G.R. No. A.C. No. 2694 March 8, 1989
MANUEL LEAÑO, complainant, vs. ATTY. ERNESTO ANDICO, respondent.

FACTS

Manuel Leaño filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Ernesto Andico, alleging the notarization of a forged Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over his property. Leaño claimed Atty. Andico was grossly negligent in failing to ascertain the identities of the persons who executed the deed, which led to the property’s foreclosure and his eventual ejectment. He asserted he and his wife never executed such a mortgage in favor of Jacinto Ilas.
In his defense, Atty. Andico countered that he personally knew Leaño, a former policeman, from their time in local politics. He presented a prior mortgage deed he had notarized for Leaño in 1966 to demonstrate familiarity. He argued the 1974 mortgage was genuine and that Ilas was the real mortgagee, as evidenced by Ilas’s own petition for foreclosure. Andico characterized the complaint as politically motivated, alleging Leaño was a henchman of his political opponent, Mayor Calixto Enriquez, who assisted in preparing the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Ernesto Andico should be held administratively liable for gross negligence in the performance of his notarial duties.

RULING

The Court dismissed the complaint, finding it devoid of merit. The Solicitor General’s investigation, to which the case was referred, thoroughly discredited Leaño’s allegations. First, Leaño falsely claimed he never mortgaged the property, yet admitted under oath to a prior 1966 mortgage notarized by the respondent. Second, his timeline of discovering the alleged forgery was inconsistent and contradicted by his own testimony about receiving foreclosure notices years earlier. Third, key evidence from the alleged mortgagee, Jacinto Ilas, was unreliable; Ilas’s affidavit denying involvement was contradicted by testimony showing Leaño and his wife had brought Ilas to the lawyer’s office to execute it, proving prior acquaintance.
The Court accepted the Solicitor General’s finding that the complaint was frivolous and politically motivated. Leaño admitted his close association with the respondent’s political rival, who directly assisted in preparing the complaint. Given the complete lack of credible evidence to support the charge of forgery or notarial misconduct, and the demonstrable falsehoods in the complainant’s submissions, the Court held that Atty. Andico committed no breach of his notarial duties. The complaint was deemed an instrument for harassment, intended to maliciously damage the respondent’s reputation, and was therefore dismissed.