IN THE MATTER OF THE DISBARMENT OF DOMINADOR E. FLORES, RESPONDENT, VS. CITY FISCAL LUIS R. LOZADA, COMPLAINANT.

The City Fiscal of Toledo City filed this case for disbarment against
Dominador E. Flores a member of the Philippine Bar, for unprofessional
and unethical conduct, more specifically, for notarizing certain documents
during the years 1961 and 1962, after his commission as notary public had
expired.  The complaint further alleges
that the respondent deliberately omitted to submit to the Clerk of Court of
First Instance of Cebu certified copies of the
entries in his notarial register as well as of the
documents acknowledged before him, as required by the Notarial
Law, in order to conceal the fact that he did not at the time have an
appointment as notary public.

In his answer, the respondent admitted having notarized some
documents in 1961 and 1962 but claimed that his commission, which expired on December 31, 1960, was renewed in
1961, to expire on December 31, 1962.

The case was referred to the Solicitor General who, on November 11, 1965, submitted the
following findings and recommendation:

“(1) That respondent’s commission as notary public for the
city and province of Cebu expired on December 31, 1960;

“(2) That respondent had not been commis­sioned as notary public
for the city and province of Cebu for the years 1961 and
1962;

“(3) That
notwithstanding his lack of com­mission
as notary public for the years 1961 and 1962, respondent notarized several
documents (Exhs. B, C, D, E, F, G), which documents
became the basis of the cancellation by the city tax assessor of the tax
declarations of the properties involved in said documents in the names of the
former owners and their transfer to the new owners;

“(4) That
respondent had not filed his monthly notarial reports
and copies of the documents he had notarized for the years 1961 and 1962 with
the notarial section of the Court of First Instance
of Cebu, nor had he surrendered his notarial register to said office for the year 1960, when
his commis­sion as notary public expired.

*        *           *           *

“Respondent, in spite of the many postponements given to him
and the repeated warnings issued by the investigating fiscal that if he still
failed to appear at the hearing, the case would be considered submitted without
his evidence, failed to appear at the last date set for the reception of his
evidence.  Even respondent’s own counsel,
who pleaded that a last chance be given his client by postponing the hearing
again for the last time to another date, and that if his client would still
fail to appear at the latter date, he would withdraw as his counsel (p. 150, t.s.n.), did not appear anymore at the last hearing
set, obviously knowing that his own client would not appear, as he in fact
failed to appear thereat (pp. 153-155, id.).  Respondent’s complete lack of interest and indifference
in presenting his defense to the charges and evidence against him in this case
can only mean that he has no strong and valid defense to present herein.

“For the foregoing reasons, we find that sufficient grounds
exist to proceed against the respondent Dominador E.
Flores in this administrative case on the grounds of malpractice, gross
misconduct in office as attorney, and violation of the lawyer’s oath, and for
this reason, it is respectfully recommended that after appropriate proceeding,
said respondent be removed from the practice of law.”

On November 22, 1965
we required the respondent to answer the above-quoted report of the Solicitor
General.  After several extensions of
time granted to him, he finally filed his answer on March 15, 1966, in which he
stated, among other things, that “he admits his negligence in not renewing his commission as notary public, and
of notarizing documents without previous authority”, and prays this Court
“to temper justice with mercy, and to render such orders that will give
herein poor respondent, who has
no derogatory record so far, another chance to make a living and
prove his worth as a good member of the bar”.  The case was set for hearing on May 4, 1966.  On this date neither the Solicitor General
nor the respondent appeared.  Although
the respondent was thereafter given time within which to file a memorandum in lieu of oral argument, the
respondent never submitted any.

It is to state the obvious that the evidence conclusively
establishes the misconduct imputed to the respondent.  The six documents referred to in the
Solicitor General’s report are an extra judicial partition of an estate, a deed
of sale with a right of repurchase, and four deeds of absolute sale — all
involving unregistered lands.  The
respondent presented these documents to the city assessor of Toledo,
and it was on the strength of the former’s
representation that he had authority to ratify the instruments that the latter
accepted the docu­ments for registration and cancelled the tax declarations in
the name of the former owners of the properties involved.  As the Solicitor General aptly-observes,
without the criminal falsification of these documents by the respondent, the
city assessor would not have made the corresponding transfers of the tax
declarations of the properties, which transfers thus impaired the integrity of
the documents and caused disturbance, of and prejudice to the property rights
of the parties thereto.^[1]

Against the evidence presented by the complainant, the respondent
did not even attempt to present any.  He
did not even attend the investigation conducted by the provincial fiscal of Cebu to whom the Solicitor General endorsed
this case.  Several times the investigation was postponed to afford
the respondent an opportunity to appear and be heard in his defense, but not
once did he show up.  Nor did he manifest
a desire to present evidence before this Court when required, pursuant to
section 5 of Rule 139, to file an answer to the formal complaint lodged by the
Solicitor General.  Instead he now offers
the unacceptable excuse that in the past the pre­paration of “his petition
for renewal of his commission” was attended to by a friend who, “for
one reason or another . . . failed to comply with [the respondent’s] last
request.”

The respondent’s reprehensible conduct, constituting as it does
not only malpractice but also the commission, in six separate and distinct
occasions, of the crime of falsification of public document, justifies his
disbarment.^[2]
His excuse, contained in his answer to the complaint of the Solicitor General,
can hardly be reconciled with his first answer in which he stoutly denied
having no commission to act as a notary public for the years 1961 and 1962, and
even expressed mock surprise “why it had been reported that he had
none.” This facile resort to contradictory denials cannot be regarded as
anything better than trifling with this Court, and makes the respondent
undeserving of the mercy which, he so fervently prays, justice should be
tempered with.

ACCORDINGLY, the respondent Dominador
E. Flores is disbarred from the practice of law and his name is ordered
stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.  He
is further ordered to surrender his lawyer’s certificate of title to the Clerk
of Court within ten days from the date this judgment becomes final.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Cf. Ramirez v. Ner, Adm. Case 500, Sept. 27, 1967.

^[2]
See Agdoma v. Celestino,
Adm. Case 289, Nov. 29, 1962.