Re: Resolution Dated August 30, 2017 in OMB-C-C-13-0357, etc. vs. Atty. Editha P. Talaboc, Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr., and Atty. Mark S. Oliveros

In administrative proceedings against lawyers, the burden of proof rests on the complainant, who must establish the allegations by substantial evidence. Failure to discharge this burden, coupled with evidence suggesting forgery and identity theft rather than the lawyer's negligence, warrants the dismissal of the complaint for violation of the Notarial Rules.

The disciplinary action stemmed from criminal complaints for plunder, graft, and falsification filed before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) concerning the misuse of the PHP 900 million Malampaya Fund. Among the allegations was that various documents were "notarized" by Ben Hur Luy, who forged the signatures of respondents Attys. Talaboc, Agcaoili, and Oliveros and used their notarial registers, stamps, and seals. The OMB, in a Joint Resolution, found insufficient proof that the respondents had knowledge of or were part of the scheme but recommended disciplinary action for violating notarial rules by allowing the use of their paraphernalia for a fee. The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.

• Nature of the Complaint: The administrative complaint originated from the OMB's investigation into the Malampaya Fund scam (OMB-C-C-13-0357). Complainants alleged that respondents, commissioned notaries public, allowed their notarial seals, registers, and signatures to be used by Ben Hur Luy (a whistleblower) and Janet Lim Napoles's corporation to notarize fraudulent documents, for which they were paid a fee.
• OMB Findings and Referral: The OMB found insufficient proof of the respondents' knowledge or participation in the scheme but concluded they violated notarial rules by allowing their paraphernalia to be used. It recommended disciplinary action to the Supreme Court.
• IBP Proceedings: The IBP-CBD directed respondents to answer and attend conferences. Only Atty. Agcaoili filed an answer and denied the allegations, claiming his signature was forged. Attys. Talaboc and Oliveros failed to file any responsive pleading or attend the mandatory conference despite due notice.
• Evidence Presented: The OMB submitted copies of the questioned documents, a list of notarization details, and certifications from the RTCs where respondents were allegedly commissioned. These documents showed irregularities: missing required details in notarial certificates (e.g., serial numbers of commissions, office addresses) and discrepancies in the validity periods of the notarial commissions as indicated on the documents versus the official RTC certifications.
• IBP Recommendation: The Investigating Commissioner found all three guilty based on the OMB's findings and the presumption that they allowed the use of their details, from which they profited.
• Supreme Court's Independent Review: The Court found the evidence insufficient. It noted the irregularities in the notarial certificates pointed to forgery and identity theft. No notarial register was presented, and there was no proof respondents received money. The Court emphasized the presumption that lawyers perform their duties and the complainant's burden to prove otherwise by substantial evidence.

• Violation of Notarial Rules: The OMB argued that respondents violated Rule IV, Section 2(a) of the Notarial Rules by performing notarial acts outside their regular place of work, as the acts were performed at the JLN Corporation office using their paraphernalia.
• Failure to Verify Identity: The OMB contended respondents violated Rule IV, Section 2(b) by notarizing documents without the signatories personally appearing before them and relying only on Community Tax Certificates (cedula) as proof of identity.
• Unlawful Profit: The OMB maintained that respondents violated Section 4(a) by profiting from a scheme they knew or should have known was unlawful.

• Denial and Forgery (Atty. Agcaoili): Atty. Agcaoili denied notarizing the documents. He argued that his signature was forged, as admitted by Ben Hur Luy during an NBI investigation. He claimed his notarial paraphernalia were kept securely in his office.
• Lack of Evidence (Implicit for Attys. Talaboc and Oliveros): While Attys. Talaboc and Oliveros did not file formal answers, their non-participation implied a denial. The Court's analysis later supported this by finding the complainant's evidence inadequate.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Notarial Violations: Whether the complainant (OMB) presented substantial evidence to prove that respondents violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Administrative Liability for Non-Compliance with IBP Directives: Whether respondents Atty. Talaboc and Atty. Oliveros are administratively liable for their failure to comply with the orders and processes of the IBP-CBD.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Notarial Violations: The complaint against all respondents for violation of the Notarial Rules was dismissed for lack of merit. The OMB failed to discharge its burden of proof. The evidence consisted mainly of allegations and whistleblowers' statements. The irregularities in the notarial certificates (missing details, mismatched commission validity periods) cast doubt on the authenticity of the notarizations and suggested forgery and identity theft, not negligence or consent by the respondents. No notarial register or proof of payment was presented.
• Administrative Liability for Non-Compliance with IBP Directives: Atty. Talaboc and Atty. Oliveros were found guilty of violating Canon III, Section 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability for their willful failure to comply with the IBP's lawful orders (e.g., to file answers and position papers). This constituted a less serious offense under the CPRA. Atty. Talaboc, with prior similar offenses, was suspended for six months. Atty. Oliveros, a first-time offender, was fined PHP 17,500.00.

• Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof in Administrative Cases Against Lawyers — A lawyer enjoys the legal presumption that they have performed their duties in accordance with their oath. In disbarment or disciplinary proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the complainant, who must establish the allegations by substantial evidence—that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Failure to discharge this burden requires dismissal of the complaint.
• Mere Allegation is Not Equivalent to Proof — Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures, and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint without basis. Charges based on suspicion, speculation, or conclusion cannot be given credence.
• Non-Compliance with IBP Directives as a Violation of the CPRA — A lawyer's willful and deliberate failure to comply with the lawful orders of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline during administrative investigations constitutes a violation of Canon III, Section 2 of the CPRA (promoting respect for legal processes) and is classified as a less serious offense under Canon VI, Section 34(c).

• "The basic rule is that reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence. Thus, failure on the part of complainant to discharge [the] burden of proof by substantial evidence requires no other conclusion than that which stays the hand of the Court from meting out a disbarment order." (Reiterating the standard of proof).
• "Given these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that respondents were negligent in safekeeping their notarial details. There is nothing preventing others from using respondents' names and requesting that notarial stamps and notarial seals be made using their names. Notaries are not immune from identity theft." (Distinguishing the case from precedents where negligence was found).

• Tan v. Atty. Alvarico, 888 Phil. 345 (2020) — Cited for the principle that lawyers are presumed innocent and the burden of proof is on the complainant in administrative cases.
• Rigon v. Atty. Subia, 881 Phil. 588 (2020) — Distinguished. In Rigon, the lawyer was found negligent because the perpetrator knew details of his notarial register. In the present case, evidence pointed to forgery and identity theft, not negligence.
• Kelley v. Atty. Robielos III, A.C. No. 13955, Jan. 30, 2024 — Applied. Held that failure to comply with IBP-CBD directives is a violation of the CPRA, warranting a fine.

• 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC):
  • Rule IV, Section 2(a) & (b): Prohibitions on performing notarial acts outside the regular place of work and without personal appearance/signatory verification.
  • Rule VIII, Section 2: Prescribes the mandatory contents of the concluding part of a notarial certificate.
  • Rule III, Section 11: States a notarial commission is valid for two years.
• Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC):
  • Canon III, Section 2: Duty to uphold the rule of law and promote respect for legal processes.
  • Canon VI, Section 34(c): Classifies willful disobedience of IBP orders as a less serious offense.
  • Canon VI, Sections 37(b), 38(a)(1), 39: Prescribes sanctions, mitigating/aggravating circumstances, and their application.

• Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson)
• Zalameda, J.
• Marquez, J.
• Hernando, J. (on official business)