AC 4700; (April, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 4700; April 12, 2000
RICARDO B. MANUBAY, complainant, vs. Atty. GINA C. GARCIA, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Ricardo B. Manubay charged Atty. Gina C. Garcia with misconduct as a notary public. He alleged that she fraudulently notarized a Contract of Lease in February and March 1996, making it appear he personally appeared and signed before her with witnesses. Manubay claimed he actually signed the document in his office when presented by an agent of the lessor, Lolita M. Hernandez, and did not appear before Garcia. He had filed a civil case to declare the lease null and void, which was pending in the Makati RTC.
In her defense, Atty. Garcia denied any irregularity, asserting that Manubay did appear before her, present his Community Tax Certificate, and sign the contract on March 5, 1996. She characterized the administrative complaint as part of Manubay’s strategy to file multiple related cases to frustrate the lessor’s ejectment suit against him and perpetuate litigation over the property.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Gina C. Garcia may be held administratively liable for misconduct.
RULING
The Court dismissed the complaint for utter lack of merit. In administrative cases against lawyers, the burden of proof rests on the complainant, and the lawyer’s guilt cannot be presumed. Manubay’s bare allegation that he did not appear before the notary cannot prevail over the document’s jurat and his own admission that he signed the contract. The specific execution date in February was left blank, and the notarization was dated March 5, 1996, which is not inconsistent.
The facts militated against the charge. Manubay only assailed the contract after it had expired and he had benefited from it. There was no showing of any malicious motive for Garcia to commit misconduct, as she had nothing to gain from the notarization. The administrative filing appeared consistent with Manubay’s pattern of initiating multiple suits, including the civil case to nullify the lease, aimed at hampering the ejectment proceedings. The complaint, being prima facie groundless, was summarily dismissed without referral to the IBP, as no further factual investigation was necessary.