AC 5310; (January, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 131139. January 28, 2003
LINA P. VILLAROSA and JOSE P. VILLAROSA, complainants, vs. ATTY. OSMONDO V. POMPERADA, respondent.
FACTS
Complainants Lina and Jose Villarosa filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Osmondo V. Pomperada for deceit and gross misconduct. They alleged that a Deed of Absolute Sale, purportedly executed by the late Isidro Villarosa in favor of his son Jose in 1993 and notarized by the respondent, was falsified. This notarized deed surfaced during a civil case for rescission of contract filed by Jose Villarosa against a third-party buyer, Loreto Cauntoy.
The complainants presented a Certification from the Records Management and Archives Office stating that the notarial details referenced in the contested deed (Doc. No. 59, Page No. 15, Book No. XVIII, Series of 1993) pertained to a completely different document—an affidavit executed by another individual. They argued this proved the deed was falsified. Respondent Atty. Pomperada denied the allegations, claiming the deed was genuine and signed by the parties at their residence, and asserted the complaint was an act of harassment.
ISSUE
Whether the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) committed a procedural error by recommending disciplinary action against the respondent without conducting a formal investigation.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the IBP Resolution and remanded the case for proper investigation. The IBP Board of Governors had adopted a report recommending a five-year suspension from the practice of law and the perpetual revocation of the respondent’s notarial commission. However, this recommendation was made without conducting any formal investigation where the respondent could present evidence and be heard.
The Court, citing Cottam vs. Laysa, emphasized that the procedural rules under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court are mandatory in disciplinary cases. These rules guarantee the respondent’s fundamental right to due process, which includes a formal investigation, the opportunity to defend oneself, present witnesses, and be heard by counsel. An ex parte investigation is permitted only if the respondent fails to appear after reasonable notice. Given the gravity of the charges and the severe penalty recommended, a full-blown investigation was indispensable. The Court held that the procedures are designed to ensure that only the guilty are punished and that no lawyer is condemned without a fair hearing.