CAYETANO SAMONTE, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. FRANCISCO E. RODRIGO, JR., RESPONDENT.

Complainant seeks in his sworn letter-complaint the disbarment of
Atty. Francisco E. Rodrigo, Jr. on the charge that the latter, in notarizing
the last will and testament of Faustino Samonte,
complainant’s father, falsely stated in the acknowledgment clause that the
testator exhibited his residence certificate. Attached to the complaint as
annexes are a copy of the will and a certificate by the BIR Collection Agent of
Bulacan, Bulacan, to the
effect that the residence certificate in question “has not been taken by
the said Faustino Samonte; that both the original and
duplicate copies have not been signed by said Faustino Samonte;
that both original and duplicate copies bear no thumbmark;
and that both original and duplicate copies are still intact in the
booklet.”

In his answer- respondent admits that the re­sidence certificate
of the late Faustino Samonte was not actually shown
to him, but he alleges, that he obtained the data concerning the number, date
and place of issue of the residence certificate from a copy of the testator’s
income tax return, which was shown to him. 
Respondent further alleges that being a client of the law firm of which
he is an associate, a fellow resident of Bulacan, Bulacan, and a close personal friend of respondent’s
parents, Ex-Senator and Mrs. Francisco Soc Rodrigo, the testator was well known
to him.  Hence, he had no reason to doubt
the truth of the testator’s word that he had secured a residence certificate
but had left it in Bulacan.  Respondent explains that he could hardly ask
the tes­tator, who was 82 years old, to travel back to Bulacan,
look for his residence certificate, and return to Que­zon
City where the will was being signed, attested and acknowledged, considering,
particularly, that, as stated above, the necessary data in the residence
certificate appear in the testator’s income tax return, a copy of which is
attached to the answer.

We set the hearing of the case for October 7, 1970, at which
complainant’s counsel and respondent appeared. 
The parties were allowed to submit their respective memoranda, which are
now before this Court.

The correctness of the number, date and place of issue of the
testator’s residence certificate is not disputed.  Indeed, a comparison between such data as
they appear in the will and in the’ testator’s income tax return leaves no room
for doubt that they are identical. 
Complainant nonetheless insists that respondent, in stating in the
acknowledgment clause that the testator exhibited to him his residence
certificate, not only deliberately stated a falsehood but also violated Section
6 of Commonwealth Act 465, which imposes upon the notary public the duty
“to require the exhibition of the residence certificate showing the
payment of the residence taxes by such person;” hence, respondent violated
his lawyer’s oath to “do no falsehood” and to “obey the laws.”

The particular circumstances of this case pre­clude us from
concluding that a deliberate false­hood and a willful disobedience of law were
commit­ted by respondent.  In the first
place, the testator, a man admittedly respected in his community for his integrity,
was well known to respondent and his family. 
Consequently, respondent had no reason not to believe him when he said
that he had secured a residence certificate but had forgotten to take it with
him.  Res­pondent’s allegation that,
having failed to bring his cedula, the testator, who
was over 80 years of age at the time, would have undergone unnecessary travail
and difficulty if he had been compelled to go back to Bulacan
to fetch his said cedula, then return to Quezon City, appears to be plausible.  In the second place, the required data in the
residence certificate appear in the testator’s income tax return, which was
shown to res­pondent.  Incidentally, the
said tax statement was subscribed and sworn to before Mr. Vicente G. Manalo, the BIR Collection Agent of Bulacan,
Bulacan, who now ironically certifies that the
residence certificate described in the statement had neither been signed,
thumb-marked, nor taken by Faustino Samonte.  It will be noted that Mr. Manalo
does not certify to the lack of payment of the residence certificate by or in
behalf of Faustino Samonte.  The date of filing of the income tax return
was April 15, 1968; so is
the date of the residence cer­tificate appearing therein.  It was thus the last day for filing income
tax returns.  In the circumstances it is
fair to assume that Faustino Samonte’s represen­tative
had to pay for – if not secure forthwith – a re­sidence certificate for the old
man right at the BIR office in order that its pertinent data could be noted
down in the tax statement which he had to file that day.  Besides, respondent cannot entirely be blamed
for re­lying on the income, tax return; he had the right to pre­sume that Mr. Manalo had regularly performed his offi­cial duty when he
signed the jurat therein containing the
number, date and place of issue of Faustino Samon­te’s
residence certificate.  No cogent reason
appears why respondent could not rely on the truth and veracity of the
acknowledgment at the end of the testator’s income tax return, subscribed before
no less than the Collection Agent of the BIR at Bulacan,
Bulacan, in charge of issuing residence
certificates.  At any rate, the re­quirement
of physical exhibition of the residence certi­ficate is not absolute, its main
purpose being to assure payment of the tax by the persons called upon to do so,
and as additional identification of the affiant.  As regards the first, the Collection Agent
had, by his subscribing the acknowledgment in the income tax re­turn, given
assurance of payment of the tax; and as regards the second, respondent states
that the tes­tator had been his and his father’s client in several cases.  What is strange and apparently unexplainable
is the turn-about face on the part of the Collection Agent by executing a
certificate to the effect that the residence certificate in question has never
been issued.  The cedula
having been apparently paid for, it became the ministerial duty of said
official to is­sue the same.  At any
rate, the blank forms – original and duplicate – of the same have not been
produced or presented, if only to show that the certificate has actually not
been issued.  In the third place, com­plainant
had previously filed with the Office of the City Fiscal of Quezon
City a complaint for falsification predicated on the very incident subject
matter of the present administrative proceeding, but that com­plaint was
dismissed on respondent’s motion.  While
the dismissal of that criminal complaint is not a bar to the present case, we
feel that it is strongly per­suasive in the determination of the present issue.

The act committed by respondent certainly does not call for the
penalty of suspension or disbarment in view of respondent’s clearly proven good
faith.  This circumstance takes this case
away from the ambit of our ruling in Cabo vs. Degamo, Adm. Case No. 516, June 27, 1967 (20 SCRA 447),
cited by complainant, where the respondent, in order to merit appointment to
the position of chief of police, falsely denied under oath in his information
sheet the existence of any criminal or police record.  Nonetheless, respond­ent’s act connotes a
certain degree of lack of re­sourcefulness in the performance of his duties as
a notary public, for he could have contrived of some means by which the needed
residence certificate could be exhibited to him.  In Ramirez vs. Ner,
Adm. Case No. 500, September 27, 1967 (21 SCRA 267), where the respondent
notarized a deed of sale whose acknowledg­ment clause recited falsely that both
the vendor and the vendee personally appeared before him, this Court
reprimanded the respondent and admonished him to be more careful.  And in Lopez vs. Casaclang,
Adm. Case No. 589, August 26, 1968 (24 SCRA 731), where the respond­ent
notarized a power of attorney which, although duly acknowledged by the parties,
was known to him not to have been signed by the principal but by another upon
her authority, without such fact being made to appear on the face of the
document the respondent was repri­manded and warned to be more careful in the
performance of his notarial duties.  The act committed by respond­ent in the case
at bar, namely, that of notarizing a will the acknowledgment clause whereof
recites that the testator exhibited his residence certificate, when in truth he
did not, considered in light of the facts that respondent acted in good faith
and readily admitted the truth before this Court, is less serious than those in
the cases of Ner and Casaclang.  In the premises we believe that an admonition
will be suffi­cient, if only to remind respondent and other notaries public of
the delicate nature of their sworn duties.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, respondent is hereby admonished
to be more careful in the discharge of his notarial
duties, and he is warned that if he commits again the same or similar act, he
will be dealt with more severely.

Concepcion, C.J., and Fernando, J., did not take part.

Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Dizon, J., on official leave.

Makasiar, J., on leave, did not take part.