EMERITA CAILING, COMPLAINANT VS. ATTY. JOSE VID. F. ESPINOSA, RESPONDENT.

This is a proceeding for disbarment.
The complaint alleges in substance that
on or about June 16, 1955, the respondent, a member of the Bar, presented to the
complainant a document purporting to be signed by one Jose Balicao and
“ratified” by the respondent as a notary public but “which was found out later
to be totally falsified and a fake.” While admitting that the document was
ratified before him, respondent claimed that he did not know of the forgery,
having no reason to believe that the one who ratified the document was not Jose
Balicao himself. Respondent would also attribute the whole thing to the
machination of politics. The provincial fiscal who investigated the case found
the evidence insufficient to charge respondent with knowledge of the forgery or
falsification, but recommended reprimand for his laxity in the exercise of his
duties, ‘”The Solicitor-General, however, believes respondent guilty and
recommends his suspension as a member of the Bar.

The facts appear to be as follows:

Some time in 1950, the complainant, a widow residing in Dasol, Pangasinan,
bought of her brother-in-law, Jose Balicao, a piece of land for P100.00, but no
deed of sale was executed because the vendor was in a hurry to get his money as
he was leaving for Mindanao with his family. He, in fact, soon left for Mindano
and there he remained. In 1955, complainant, having need of reselling the land
she had bought but having no documentary proof of the sale, went to Francisco
Bonilla, then a municipal councilor of Dasol and a cousin of her deceased
husband as well as of the vendor Balicao, and asked help in securing the
necessary deed of sale in her favor. She mentioned in that connection the name
of the respondent, who, on previous occasions, had drawn up documents for her
mother-in-law without charging any fee. Bonilla contacted respondent and had him
prepare, for Balicao’s signature, a letter addressed to complainant and
authorizing her to sign Balicao’s name on the necessary deed of sale. Bonilla,
however, did not send that letter to Balicao. Upon complainant’s instructions,
he sent, instead, another letter in which he asked for authority to sign
Balicao’s name on the deed. Balicao wrote back requesting Bonilla to do just
that, that is, sign Balicao’s name “on the papers”, in case complainant should
ask him “to accompany her to have a document made regarding the land”, adding
that he had no more interest in the land, that (as proof of authority) his
letter could be shown to the notary public that if there should be any trouble
he, Balicao, would the one to answer. Inclosed in Balicao’s letter was his
residence certificate, issued at Tumang, Buluan, Cotabato.

As requested by Balicao, Bonilla accompanied complainant to respondents
office to have him prepare the deed. But respondent found Balicao’s letter of
authorization insufficient for the purpose and so he told them that Balicao had
to either execute a regular power of attorney or come and sign the document
himself.

Confronted with the difficulty of having to bring Balicao to Pangasinan or
secure a power of attorney from him, and with the pressing need of having to
sell the land to raise money for the support of her children, complainant had to
find a way out, and it would appear that after leaving respondent’s office she
and Bonilla agreed on a scheme to have someone impersonate Balicao and sign the
latter’s name on the deed. After they had selected a man for that purpose, they
brought him to respondent’s office and there complainant introduced him to
respondent as her “Manong Osing”, that is, Jose Balicao, who, according to her,
had just arrived from Mindanao. Respondent prepared the deed of sale and, after
translating it into the dialect, handed it to complainant, Bonilla and the
person posing as Balicao, for signature. But just then a political leader of
respondent called him to the street to talk to him, and during respondents
absence from the room Bonilla learned that the person who was to sign Balicao’s
name did not know how to write. So what Bonilla did was to sign Balicao’s name
himself. He also wrote in the acknowledgment clause the date and number of his
own residence certificate. This he had to do because he did not then have with
him Balicao’s residence certificate, having failed to locate it when he left his
house that day. Respondent came back from the street without knowing what had
transpired during his absence. But noting that what should be the vendor’s
signature was already written on the deed, he inquired of the impostor, whom he
believed to be Balicao himself, if the signature was his, and, upon receiving an
affirmative reply, asked for his residence certificate. Bonilla made a move of
passing a residence certificate to the impostor, at the same time reading its
serial number and date of issue, thus creating the impression that it was the
one demanded by the respondent when in reality it was his own. And as the date
and number read by Bonilla tallied with those written in the acknowledgment
clause, respondent did not bother to look at the residence certificate anymore,
and thereafter, with the supposed vendor affirming under oath that he was
executing the deed voluntarily and with Bonilla and respondent signing as
witnesses, the document was notarized by respondent. The latter charged no fee
as complainant was poor, though according to her she was asked to remember him
in the election (he being then, so we gather, a candidate for mayor).

With a deed now in her favor complainant went to her uncle, Simeon Calling,
who wanted to buy the land from her. Calling told her that he would check on the
deed and that if everything was in order he would pay her the purchase price. But
some two or three days later, Cailing returned the document and told complainant
that it was a “fake”, he knowing for certain that Jose Balicao was not in Dasol,
Pangasinan, and could therefor have signed it.

Unable to sell the land, complainant-so she says-sought help from the mayor
of Dasol and the latter (a political rival of respondent’s) advised her to file
the present complain and even accompanied her to this Court.

It is not disputed that what purports to be Jose Balicao’s signature on the
deed is a forgery. Complainant testified that she did not know who wrote the
signature. Bonilla on his part declared that it was he who wrote it, having been
put to the necessity of doing so upon discovering that the man they had brought
to respondent’s office did not know how to read and write. But whoever it was
who wrote the signature, it seems certain that respondent was not aware that the
signature was a forgery, believing that it was in fact that of the man who was
introduced to him by complainant as Jose Balicao. Of course, there is the
circumstance that Balicao was related to respondent by affinity, being a cousin
of the latter’s wife. But there is also proof that respondent was not familiar
with Balicao’ s face, for he had been away from Dasol for many years and he was
only 12 years old when he last saw him. Indeed, were the facts otherwise, we do
not think it likely that complainant and Bonilla would have dared bring to
respondent’s office someone to impersonate Balicao. Moreover, it is also hard to
believe that, for nothing more than the possibility of being remembered in the
election by one who, like the complainant, does not even appear to be a
qualified voter, a lawyer would want to be a party to a falsification, risk
prosecution and destroy his career as a member of the Bar. Our conclusion,
therefore, is that respondent in notarizing the deed has merely been the victim
of an imposition.

However, we think that respondent has been somewhat negligent in not taking
pains to ascertain that the person ratifying the deed before him was the vendor
himself and not a mere impostor. Luckily for him, no damage has resulted, and
most probably the whole matter would have been forgotten had not someone seen in
it an opportunity to discredit a rival in politics. In the circumstances, we
have to admonish respondent to be more careful in the performance of his duties
as lawyer and notary public to the end that he may not, even though unwittingly,
make himself an easy tool for illegal purposes.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon,
Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L.,
Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.