G.R. No. A.C. No. 11238. September 21, 2016
ATTY. MYLENE S. YUMUL-ESPINA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. BENEDICTO D. TABAQUERO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Mylene Yumul-Espina, a notary public, was charged with falsification of a public document by Derek Atkinson, a British national. The charge stemmed from an Affidavit of Waiver of Rights purportedly executed by Derek to allow his wife Shirley to mortgage a property, which Derek claimed he could not have signed before the complainant as he was abroad on the notarization date. Atty. Benedicto Tabaquero represented Derek in filing this criminal complaint. In retaliation, complainant filed this disbarment case against respondent, alleging he violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by prosecuting a case to assert a foreigner’s purported interest in land, which is constitutionally prohibited.
Respondent countered that he was merely following his client’s instructions to file the criminal case based on the alleged falsified signature, not to assert ownership of land. He argued the constitutional issue was irrelevant to the criminal complaint for falsification. During the IBP proceedings, both parties executed Affidavits of Desistance, stating the matter was a misunderstanding and mutually requesting the dismissal of all complaints and counter-complaints. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation to dismiss the case based on these desistance affidavits.

ISSUE

Whether the Affidavits of Desistance executed by the parties warrant the dismissal of the disbarment complaint.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the IBP Resolution and remanded the case for further investigation. The Court held that an affidavit of desistance does not automatically divest it of its disciplinary authority. Disbarment proceedings are of a public character, intended to protect the courts and the public from unfit lawyers, not to settle private grievances. The complainant’s withdrawal of the charges does not preclude the Court from determining a lawyer’s fitness to continue in the practice of law. The facts alleged, particularly concerning the notarization of a document by a supposedly absent affiant, involve serious questions regarding the compliance with notarial laws and the ethical duties of both attorneys. These are matters of public interest concerning the integrity of the legal profession. The mutual desistance, while indicative of a settled private dispute, does not erase the potential professional misconduct apparent from the record. Therefore, the case must be fully investigated on its merits to ascertain whether any violation of the lawyer’s oath or the Code of Professional Responsibility occurred.