OCA CIRCULAR NO. 118-2005, November 15, 2005

For the information and guidance of all
concerned, quoted hereunder is the Decision of the Third Division dated
August 11, 2005 in Administrative Case No. 3441, entitled “Judge
Gervacio A. Lopena vs. Atty. Artemio P. Cabatos”, to wit:

“Atty. Artemio P. Cabatos (respondent) was administratively charged^[1]
by Judge Gervacio A. Lopena (complainant) of the Municipal Circuit
Trial Court (MCTC) of Tagbilaran-Clarin. Bohol of SERIOUS BREACH OF
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS and GRAVE MISCONDUCT allegedly committed as follows:

1) Respondent knowingly falsified a Deed of Donation^[2]
purportedly executed by one Crispina Panis by notarizing the same on
June 24, 1981 when the donor had died on January 15, 1981, and

2) Respondent “showed a grave disrespect to the courts and the
administration of justice” by holding, together with his followers, a
parade/rally on September 21, 1984 around the principal streets of
Tagbilaran City , directed against complainant who had convicted
respondent’s close relatives in three criminal cases and denied the
applications for probation of two of the convicts.

Acting on this Court’s Resolution of February 14 1990^[3] respondent submitted his COMMENT, by letter of April 19, 1990^[4],
claiming that he had been away from his place of birth’, Panaytayon,
Tubigon, Bohol since 1958, hence, when he notarized the questioned
deed of donation, he “really did not recognize the person of Cristina
Panis,” but he was led by one Gregorio Ricafort to believe that “the old
woman before him at the time was the said Crispina Panis.”

Respondent informed that his notarization of the questioned
document in fact resulted to his indictment in court for reckless
imprudence resulting in falsification of public document, which case was
pending trial.

As for the charge of having conducted a rally/parade, respondent
claimed that the same was staged by PDP Laban and BAY AN of Bohol as a
protest against complainant who showed bias in.presiding over the trial
of the criminal cases against members of the Cabatos family and
“disregarding the evidence in convicting them.”

By Comment/Reply”^[5] to respondent’s COMMENT, complainant countered that one of the witnesses to the questioned document was respondent’s father , Geronimo Cabatos,^[6] a permanent resident of Panaytayon who knew as he was related by blood to Crispina Panis,^[7]
hence, it is incredible for respondent not to know of Panis’ death on
January 15, 1981 or that “he did not know the person of … Panis [even
if] he ha[d] been away fm his place of birth since 1958.”

This Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) by Resolution of June 4, 1990.^[8]

The rollo shows that complainant had been manifesting his
zeal in pursuing the case, but until March 19, 2002 when a Commissioner
of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline issued a Notice of Hearing^[9]
directing the parties to appear at the IBP Building on April 19, 2002,
the case appears to have in the interim remained dormant.

Due to the unavailability of complainant and the IBP  Investigatinh Commissioner on the scheduled hearings on April 19, 2002^[10] and June 7, 2002, respectively, they were reset to June 28, 2002.^[11]

Before the June 28, 2002 scheduled hearing, complainant filed
before the IBP a MANIFESTATION COUPLED WITH MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADING^[12] wherein he
expressed “wonder . . . why it took the Committee on Bar Discipline of
the IBP over ten (10) long years to set the[e] case for hearing.”

In the same Manifestation cum Motion,
complainant informed that his two witnesses, Aniceta P. Tarle, a
daughter of the deceased Crispina Panis, and Ricafort (who, as reflected
above, respondent claimed to have led him to believe that “the old
woman” presented before him was Panis) had died.

Complainant further informed that he and
respondent were principal sponsors at a wedding, hence, he had not
pressed for the early investigation of the case.

Nonetheless, complainant prayed that the case be decided on the basis of the pleadings.

Respondent, whose comment on complainant’s above-said Manifestation cum Motion was sought by the IBP by Order of June 28, 2002, 13 Filed a Motion to Dismiss^[14]
manifesting that he was joining complainant’s motion to have the case
resolved on the basis of the pleadings, and informing that the criminal
complaint lodged against him in connection with his notarization of the
questioned document was dismissed, he having proved

i) that when he notarized the subject Deed of Donation – one
among six similar documents executed in favor of Barangay Panaytayon,
.Tubigon, Bohol, for purposes of a school site – someone represented to
respondent as “Crispina Panis;”

ii) that she turned [out] to be the daughter of Crispina Panis,
and that she ha[d] been instructed by Gregorio Ricafor[t] who prepared
the document to affix the same Crispina Panis in the document;

iii) that the donation turned out to be the will and resolve of the heirs of Crispina Panis[.]

Respondent accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the case.

IBP Commissioner on Bar Discipline Victoria O. de los Reyes, to whom the case was reassigned, issued a Notice of Hearing^[15]
setting the case for hearing on October 10, 2002 but not one of the
parties showed up. While the IBP received on October 4, 2002
complainant’s Reiterative Manifestation dated September 30, 2002,^[16] it resolved to deny the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, by Order of October 10, 2002^[17] upon its finding of a need for complainant to substitute his charges.

The IBP later received on October 6, 2002 a REITERATIVE MANIFESTATION (RE: COMPLAINANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS)^[18] alleging, among other things,

b) that respondent never personally knew the late Crispina Panis
nor his relationship to her, considering that from 1958 (when respondent
set foot on secondary education) respondent left his native place and
resided in a convent with a parish priest (now Msgr. Saturnino
Felicitas) as an altar boy and convent helper, until respondent
graduated from two (2) college courses;

c) that, in fact, the fact of death of said Crispina Panis was
known to respondent only when he became one of the accused in a
complaint for “falsification of public document” filed with the MCTC of
Tubigon-Clarin, Bohol[.]

The case was set anew for complainant to present evidence on
November 11, 2002 during which, again, none of the parties appeared,
drawing the Commission to (consider the case submitted for resolution by
Order of even date.^[19]

Commissioner de los Reyes submitted her REPORT and RECOMMENDATION^[20] the pertinent portion of which read:

xxx

In view of the failure of the complaint to
substantiate his serious charges against the respondent, it is
respectfully recommended that this charge for disbarment be dismissed
There is no question that the complainant waived his right to present
his evidence despite the opportunity given him by this Commission and in
effect deprived the respondent the right to confront him and his
witnesses.

However, this Commission would like to point out that there is no
issue that respondent Atty. Cabatos did not exercise that degree of
diligence required of him as a Notary Public.

It has been held in the case entitled Flores v. Chua,
306 SCRA 465, that where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver
responsibility is placed upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath
to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any.
And jn the case Nunga v. Viray, 306 SCRA 487,
the Honorable Court ruled that notaries public must observe with utmost
care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.

In the case before us, the respondent himself admitted that he did
not exert any effort to find out if the person who acknowledged to have
executed the Deed of Donation was really Crispina Panis. He merely
relied on the assurance of Mr. Gregorio Ricafort that the person who
appeared before him as Notary Public was the real Crispina Panis.
Considering that Tubigon, Bohol is a small town, it would have been easy
to determine the real identity of the person claiming to have executed
the document.

Moreover, it was easy for the respondent to require the person who
claimed to have executed the questioned Deed of Donation to produce his
Community Tax Certificate (formerly Residence Certificate) and any
other documents to identify him or her. This he did not do.

It can therefore be validly concluded that respondent Atty.
Cabatos failed to exercise with utmost care and diligence his duties as
Notary Public.

For these reasons, it is recommended that respondent Atty. Artemio
P. Cabatos be reprimanded, with a warning that a graver penalty will be recommended to be imposed on him in the event he again fails to exercise
that high degree of diligence required of a Notary Public in the
performance of his duties as such. (Emphasis and italization in the
original)

BY NOTICE OF RESOLUTION,^[21] the IBP Resolution No. XVI-2003-89 adopting and approving the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner,^[22]
which notice of Resolution, along with the records of the case, was
transmitted by letter of September 29, 2002 of the IBP Director of Bar
Discipline and received on October 9, 2003 by the Office if the Bar
Confidant, this Court.^[23]

When will the incidence of violations, by lawyers commissioned as
notaries public, of their oath of office decline if not abate?

Why do notaries public seem to be impervious to the call by this
Court to faithfully discharge their sacred duties which are dictated by
public policy and impressed with public interest?

Why did respondent rely on Rikafort’s alleged leading him to
believe that the “old woman” before Mm was the Crispina Panis who
purportedly executed the document far motorization, when one of the
witnesses^[24] to the execution
of the document was his (respondent’s) father. Geroraimo Cabatos, from
whom he could have verified the identity of Crispina Faunas, if Meed
be did not know her?

That respondent was, if true, exonerated from the criminal case
file against him in connection with his notarization of the questioned
document does not exonerate him from the present administrative case.

Not does, if respondent’s information in his Motion to Dismiss^[25]
is true, that the person who had been instructed by Ricafort to affix
the signature of Crispina Panis was the latter’s daughter exonerate him.
By such information, he in fact impliedly admits that the document had
already been signed when it was brought to him for notarization.

That a notary should notarized a document unless the person who
signed it are the same persons who executed and personally appeared
before him to attest to the contents of the truth of what are stated
therein bears reiterating. On pain of sounding like a broken record, this
Court has repeatedly held that the purpose of the injunction is to
enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of
the acknowledging party – in this case Crispina Panis – and to ascertain
that the document is the party’s free act of deed.^[26]

Respondent having thus failed to faithfully discharge his sacred
duties as a notary public, under the facts and circumstances of the
case, the revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification
from being commissioned as notary public for a period of One (1) Year is
in order.

As for the charge against respondent of showing “grave disrespect
to the courts and the administration of justice” by holding a
parade/rally, along with his followers, during which he imputed bias to
complainant whom he branded as “worse than President Marcos,” it has not
been sufficiently substantiated.

WHEREFORE, the notarial commission of respondent, Atty. Artemio P. Cabatos, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED and he is hereby DISQUALIFIED to be commissioned as a notary public for a period of One (1) Year, and WARNED that a similar violation by him shall be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to all courts of the
country, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the
Bar Confidant.

Let this Resolution be also made of record in the personal files of respondent.

SO ORDERED.”

Copy of the resolution was received by respondent on September 9, 2005 as shown by Registry Return Receipt No. 23328.

__15__ November 2005.

	PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
	Court Administrator

^[2] Annex “G” to letter-complaint, Id. at 19.

^[3] Rollo at 23.

^[4] Id. at 26-28.

^[5] Id. at 42-45.

^[6] Vide Deed of Donation, , Note 2.

^[7] Aniceta P. Taele, daughter of crispina Panis, states in her 4-page Sworn Statement-Annex “D” to the letter-complaint (Rollo
at 9-120 that the wife of Geronimo Cabatos-father of respondent is her
second cousin; and that respondent “was present in the house when the
remains of [her] mother were rested (sic).”

^[8] Id. at 46.

^[9] Id., at 138.

^[10] Id., at 143.

^[11] Id., at 145.

^[12] Id., at 146-147.

^[13] Id., at 158.

^[14] Id. , at 151-152.

^[15] Id. at 163.

^[16] Id. at 164-165.

^[17] Id. at 171.

^[18] Id. at 174-176.

^[19] Id. at 173.

^[20] Id. at 195-200.

^[21] Id. at 194.

^[22] Id. at 195-200.

^[23] Id. at 193.

^[24] Annex “G'” to Complaint, Rollo at 19.

^[25] Supra, note 14.

^[26] Fidel D. Aquino v. Atty. Oscar Manese, 400 SCRA 458 (2004).