AC 546; (December, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 546 December 18, 1967
City Fiscal Luis R. Lozada, complainant, vs. Dominador E. Flores, respondent.
FACTS
The City Fiscal of Toledo City filed a disbarment case against attorney Dominador E. Flores for unprofessional and unethical conduct. The complaint specifically alleged that Flores notarized several documents (an extrajudicial partition, a deed of sale with right of repurchase, and four deeds of absolute sale) in 1961 and 1962 after his notarial commission had expired on December 31, 1960. It further alleged that he deliberately failed to submit the required monthly notarial reports and copies of documents to the Clerk of Court to conceal his lack of authority. In his initial answer, Flores claimed his commission was renewed. The Solicitor General’s investigation found that Flores had no commission for 1961 and 1962, notarized the documents anyway, and failed to file his notarial reports or surrender his 1960 register. Despite multiple postponements and warnings, Flores failed to appear at the investigation to present his defense. When required by the Court to answer the Solicitor General’s report, he finally admitted negligence in not renewing his commission and in notarizing documents without authority, pleading for mercy.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Dominador E. Flores should be disbarred for notarizing documents without a valid notarial commission and for related misconduct.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court ordered the disbarment of Dominador E. Flores. The Court found the evidence conclusively established his misconduct. His actions constituted not only malpractice and gross misconduct as an attorney but also the crime of falsification of public documents on six separate occasions, as the city assessor relied on his false representations to transfer property tax declarations, impairing document integrity and prejudicing property rights. The Court rejected his excuse of relying on a friend to renew his commission, noting it contradicted his initial denial and amounted to trifling with the Court. His failure to present any defense and complete indifference to the proceedings further demonstrated a lack of valid defense. Accordingly, he was disbarred, his name ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and he was directed to surrender his lawyer’s certificate of title.