G.R. No. A.C. No. 10559, June 10, 2019
Rajesh Gagoomal, Complainant vs. Atty. Von Lovel Bedona, Respondent

FACTS

Complainant Rajesh Gagoomal seeks the suspension or disbarment of respondent Atty. Von Lovel Bedona for notarizing a Deed of Assignment/Transfer dated November 27, 2000. The Deed indicated that Rajesh personally appeared and executed the document before the respondent, transferring shares from his company, Sonite Limited, to Beam Realty, Inc. Rajesh claims he could not have personally appeared because he was in Malaysia from November 25 to December 3, 2000, as evidenced by stamped entries in his Philippine Passport. He discovered the Deed when it was attached by other parties (the Autajays) to their Answer in a separate corporate case he filed. Rajesh had previously filed a criminal complaint for falsification against the Autajays, Robert Fields, and the respondent, but the city prosecutor found no probable cause to indict the respondent, noting his only participation was the notarization. The respondent lawyer defended his actions, asserting that all signatories, including Rajesh, personally appeared before him, and he complied with his notarial duties. He submitted expert reports from the PNP and a private company concluding Rajesh’s signature on the Deed was genuine. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal of the administrative complaint for lack of sufficient evidence, a recommendation upheld by the IBP Board of Governors. Rajesh’s motion for reconsideration, which included an NBI report finding forgery and a Bureau of Immigration certification of his travel record showing he was out of the Philippines from November 18, 2000, to June 6, 2001, was denied.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Von Lovel Bedona should be held administratively liable for notarizing a Deed of Assignment/Transfer where the complainant alleges he did not personally appear.

RULING

The Court dismissed the administrative charges against Atty. Von Lovel Bedona for lack of merit. The Court emphasized that in disbarment or suspension proceedings, the lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests on the complainant to establish the allegations by preponderance of evidence. The Court found that Rajesh Gagoomal failed to meet this burden. The evidence presented was conflicting: expert reports on the signature were contradictory (PNP and private company findings of genuineness versus NBI findings of forgery), and the Court noted that expert opinions are not conclusive and must be weighed. The Court found that a visual comparison of the signatures did not show conspicuous differences. Regarding the claim of absence, the stamped passport entries and Bureau of Immigration certification were not deemed sufficiently convincing to overturn the respondent’s notarial certification of personal appearance. The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP, ruling that the complainant did not present clear and convincing proof to sustain the charge of misconduct against the respondent lawyer.