G.R. No. A.C. No. 4191; June 10, 2013
ANITA C. PEÑA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. CHRISTINA C. PATERNO, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Anita C. Peña, former head of the GSIS Records Department, owned a parcel of land in Marikina covered by TCT No. N-61244. Respondent Atty. Christina C. Paterno was her lawyer in a 1974 legal separation case. In 1986, respondent suggested complainant apply for a bank loan using the property as collateral to construct townhouses. Complainant agreed, and respondent lent her ₱27,000 to pay off a GSIS loan balance. Upon the title’s release from GSIS, complainant entrusted it to respondent to handle the loan application. Respondent repeatedly assured complainant the documents were being prepared. Later, complainant discovered her apartment on the property had been demolished and four houses were built, and the property was now owned by Ernesto D. Lampa. Investigation revealed the property was sold on November 11, 1986, to Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd., whose managing partner was Estrella D. Kraus (respondent’s trusted employee, known to complainant), and then sold by Krisbuilt to Lampa on April 13, 1989. Respondent notarized the November 1986 Deed of Sale. Complainant alleged she never sold the property, did not sign any deed of sale, her signature was forged, and respondent manipulated the sale using Kraus. Respondent denied the allegations, claiming Kraus was a client, not an employee; that complainant herself offered to sell the property to the Spouses Kraus to raise money; that complainant signed the Deed of Sale in her office after receiving ₱67,000; and that complainant kept the deed and title to work on the mortgage release. Respondent asserted she was never entrusted with the title and had no further involvement. The Register of Deeds of Marikina City certified the Deed of Sale could not be located and was likely lost. A related criminal estafa case against respondent was dismissed by the RTC for insufficiency of evidence. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Christina C. Paterno violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law, warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the Notarial Law. The Supreme Court adopted the IBP’s findings and recommendation, disbarring respondent and revoking her notarial commission (if still existing), with perpetual disqualification from being a notary public.
The Court found clear and convincing evidence that respondent betrayed the trust of her client, complainant Peña. Respondent’s claim that complainant sold the property herself was contradicted by the sequence of events and respondent’s own actions. Complainant entrusted her title to respondent for a loan application, not a sale. Respondent’s failure to return the title upon demand and her notarization of the deed of sale without complainant’s genuine consent constituted deceit and abuse of confidence. As a notary public, respondent had a duty to ensure the parties personally appeared and acknowledged the instrument. Notarizing a deed where the vendor did not actually appear is a serious breach. The loss of the notarial register and the deed itself, which respondent was obligated to preserve, further compounded her culpability. The dismissal of the criminal case did not preclude administrative liability, as the standards of proof differ. Respondent’s actions demonstrated a failure to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and the solemnity of the notarial office.