AC 12375; (February, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 12375, February 26, 2020
Clara R. Ick, Ruby Elinbergsson and Teresita Edosada, Complainants, v. Atty. Allan S. Amazona, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainants Clara R. Ick, Ruby Elinbergsson, and Teresita Edosada filed a Complaint-Affidavit against respondent Atty. Allan S. Amazona before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for allegedly notarizing a false document. The document was a letter dated March 7, 2016, signed by Michelle B. Lotho, Director and Auditor of South Forbes Phuket Mansions Homeowners Association, Inc., which respondent notarized on March 9, 2016. The letter, addressed to the Head of the Homeowners Association Franchising Unit, was used to facilitate the registration of the said homeowners association. Complainants alleged the letter falsely stated that most subdivision lot buyers were out of the country, making it highly improbable to secure their signatures, and that respondent knew this was untrue due to his constant communication with the residents, including complainants. They further claimed that an attached list of members’ signatures was false, as it pertained to attendance at a December 3, 2015 meeting for a property manager, not a homeowners meeting for association registration.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Allan S. Amazona violated the Notarial Rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing an allegedly false document.
RULING
The Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. It adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP, which held that the mere act of notarizing the letter did not constitute a violation of the Notarial Rules. The respondent’s duty was to attest that the affiant, Michelle B. Lotho, personally appeared before him and subscribed to the truth of the document’s contents. The truth or falsity of the allegations within the document is the sole responsibility of the affiant. The complainants failed to present substantial evidence to prove that the respondent knowingly notarized a false document. In disbarment proceedings, the complainant must establish the allegations through substantial evidence; mere allegations without proof are insufficient. The Court found no cause for disciplinary action against the respondent.