G.R. No. A.C. No. 11777, October 01, 2024
Edna Tan Malapit, Complainant, vs. Atty. Rogelio M. Watin, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Edna Tan Malapit owned a parcel of land in Digos City. In July 1994, she agreed with Petronila Austria to find buyers for portions of the lot, with a 10% commission. They went to respondent Atty. Rogelio M. Watin to prepare and notarize a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) authorizing Petronila to sell. Upon reading the drafted SPA, Edna discovered it contained provisions authorizing Petronila to sign a Transfer of Rights, which she never agreed to. She refused to sign and demanded revisions. Unknown to Edna, Atty. Watin notarized an SPA dated June 11, 1996, which appeared to bear her signature. In 2002, Edna discovered settlements on her land and learned from Petronila that all parcels had been sold using the 1996 SPA. Edna filed criminal and civil cases against Petronila for estafa through falsification and for declaration of nullity of the Transfer of Rights. The City Prosecutor found probable cause for forgery and estafa. Atty. Watin acted as Petronila’s counsel in these cases. Edna later discovered that Atty. Watin’s wife and two children acquired portions of her land through Transfer of Rights executed by Petronila using the allegedly forged SPA. It was also alleged that during the pendency of the cases, Atty. Watin notarized another Transfer of Rights in favor of Petronila’s son on June 16, 2004, though a certification from the Clerk of Court stated no copy was on file. Atty. Watin denied the allegations, claiming Edna received the sale proceeds and was harassing him due to increased land value. He asserted the SPA was genuine, signed by Edna and her husband, and challenged her to a handwriting examination. He denied notarizing the 2004 Transfer of Rights, attributing it to a former secretary who forged his signature.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Rogelio M. Watin should be held administratively liable for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Rogelio M. Watin is administratively liable. The Court found him guilty of misconduct for notarizing a document without the complainant’s personal appearance, in violation of the notarial rules. The act of notarizing the 1996 SPA despite Edna’s refusal to sign constituted deceit and malpractice. His defense, including the challenge for a handwriting examination, was deemed an attempt to shift the burden of proof. The fact that his immediate family members benefited from the spurious SPA further demonstrated unethical conduct. The Court emphasized that a notary public must ensure the signatory personally appears and is known to them or identified by competent evidence. Atty. Watin’s actions breached his duties as a lawyer and notary public. Considering the violations and his failure to rebut the evidence against him, the Court suspended Atty. Rogelio M. Watin from the practice of law for two years. His notarial commission, if current, was revoked, and he was permanently disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public.