G.R. No.: A.C. No. 11131
Date: March 13, 2019

Case Parties/Title: DENNIS M. MAGUSARA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. LOUIE A. RASTICA, Respondent.

FACTS

On March 1, 2011, Dennis M. Magusara filed a disbarment complaint before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) against Atty. Louie A. Rastica for allegedly violating Section 20(d), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The complaint stemmed from a 2007 election offense complaint filed with the COMELEC against Magusara by Ramie P. Fabillar, represented by the Yap-Siton Law Office. Atty. Rastica notarized Ramie’s complaint-affidavit and the affidavit of Wilson Fabillar. In 2008, Ramie filed an Affidavit of Desistance with the COMELEC, claiming he was surprised by the election complaint, thought he was signing a complaint for grave coercion, and that the contents were not translated to him in the local dialect. Magusara alleged this act violated the lawyer’s duty to employ only means consistent with truth and honor.
Magusara attached documents from a separate 2008 disbarment complaint he had filed against Rastica with the IBP Negros Oriental Chapter, including affidavits from Wilson Fabillar with differing signatures and two documents (a compromise agreement and a verification) allegedly notarized by Rastica despite the expiration of his notarial commission. In his answer, Rastica denied the allegations, attributing the complaint to political revenge (his mother defeated Magusara in a barangay election). He argued Ramie was a high school graduate who worked in Metro Manila and was capable of understanding the affidavit, and presented Ramie’s subsequent affidavit (dated August 5, 2008) clarifying he understood the contents. Rastica also pointed to inconsistencies in Ramie’s various affidavits of desistance.
During the IBP-CBD proceedings, Magusara expanded his complaint to include the alleged unauthorized notarization. Investigating Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero recommended dismissal for lack of merit, finding Ramie competent to understand the affidavit and noting his clarifying affidavit. The IBP Board of Governors initially approved this dismissal. Upon Magusara’s motion for reconsideration focusing on the notarization issue, the Board reversed itself in a subsequent resolution, found Rastica notarized documents prior to his commission’s approval, and penalized him with a two-year disqualification from being a notary public. Rastica filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing he was denied due process as the notarization issue was not part of the original complaint and no investigation was held on it.

ISSUE

1. Whether Atty. Louie A. Rastica violated Section 20(d), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court by preparing and notarizing a complaint-affidavit whose contents were allegedly not understood by the affiant.
2. Whether the charge of engaging in notarial practice without authority (based on the 2008 documents) can be properly adjudicated in the present disbarment complaint.

RULING

The Supreme Court SET ASIDE the IBP Board of Governors’ Resolution that found respondent liable for unauthorized notarization and DISMISSED the entire complaint against Atty. Louie A. Rastica for lack of merit.
1. On the violation of Section 20(d), Rule 138: The Court found no substantial evidence to prove the violation. It agreed with the Investigating Commissioner’s findings. The respondent substantiated his defense with evidence, including Ramie Fabillar’s clarifying affidavit dated August 5, 2008, wherein Ramie stated he understood the contents of the election offense complaint-affidavit. Ramie’s educational background (high school graduate) and work experience also made it incredible that he was unaware of the document’s contents.
2. On the charge of unauthorized notarization: The Court held that this issue could not be properly included and resolved in the present complaint. The records showed that the specific allegation and supporting documents (the compromise agreement and verification) were already the subject of a separate 2008 disbarment complaint filed by the same complainant (Magusara) against the same respondent (Rastica) before the IBP Negros Oriental Chapter. The IBP-CBD did not order the consolidation of the two complaints. To include and rule on this issue in the present case would constitute forum shopping, as it would allow the complainant to pursue the same cause of action (based on the same facts and documents) in two separate proceedings simultaneously or successively. The Court emphasized that a complaint for disbarment must only contain one cause of action; incorporating an issue from a separate, pending complaint is improper.