Case Title: Ruben S. Sia vs Atty. Tomas A. Reyes (A.C. No. 10015.

June 6,
2019)
Topics:
 Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, as amended)
 Relation to Code of Professional Responsibility
 Suspension, disbarment and discipline of lawyers

Facts:
The petitioner, President and duly authorized representative of Ruby Shelter
Builders and Realty Development Corporation, entered a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) with Mr. Obiedo and Tan (creditors) for the debt incurred
secured by a real estate mortgage. The mortgage was foreclosed since there
was nonpayment of debt hence, petitioner executed deed of absolute sale in
favor of his creditors. However, the date of the subject deeds were left bank.

Subsequently, the petitioner claimed that he learned that the subject deeds
were notarized by Atty. Reyes (respondent) on January 3, 2006 by supplying
by supplying entries in the blank spaces without his knowledge, consent and
physical presence.

On the other hand, the respondent averred that during the notarization of the
subject deeds, he personally asked petitioner whether it was his (petitioner's)
signature that was affixed on the subject deeds and whether the execution of
the subject deeds was his free and voluntary act, to which petitioner
affirmatively answered.

With this, the petitioner filed an administrative case against respondent for
grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a notary public.

Question:
Whether respondent is administratively liable for grave misconduct and
conduct unbecoming of a notary public?

SUPREME COURT RULING:

No. It is axiomatic that the law presumes that an attorney is innocent of the
charges against him, until the contrary is proven. The Court will exercise its
disciplinary power over members of the Bar if, and only if, the complainant
successfully shows that the charges against the respondent has been
convincingly established by clearly preponderant evidence. The serious
consequences that flow from disbarment or suspension of a lawyer must call
for the production or presentation of clear, convincing, and preponderant
evidence.
In this case, the petitioner did not challenge the authenticity of his signatures
in the subject deeds. It is emphasized that he filed this administrative suit
belatedly or after four years and eight months after respondent notarized the
subject deeds on January 3, 2006. His inaction or delay for such a considerable
period of time casts doubt not only upon his motive or sincerity, but also upon
the validity or truth of his claim. Further, the petitioner admitted that on the
said date, he met with his creditors to discuss the interest of the loan but he
was not apprised that respondent was about to notarize the subject deeds. In
effect, petitioner admits that he appeared before respondent and
acknowledged his signature in the subject.