AC 4500; (April, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 4500. April 30, 1999
BAN HUA U. FLORES, complainant, vs. ATTY. ENRIQUE S. CHUA, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Ban Hua U. Flores sought the disbarment of Atty. Enrique S. Chua for multiple offenses, including fraud, falsification, and gross misconduct. The central charge involved respondent notarizing a Deed of Sale dated December 5, 1989, which conveyed property owned by Chua Beng. Evidence established that Chua Beng’s signature on the deed was forged, as confirmed by a fingerprint expert and the testimony of his widow, Silvina Chua, who stated her husband was critically ill and could not have signed. The acknowledgment clause falsely stated Chua Beng personally appeared before Atty. Chua. Respondent defended by arguing the issues were sub judice due to pending criminal and civil cases.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s report, recommending a three-year suspension. The Supreme Court, however, reviewed the case de novo.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Enrique S. Chua should be disbarred for professional misconduct, particularly for notarizing a forged deed.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Enrique S. Chua. The Court emphasized that a notary public’s function is invested with public interest, requiring utmost fidelity. By notarizing a deed containing a forged signature and falsely attesting to the personal appearance of a deceased signatory a day before his death, respondent committed a grave violation of his notarial oath and the lawyer’s oath. This act alone constituted gross misconduct and malpractice, undermining public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents and the legal profession.
The Court rejected respondent’s defense that the administrative proceeding was premature due to pending criminal cases. Administrative liability is separate from criminal culpability and can be determined based on substantial evidence. The evidence of forgery and false notarization was clear and unrebutted. Considering the gravity of falsifying a public document and respondent’s prior disciplinary record—having been previously sternly warned for attempting to bribe a judge—the Court found the penalty of suspension insufficient. The totality of his actions demonstrated unfitness to remain a member of the bar. Consequently, the Court ordered his disbarment to protect the public and preserve the dignity of the legal profession.