G.R. No. A.C. No. 140-J March 8, 1988
AMBROSIO SABAYLE, complainant, vs. HON. TEODULO C. TANDAYAG, ATTY. CARMELITO B. GABOR and ATTY. PABLO B. BADONG, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Ambrosio Sabayle filed a disbarment complaint in 1968 against Judge Teodulo Tandayag and Attorneys Carmelito Gabor and Pablo Badong. The charges against Judge Tandayag were dismissed in 1969. The case proceeded against the two attorneys, with the Solicitor General eventually investigating. The factual backdrop involves Sabayle’s civil liability in a prior case where he posted a supersedeas bond. To secure a replacement surety bond from Manhattan Guarantee Company, Sabayle signed a document he believed was an indemnity agreement. This document, notarized by respondent Gabor, was later revealed to be an Absolute Deed of Sale conveying his land to Manhattan’s manager, Teopisto Salcedo. Gabor subsequently purchased half of that same land from Salcedo.
In a separate civil case for annulment, Salcedo admitted the Deed of Sale was “absolutely simulated or fictitious,” as no purchase price was paid and no sale was ever intended. The court consequently declared both the sale to Salcedo and Salcedo’s subsequent sale to Gabor null and void, restoring ownership to Sabayle. The charge against Atty. Badong stemmed from alleged negligence in handling Sabayle’s appeal in the original civil case, but Badong died during the pendency of the disbarment proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Atty. Carmelito B. Gabor and Atty. Pablo B. Badong should be held administratively liable based on the complainant’s charges.

RULING

The Court dismissed the charges against the deceased Atty. Pablo B. Badong as moot and academic. Regarding Atty. Carmelito B. Gabor, the Court found him guilty of serious dishonesty and professional misconduct, ordering his disbarment. The legal logic is anchored on the fiduciary duties of a lawyer and the solemn functions of a notary public. Gabor, acting as a notary public, acknowledged a simulated Deed of Sale where the purported vendors were not present, falsely certifying the genuineness and voluntariness of the execution. His misconduct was compounded by his subsequent purchase of a portion of the property subject to the void deed, thereby profiting from the fraudulent transaction he helped facilitate.
This conduct violates the fundamental mandate for lawyers to act with truth and honor. The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions, requiring standards higher than merely avoiding criminal penalty. By participating in a false transaction and deriving benefit from it, Gabor betrayed his oath and undermined public trust in the legal profession, particularly the integrity of notarial acts. His actions demonstrated a clear unfitness to remain a member of the Bar, warranting the ultimate penalty of disbarment to protect the public and the integrity of the judicial system.