AC 905; (May, 1975) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 905 May 30, 1975
HERMOGENES G. MENDOZA, complainant, vs. ATTY. ARSENIO R. REYES, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Hermogenes G. Mendoza charged respondent Atty. Arsenio R. Reyes with a serious notarial offense. The specific allegation was that the respondent notarized an affidavit before it had been signed by the complainant, who in fact had refused to sign the document. This act, if proven, would constitute malpractice and a violation of the notarial law and the attorney’s oath.
The respondent, Atty. Reyes, denied the charge. He specifically denied that the signature appearing on the notarization in question was his own. The case proceeded to investigation by the Office of the Solicitor General, which conducted a proper inquiry into the factual and evidentiary basis of the complaint.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent Atty. Arsenio R. Reyes is administratively liable for allegedly notarizing an affidavit prior to its execution by the complainant.
RULING
The Court dismissed the complaint and exonerated the respondent. The legal logic rests on the fundamental principle that the burden of proof in administrative cases, as in all others, lies with the complainant. The Solicitor General, after investigation, concluded that the complainant failed to prove that the signature on the notarization was indeed that of respondent Reyes. The Court, after its own review, found this report to be in order and supported by the records.
The circumstances further undermined the complainant’s case. The Court noted that the complainant appeared to have a personal motive for filing the charge. More critically, he failed to properly prosecute his own complaint. His repeated absences at the hearings prevented the completion of his cross-examination, leading to the case being submitted for decision without his testimony being fully heard and tested. This failure to pursue the case diligently and to substantiate the allegation with clear evidence was fatal to his cause. Consequently, with the charge unsubstantiated, the Court had no basis to impose administrative discipline and was compelled to exonerate the respondent attorney.