OCA CIRCULAR NO. 64-2003, May 29, 2003

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted hereunder
is Hie decision of the Court’s First Division in Administrative Case No.
5957 entitled “WTinnie Lucente, et al., vs. Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista,
Jr.,” dated February 4, 2003, to wit:

“In a sworn letter-complaint dated January 15, 1999 filed with the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline,
Winnie C. Lucente and Alicia G. Domingo charged Atty. Cleto L.
Evangelista, Jr. with gross misconduct, deceit, malpractice and crimes
involving moral turpitude for falsification of public documents.

Complainants alleged that respondent is the son of the late Atty.
Cleto Evangelista, who during his lifetime notarized a Deed of Quitclaim
executed on May 7, 1998 by Pedro, Juimito, Eufracia, Cresencia,
Consuelo, Maria, all surnamed Tan, and. one Sabina Mascareñas, in favor
of Asuncion T. Yared and Cynthia Yared Estudillo, involving Lot No.
5514 located in . Salvacion, Ormoc City; and a Deed of Absolute Sale
executed on January 7, 1972 by Wenceslao Magallanes and Apolonia . Tan
in favor of Salvador Estudillo and Cynthia Yared Estudillo, involving
Lot No. 1187-B located in Poblacion, Ormod City. On January 30, 1990,
respondent Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. issued certified true copies
of the said instruments. On the basis of the certified true copies of
the subject deeds, the Register of Deeds of Ormoc City issued on
February 2, 1990 Transfer Certificate of Title No.23889 in favor of
Asuncion T. Yared.

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint interposing res adjudicata,
arguing that the allegations in the complaint raise the same issues as
those in the criminal case for falsification of public documents filed
against him before the Ormoc City Prosecution Office, docketed as I.S. No. 98-178. He
also asserted that Civil Case No. B-1250 filed by complainants, among
others, against Asuncion T. Yared, et al., ‘which was pending before
the Regional Trial Court, Baybay, Leyte, Branch 14, for declaration of nullity of the quitclaim and deed of absolute sale covering TCT No. 23889, raised a prejudicial question in the disbarment proceeding.

Respondent also contended that one Carmen Solidor together with
Francisco Aves came to their law office, Evangelista Law Office in Ormoc
City, Leyte, and asked him to certify true copies of the subject deeds.
He acceded to the request considering that the documents were notarized
by his late father as notary public. He alleged that he issued the
assailed certification as a partner of the law office.^[1]

After investigation,’the IBP Board of Governors, on April 7, 2000,
recommended the reprimand of Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista with stern
warning that a repetition of the same would be dealt with, more
severely. This recommendation was noted by this Court in a Resolution
dated July 19, 2000. Dissatisfied, complainants filed the instant
petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. In his Comment,
respondent alleged that, the petition failed to comply with Section 4,
Rule 45, Rules of Court considering that (a) the petition did not
indicate the correct and true date when petitioner received the IBP
Board of Governors1 Resolution; (b) petitioners did not attach to the
petition certified true copy of said resolution; and (c) the
certification against forum-shopping was executed by only one of the
petitioners.

Respondent claims that petitioner Alicia Domingo received the
Resolution of IBP Board of Governors on May 25, 2000. It appears,
however, that, petitioners’ counsel received the same Resolution on June
13, 2000. It is the receipt of counsel that the period to appeal is
reckoned for purposes of determining the last day for filing of the
petition for review.^[2]
Therefore, petitioners timely filed this motion for extension of time to
file petition for review on June 22, 2000, which4 was granted.
Petitioners, however, failed to attach a certified true copy of the
assailed resolution. Moreover, only petitioner Winnie C. Lucente
executed the certification against forum shopping.

In A-One Feeds, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,^[3] we held:

Litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on the merits
and not on technicality. Dismissal of appeals purely on technical
grounds is frowned upon, and the rules of procedure ought not to be
applied in a very rigidj technical sense, for they are adopted to help
secure, not override, substantial justice and thereby defeat their very
aims. As has been the constant ruling of this Court, every patty
litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and
just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of
technicalities.^[4]

The Rules must be so interpreted and applied as to achieve, not
defeat, substantial justice as expeditiously as possible. Procedural
rules should be liberally construed in order to promote their object and
assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive
determination of every action or proceeding. Where the rigid application
of the rules would frustrate substantial1 justice, or bar the
vindication ,ipf a legitimate grievance, the courts are justified in
exempting a particular case from the operation of the rules.^[5]

The appeal is impressed with merit. Records disclose that Atty.
Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. admitted having certified true copies of the
Deed of Quitclaim executed on May 7, 1977 and the Deed of Absolute Sale
executed on January 7, 1972. His late father, Atty. Cleto P.
Evangelista, notarized the subject deeds.

Section 245 of the Administrative Code of 1917 reads:

Notarial Register.— Every notary public shall keep a
register to be known as the notarial register, wherein record shall be
made of all his official acts as notary; and he shall supply a certified copy of such record, or
any parts thereof, to any person applying for it and paying the legal
fees therefor, to any person applying for it and paying the legal fees
thereof. x x x.

Sections 246 and 247 of the same Code also require the notary
public to forward his notarial register to the Clerk of Court of the
Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of the province or
city wherein he exercises his office for safekeeping.

By certifying true copies of the subject deeds, Atty. Qeto L
Evangelists Jr. engaged in an unlawful and deceitful conduct He was not
the notary public before whom said documents were acknowledged and he
was neither the custodian of the original copies thereof. The Records
Management and Archives Office, Manila, certified that there was no copy
on file of the Deed of Quitclaim notarized by respondent’s father.^[6]
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is broad enough to cover any
form of misconduct of a lawyer in his professional and personal
capacity.

In this connection, we have consistently held this notarization is
not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with
substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or
authorized may act as notaries public. The protection of that interest
necessarily requires that those not qualified or authorized to act must
be prevented fro imposing upon the public, the courts, and the
administrative offices in general.^[7]
It must be underscored that the notarization by a notary public
converts a private document into a public document making that document
admissible in evidence without further proof of the authenticity
thereof.^[8] For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.^[9]

Contrary to respondent’s contentions, the complaint for disbarment
does not suffer from serious procedural defects that warrant its
outright dismissal. Complainants did not engage in form shopping as
defined in Administrative Circular No. 28-91 when they filed the instant
case. Forum shopping applies only to judicial cases or proceedings, not
to disbarment proceedings. Moreover, Civil Case No. B-1250 for declaration of nullity of the quitclaim and deed of absolute sale covering TCI No. 23889 refers
to the validity of the documents in question while the disbarment case
refers to respondent’s having certified true copies of said documents.

Neither does res adjudicata lie against the complainants.
Similarly, the doctrine applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial
proceedings and not to the exercise of the Court’s administrative
powers,^[10] as in this case.
Neither, can it be argued that the instant disbarment case has been
adjudicated in the criminal case for falsification of public documents.
Respondent was proceeded against as a private individual in said case In
the present disbarment action, Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr is sought
to be disciplined as a lawyer under the Court’s plenary authority over
members of the legal profession.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. is found
guilty of gross misconduct. Consequently, he is ordered SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for six (6) months effective immediately, with a
warning that another infraction shall be dealt with more severely.

X X X X”

Copies of this resolution were received by counsel for respondent on
February 27, 2003 and by respondent himself on March 6, 2003.

May 29, 2003.

^[2] Tubiano v. Razo, 335 SCRA 531 (2000)

^[3] 100 SCRA, 590 (1980)

^[4] Ibid, at p. 594

^[5] 276 SCRA 610 (1997)

^[6] Rollo, p. 9

^[7] Nunga v. Viray, 306 SCRA487 (1999)

^[8] Sections 19 (b) and 23, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court

^[9] Maligaya v. Cabanting 272 SCRA 408, 413 (1997); Arrieta v. Llosa, 282 SCRA 248, 252-253 (1997)

^[10] Dinsay vs. Cioco, 246 SCRA 703 (1996)