G.R. No. A.C. No. 6980. August 30, 2017
CESAR O. STA. ANA, CRISTINA M. STA. ANA and ESTHER STA. ANA-SILVERIO, Complainants, vs. ATTY. ANTONIO JOSE F. CORTES, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants filed a disbarment case against Atty. Antonio Jose F. Cortes, alleging deceit and falsification of public documents. They accused him of engineering the sale of two parcels of land in Carmona, Cavite, originally owned by their ancestors, to the Property Company of Friends, Inc. (PCFI) in May 2004. The sale utilized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated May 4, 2004, purportedly executed by Ruben Loyola, Angela Lacdan, and Cesar Veloso Casal, authorizing their co-owner Cesar Inis to sell the properties. Complainants asserted the SPA was falsified, as Loyola and Lacdan were already deceased at the time of its execution, and Veloso was in Tacloban City, not Carmona, Cavite. Consequently, criminal cases for Estafa through Falsification were filed against respondent and others.
Complainants further alleged respondent notarized twelve Deeds of Donation in September 2003, making it appear that Atty. Cesar Casal donated 66 properties to Gloria Casal Cledera. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) examined the documents and reported that the signatures of Atty. Casal were “mere xerox copies” that did not clearly reflect writing strokes. Respondent, in his defense, argued all criminal complaints had been dismissed by the Department of Justice, exonerating him. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Antonio Jose F. Cortes should be held administratively liable for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and notarial rules.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent administratively liable. The dismissal of the criminal cases by the Department of Justice does not bar administrative proceedings, as these require only substantial evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court upheld the IBP’s findings. Regarding the sale of the two parcels of land, respondent actively participated in the transaction that relied on a falsified SPA. His claim of lack of knowledge was untenable; as a lawyer involved in the sale, he had the duty to verify the authenticity of the document, especially given the glaring fact that two signatories were deceased. His failure to do so constituted gross negligence and deceitful conduct.
Concerning the twelve Deeds of Donation, the NBI report established that Atty. Casal’s signatures were mere photocopies, indicating falsification. By notarizing these documents, respondent violated his duty as a notary public to ensure the genuineness of signatures and the voluntariness of acts. Furthermore, he committed a serious notarial violation under Section 240 of the Revised Administrative Code. The deeds were supposedly executed in Carmona, Cavite, yet respondent notarized them in his Quezon City office, acting beyond his territorial jurisdiction. This act alone undermines the integrity of notarization. Lawyers are bound by a high standard of morality and honesty. Respondent’s actions demonstrated a disregard for this standard, warranting disciplinary action. The Court suspended him from the practice of law for one year, revoked his notarial commission, and disqualified him from reappointment as a Notary Public for two years.