Rico vs. Madrazo, Jr., Tan and Delante

A notary public who assigns duplicate document and page numbers to distinct instruments, fails to make proper entries in the notarial register, and delegates the duty of record-keeping to his secretary commits grave violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility warranting suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment, even where the lawyer has already been disbarred in a separate proceeding, provided the penalties are recorded for consideration in any future petition for reinstatement.

Edgar M. Rico claimed rights over a parcel of land in Tulip Drive, Matina, Davao City, where coconut trees were grown. Respondents Jose R. Madrazo, Jr. and Antonio V.A. Tan, representing different claimants to the same property, filed an application with the Philippine Coconut Authority (PHILCOA) for a Permit to Cut the coconut trees. Attached to their application were Affidavits of Non-Encumbrance and Affidavits of Marking purportedly acknowledged before respondent notary public Leonido C. Delante. Upon verification, Rico discovered that the document numbers and page numbers appearing on these affidavits corresponded to other instruments previously recorded in Delante's Notarial Register, including deeds of sale and secretary's certificates executed by different persons. Rico also noted that Delante had already been disbarred in a prior administrative case for gross misconduct involving the fraudulent transfer of a client's property to himself.

• The Disputed Property: Complainant Rico claimed to be an "allocatee" of a parcel of land located at Tulip Drive, Matina, Davao City, where coconut trees were grown. Respondents Madrazo and Tan represented competing claimants to the property—Madrazo represented Milagros Villa Abrille (an heir of the original owner Francisco Villa Abrille), while Tan acted as judicial administrator of the estate of his grandfather Carlos Villa Abrille (another heir).
• The PHILCOA Application: Madrazo and Tan filed an application with the Philippine Coconut Authority (PHILCOA) for a Permit to Cut the coconut trees on the disputed land. Attached to this application were Affidavits of Non-Encumbrance and Affidavits of Marking the Coconut Trees, which bore the notarial acknowledgment of respondent Delante.
• The Notarial Irregularities: Upon verification with Delante's Notarial Register, Rico discovered that the document numbers and page numbers marked on the affidavits executed by Madrazo and Tan corresponded to other documents previously recorded in the same register, including a deed of absolute sale, a secretary's certificate, and other affidavits executed by persons other than Madrazo and Tan. Seven pairs of distinct documents shared identical document numbers, page numbers, and book numbers despite being executed on different dates.
• Prior Disbarment of Delante: Unbeknownst to the IBP when it initially resolved the case, Delante had already been disbarred by the Supreme Court on February 6, 2009 in A.C. No. 7181 (Maria Angalan, et al. v. Atty. Leonido C. Delante) for gross misconduct involving the fraudulent transfer of a client's property comprising more than eight hectares to his own name, in violation of Canons 16 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Procedural Posture Before the IBP: During the IBP investigation, mandatory conferences were scheduled on January 29, 2009, and March 9, 2009, but complainant Rico failed to appear on both occasions. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline deemed his absence a waiver of his right to participate and required the parties to submit verified position papers. The Investigating Commissioner found that Madrazo and Tan had personally appeared before Delante to execute the affidavits, and that the failure to enter the documents in the notarial register was due to secretarial oversight.

• Fraud and Malpractice: Rico argued that respondents Madrazo and Tan committed fraud, deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct by attaching invalid and spurious documents to their PHILCOA application, specifically the Affidavits of Non-Encumbrance and Marking which bore duplicate document numbers from Delante's register.
• Violation of Notarial Law: Rico maintained that Delante violated the Notarial Law by assigning document and page numbers that already belonged to other documents, rendering the affidavits spurious and fake.
• Prior Disbarment: In his Motion for Reconsideration before the IBP, Rico noted that Delante had already been disbarred in a separate case, rendering the IBP's warning ineffectual and necessitating a more severe penalty.

• Personal Appearance and Good Faith: Delante argued that both Madrazo and Tan personally appeared before him and swore to the truth of their affidavits. He attributed the absence of entries in his notarial register to inadvertence by his office secretary, claiming the omission was unintentional and without malice. He cited jurisprudence holding that failure to record does not invalidate the notarized document itself.
• Retaliatory Nature of Complaint: Madrazo contended that the complaint was retaliatory, arising from Rico's defeat in an ejectment case where Madrazo successfully represented Milagros Villa Abrille. Madrazo asserted that he personally appeared before Delante to acknowledge the documents and had no knowledge of any recording failures.
• Legitimacy of Claims: Tan argued that Rico was illegally occupying the property and had been convicted of falsification in a criminal case for falsifying documents to make the property appear as public land. Tan denied conspiring with Delante to falsify notarial entries.

• Liability of Madrazo and Tan: Whether respondents Madrazo and Tan are guilty of fraud, conduct unbecoming a lawyer, and violation of the Notarial Law for submitting allegedly spurious affidavits.
• Liability of Delante: Whether respondent Delante is administratively liable for assigning duplicate document numbers to distinct instruments, failing to make proper entries in his notarial register, and delegating notarial functions to his secretary.
• Effect of Prior Disbarment: Whether penalties may still be imposed on Delante despite his prior disbarment in A.C. No. 7181.

• Liability of Madrazo and Tan: The complaint against Madrazo and Tan was dismissed for lack of merit. Complainant Rico failed to discharge his burden of proving by substantial evidence that the affidavits were spurious or that Madrazo and Tan were complicit in any irregularity committed by Delante. Mere allegations unsupported by proof cannot sustain a finding of administrative liability.
• Liability of Delante: Delante was found guilty of violating Section 2, Rule VI (entries in notarial register) and Section 1, Rule XI (revocation and sanctions) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as well as Canon 1 and Canon 9, Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The assignment of identical document and page numbers to seven pairs of distinct documents, his failure to make proper entries in the register, and his delegation of record-keeping duties to his secretary constituted grave violations of notarial duties.
• Effect of Prior Disbarment: While the penalties of suspension from practice for three months, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment for one year could not be executed due to Delante's prior disbarment (as there is no double disbarment), the Court imposed the sanctions for the sole purpose of recording them in his personal file in the Office of the Bar Confidant. These penalties shall be considered in the event Delante files a petition to lift his disbarment.

• Burden of Proof in Administrative Complaints: In disbarment and suspension proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to prove the allegations by substantial evidence. A lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and charges based on mere suspicion, speculation, or bare allegations cannot prosper.
• Nature and Purpose of Notarization: Notarization converts a private document into a public document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. It is invested with substantial public interest; therefore, notaries must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the notarial act.
• Prohibition Against Delegation: A lawyer may not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing. This includes the duty to maintain the notarial register, which is a personal responsibility of the notary public.
• Effect of Prior Disbarment: Once a lawyer is disbarred, no further penalty regarding the privilege to practice law may be imposed. However, the Court may still record additional penalties in the lawyer's personal file for the purpose of informing any subsequent petition for reinstatement.

• "Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with such substantial public interest that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public." — Emphasizing the solemnity and public importance of notarial acts.
• "Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity." — Defining the evidentiary effect of notarization.
• "In consideration of the gravity of the consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the bar, we have consistently held that a lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to satisfactorily prove the allegations in his complaint through substantial evidence." — Stating the standard of proof in disciplinary cases.
• "Mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof." — Reiterating the principle that unsubstantiated accusations cannot ground administrative liability.

• Goopio v. Maglalang, A.C. No. 10555, July 31, 2018 — Cited for the principle that the burden of proof in disbarment cases rests upon the complainant and lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence.
• Torres, et al. v. Dalangin, A.C. No. 10758, December 5, 2017, 847 SCRA 472 — Cited for the rule that mere allegation is not evidence and charges based on suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.
• Pitogo v. Atty. Suello, 756 Phil. 124 (2015) — Cited regarding the nature of notarization as a public function invested with substantial public interest and its effect on document admissibility.
• Judge Ariel Florentino R. Dumlao, Jr. v. Atty. Manuel N. Camacho, A.C. No. 10498, September 4, 2018 — Cited for the principle that there is no double or multiple disbarment in this jurisdiction.
• Sanchez v. Atty. Torres, 748 Phil. 18 (2014); Paras v. Paras, 807 Phil. 153 (2017) — Cited for the practice of recording penalties in a disbarred lawyer's personal file for consideration in future reinstatement petitions.

• Section 2, Rule VI, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Mandates that notaries record specific details (entry number, page number, date, type of act, principals, evidence of identity, etc.) in the notarial register at the time of notarization, and prohibits leaving blank lines between entries.
• Section 1, Rule XI, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Provides grounds for revocation of notarial commission and administrative sanctions, including failure to make proper entries in the notarial register and knowingly performing or failing to perform any act prohibited or mandated by the Rules.
• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes.
• Canon 9, Rule 9.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits lawyers from delegating to unqualified persons any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.
• Canons 16 and 17, Code of Professional Responsibility — Cited in reference to Delante's prior disbarment; Canon 16 requires lawyers to hold in trust client funds and properties, while Canon 17 requires fidelity to the client's cause.

Bersamin (C.J.), Carpio, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, A. Reyes, Jr., Gesmundo, J. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, and Zalameda.