G.R. No. 5480, September 29, 2003
Leilani Ocampo-Ingcoco and Baltazar D. Ocampo, Complainants, vs. Atty. Alejandro G. Yrreverre, Jr., Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants charged respondent Atty. Alejandro G. Yrreverre, Jr. with unethical and unprofessional conduct. They alleged that on April 17, 2000, the respondent notarized a falsified Deed of Absolute Sale for a parcel of land registered under their parents, Pacita and Hermilindo Ocampo. The vendee, Rosita Billones, falsified Hermilindo’s signature. At the time of notarization, Hermilindo had been deceased for over a year, and Pacita was in Isabela, making their personal appearance before the respondent impossible. The respondent also recorded a Community Tax Certificate number not issued to Pacita. This notarized deed enabled the Billones spouses to transfer the title to themselves.
The complainants further alleged that the respondent had a personal interest in the property, as it was later mortgaged to JCY Loans and Mortgage, Inc., a company he owned and for which he acted as counsel. In subsequent civil litigation filed by Pacita to nullify the deed, the respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the Billones spouses. He also appeared as counsel for JCY Loans in a separate case against the same spouses and moved for its intervention in Pacita’s case, creating an apparent conflict of interest.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Alejandro G. Yrreverre, Jr. should be held administratively liable for his actions.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found him guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. On the charge of representing conflicting interests, the Court held that the respondent’s simultaneous representation of the Billones spouses and JCY Loans, which had adverse interests in related transactions, violated Rule 15.03 of the Code. His defense of written consent from all parties was unsubstantiated.
More egregiously, the respondent breached his solemn duties as a notary public. By notarizing a deed where one affiant was deceased and the other was not personally present, he violated the mandatory requirement under the Notarial Law that the parties must personally appear before the notary to attest to the truth of the contents of the instrument. His act gave the falsified document the prima facie appearance of authenticity, facilitating fraud. The Court emphasized that a notary public must exercise utmost care to preserve public confidence in notarized documents.
Considering the respondent’s remorse and the IBP’s recommendation, the Court imposed a six-month suspension from the practice of law for violating Rule 10.01 (a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client) and revoked his notarial commission, disqualifying him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. The penalty serves to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and the notarial system.