G.R. No. A.C. No. 3247 & Adm. Matter No. RTJ-88-226 February 10, 1992
JOSE P. MARIANO and FRANCISCO M. BAUTISTA, complainants, vs. RTC JUDGE JOSE S. PEÑAS, JR. and ATTY. ROGELIO R. UDARBE, respondents.

FACTS

Complainants Jose P. Mariano, an adopted heir, and Francisco M. Bautista, a judgment creditor, charged respondents with malpractice and ethical violations. They alleged that Atty. Rogelio R. Udarbe prepared and then-RTC Judge Jose S. Peñas, Jr. (then a practicing lawyer) notarized a falsified deed of absolute sale. This deed purportedly conveyed properties of the late Irene P. Mariano to Raul Santos, the brother of her second husband, to defraud her heirs and creditors. The complainants cited indicia of forgery: the absence of an original, a carbon copy with erasures, signatures in different ink, pages typed on different machines, and a false recital that the adopted children had no interest in the sold lands.
Respondents denied the allegations. Judge Peñas asserted the complaint was premature due to pending civil cases for annulment of the sale, denied preparing or falsifying the deed, and explained the original was lost after multiple office transfers. Atty. Udarbe denied any involvement in the document’s execution or notarization, claiming he merely assisted in its registration unaware of any defects. They noted the deed was registered after a favorable consulta with the National Land Registration Administration and that a notice of levy for Bautista’s judgment was carried over to the new title.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Jose S. Peñas, Jr. and Atty. Rogelio R. Udarbe are administratively liable for malpractice and violation of professional ethics in connection with the allegedly falsified deed of sale.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaints for lack of merit. The legal logic centered on the presumption of regularity in notarial acts and the complainants’ failure to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome it. A notarial document carries the presumption that its recitals are true, requiring a high degree of proof to rebut. The Court found the evidence insufficient. The NBI document examiner could not conclude the signature was forged due to inadequate specimen signatures. There was no proof that Atty. Udarbe participated in the deed’s preparation or notarization; his role was limited to registration follow-up. Judge Peñas’s testimony that the vendor personally appeared before him for notarization remained uncontroverted. The alleged circumstantial defects (erasures, different ink) did not, by themselves, constitute clear and convincing proof of falsification, especially since the deed was deemed registrable by the land registration authority. Furthermore, Bautista’s claim of frustrated execution was rendered moot by his subsequent collection of the judgment debt. Thus, the charges were unsubstantiated.