OCA CIRCULAR NO. 37-2004, March 09, 2004

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted
hereunder is the decision of the Court En Bane dated September 29, 2003
in Administrative Case No. 5480, to wit:

“In a verified Complaint dated July 11, 2001^[1],
Leilam Ocampo-Ingcoco and Baltazar D. Ocampo filed an administrative
complaint before the Court charging respondent Atty. Alejandro G.
Yrreverre, Jr. for “unethical and unprofessional conduct in violation of
his duty as a lawyer,”^[2] praying that on the basis of the facts alleged therein, the said respondent be disbarred and/or administratively sanctioned.

The complainants alleged that on April 17, 2000, the respondent notarized a falsified Deed of Absolute Sale^[3] involving a parcel of land then registered under the name of their parents, Pacita and Hermilindo Ocampo under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-31064.^[4]
The alleged vendee, Rosita S. Billones, falsified their father’s
signature and caused the notarization of the deed before the respondent.
The complainants alleged that on the date the Deed of Absolute Sale was
purportedly notarized, their mother was in Isabela with her children.
As such, it was impossible for her to appear before the respondent on
the said date. Furthermore, their father, Hermilindo, had been dead for
more than a year and could not have appeared before the respondent to
attest to the truth of the matters contained in the deed.

The respondent’s illegal act of notarizing the said without the
parties thereto appearing before him was compounded by the fact that he
even placed a Community Tax Certificate (CTC) Number, which was not
issued to Pacita, but to a certain Edelia M. Balingan on March 6, 2000.^[5]
As a consequence of the respondent’s acts, Rosita Billones and her
husband were able to transfer the subject property in their names
despite the non-payment of the purchase price. TCT No. T-31064 was thus
cancelled, and a new TCT was issued in the name of the Billones Spouses,
TCT No. T- 75256.^[6]

The complainants later learned that the respondent apparently
had a personal interest in the subject property, as it was later
mortgaged to JCY Loans and Mortgage, Inc., a company owned by the
respondent, and for whom the latter also acted as legal counsel. Rosita
Billones secured a loan from JCY Loan and Mortgage, Inc. and used the
subject property as collateral.^[7]

On November 15, 2000 , Pacita filed a civil case for
nullification of the deed of sale and reconveyance of title to real
property before the Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City , Branch 275,
docketed as Civil Case No. LP-00-230.^[8] In an apparent attempt to protect his interests, the respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the Billones Spouses.^[9] The complainants also filed a criminal case for estafa through falsification against the Billones Spouses. 50

The complainants further alleged that the respondent, although
acting as counsel for the Billones Spouses in the said civil case, also
acted as counsel for JCY Loans and Mortgage, Inc., which had earlier
tiled a civil case against the same spouses.^[11]
The respondent also entered his appearance as counsel for JCY Loans and
Mortgage, Inc., which moved to intervene in Civil Case No. LP- 00-0230.^[12]
According to the complainants, such act of the respondent was
unprofessional and unethical, as he counseled for parties with
conflicting interests. Furthermore, based on the respondent’s actuations
and those of the Billones Spouses, it was most likely that they
connived with one another in defrauding the Ocampo family.^[13]

On May 24, 2001, the respondent wrote a letter” to the Ocampo family, denying the charges against him, thus:

1. Before the execution of the Deed of Sale, you together with
   Debbi Abendano and Mrs. Billones personally came to the office of our
   client at Makati City on or before April 2000, and requested to
   accommodate the loan application of Mrs. Biliones using your house and
   lot as collateral so that the loan proceeds thereof, part of which, will
   be paid to you as additional of her down payment of PHP=1,000,000.

2. As a matter of fact, you personally submitted to our client
   through the undersigned lawyer the following documents: (a) Your receipt
   of the down payment of PHP=1,000,000 from Sps. Billones, (b) Contract
   to Sell between Sps. Billones and yourself; (c) Philamlife and (d) Price
   Smart IDs and (e) your Cedula, copies of which are hereto attached as
   Annexes “A”, “B”, “C”, “D” and UE”;

3. Further, you were the one who personally delivered to the
   undersigned the original copy of TCT No. 31064 together with other
   related documents such as tax declarations, vicinity map. In addition,
   you even signed in the presence of the undersigned a Special Power of
   Attorney (copy of which is hereto appended as Annex “F”) empowering Mrs.
   Billones to use your real property as collateral with our client;

4. Finally, you executed the subject Deed of Sale in front of
   ATTY. ALEJANDRO G. YRREVERRE, JR. together with the witnesses in favor
   of SPS Billones for the sum of PHP=1,000,000. When asked by the notary
   public about the signing of your husband, you requested that he will
   sign it in your house because your husband is so sick and old and that
   he could not come to office for that purpose. Banking on your
   representation, the notary public agreed and later the said Deed of Sale
   was returned back to the latter.^[14]

In a Resolution dated April 3, 2002 , the Court referred the
case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
report and recommendation/decision.^[15]

Commissioner Dennis B. Funa of the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline thereafter submitted a Report and Recommendation dated July
4, 2002 , with the following findings and recommendations;

1. On the Charge of Conflict of interest

We adopt In toto the arguments of respondent in quoting Canon 6, Canon[s of Professional Ethics, which provides for an exception to the rule on conflict of interest, to wit:

‘except by express consent of all the parties concerned given after a full disclosure of facts,’

2. On the charge of Notarizing Deed of Sale Without the Affiants.
   

   Respondent herein had all but admitted this particular
   charge and, in fact, is willing to face the appropriate sanction.
   Respondent furthermore pleads for leniency and consideration.

   Accordingly, Respondent is found NOT GUILTY with respect to
   the charge of Conflict of Interest. However, Respondent is found GUILTY
   of notarizing a document supposedly executed by Mr. Hermilindo P.
   Ocampo, who was actually deceased at the time of the notarization.
   Respondent is also found GUILTY and responsible for the use of a
   Community Tax Certificate (CTC) that did not belong to affiant Mrs.
   Pacita Ocampo, but instead belonged to another person.

   PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is submitted that respondent is GUILTY of the offenses charged, discussed above, and should be given the penalty of ONE (1) MONTH SUSPENSION with a STERN WARNING that repetition of said acts will warrant a more severe penalty.^[16]

   On the issue of
   
   Representing clients with
   
   conflicting interests

   r fhe respondent cannot be held liable for representing
   conflicting interests in acting as defense counsel for the Billones
   Spouses in Civil Case “No. LP-GG-0230 while acting as counsel for
   defendant-intervenor JCY Loans and Mortgage, Inc. in the same case. The
   evidence presented by the respondent shows that when the Billones
   Spouses secured his services as counsel, they were made fully aware of
   the pertinent facts and circumstances. Their consent and written
   conformity was obtained after full disclosure of the facts of the case.^[17]
   They even submitted a verified written manifestation of conformity to
   show proof that the respondent was hired with their approval.^[18]

One of the recognized exceptions to the rule against a lawyer’s
representation of clients with conflicting interests is where the
clients knowingly consent to the dual representation after the
prospective counsel makes full disclosure of the facts to the parties.^[19]

On the issue of notarizing a

deed without requiring the parties to
be present to attest to

the truth of the matters
contained therein

The respondent maintains that Mrs. Pacita Ocampo was present
when he notarized the deed of sale, but admitted that Mr. Hermilindo
Ocampo did not appear before him. The respondent claims that he acted in
good faith, and had no knowledge that Mr. Ocampo, the other party to
the document, was already deceased. It was Mrs. Ocampo who led him to
believe that her husband was merely ill—

… In yielding to Mrs. Ocampo’s plea, I just acted out of
passion, generosity and kindness to her to facilitate the processing of
the loan as she also intimated to me during the meeting that she was
also in dire need of money to be used for her husband’s recovery…^[20]

The respondent farther explained that he took precautionary
measures to safeguard the public interest by making specific
instructions to Rosita S. Billones and Deborah Hernandez Abendano to be
present when Mr. Ocampo affixed his signature, and not to use the
subject deed unless and until he got hold of Mr. Ocampo’s CTC. No damage
was caused to any party, since what facilitated the transfer of the
property was a subsequent Deed of Transfer entered into by and between
the same parties. As such, the subject deed was without any legal effect
and a ‘mere scrap of paper.’^[21]

The respondent’s arguments are without merit. Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103^[22] provides:

(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or
an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take
acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place where the act
is done. The notary public or the officer taking the instrument or
document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it,
and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The
certificate shall be made under his official seal, if he is by law
required to keep a seal, and if not his certificate shall so state.

It is thus clear from the foregoing that a notary
public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the
same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared
before the said notary public to attest to the contents and truth of
what are
stated therein.^[23]

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. On the
contrary, it is invested with substantial public interest, such that
only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.
Notarization of a private document converts the document into a public
one making it admissible in court without further proof of its
authenticity. A notarial document by law is entitled to full faith and
credit upon its face and, for this reason, notaries public must observe
with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their
duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this
form of conveyance would be undermined.^[24]

When the respondent notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale without
ascertaining that the vendors-signatories thereto were the very same
persons who executed it and personally appeared before him to attest to
the truth of what were stated therein, he undermined the confidence of
the public on notarial documents and thereby breached Canon I of the
Code of Professional Responsibility wliich requires lawyers to uphold
the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the
law and legal processes, and Rule 1.01 thereof which proscribes lawyers
from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.^[25]
In acknowledging that the parties personally came and appeared before
him, the respondent also made an untruthful statement, thus violating
Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a
lawyer that he shall do no falsehood.^[26] Moreover, he opens himself to prosecution for falsification of a public document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.

In Maligsci v. Cahanting,^[27] we had the occasion to state:

As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent is
mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties appertaining to his office,
such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public
interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity
of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sancrosanct. Simply put,
such responsibility is incumbent upon respondent and failing therein, he
must now accept the

commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion…^[28]

We take note of the respondent’s remorseful attitude and his
willingness to forego his notarial work or accept severe censure,
reprimand and admonition from the Court.^[29] We agree that the penalty of disbarment is too excessive and is not commensurate to the faux pas committed by the respondent.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, for breach of the notarial law,
the commission of respondent Atty. Alejandro G. Yrreverre, Jr. as Notary
Public, if still existing, is REVOKED. He is disqualified from being
commissioned as such for a period of two (2) years.

Respondent Atty. Alejandro G. Yrreverre, Jr. is also SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of Six (6) Months effective
immediately for violation of Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this
Decision to the Court to enable us to determine when the revocation of
his notarial commission and his disqualification from being commissioned
as Notary Public as well as when, his suspension from the practice of
law shall have taken effect.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines .

SO ORDERED”

Copy of the decision, was received by respondent on November 3, 2003, as manifested in his Compliance dated November 4, 2003 .

__9__ March 2004.

 ^[2] Id., at 4.

 ^[3] Annex “C”, Id, at 8

 ^[4] Annex “B”, Id, at 7

 ^[5] Annex “D”, Id. at 10.

 ^[6] Annex “E”, Id.11.

 ^[7]Annex “F”, Id., 13.

 ^[8] Id. at 21. Entitled Pacita Dumandcm Ocampo v. Spouses Rosita S. Billones and Danilo R, Billones and the Register of Deeds of Las Piñas

 ^[9] Annex “H” Id. at 19

 ^[10] Id. at 3. Now pending before the RTC of Las Piñas, Branch 255 and docketed as Criminal Case No. 01-201.

 ^[11] Id. at 29. Entitled JCY Loans and Mortgages, Inc. v. Sps. Damlo and Rosita Billones, docketed as Civil Case No. 00-1338 now pending before the RTC of Makati City.

 ^[12] Annex “L,” Rollo, p. 33.

 ^[13] Id., at 4.

 ^[14] Id. at 16-17 (Annex “G.”)

 ^[15] Id., at 202.

 ^[16] Report and Recommendation, pp. 3-4.

 ^[17] Rollo.p. 106.

 ^[18] Id.,

at 107-108.

 ^[19] Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of ike facts.

 ^[20] Rollo t p. 49.

 ^[21] Id. at 62.

 ^[22] An Act Providing
for the Acknowledgment and Authentication of Instruments and Documents
Without the Philippine Islands, enacted January 26,1912.

 ^[23] Villarin v. Sabate, Jr., 325 SCRA 123 (2000).

 ^[24] Coronado v. Felongco, 344 SCRA 565 (2000); Arrieta v. Llosa, 282 SCRA 248 (1997).

 ^[25] Aquino v. Mcmese-, A.C. No. 4958, April 3, 2003 .

 ^[26] Fulgencio v. Martin, A.C. No. 3223, May 29, 2003 .

 ^[27] 272 SCRA 408 (1997).

 ^[28] Id. at 414.

 ^[29] Rollo, p. 63.