G.R. No. A.C. No. 7231, October 1, 2019
EDGAR M. RICO, complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSE R. MADRAZO, JR., ATTY. ANTONIO V.A. TAN, and ATTY. LEONIDO C. DELANTE, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Edgar M. Rico filed a disbarment complaint against respondents Attys. Jose R. Madrazo, Jr., Antonio V.A. Tan, and Leonido C. Delante for fraud, conduct unbecoming a lawyer, and violation of the Notarial Law. The complaint stemmed from an application for a Permit to Cut coconut trees filed by Madrazo and Tan with the Philippine Coconut Authority (PHILCOA). Attached to their application were Affidavits of Non-Encumbrance and Affidavits of Marking, which were notarized by Delante. Upon verification, complainant discovered that the document and page numbers on these affidavits, as recorded in Delante’s Notarial Register, corresponded to entirely different documents (e.g., a deed of absolute sale, a secretary’s certificate, and affidavits of other persons). Complainant alleged the affidavits were invalid and spurious.
In their defenses: (1) Delante claimed the affiants (Madrazo and Tan) personally appeared before him, but his secretary inadvertently failed to enter the documents in the notarial register. (2) Madrazo and Tan denied any wrongdoing, asserting they personally appeared before Delante and had no knowledge of or participation in the register’s alleged irregularities. They characterized the complaint as a retaliatory act stemming from a prior ejectment case where Madrazo represented the landowner against complainant, which was decided in favor of Madrazo’s client up to the Supreme Court.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissing the complaint against Madrazo and Tan for lack of evidence of deceit, but recommended that Delante be reprimanded for negligence. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the dismissal but merely warned Delante. Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for final action.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Attys. Jose R. Madrazo, Jr., Antonio V.A. Tan, and Leonido C. Delante are administratively liable for fraud, violation of the Notarial Law, and conduct unbecoming a lawyer based on the allegedly spurious notarized affidavits submitted to the PHILCOA.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the complaint against Attys. Jose R. Madrazo, Jr. and Antonio V.A. Tan for lack of merit. The Court found NO clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence that they conspired with Delante or knowingly submitted falsified documents. Their defense of personal appearance before the notary was deemed credible.
However, the Court found Atty. Leonido C. Delante administratively liable for violation of the Notarial Law and the Lawyer’s Oath. His failure to ensure the proper entry of the subject affidavits in his notarial register constituted gross negligence in the performance of his notarial duties, undermining the integrity of notarized documents. The Court imposed the penalty of revocation of his notarial commission (if currently commissioned), disqualification from reappointment as a notary public for one (1) year, and suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months. However, the Court noted that Delante had already been disbarred in a separate prior case (Maria Angalan, et al. v. Atty. Leonido C. Delante). Consequently, the new penalties could no longer be imposed, but they would be considered should Delante apply for the lifting of his disbarment in the future.