MAXIMA C. LOPEZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. MANUEL B. CASACLANG, RESPONDENT.

This is a proceeding for disbarment.

Respondent Manuel B. Casaclang, a member of the Bar, is charged by Maxima C. Lopez
with malpractice on three counts, namely:  (1) for having improperly notarized a
document purport­ing to be a
deed of transfer of rights over a piece of land by
complainant in favor of Demetria
B. Casaclang, respondent’s mother, in the absence of the person executing said document and of the two witnesses,
contrary to what is recited in the acknowledgment;
(2) for having notarized a falsified general
power of attorney; and (3) for having prepared an affidavit and taken the verification of the affiants, knowing the contents
thereof to be false.

In our resolution of December
14, 1962 we referred the case to the Solicitor-General for
investigation.  He submitted his report
on June 16, 1968,
recommending dismissal of the charges,
but with an admonition to respondent to be more careful in the performance of
his notarial duties.

On the first count it appears that in 1957 com­plainant, then a
public school teacher in Manila, applied for the right to purchase a 460 square-meter lot
from the People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation.  Her application was approved in 1958,
whereupon she made a down payment of P460.00. 
In June of
that year, according to her testimony at the investigation, she was
transferred to Binmaley, Pang­asinan, where respondent’s father, Pedro Casaclang,
was Dis­trict Supervisor and therefore her superior in the service.   The latter’s wife became interested in the
lot and asked complainant to transfer it to her.  She refused in the beginning, but later on
the two of them went to the PHHC office to inquire as to the feasibility of
such transfer.  The PHHC manager advised
her against it, and the next thing she knew was that sometime in the early part of 1962 her
rights to the land had been transferred to respondent’s parents by virtue of a deed to
that effect prepared by said respondent. 
She said she did not remember having signed the document, but was
positive that she and the two witnesses thereto did not sign it before
respondent as notary public, although on cross-examination she admitted that her
signature seemed or looked genuine.  On
their part the witnesses – Marceline L. Delgado and
Emilia J. Lopez – testified in the same vein, that is, although the signatures
were theirs they did not appear before respondent for the signing and notarial acknowledgment.

Respondent’s
testimony is that when his mother and complainant went to the PHHC
office in connection with the intended transfer of rights, they were advised to go back to Pangasinan to
have the corresponding document signed by respondent’s father as one of the transferees.  The parties then applied to have respondent prepare it,
which he did, after which he explained its contents to the parties –
complainant and
respondent’s parents – who thereupon signed the same, together with the
witnesses.

The genuineness of the signatures is not seriously in question.  In fact, in the preliminary investigation of
the charge of falsification (of the same document) filed by complainant against respondent
and his father before the Assistant Fiscal in Lingayen, Pangasinan, her
signature as well as the signatures of the two witnesses were categorically
admitted by them to be genuine, although they denied having signed in
respondent’s presence.

The Solicitor-General is of the opinion that upon the evidence of
record respondent’s version is more deserving of credence.  We see no reason to disagree.  First, it has been held that mere
preponderance of evidence is not sufficient to overcome the import of the
certification by a notary that the grantor in a document acknowledged the fact
of its
execution before him.  (Robinson v. Villafuerte, 18 Phil. 171; Jocson v. Estacion, G. R. No.
L-41867, July 22, 1935.) To accomplish this
result the evidence to the contrary must be clear, strong and convincing.

In any event, considering that the signatures on the document in question are genuine, even if respondent did
notarize the same in complainant’s absence the irregularity is not serious enough to
warrant disbarment or suspension.  It merely
suggests lack of caution, not culpable malpractice.  (Ramirez v. Ner, Ad. Case No. 500, Sept. 27, 1967).  Nor does the fact that respondent’s mother
was a party make
his act any more blameworthy, the transaction being above board and untainted with
fraud or trickery.

On the second count respondent is charged with having notarized a falsified
general power of attorney purportedly executed by one Teofila S.
Banigued, authorizing
respondent’s father to follow up her application for certain benefits due her deceased
husband from the mutual aid system of the Philippine Public School Teachers’ Association.

It appears from the evidence, and so found by the
Solicitor-General, that the signature purporting
to be that of Teofila S. Banigued had been written, with her consent, by her aunt-in-law, Alejandra Banigued.  Respond­ent’s narration of events is
as follows:  Teofila S. Banigued and her family were his
clients.  One day Alejandra and San­tiago Banigued, complainant’s brother-in-law, came
to his office and requested him, in the name of Teofila who could not then come because she
was ill, to prepare the power of attorney in
question.  He prepared a draft and gave it to
them unsigned.  Subsequently he dropped at Teofila’s place
on his way to Dagupan and inquired about the document he had drafted.  Teofila sent for her sister-in-law
Alejandra.  When the latter
arrived she had with her signed copies of the   power of
attorney.  Respondent asked if she was the one
who signed above the typewritten name Teofila S. Banigued.  Alejandra answered yes, saying that Teofila
could not herself sign because
she was indisposed.  Then respondent explained the
contents of the document to Teofila, who expressed her conformity thereto and affirmed that
she had indeed
authorized her sister-in-law to sign her name for her.  Respondent thereupon took the document with him
for notarization, and later gave
it to his father who was the attorney-in-fact named there­in.  That Teofila had really given such authority
to Alejandra was confirmed by both of them when they testified in this case as well as in the preliminary investigation of the charge of falsification filed against respondent
before the Assistant Fiscal of Pangasinan.

 The third count refers to an affidavit prepared by and subscribed and sworn to
before respondent, the allegation
being that he knew the contents thereof to be false.  The affiants were Justino Z. Flores and Romeo
B. Manaois.  The fact sworn to by them is that
Maria G. Lopez, a daughter of complainant, was born on April 5, 1944, which
was false, since the correct date of birth is April 5,
1946.

Respondent, testifying in
his own behalf, said that he prepared the affidavit at
the instance of complainant herself, who came to his office with Flores and Manaois and furnished him the ???? to be stated.  He
was not related in any manner to
complainant and did not know that the recitals in the affidavit were untrue. 
Complainant told him that its purpose was to enable her daughter to
enter the College of Nursing
in Baguio City,
the latter’s birth certificate not being
then available.  Respondent had no
interest whatsoever in the
matter of her studies and had no
reason therefore to compound the falsity. 
If anybody at all was guilty
thereof it was complainant
herself, because it was she who supplied respondent the facts to be stated.

     We believe that under the facts established
by the record the
penalty of disbarment or suspension is not warranted.  However, in connection with the second charge
respondent is guilty of a certain degree of laxity
and carelessness in notarizing a power-of-attorney which, although duly
acknowledged by the parties, was known to him not to have been signed by the principal but by another upon her
authority, without such fact being made to appear on the face of the document
itself.

Wherefore, respondent
Manuel B. Casaclang is hereby
reprimanded, and warned to be more careful in the performance of his notarial duties.  Let this decision be noted in respondent’s
record as a member of the Bar.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro,
Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.