BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
EDNA TAN MALAPIT VS. ATTY. ROGELIO M. WATIN (A.C. NO. 11777, OCTOBER 1, 2024): PENALTY OF DISQUALIFICATION TO BE COMMISSIONED AS NOTARY PUBLIC TO BE RECKONED AFTER SERVING THE PENALTY OF SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW
Petitioner Edna Tan Malapit is the claimant of land in Mabini Extension, Digos City covered by a Tax Declaration. She appointed Petronila Austria (Petronila) and her husband, Eduardo Austria (Eduardo), to oversee her land.
In July 1994, Edna decided to sell portions of her lot. Hence, she made an agreement with Petronila to look for buyers with a 10% commission. As Petronila suggested, they went to see respondent Atty. Rogelio M. Watin (“Watin”) for the preparation of Special Power of Attorney (SPA) for her authority to sell. Once the SPA was prepared by Atty. Watin, the same was handed out to Edna, Petronila, and their witnesses, including Edna’s husband, Cenon Tan (Cenon), for signature. However, Edna refused to sign the same since it contains provisions authorizing Petronila to sign Transfer of Rights which was never agreed upon.
Unknown to Edna, Atty. Watin notarized the SPA and the same was made to appear that it was signed by her already. When Edna and her husband visited the property in 2002, they were surprised to see that there were already settlements therein. What shocked her further that she found out through Petronila herself that she had already sold all the parcels of land. It was only then that she learned about the SPA executed on June 11, 1996 purportedly signed by her and allowing the transfer of all her properties to different persons executing different Transfer of Rights.
Edna filed a criminal complaint for Estafa through Falsification of Documents before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Digos City. Subsequently, on October 1, 2002, while the case was pending, Edna likewise filed a civil case against Petronila for Declaration of Transfer of Rights before the Regional Trial Court of Digos City. The criminal complaint led to the filing of Informations for Forgery and six (6) counts of Estafa filed before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Digos City.
Edna also discovered that respondent Atty. Watin’s wife, Evangeline Watin (Evangeline), and two children, Ronald V. Watin (Ronald) and Richard V. Watin (Richard), also benefited from the forged 1996 SPA through subsequent execution of Transfer of Rights by Petronila using the bogus SPA. Edna also discovered that while the civil was pending, respondent Atty. Watin notarized another Transfer of Rights to Ariel Austria, Petronila’s son.
For his defense, respondent Atty. Watin alleged that Edna indeed signed the SPA and she already received her share of the proceeds of the subsequent Transfer of Rights only that the value of the property later on increased, she supposedly disowned even her own signature and went to the extent of filing the present administrative case. Respondent Atty. Watin also said that her husband Cenon also signed the SPA and that Cenon never recanted or questioned the authenticity of his signature. Regarding the Transfer of Rights to Ariel Austria, respondent Atty. Watin explained that her secretary forged his signature.
The Investigating Commissioner found respondent Atty. Watin guilty of misconduct and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years. The Board of Governors affirmed the same. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings and recommendation of the IBP and held that respondent Atty. Watin violated Section 3, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice wherein it enumerates instances when a notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act, including transaction wherein he “will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any commission, fee, advantage, right, title, interest, cash, property, or other consideration, except as provide by these Rules and by law.” The Court held that the transfer of five lots to respondent Atty. Watin’s wife Evangeline was one by Petronila and Eduardo in their personal capacity, nonetheless, records show that Petronila’s transfer of Edna’s rights over portions of the subject property to respondent’s sons Ronald and Richard was a consequence of the purported SPA, which respondent Atty. Watin notarized.
The Court held: “As aptly pointed out by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the prohibition under Section 3(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Notarial Rules covers not only direct benefits, but also indirect benefits as a result of the notarial act. It is elementary that what cannot be legally done directly cannot be done indirectly. Thus, the prohibition under Section 3(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Notarial Rules also covers a notary public’s immediate family. Otherwise, said provision would be illusory if the immediate family of a notary public would be allowed to receive a commission, fee, advantage, right, title, interest, cash, property, or other consideration from his or her notarial act.”
The Supreme Court also found respondent Atty. Watin to have violated Section 13, Canon III of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) for conflict of interest since lawyer-client relationship with Edna was already established when she prepared the SPA in question, and yet, respondent Atty. Watin represented Petronila in the criminal and civil cases filed by Edna.
For the penalty, the Supreme Court imposed the aggregate penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, revocation of existing notarial commission and disqualification to be commissioned as notary public for another two (2) years to be reckoned after respondent Atty. Watin has served his suspension. The Court held: “In this regard, Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting explained that the successive, not simultaneous, service of the penalties of suspension from the practice of law and disqualification from reappointment as a notary public would be more purposeful as this would provide a stronger deterrence commensurate with a notary public’s failure to perform his or her mandated duties under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Besides, reckoning the service of the penalty of disqualification from reappointment as a notary public from receipt of the Court’s ruling would be pointless since a lawyer suspended from the practice of law cannot be appointed or commissioned as a notary public.”