G.R. No. A.C. 549 August 26, 1968
Maxima C. Lopez, complainant, vs. Manuel B. Casaclang, respondent.

FACTS

This is a disbarment proceeding against respondent Manuel B. Casaclang, a member of the Bar, filed by Maxima C. Lopez on three counts of malpractice. First, respondent was charged with improperly notarizing a deed of transfer of complainant’s rights over a PHHC lot to his mother, Demetria B. Casaclang, allegedly in the absence of the complainant and the two witnesses, contrary to the acknowledgment. Complainant, a teacher, claimed she did not remember signing the document and that she and the witnesses did not sign before respondent, though she admitted the signatures looked genuine. The witnesses similarly testified they did not appear before respondent. Respondent testified he prepared the document, explained its contents to the parties (complainant and his parents), and they and the witnesses signed it. The genuineness of the signatures was not seriously disputed. Second, respondent was charged with notarizing a falsified general power of attorney purportedly executed by Teofila S. Banigued, authorizing respondent’s father to follow up benefits. Respondent’s evidence showed the signature was written by Teofila’s aunt-in-law, Alejandra Banigued, with Teofila’s consent and authority, which both confirmed. Third, respondent was charged with preparing and taking the verification of an affidavit he knew contained false information regarding the birthdate of complainant’s daughter. Respondent testified he prepared the affidavit based on data supplied by complainant herself, who came with the affiants, and he had no knowledge of its falsity.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Manuel B. Casaclang should be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law based on the charges of malpractice.

RULING

The Court, adopting the Solicitor-General’s recommendation, dismissed the charges for disbarment or suspension but reprimanded respondent and warned him to be more careful in his notarial duties. On the first count, the Court found respondent’s version more credible, noting that to overcome a notary’s certification, evidence must be clear, strong, and convincing, which was not present. Even assuming irregularity, it suggested mere lack of caution, not culpable malpractice. On the second count, the Court found respondent guilty of laxity and carelessness for notarizing a power of attorney he knew was signed by another on behalf of the principal without indicating this on the document, though the authority was genuine. On the third count, the Court believed respondent had no knowledge of the falsity, as the data was supplied by complainant. The penalty of disbarment or suspension was not warranted, but a reprimand was imposed for the notarial carelessness.