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

Flores versus Lozada

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment. The City Fiscal of Toledo City, Fiscal Luis R. Lozada, filed the complaint against Attorney Dominador E. Flores, a member of the Philippine Bar, for unprofessional and unethical conduct. The charge is that Flores notarized documents during the years 1961 and 1962 after his commission as notary public had already expired, and that he deliberately failed to submit his notarial reports and copies of the documents he acknowledged, in order to conceal that he had no appointment at the time. The case matters because it shows how a lawyer's misconduct in a public office he no longer holds — notarization — can amount to malpractice, gross misconduct, and a violation of the lawyer's oath, and can by itself warrant the supreme penalty of disbarment.

Procedural History

The City Fiscal of Toledo City filed the complaint for disbarment directly with the Supreme Court. The Court referred the case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Solicitor General endorsed the case to the provincial fiscal of Cebu, who conducted the investigation. After several postponements and repeated warnings, the respondent failed to appear and present his evidence. On November 11, 1965, the Solicitor General submitted his findings and recommended that the respondent be removed from the practice of law. On November 22, 1965, the Court required the respondent to answer the report. After several extensions, he filed his answer on March 15, 1966. The case was set for hearing on May 4, 1966, but neither the Solicitor General nor the respondent appeared. The respondent was given time to file a memorandum in lieu of oral argument, but he never submitted one. The Court then resolved the case on the record.

Facts

Dominador E. Flores was a member of the Philippine Bar and had served as a notary public for the city and province of Cebu. His commission as notary public expired on December 31, 1960. He was not commissioned as notary public for the years 1961 and 1962.

Despite the absence of a commission, Flores notarized several documents during those two years. Six of these documents became the basis for the city tax assessor's cancellation of the tax declarations in the names of the former owners and their transfer to the new owners. The six documents were an extrajudicial partition of an estate, a deed of sale with a right of repurchase, and four deeds of absolute sale, all involving unregistered lands. Flores presented these documents to the city assessor of Toledo and represented that he had authority to ratify the instruments. It was on the strength of that representation that the assessor accepted the documents and made the transfers.

Flores also failed to file his monthly notarial reports and copies of the documents he had notarized for 1961 and 1962 with the notarial section of the Court of First Instance of Cebu. He likewise failed to surrender his notarial register for 1960 when his commission expired. When charged, he first stoutly denied having no commission and even expressed mock surprise that it had been reported that he had none. Later, in his answer to the Solicitor General's report, he admitted his negligence in not renewing his commission and in notarizing documents without previous authority, and begged the Court to temper justice with mercy.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of malpractice, gross misconduct in office as an attorney, and violation of the lawyer's oath for notarizing documents after his commission as notary public had expired.
• Whether or not the respondent's conduct, including his failure to submit his notarial reports and to surrender his notarial register, and his contradictory denials, warrants disbarment.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Rule 139 of the Rules of Court, which governs the procedure in disbarment proceedings, provides:

Section 5. Answer. — The respondent shall be required to answer the complaint within a period of ten days from the date of the service of the order of the court, and in default of such answer, or in case the answer does not deny specifically the charges, the court may proceed to hear the case and dispose of it as the facts and the law may warrant.

This provision bears on the case because the Court required the respondent to answer the Solicitor General's report under this rule, and his answer, which admitted the charges, together with his failure to present evidence, allowed the Court to dispose of the case on the facts and the law.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the evidence conclusively established the misconduct imputed to the respondent. The respondent had not been commissioned as notary public for 1961 and 1962, yet he notarized six documents during those years. He presented these documents to the city assessor and represented that he had authority to ratify them, and it was on the strength of that representation that the assessor cancelled the old tax declarations and transferred them to the new owners. The Court found that without the criminal falsification of these documents by the respondent, the city assessor would not have made the transfers, which impaired the integrity of the documents and caused disturbance of and prejudice to the property rights of the parties. The Court characterized the respondent's conduct as constituting not only malpractice but also the commission, on six separate and distinct occasions, of the crime of falsification of public document.

On the second issue, the Court held that this conduct justifies disbarment. The Court noted that the respondent did not even attempt to present evidence against the complainant's evidence. He did not attend the investigation conducted by the provincial fiscal despite several postponements meant to give him an opportunity to be heard. He did not manifest a desire to present evidence before the Court when required to answer the complaint. Instead, he offered the unacceptable excuse that a friend had failed to comply with his request to prepare his petition for renewal of his commission. The Court also found that this excuse could hardly be reconciled with his first answer, in which he stoutly denied having no commission and even expressed mock surprise that it had been reported that he had none. The Court regarded this facile resort to contradictory denials as trifling with the Court, making the respondent undeserving of the mercy he prayed for.

Doctrine

A lawyer who notarizes documents after his commission as notary public has expired is guilty of malpractice, gross misconduct in office as an attorney, and violation of the lawyer's oath. Notarization is a public function attended by public interest, and a lawyer who represents to public officers that he has authority to ratify instruments when he has none commits a grave offense against the integrity of public documents and against the property rights of the parties who rely on them. The commission of the crime of falsification of public document on separate and distinct occasions is a ground for disbarment. A respondent in a disbarment proceeding who fails to present evidence, who ignores the investigation and the hearings, and who resorts to contradictory denials, cannot claim the mercy of the Court. Under Section 5 of Rule 139, when the answer does not deny specifically the charges, or when the respondent defaults, the Court may proceed to hear the case and dispose of it as the facts and the law may warrant.

Disposition

The Court disbarred the respondent Dominador E. Flores from the practice of law, ordered his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and ordered him to surrender his lawyer's certificate of title to the Clerk of Court within ten days from the date the judgment becomes final.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that notarizing documents without a valid commission is malpractice and falsification of public document, and it warrants disbarment. Examiners like to use this case to test the grounds for disbarment and the consequences of a lawyer's unauthorized notarization, as well as the effect of a respondent's failure to present evidence and his contradictory denials in an administrative proceeding.