A.C. No. 11131 - DENNIS M. MAGUSARA, VS. ATTY. LOUIE A. RASTICA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, it disqualified respondent from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years and ordered the revocation of his notarial commission, if existing. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. [27] He claims that he was not given the chance to be heard and defend himself because: (1) the issue on the notarization of documents without authority was not part of the original complaint; and (2) no investigation was ever held to give him an opportunity to verify the authenticity of the alleged documents notarized without authority. [28] The Court's Ruling We do not agree with the IBP Board of Governors. At the outset, we note, through complainant's own submissions, that he filed two complaints against respondent. The first is the 2008 disbarment complaint for violation of the rules on notarial practice filed before the IBP Negros Oriental Chapter. The second is the present complaint for violation of Section 20(d), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court filed before the IBP-CBD. We agree with Commissioner Cachapero's finding that there was no substantial evidence to prove that respondent violated Section 20(d), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Respondent's narration of facts and the documentary evidence he presented, especially the affidavit of Ramie clarifying that he understood the contents of the subject complaint-affidavit, substantiated his claim of innocence. We also agree with the Commissioner Cachapero in exluding the allegation that respondent engaged in notarial practice despite the expiration of his notarial commission in his resolution of the complaint. A review of complainant's pleadings shows that this issue, along with the documents submitted to support the charge (specifically the compromise agreement between the Municipal Treasurer of Bindoy, Negros Oriental and Felix Villanueva, Jr. and the verification executed by Kristie Marie E. Fernandez), [29] were already subject of an earlier investigation by the IBP Negros Oriental Chapter. The records also show that the IBP-CBD did not order the consolidation of these two complaints. From these, it is apparent that the inclusion of the additional issue ( i.e. , notarizing documents without authority) in resolving this complaint would result in a situation where two separate complaints are filed against respondent by the same complainant concerning the same offense based on the same set of facts. There is forum shopping when two or more actions or proceedings involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. [30] To include this additional ground in the present complaint would constitute forum shopping as the same is similar to complainant's cause of action in the 2008 disbarment complaint he filed against respondent. Therefore, we find that the IBP Board of Governors erred when it took into consideration the additional ground, which, to repeat,