G.R. No. A.C. No. 3046, October 26, 1998
Regalado Daroy, Complainant, vs. Atty. Esteban Abecia, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Regalado Daroy (now deceased) filed a complaint for malpractice against his former counsel, Atty. Esteban Abecia. Daroy alleged that Abecia forged his signature in a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 31, 1971, which transferred a parcel of land in Opol, Misamis Oriental, to Jose Gangay for P1,250.00. Subsequently, through another deed dated April 17, 1971, Gangay purportedly sold the land to Nena Abecia, the respondent’s wife, for P1,350.00. Daroy claimed he entrusted the title (TCT No. T-315) to Abecia as his lawyer in a forcible entry case, where the land was acquired through a sheriff’s auction. He discovered the alleged fraud only in 1984.
Daroy submitted an NBI report indicating his signature on the deed was forged, and an affidavit from Anita Gangay (Jose Gangay’s wife) retracting a prior statement and denying any knowledge of the sale. A criminal case for falsification was filed against Abecia, leading to an information filed in the Regional Trial Court.
In his defense, Abecia maintained the sale was genuine, citing a Sheriff’s Return dated August 6, 1973, which noted Daroy and “his assignee Nena Abecia” were placed in possession of the land, and a fiscal’s resolution referring to Nena Abecia as the owner. He also presented affidavits from the notary public, Erasmo G. Damasing, and a witness, Daisy Felicilda, affirming Daroy signed the deed in their presence.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commissioner found Abecia guilty of malpractice and recommended disbarment, but the IBP Board of Governors reduced the penalty to indefinite suspension. Abecia filed a motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Esteban Abecia is guilty of malpractice and should be disciplined for allegedly forging his client’s signature to transfer a property to his wife.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against Atty. Esteban Abecia. The Court found that Daroy failed to substantiate his claim of forgery. The NBI report on the signature was not presented through expert testimony, and Daroy did not refute the positive assertions of the notary public and witness that he signed the deed voluntarily. Evidence, including the Sheriff’s Return and fiscal’s resolution, indicated Daroy was aware of the transfer to Nena Abecia as early as 1973, contradicting his claim of discovering it only in 1984. The Court held that Daroy did not meet the burden of proving forgery, as the notarized deed carried the presumption of regularity. The IBP resolution was reconsidered and the complaint dismissed.