G.R. No. L-2001 August 24, 1984
RICARDO S. OCAMPO, complainant, vs. ALFREDO N. CUBA, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Ricardo S. Ocampo charged respondent lawyer Alfredo N. Cuba with misconduct for allegedly notarizing a 1970 Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement without Ocampo’s personal appearance. The deed involved the settlement of a conjugal property among the heirs, including complainant, his father Basilio, and his brother Jose. It also included a transfer of Basilio and Ricardo’s interests to Jose. An initial NBI report concluded that Ricardo’s signature on the deed was not genuine.
Respondent Cuba, a lawyer notarizing the document as a favor to his co-employee Jose Ocampo, defended his actions. He asserted that when the deed was presented to him, it was already signed, and he asked all parties, including Ricardo, to confirm their signatures, which they did. He then asked for their residence certificates, recorded the deed in his notarial register, and charged no fee. In his defense, Cuba presented a Constabulary Crime Laboratory report contradicting the NBI finding, which concluded that Ricardo’s signature was genuine.

ISSUE

Whether respondent lawyer Alfredo N. Cuba should be held administratively liable for misconduct in the performance of his notarial duties.

RULING

The Court dismissed the complaint and found no cause for disciplinary action against respondent Cuba. The ruling hinged on the insufficiency of evidence to prove bad faith or a willful violation of notarial duties. The Court noted the conflicting expert reports on the authenticity of the complainant’s signature, creating reasonable doubt as to whether the complainant actually appeared. Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding the transaction—a family settlement where the father transferred his larger share to one son—made it improbable that the father would conspire to defraud his other son, lending credence to the respondent’s claim that all parties acknowledged their signatures before him.
The legal logic applied the principle that a notarial document carries the presumption of regularity, which can only be overturned by strong, complete, and conclusive proof. The evidence presented was deemed neither clear nor convincing enough to overcome this presumption or to establish that respondent acted in bad faith. Following precedent, the Court emphasized that for a lawyer to be disciplined for acts performed in a notarial capacity, the proof of wrongdoing must be compelling. Since the complainant failed to meet this high evidentiary standard, the administrative charge could not prosper.