MANUEL LEAÑO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ERNESTO ANDICO, RESPONDENT.

Manuel Leaño filed a
verified letter-complaint charging Attorney Ernesto Andico of Rosario, Cavite,
with having notarized a forged Deed of Real Estate Mortgage of his house and
lot (covered by TCT No. T-9651) which was later foreclosed and sold at public
auction to Emilio Ricafrente resulting in the eventual ejectment of the
complainant and his wife from the property
by Ricafrente. He alleged that Attorney
Andico was remiss and grossly negligent in the performance of his duties as a
notary public by failing to ascertain the identity of the persons who executed
the supposedly forged Deed of Real Estate Mortgage before he notarized the
same.

In his Comment on the
complaint, Atty. Andico averred that he personally knows the complainant,
a former municipal policeman of Rosario, for he (Andico) was an elective
municipal official of that town, first as municipal councilor in 1964, and as
vice-mayor in 1972, that he could not possibly have been mistaken about the
identity of Leaño as the person who executed the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage
in 1974 in favor of one Jacinto Ilas (Annex 1); that in 1966. Leaño and his wife Asuncion Crisostomo had also mortgaged the same property in favor of the Rural Bank of Salinas which he also notarized as notary public of
the bank (Annex 2); that
although Ilas; in an affidavit (Annex A of letter-complaint) denied being the
mortgagee of the property, Ilas never appeared nor testified in Civil Case No.
4094 which Leaño filed against Atty. Andico involving the mortgaged property; that
the truth is that Ilas was really the mortgagee
in the questioned Deed of Real Estate Mortgage (Annex 1) and it was he who
signed the Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
before Notary Public Juan C. Medina, Jr. (Annex 3 of Comment); that Leaño’s
administrative complaint against him is politically motivated because the
complainant is a henchman of
Andico’s political opponent, Mayor Calixto Enriquez, who administered the oath
to Leaño’s letter-complaint.

The solicitor General to
whom Leaño’s complaint was referred for investigation, report, and
recommendation, conducted an investigation and hearing, and submitted
a report to this Court containing the
following findings:

1.     
Leaño’s allegation that he and his wife “have never
executed any deed of Real Estate
Mortgage involving their land covered by TCT No. 9651″ is false because he admitted during the
investigation that he and his wife did mortgage that land to the Rural Bank of
Salinas on September 30, 1966. Leaño
admitted his and his wife’s signatures on the deed of mortgage (Annex 2 of
Comment);

2.     
Leaño’s allegation that he discovered the “forged”
1974 deed of real estate mortgage in favor of Jacinto Ilas in
1980 only when his house was about to be demolished,
is false. It is belied by
his testimony that he came to know about the mortgage in favor of Ilas in 1978
or 1979 when he received a notice from Atty. Julian Medina demanding payment of
his account to Ilas, and by his testimony that he received the sheriff’s notice
of the foreclosure after the auction sale on May 14, 1976;

3.     
The statements in Ilas’ affidavit that he met Leaño for the
first time in the office of Atty. Ponciano Espiritu before whom he executed
said affidavit on January 31, 1981, and that he met Leaño’s wife, Asuncion
Crisostomo, for the first time on September 19, 1981 in the office of Atty.
Conrado Aquino, were contradicted: (1)
by Leaño who testified that he met Ilas for the first time in the house of the
barangay captain in 1982 (pp. 4-6, t.s.n., Aug. 19,1985); and (2) by Atty.
Espiritu’s testimony that Leaño and his
wife brought Ilas to his office to execute the affidavit, proving that Leaño
already knew Ilas before they came to his office;

4.     
The allegation of Atty. Andico that the administrative
complaint against him is politically motivated is credible because Leaño
admitted that he is a henchman of Mayor Calixto Enriquez,
that it was Mayor Enriquez, with the help
of Atty. Maguigad, who prepared
his letter-complaint, and that he subscribed his complaint before Mayor
Enriquez.

The Solicitor general
recommended that the administrative complaint be dismissed.

In light of the Solicitor
General’s finding’s, and pursuant
to his recommendation, the administrative complaint against Attorney Ernesto
Andico is hereby dismissed for being completely devoid of factual basis,
frivolous, and intended merely to harass, annoy, and maliciously besmirch the
reputation of the respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.