OCA CIRCULAR NO. 60-2002, October 07, 2002

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted
hereunder is the ision of the Court En Bane in Administrative Case No. 4738
entitled “Violeta Flores tagtag vs. Atty. Virgilio R. Garcia” dated 2 February
2002, to wit: 

“xxx

Act 2103, Section I4 provides that a notary public ‘shall
certify that the person acknowledging 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.’ Respondent submitted that the deed of donation is
authentic. He assisted his father-in-law, the donor, in executing the same. By
notarizing the document , he likewise acknowledged that the signature therein is
the donor’s hue signature.

xxx

‘Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility
is placed upon his shoulder by reason by reason of his solemn oath the laws and
to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any.’ 10 In Maligsa v. Cabanting,
we held, thus:

‘As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent is
mandated to subscribed to the sacred duties appreciating to his
office, such
duties

In the case at bar, respondent violated his solemn oath as a
lawyer not to engage in unlawful, dishonest or deceitful conduct. He maintained
that the signature of the donor was genuine despite the finding of experts to
the contrary. He also tried to make a mockery of the legal profession by
advancing the flimsy excuse that his failure to submit a copy of the document to
the Clerk of Court was his secretary’s fault.

There is also a showing that respondent harassed the occupants
of the property subject of the donation. He asked Meralco to disconnect its
service to the property, threatening law suits if his demands were not
heeded.^[13] He also posted security
guards to intimidate the occupants of the property.^[14] Clearly, respondent’s acts caused
dishonor to the legal profession.^[15]

A notary who acknowledged a document that was a forgery
destroys the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. He does not deserve
to continue as member of the bar.^[16]

IN VIEW WHEREOF, we find respondent VIRGILIO R. GARCIA guilty
of grave misconduct rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal
profession. We order him DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name
stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.

Copy of the decision was received by Atty. Garcia on 20
February 2002 is manifested in his Motion for Reconsideration dated 1 March
2002.

1 March 2002.

^[14] Exh. “1”, Reply to Comment
(Rollo, p. 85)

^[15] Reply to Comment (Rollo, p.
66-74, at p. 71)

^[16] Gonato v. Adaza, 328 SCRA 694
(2000); Tapucar v. Tapucar, 355 Phil. 66 (1998)