A.C. No. 12011 - NICANOR D. TRIOL, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. DELFIN R. AGCAOILI, JR..

Ruling

Accordingly, he filed a disbarment complaint against respondent. [3] In his defense, [4] respondent disavowed knowledge of the execution and notarization of the subject deed, claiming that he did not know complainant, Grace, and Caparas. He maintained that his signature on the subject deed was forged, since he would never notarize an instrument without the signatory parties personally appearing before him. He likewise asserted that he could not have notarized it, as he was not a commissioned notary public in Quezon City in 2011. [5] The IBP's Report and Recommendation In a Report and Recommendation [6] dated August 14, 2015, the IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the complaint, there being no substantial evidence to show that respondent is guilty of violating Section 1 (b) (7), Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (2004 Notarial Rules). [7] The Investigating Commissioner found that respondent was not aware of the execution and notarization of the subject deed, as he was able to establish that the signature affixed on the subject deed was not his by virtue of the specimen signature that he provided in his Answer. [8] In a Resolution [9] dated April 29, 2016, the IBP Board of Governors reversed the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and accordingly, imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, as well as disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for the same period. It likewise directed the revocation of his current notarial commission, if any, and ordered the Commission on Bar Discipline Director Ramon S. Esguerra (CIBD Dir. Esguerra) to prepare an extended resolution explaining its action. [10] In an undated Extended Resolution, [11] CIBD Dir. Esguerra explained the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors to suspend respondent from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years and to disqualify him from being commissioned as notary public for the same period pursuant to the case of Tenoso v. Echanez . [12] CIBD Dir. Esguerra observed that while respondent provided his specimen signature in his Answer, he failed to substantiate its genuineness and authenticity, given that he did not submit a copy of his signature appearing in the records of the Office of the Clerk of Court or any other official document containing the same specimen signature. As such, the probative value of the subject deed containing his notarization, as well as the certifications [13] from the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City that he was not a commissioned notary public in 2011 and 2012, stands. [14] Aggrieved, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, [15] which was denied in a Resolution [16] dated May 27, 2017. The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable. The Court's Ruling The Court concurs with the findings of the IBP. It is settled