In Gagoomal v. Bedona, the Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed the administrative complaint against Atty. Von Lovel Bedona, who was accused of notarizing a Deed of Assignment/Transfer despite the complainant, Rajesh Gagoomal, allegedly being out of the country at the time. The Court ultimately dismissed the charges, emphasizing that Gagoomal failed to provide sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence afforded to lawyers in disciplinary proceedings. This ruling underscores the importance of presenting concrete proof when challenging the validity of notarized documents and reaffirms the integrity of notarial acts performed by attorneys. The decision clarifies the evidentiary requirements for proving misconduct in notarial practice.

Questioned Absence: Did a Notarized Deed Stand on Shaky Ground?

Rajesh Gagoomal filed a complaint against Atty. Von Lovel Bedona, alleging that Bedona improperly notarized a Deed of Assignment/Transfer. Gagoomal claimed he was in Malaysia on the date the deed was notarized, thus making it impossible for him to personally appear before Atty. Bedona. The core legal question revolved around whether Gagoomal provided sufficient evidence to prove his absence and, consequently, whether Atty. Bedona violated his duties as a notary public.

The case unfolded with Gagoomal asserting that the notarized Deed of Assignment/Transfer was invalid because he was not present in the Philippines when it was notarized. He supported his claim with a copy of his passport indicating his presence in Malaysia during that period. However, the court scrutinized this evidence and found it lacking. Crucially, the passport did not contain an exit stamp from the Philippines, casting doubt on Gagoomal’s claim that he had left the country.

In administrative proceedings against lawyers, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. As highlighted in Aba v. Guzman:

[T]he Court has consistently held that in suspension or disbarment proceedings against lawyers, the lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to prove the allegations in his complaint. The evidence required in suspension or disbarment proceedings is preponderance of evidence. In case the evidence of the parties are equally balanced, the equipoise doctrine mandates a decision in favor of the respondent.

This principle emphasizes that the complainant must present evidence that is more convincing than that presented by the respondent. In this case, Gagoomal’s evidence fell short of meeting this standard.

Furthermore, conflicting expert opinions on the authenticity of Gagoomal’s signature on the deed added complexity. While some experts from the PNP and Truth Verifier Systems, Inc. verified the genuineness of the signature, the NBI concluded forgery. The Supreme Court addressed the handling of conflicting expert opinions, stating:

Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive. They are generally regarded as purely advisory in character. The courts may place whatever weight they choose upon and may reject them, if they find them inconsistent with the facts in the case or otherwise unreasonable. When faced with conflicting expert opinions, as in this case, courts give more weight and credence to that which is more complete, thorough, and scientific. The value of the opinion of a handwriting expert depends not upon his mere statements of whether a writing is genuine or false, but upon the assistance he may afford in pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape notice or detection from an unpracticed observer.

In this case, lacking testimonies from the experts explaining their differing conclusions, the Court found it difficult to give decisive weight to any of the expert opinions. This lack of clarity further weakened Gagoomal’s case.

The Court also considered the Certification from the Bureau of Immigration, which indicated Gagoomal’s departure from the Philippines on November 18, 2000, based on the bureau’s manifest file. However, this was contrasted by the absence of any Philippine exit stamp on his passport for that date. The certification itself noted that the travel record appeared in their “available Passenger Manifest File.” As the Court pointed out, “And we all know that a passenger manifest is a document issued by an airline containing the passenger’s list for inbound and outbound flights.” The court did not find this discrepancy credible, emphasizing the importance of consistent and reliable documentation. In examining the duties of a notary public, Public Act No. 2103 details that:

x x x x

(a)

The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment 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. The certificate shall be made under his official seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.

x x x x

Also, Section 2(b)(1) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice clarifies the requirements for performing notarial acts:

(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document –

(1) is not in the notary’s presence personally at the time of the notarization;

In light of these legal provisions and the insufficient evidence presented by Gagoomal, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and dismissed the charges against Atty. Bedona. The Court’s decision underscores the significance of the presumption of innocence and the need for compelling evidence to substantiate claims of misconduct against lawyers.

This case serves as a reminder of the critical role notaries public play in authenticating documents and the evidentiary burden placed on those who challenge the validity of notarized acts. It reinforces the principle that mere allegations are insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity in notarial practice.

FAQs

The dismissal of charges against Atty. Bedona highlights the critical importance of presenting credible and consistent evidence in administrative cases against legal professionals. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the integrity of notarial acts and protecting lawyers from unsubstantiated claims of misconduct.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: RAJESH GAGOOMAL, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. VON LOVEL BEDONA, RESPONDENT., A.C. No. 10559, June 10, 2019