A.C. No. 11583 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-2878] - PILAR C. PROSPERO AND CLARINDA P. CASTILLO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. JOAQUIN L. DELOS SANTOS AND ATTY. ROBERTO A. SAN JOSE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, We affirm the dismissal of the complaint against Atty. San Jose. Against Atty. Delos Santos, however, We find that the allegations in the complaint as well as the evidences presented sufficiently proved his fraudulent infractions. Prefatorily, it must be mentioned that Atty. Delos Santos did not file any Answer to the complaint nor did he appear at the scheduled hearing despite receiving notices thereof. Instead, he merely filed motions to extend the time to file an Answer and motions for reconsideration interposing various excuses such as the flu, back pains, or mistakes on the part of his staff. The Court, however, cannot countenance these unsubstantiated excuses. As far as this case is concerned, Atty. Delos Santos was given more than enough time and opportunity to explain his side. But even if We consider the belated explanation in his Motion for Reconsideration, the outcome of this case will remain the same. In so many words, Atty. Delos Santos reasoned that it was Pilar, with the help of Malou, who was adamant in selling the subject property to Hauskon and that he merely accommodated her wishes out of the goodness of his heart. The contention, however, is untenable. As aptly found by the Investigating Commissioner, the evidence on record is too overwhelming to ignore. At the outset, Atty. Delos Santos does not deny the fact that he prepared and notarized documents supposedly signed by Fermina. But it was firmly established by her death certificate that she had already died on May 8, 1983, long before the execution of the deed of sale on May 20, 2008. This fact, alone, is unacceptable and warrants disbarment. In Fabay v. Atty. Resuena , [17] the Court disbarred Atty. Resuena for notarizing documents without the personal appearance of the affiants who have long been dead at the time of execution thereof. Thus: In the instant case, it is undisputed that Atty. Resuena violated not only the notarial law but also his oath as a lawyer when he notarized the subject SPA without all the affiant's personal appearance. As found by the IBP-CBD, the purpose of the SPA was to authorize a certain Apolo D. Perez to represent the principals "to sue and be sued in any administrative or judicial tribunal in connection with any suit that may arise out of their properties." It is, thus, appalling that Atty. Resuena permitted Remedios Perez to sign on behalf of Amador Perez and Valentino Perez knowing fully well that the two were already dead at that time and more so when he justified that the latter's names were nevertheless not included in the acknowledgment albeit they are signatories of the SPA. Equally deplorable is the fact that Remedios was likewise allowed to sign on behalf of Gracia Perez and Gloria Perez, who were said to be residing abroad. Worse, he deliberately allowed the use of the subject SPA in an ejectment case that was filed in court. In effect, Atty. Resuena, in notarizing the SPA, contented himself with Remedios' representation o