejo Tolentino — brother of respondent Atty. Roberto P. Tolentino — for ₱500,000.00, payable in installments. Atty. Tolentino is a member of the Philippine Bar and a stockholder of Buck Estate, Inc., the entity to which the property was eventually transferred. The notary public who notarized the disputed documents, Perfecto P. Fernandez, was later discovered not to be a member of the Philippine Bar and had never been commissioned as a notary public for the City of Manila since 1979.

Dolores Natanauan and her siblings Rafaela, Ernestina, and Romulo were co-owners of a parcel of land of approximately 50,000 square meters located in Tagaytay City, originally covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 0-1822 issued in the names of Jose Natanauan and Salud Marqueses. On January 3, 1978, the siblings sold the property to Alejo Tolentino for ₱500,000.00, with ₱80,000.00 payable upon execution of the contract and the balance in two installments — one year after issuance of title and one year thereafter. At the time, no title had yet been issued by the Land Registration Commission. On August 9, 1979, the Register of Deeds of Cavite issued TCT No. T-107593 in Alejo's name. Despite repeated requests, Alejo failed to settle the remaining balance, prompting Dolores and her siblings to file Civil Case No. TG-1188 on May 14, 1991 for recovery of possession, declaration of nullity of the deed of sale, and damages. The RTC ruled in their favor on March 30, 1993, declaring the rescission of the contract and ordering reconveyance.

Sometime in June 1993, Dolores discovered that TCT No. T-107593 had been issued not on the basis of the January 3, 1978 contract but on a Deed of Sale dated August 3, 1979, purportedly executed by Jose Natanauan, Salud Marqueses, Melquiades Parungao, and Asuncion Fajardo in favor of Alejo and Filomena Tolentino. She also found a Joint Affidavit dated August 6, 1979, purportedly executed by the same individuals attesting to the absence of tenants or lessees, and another Deed of Sale dated March 9, 1979 executed between the Natanauan siblings as vendors and Atty. Roberto P. Tolentino as vendee covering the same property. Dolores asserted that these documents were falsified because Jose Natanauan had died on June 12, 1977 in Talisay, Batangas, and thus could not have signed the August 1979 documents. All the deeds were notarized by Perfecto P. Fernandez, who was later discovered not to be a member of the Philippine Bar and had never been commissioned as a notary public for the City of Manila since 1979.

Dolores further discovered that the property had been subsequently registered under TCT No. T-21993 in the name of Buck Estate, Inc., where Atty. Tolentino was a stockholder, and had been mortgaged to Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation for ₱10,000,000.00. She also obtained an Affidavit dated December 2, 1980, in which Alejo and Filomena Tolentino attested that the property had never belonged to them and that the true and absolute owner was Atty. Tolentino — an affidavit bearing Atty. Tolentino's own conformity. On June 1, 1994, Dolores filed the disbarment complaint against Atty. Tolentino and Perfecto for falsification.

Atty. Tolentino, through counsel, filed a Comment denying any participation in the falsification of the August 3, 1979 Deed of Sale and all transactions and documents covering the property. He claimed there was no specific allegation of fact showing how he colluded with Alejo and Filomena, that he did not appear as a party to any falsified document, and that he did not benefit from them. He asserted that Buck Estate, Inc. acquired the property in a 1990 auction sale after foreclosure due to the Tolentinos' loan default, and that he did not personally know Perfecto. Dolores countered that Atty. Tolentino could not disclaim knowledge of the falsification because he had himself misrepresented before the Supreme Court in Banco De Oro vs. Bayuga that he was the absolute owner of the property by virtue of the March 9, 1979 Deed of Sale notarized by Fernandez. Due to Atty. Tolentino's repeated failure to appear at IBP-CBD hearings, Dolores was allowed to present her evidence ex parte. She testified that Atty. Tolentino was the one who actually purchased the land, paying ₱80,000.00 as downpayment at his office on Roxas Boulevard, Manila, and that he used his brother Alejo and sister-in-law Filomena as dummies, causing the transfer of ownership from Jose Natanauan to the spouses through the falsified documents.

• Falsification and Collusion: Dolores argued that Atty. Tolentino was directly involved in the falsification of the August 3, 1979 Deed of Sale and the August 6, 1979 Joint Affidavit, as Jose Natanauan had already died on June 12, 1977 and could not have signed those documents.
• Misrepresentation Before the Supreme Court: Dolores maintained that Atty. Tolentino could not disclaim knowledge or participation in the falsification because he had misrepresented before the Court in Banco De Oro vs. Bayuga that he was the absolute owner of the subject property by virtue of the March 9, 1979 Deed of Sale notarized by Fernandez.
• Use of Dummies: Dolores contended that Atty. Tolentino personally entered into the contract with the Natanauan siblings and merely used his brother Alejo and sister-in-law Filomena as dummies, as evidenced by the December 2, 1980 Affidavit in which the spouses admitted that the property never belonged to them and that Atty. Tolentino was its true and absolute owner.

• Denial of Participation: Atty. Tolentino denied any participation in the falsification of the August 3, 1979 Deed of Sale and vehemently denied participation in the transactions, deeds of sale, and other documents covering the subject property.
• Insufficiency of Allegations: Atty. Tolentino argued that there was no specific or concrete allegation of fact in the complaint as to how he colluded with Alejo and Filomena in the commission of the alleged falsifications, that he does not appear as a party to any of the falsified documents, and that it was not alleged that he benefited from them.
• Legitimate Acquisition by Buck Estate: Atty. Tolentino averred that Buck Estate, Inc. did not acquire the property from Alejo and Filomena but bought it in a 1990 auction sale after the property was foreclosed due to the latter's failure to pay loan obligations.
• Non-Acquaintance with Co-Respondent: Atty. Tolentino alleged that he does not personally know his co-respondent Perfecto and has never dealt with or met him in any capacity.
• Denial of Due Process: Atty. Tolentino claimed he was denied his constitutional right to due process when the IBP Board failed to give him an opportunity to be heard, asserting that neither he nor his counsel received a subpoena or notice of the order directing parties to file their memorandum. He also challenged Commissioner Espina's findings as based solely on Dolores' memorandum without any transcript of stenographic notes, and objected to the IBP Board's increase of the penalty from six months to three years without notice and opportunity to be heard.

• Due Process: Whether there was a violation of Atty. Tolentino's constitutional right to due process in the conduct of the IBP proceedings.
• Disbarment/Suspension: Whether Atty. Tolentino committed deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct through the aforementioned falsifications in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath, warranting his suspension or disbarment.

• Due Process: No. There was no denial of due process; Atty. Tolentino was afforded the opportunity to be heard through his counsel's Comment and his subsequent motions for reconsideration, which cured any defect in the issuance of notices.
• Disbarment/Suspension: Yes. Atty. Tolentino was found guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and Canons 1, 7, and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility through acts of falsification, and was suspended from the practice of law for three years.

• Due Process: The most basic tenet of due process is the right to be heard, and denial of due process means the total lack of opportunity to be heard. Atty. Tolentino's counsel filed a Comment on his behalf, and he subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration before the IBP Board. Citing Vivo vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, the Court held that any defect in the observance of due process is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration, and that denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party afforded the opportunity to be heard. Knowing that a disbarment complaint was pending against him, Atty. Tolentino should have actively participated; instead, after filing a Comment containing bare denials unsupported by proof, he deliberately failed to participate and then claimed lack of notice. His failure to present his side despite opportunity constituted a waiver. Rule 138, Section 30 of the Revised Rules of Court expressly allows the court to proceed ex parte if, upon reasonable notice, the attorney fails to appear and answer the accusation.

• Disbarment/Suspension: The practice of law is a privilege, not a right, bestowed by the State only upon the deserving and worthy. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, violation of the lawyer's oath, and other enumerated grounds. The burden of proof in disbarment proceedings rests on the complainant, and the Court exercises its disciplinary power only if the complaint is established by substantial evidence. The totality of evidence — the falsified documents, Dolores' testimony, and the Court's own investigation — left no doubt as to Atty. Tolentino's involvement in or benefit from the falsifications. Most tellingly, the March 9, 1979 Deed of Sale, which Atty. Tolentino himself presented before the Court in Banco De Oro vs. Bayuga, was the very same document that gave rise to the disbarment case. That deed was notarized by Perfecto, directly contradicting Atty. Tolentino's claim that he did not know Perfecto. Applying the rule that one found in possession of and using a forged document, without satisfactory explanation, is presumed to be the forger, the Court found a prima facie case of falsification that Atty. Tolentino failed to rebut. His silence regarding the March 9, 1979 Deed of Sale and his undisputed conformity to the December 2, 1980 Affidavit further demonstrated lack of candor before the IBP and the Court. His deliberate non-participation in the disciplinary proceedings showed disrespect for the legal process, violating Canons 1 and 7. The Court affirmed the IBP Board's recommended penalty of three years' suspension.

• Practice of Law as a Privilege — The practice of law is neither a natural nor a constitutional right but a privilege bestowed by the State only upon the deserving and worthy. The Court may withdraw or deny the privilege to one who fails to observe the Lawyer's Oath and the canons of ethical conduct in both professional and private capacities. The Court applied this principle to justify the suspension of Atty. Tolentino, emphasizing that the purpose of disbarment is not punishment but protection of the courts and the public from unfit lawyers.

• Due Process in Disciplinary Proceedings — Denial of due process means the total lack of opportunity to be heard. No denial of due process occurs where a party has been given the opportunity to be heard and present his case. Any defect in procedural due process is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration. The Court applied this doctrine to reject Atty. Tolentino's claim, noting his active participation through pleadings cured any notice defects.

• Presumption of Falsification from Possession and Use of Forged Documents — In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one who is found in possession of and who has used a forged document is presumed to be the forger and therefore guilty of falsification. A prima facie case of falsification creates the need to present evidence to overcome it; if no contrary proof is offered, the prima facie case prevails. The Court applied this presumption to Atty. Tolentino, who had presented the March 9, 1979 Deed of Sale before the Supreme Court in Banco De Oro vs. Bayuga and failed to offer a satisfactory explanation.

• Lawyer's Duty of Candor to the Court — Complete candor or honesty is expected from lawyers, particularly when they appear and plead before the courts for their own causes. Lawyers must always be disciples of truth. The Court found Atty. Tolentino's bare denials and silence on material documents demonstrated a lack of candor, violating Canon 10 of the CPR.

• Disciplinary Authority of the IBP — By virtue of membership in the IBP, a lawyer submits himself to the disciplinary authority of the organization. Wanton disregard of lawful orders of the IBP constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution and subjects the lawyer to disciplinary sanction. The Court applied this to Atty. Tolentino's repeated failure to appear at IBP hearings.

• "The practice of law is neither a natural nor a constitutional right but a privilege bestowed by the State only upon the deserving and worthy for conferment of such privilege." — This passage articulates the foundational principle governing the Court's disciplinary authority over members of the Bar and is frequently cited in disbarment and suspension jurisprudence.

• "In the absence of satisfactory explanation, one who is found in possession of, and who has used, a forged document, is the forger and, therefore, guilty of falsification." — This formulation states the presumption applied to establish Atty. Tolentino's guilt, anchoring the finding of falsification on his possession and use of the March 9, 1979 Deed of Sale before the Supreme Court.

• "Any defect in the observance of due process is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration and that denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who was afforded the opportunity to be heard." — This passage defines the controlling rule on curative effect of motions for reconsideration in administrative and disciplinary proceedings, directly resolving the due process issue.

• "Complete candor or honesty is expected from lawyers, particularly when they appear and plead before the courts for their own causes x x x. Lawyers must always be disciples of truth." — This excerpt, drawn from Silva Vda. de Fajardo vs. Bugaring and reiterated in this decision, states the standard of candor required of lawyers and was applied to find Atty. Tolentino's lack of honesty before the IBP and the Court.

• Vivo vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, G.R. No. 187854, November 12, 2013, 709 SCRA 276 — Followed for the proposition that any defect in the observance of due process is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration, and that denial of due process cannot be invoked by a party afforded the opportunity to be heard.

• Banco De Oro vs. Bayuga, G.R. No. L-49568, October 17, 1979, 93 SCRA 443 — Cited as the prior Supreme Court case in which Atty. Tolentino himself submitted the March 9, 1979 Deed of Sale, establishing his possession and use of the falsified document and contradicting his claim of non-acquaintance with Perfecto.

• Silva Vda. de Fajardo vs. Bugaring, A.C. No. 5113, October 7, 2004, 440 SCRA 160 — Followed for the doctrine that complete candor is expected of lawyers, particularly when pleading their own causes, and that lawyers must be disciples of truth.

• Pacasum vs. People, G.R. No. 180314, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 616 — Cited for the rule that one found in possession of and using a forged document, without satisfactory explanation, is presumed to be the forger and guilty of falsification.

• Ylaya vs. Gacott, A.C. No. 6475, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 452 — Cited for the definition of denial of due process as the total lack of opportunity to be heard, and that no denial occurs where a party has been given the opportunity to present his case.

• Section 27, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court — Enumerates the grounds for suspension or disbarment of lawyers, including deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the lawyer's oath, willful disobedience to lawful court orders, willful appearance as attorney without authority, and solicitation of cases for gain. Applied as the statutory basis for the Court's disciplinary action against Atty. Tolentino.

• Section 30, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court — Provides that no attorney shall be removed or suspended until he has had full opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer charges, produce witnesses, and be heard by himself or counsel; but if upon reasonable notice he fails to appear, the court may proceed ex parte. Applied to uphold the ex parte proceedings before the IBP-CBD given Atty. Tolentino's repeated failure to appear.

• Lawyer's Oath — The solemn covenant every lawyer undertakes, which includes an obligation to obey the laws and legal orders of duly constituted authorities and not to do falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court. Applied to find that Atty. Tolentino's acts of falsification directly violated his oath.

• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. Applied to Atty. Tolentino's deliberate non-participation in disciplinary proceedings, showing lack of respect for the legal process.

• Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. Applied to Atty. Tolentino's cavalier disregard of IBP orders, which sullied the integrity and dignity of the profession.

• Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court. Applied to Atty. Tolentino's lack of candor before the IBP and the Supreme Court, including his bare denials and silence on material documents.

Carpio, Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ., concurred. Sereno, C.J., was on official travel. Velasco, Jr., J., was on leave. Leonen, J., was on official travel.