G.R. No. A.C. No. 3961 September 18, 1997
Salud Imson-Souweha, complainant, vs. Atty. Teopisto A. Rondez, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Salud Imson-Souweha charged respondent Atty. Teopisto Rondez with misconduct for notarizing an Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of her deceased parents, alleging her signature was forged as she was in the United States during its execution. She accused him of violating his notarial duties by certifying her personal appearance and participation. Respondent, a close friend of the family, defended his actions by asserting he acted in good faith based on representations from complainant’s sisters, Lydia Imson-Sinlao and Flora Imson-Elvina, who assured him they possessed a Special Power of Attorney from complainant authorizing them to sign on her behalf. He notarized the document upon returning to find all signatures affixed.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner recommended absolving respondent of the notarial violation charge, finding he relied in good faith on the sisters’ assurances. However, the IBP Board of Governors adopted a resolution reprimanding respondent for a conflict of interest, having appeared in a related civil case (Civil Case No. 2606-R) representing conflicting interests among the heirs. This reprimand was based on a motu proprio finding by the investigating commissioner not originally part of the complainant’s charges.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Teopisto Rondez should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of, and whether the reprimand for conflict of interest was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative case against respondent. The Court agreed with the IBP’s finding that respondent acted in good faith concerning the notarization. The evidence showed he relied on the explicit assurances from complainant’s sisters regarding their authority to sign, and complainant’s subsequent conduct—specifically, accepting her share of rental proceeds derived from the property settled via the deed—constituted ratification of the document, rendering the complaint moot.
However, the Court reversed the IBP’s imposition of a reprimand for conflict of interest. The legal logic is grounded in due process. The constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the charge (Section 14[2], Article III, 1987 Constitution) was violated because the conflict of interest allegation was not part of the original complaint filed by Souweha; it was a motu proprio finding by the investigating commissioner. An individual cannot be sanctioned for an offense for which he was not formally charged and given an opportunity to defend himself. Therefore, while the notarial charge failed due to good faith and ratification, the ancillary reprimand was legally impermissible.