JOSE P. MARIANO AND FRANCISCO M. BAUTISTA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. RTC JUDGE JOSE S. PEÑAS, JR. AND ATTY. ROGELIO R. UDARBE, RESPONDENTS.

These administrative complaints against Judge Jose S. Peñas, Jr.
and Attorney Rogelio R. Udarbe date back to the time when Judge Peñas was still
a practising lawyer and involve an allegedly falsified deed of sale which
Attorney Udarbe supposedly prepared and Judge Peñas notarized without observing
the requirements of the notarial law.

The complainant Jose P. Mariano, is an adopted son of the spouses
Don Macario Mariano and Doña Irene Mariano, who owned extensive real properties
in Iriga City, Camarines Sur. Francisco
M. Bautista is a judgment creditor of the Marianos. The complainants have charged respondent Judge Peñas and Attorney
Udarbe with “malpractice and serious violation of the law and the canons
of professional ethics” for having allegedly conspired with Rolando S.
Relucio, second husband of the widow, Irene Mariano, to strip her estate of
valuable pieces of real property, by forging a deed of sale of said property in
favor of her second husband’s brother, Raul Santos, to the prejudice of her
legal heirs and creditors. Allegedly
indicative of the spurious character of the deed of sale are the following
circumstances:

1. there is no original of the deed of sale;

2. only a carbon copy containing erasures, was produced;

3. the ink used by the parties in signing it are of different
colors;

4. different typewriters were used in typing the first and second
pages of the document; and

5. the deed falsely states that Irene P. Mariano’s adopted
children, Jose and Erlinda Mariano, have no undivided shares in the parcels of
land sold.

Commenting on the complaint, Judge Peñas alleged that the filing
of the charge against him is premature because the deed of sale in question is
also the subject of pending actions for annulment and rescission (Civil Cases
Nos. 88-1506 and 88-1507. Regional
Trial Court, Branches 21 and 23, Fifth Judicial Region). He denied having prepared, forged, and
falsified the deed of sale. He denied
that the document has no original, for the truth is that there was an original
but it was lost in the course of transferring his law office from one place to
another five times in the past few years. The copies submitted to the Office of the Clerk of Court must have been
destroyed also when that office was razed to the ground on June 26, 1976. He laments the filing of this administrative
case against him and the publicity that has been given to it to spite and
harass him, and place him in public contempt and ridicule (pp. 13-18, Rollo of
Adm. Matter No. RTJ-88-226).

Commenting on the charge against him, Attorney Rogelio R. Udarbe
denied having participated in the “execution or notarization of the
document” in question. He alleged
that he “simply assisted in effecting the registration” of the deed
of sale “unaware of any defect in the document.” (p. 30, Rollo of
AC-3247.) Despite the alleged
defects in the document (erasures, different colors of ink used in signing it
and the different typewriters used in writing it), the National Land
Registration and Deeds Administration (NLRDA), upon consulta by the
Registrar of Deeds of Naga City, authorized its registration. Since the certificates of title were issued
in the name of the seller, Irene Mariano, as a “widow,” it is not
true that her heirs have been deprived of their shares in the property, or that
the judgment creditor, Francisco M. Bautista was cheated of his judgment for
the notice of levy upon the property was carried over to the title that was
issued to the vendee. Furthermore, in
view of the pendency of the civil cases for annulment and rescission of the
sale, this administrative complaint against him is premature (pp. 30-32, Rollo
of Administrative Case No. 3247).

By a resolution
dated December 5, 1988 (p. 37, Rollo of RTJ 88-226.) the Court resolved to
consolidate the two administrative cases and on July 24, 1989, referred both
complaints to Associate Justice Jorge S. Imperial of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and
recommendation. However, Justice
Imperial asked to be excused because Judge Peñas, Jr. was the counsel for
Rolando Relucio, et al. in Civil Case No. 7926 (570) which he decided against
the complainant Bautista.

The Court granted Justice Imperial’s request and transferred
these cases to Court of Appeals Associate Justice Pedro A. Ramirez for
investigation, report and recommendation.

On September 5, 1991, Associate Justice Ramirez submitted his
report. After carefully perusing the
report, we agree with his opinion that the complaints have no merit.

The records of this case are bereft of proof that the deed of
absolute sale (Exh. A) of Irene Mariano’s properties is a falsified
document. There is nothing in the testimony
of the complainant, Francisco M.
Bautista and his witnesses, Zenaida Z. Torres, NBI document examiner, and
Attorney Greta F. Paraiso, Registrar of Deeds of Naga City, to show that the
vendor’s signature in Exhibit A is forged. The NBI document examiner, Zenaida Torres, admitted that she was not
able to determine the genuineness of the signatures in the questioned document
(Exh. A) because she was not provided with sufficient specimen signatures of
the vendor and the notary public (pp. 50-51, t.s.n., February 13, 1990).

With regard to respondent Attorney Udarbe, the records do not
show that he participated in the preparation
and notarization of Exhibit A. According to him, he only followed up its registration as counsel for
Rolando Relucio and Raul Santos (pp. 8-15, t.s.n., March 20, 1990). A consulta was raised by the Registrar of Deeds
to the Administrator of the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration
inquiring as to the registrability of Exhibit A. The document was registered after the consulta was
resolved in favor of its registration (pp. 66-69, Annex A-2, Rollo of A.C. No.
3247).

The other allegation that the deed of absolute sale was antedated
by Judge Peñas so that the property could not be seized to satisfy the judgment
for complainant Bautista against Irene P. Mariano (now Relucio), was likewise
not substantiated.

Respondent Judge Peñas not only certified on the last page of the
deed of sale (Exh. A), that the vendor, Irene P. Mariano, personally appeared
before him on April 15, 1975 and acknowledged that the document was her free
and voluntary act and deed, but he also testified that Irene herself brought
the document to him already prepared and ready for notarization only (pp.
57-58, 61-63, t.s.n., July 11, 1990).

As an officer of the court, a lawyer is presumed to have
performed his duty in accordance with his oath (Atienza vs. Evangelista, 80
SCRA 338). A recital in a public
document, celebrated with all the legal formalities under the safeguard of a
notarial certificate, is evidence against the parties, and a high degree of
proof is necessary to overcome the legal presumption that such recital is true
(Valencia vs. Tantoco, 99 Phil. 824, citing Naval vs. Enriquez, 3 Phil. 669;
Asido vs. Guzman, 37 Phil. 652). To
overthrow a notarial certification, the oral evidence must be clear and
convincing, and should be sustained by proof of facts or circumstances
connected with the execution of the instrument, which in themselves tend to disclose a reasonable probability that the
attack upon its genuineness or its efficacy is well founded (Castillo vs.
Castillo, 95 SCRA 40; Asido vs. Guzman, supra).

Incidentally, Bautista’s charge that the respondents conspired to
frustrate the satisfaction of the money judgment in his favor in CA-G.R. CV No.
76776, has been rendered moot by his admission that he has already collected
said judgment, with interest, in the total sum of P1,060,000 (p. 25, t.s.n., February 13, 1990).

WHEREFORE, the complaints for “malpractice and
serious violation of the law and the canons of professional ethics x x x” against respondents Judge
Jose S. Peñas, Jr. and Attorney Rogelio R. Udarbe are DISMISSED for lack of
merit.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano,
Padilla, Bidin, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, and Nocon, JJ., concur.