ROSITA C. NADAYAG, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JOSE A. GRAGEDA, RESPONDENT.

In a letter-complaint
dated April 15, 1988, Rosita C. Nadayag charged respondent Atty. Jose A. Grageda,
a practicing attorney and notary public in Iligan City, with conduct unbecoming of a lawyer in connection with a ‘Pacto de Retro’ transaction wherein complainant was the vendee. Complainant’s affidavit, which accompanied her letter-complaint,
alleged that respondent:

. . . prepared and notarized a PACTO DE RETRO sale with me as the
Vendee-a-Retro last January 21, 1987 in this City using Original Certificate of
Land Title stolen from the Office of the Register of Deeds herein in Iligan as
a result of which I was swindled in One hundred eight thousand pesos
(P108,000.00) because the said land sold to me by Pacto de Retro was already
sold ahead of time to another party, using the owner’s duplicate copy of the
title. That during our pacto de retro
sale, as I was suspicious already of the appearance of the Original Certificate
of Title, having many annotations and old patches thereof, when I brought the
matter to the attention of Atty. Jose A. Grageda, notarizing the same, he
simply answered me that the title was all right and that he told me further not
to worry as he is an attorney and besides he knew very well the Vendor-a­-Retro
whose business transactions especially notarial matter has been and in fact
always handled by him (Attorney Jose A.
Grageda).

That said stolen Original Certificate of Land Title was confiscated
by Iligan City Register of Deeds, Attorney Reynaldo Baguio on the occasion when
I applied for registration of my Pacto de Retro. Findings showed that many other cases of stolen original
certificates of land titles have taken place in the said office but the said
Attorney as the Register of Deeds did not prosecute the thieves thereof.

I filed Estafa case against the Vendor-a-Retro together with her
accomplices to include said Attorney Jose A. Grageda, coursing it through the
local Barangay Captain last May 1987 yet, then forwarded to the City Fiscal
through the Police Station Commander in June 1987 but that and until the time
of this Report was not tried in Court yet but that the Information did not
include said Atty. Jose A. Grageda, hence this report.

(p. 2, Vol.
I, Record.)

Respondent filed his counter-affidavit dated March 29, 1989,
pertinently alleging:

6. That they showed me a copy of the title which I examined and found out the title was
clear and there was no annotation or entry so I told them that as far as the
title was concern there was no encumbrances or annotation and can be the
subject of the Pacto de Retro;

7. That they insisted that I notarized the
document so I proceeded to translate
the document in Cebu, Visayan dialect to make sure that the parties understood
the deed and they replied that
they understood this and I asked then further if they have any more to add or
delete; they answered that there was no more and they will sign the same;

8. That I told them to sign the document above
their typewritten name which they did and
witnessed by the other person with them who were present, so after their
signature in good faith based
upon their documents I notarized the same.

(p. 10, Vol. II, Record.)

Pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court and the resolution
of the Court En Banc of April 12, 1988, the case was referred to the Commission
on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report, and recommendation.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline scheduled hearings for
reception of evidence but complainant manifested that she cannot proceed to Manila and attend to her case due to financial constraints. Upon the other hand, respondent could no
longer be located, having moved without leaving any forwarding address.

Nonetheless, said Commission, on the basis of the complaint and the supporting affidavit, as
well as the counter-affidavit of respondent, found that “there is reason
for disciplining the respondent” premised upon the following observations:

Respondent first admits that he was consulted by the vendor-a-retro
and the complainant (vendee-a-­retro) on the matter of the title when he was
asked to notarize the Deed of Sale a Retro. He admits that he rendered
an opinion based on the title that was presented to him. It turns out that the title presented to him
is the Original Certificate of Title
which only the Register of Deeds has custody of and he should have sensed
foul-play or irregularity. As a lawyer
and officer of the court, he should have been alerted and should have reported
the irregularity of an Original Certificate of Title, which should be in the
exclusive safekeeping of the Register of Deeds, in the possession of unauthorized
persons. Even if it were the photostat
copy of said Original Certificate of Title that was presented to him, the same
did not bear any certification by the Register of Deeds which could have
alerted him of the irregularity. The
testimony that the Original was shown to him has not been controverted. The Vendee was in fact in possession of the
Original because it was testified that when the Register of Deeds found that
respondent was in possession, the original certificate was confiscated by the
Register of Deeds.

The Commission takes special note of a notary public acting more
than a notary public and goes beyond mere certification of the presence of the
signatories, their having signed, and having contracted. By transcending these bounds, such notary public
has entered the realm of giving “legal advice” – thus “acting
also as counsel aside from notary public” to the parties to the contract.

Treated as counsels for the vendee, he had the legal duty to advice
him properly of the irregularities and the dangers of holding the Original Certificate which should have been in the
custody of the Register of Deeds. Respondent had acted recklessly at the least, in his advise of the
vendee. He rendered an opinion that was
irresponsible that his client relied upon – which recklessness is censurable.

(pp. 3-4,
Commissioner’s Report; ff. p. 22, Vol. Record.)

A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession. The trust and
confidence necessarily reposed by clients require in the attorney a high
standard and appreciation of his duty to his clients, his profession, the
courts and the public. The bar should
maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair
dealing. Generally speaking, a lawyer
can do honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to
society, to the bar, to the courts, and to his clients. To this end, nothing should be done by any
member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the
confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the
profession. (Marcelo vs. Javier, Sr., 214 SCRA 1[1992]).

Generally, a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any
misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to
be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity, and good demeanor or
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. (Marcelo vs. Javier, Sr.,
supra).

In the case at bar, respondent should have been conscientious in
seeing to it that justice permeated every aspect of a transaction for which his
services had been engaged, in conformity with the avowed duties of a worthy
member of the Bar. He should have fully
explained the legal intricacies and consequences of the subject transaction as
would aid the parties in making an informed decision. Such responsibility was plainly incumbent upon him, and failing
therein, he must now face the commensurate consequences of his professional
indiscretion. After all, notarization
is not an empty routine. Notarization
of a private document converts
such document into a public one and renders it admissible in court without
further proof of its authenticity.

ACCORDINGLY, and as recommended by the IBP Board of
Governors, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND respondent
Atty. Jose A. Grageda from the practice of law for a period of three (3)
months commencing from receipt of this Resolution, with the warning that a
repetition of the same or any other misconduct will be dealt with more
severely. Let a copy of this Resolution be spread on the records of said
respondent, with copies thereof furnished to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and duly circularized to all courts.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Romero, and
Vitug, JJ., concur.

Bidin, J., on leave.