A.C. No. 10904 [Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5092] - FELIX C. MONTINOLA III, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JUAN T. RUBRICO, ATTY. DAISY D. MONTINOLA, AND ATTY. FILOMENO B. TAN, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the RTC ordered the revocation of Atty. Rubrico's notarial commission and reminded Atty. Montinola to be more circumspect in her dealings with fellow members of the Bar. In addition, it also prohibited Atty. Rubrico from being commissioned as a notary public for three months following the expiration period of his notarial commission. [24] Nonetheless, the RTC dismissed the case against Atty. Tan and the heirs of Felix, Sr. for lack of legal and factual basis. [25] The dispositive portion of the assailed Resolution reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the notarial commission of Atty. Juan T. Rubrico is hereby REVOKED. He is also prohibited from being commissioned as notary public for three (3) months following the expiration of the period of his notarial commission. Atty. Daisy D. Montinola is reminded to be more circumspect in her dealings with her fellow members of the bar. The case against Atty. Filomeno B. Tan. Jr. and the rest of the respondents are hereby "DISMISSED" for being without factual and legal basis. SO RESOLVED. [26] Still not contented with the revocation of the notarial commission of Atty. Rubrico, complainant moved for reconsideration, [27] but the RTC denied the motion in its Order [28] dated February 16, 2015. Hence, the Petition docketed as G.R. No. 216894 before the Court. On August 5, 2015, the Court resolved to treat the Petition as an administrative complaint and redocketed the case as A.C. No. 10904. [29] Thereafter, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. [30] Respondents' Version In his defense, Atty. Rubrico explained that he has had longstanding personal and professional ties with the members of the Rendon Calvez Santizo Law Office which used to occupy the office next to his in Plaza Mart Bldg., Araneta St., Bacolod City; and that Atty. Montinola was a frequent visitor of his office as she was close to a certain Atty. Rendon and cousin to the latter's former partner, the late Atty. Puaki Ferrer. [31] He narrated that on February 4, 2014, a certain Elfa Ruth Bolero (Bolero), the secretary of the Rendon Calvez Santizo Law Office, called to say that Atty. Montinola was requesting for the notarization of the subject deed. The next day, Atty. Rubrico asked Bolero if the document was duly authenticated. After the latter's assurance that the document had indeed been authenticated, he notarized the deed because of his trust towards a fellow lawyer and as an accommodation to the law office which he considered as a neighbor and friend. [32] For her part, Atty. Montinola alleged that she is one of the surviving legal heirs of the late Felix, Sr. along with complainant and their other co-heirs. She claimed that she and the other co-heirs have decided to sell the subject lot and divide the proceeds among themselves, but complainant, who is living in and is making beneficial use of the property, refused to discuss the matter. Thus