G.R. No. A.C. No. 9218. March 27, 2019.
ENRICA BUCAG, represented by her attorney-in-fact LOPE B. TIO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. BERNARD P. OLALIA, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Enrica Bucag filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Bernard P. Olalia for falsification of public document, violation of the lawyer’s oath, dishonesty, obstruction of justice, and gross violation of the Notarial Law. The complaint arose from respondent’s preparation and notarization in 2003 of a Deed of Absolute Sale covering a parcel of irrigated rice land. In the deed, the sellers were Liboro Garcia and Virginia “Loreta” Garcia, and the buyer was Edgardo Roque Garcia. The property was described using only Tax Declaration No. 05-6271. Complainant alleged this was defective and irregular because the subject property was actually a titled property, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-170452 (originally part of TCT No. T-52993 in complainant’s name), and not merely declared for taxation. The transfer of this titled property is the subject of a separate civil case for recovery of possession and ownership. Respondent, in his defense, traced the complaint’s origin to that civil case and argued he had no participation in the initial 1979 transaction where a portion of complainant’s land was transferred. He admitted to preparing and notarizing the 2003 Deed of Sale from the Garcia spouses to Edgardo Garcia but claimed the administrative complaint lacked factual basis.

ISSUE

Whether or not Atty. Bernard P. Olalia is administratively liable for his actions in preparing and notarizing the 2003 Deed of Absolute Sale.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Bernard P. Olalia is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The Court found that respondent, as a lawyer and notary public, failed to exercise the required competence and diligence. He prepared and notarized a deed of sale for a property that was already covered by a certificate of title (TCT No. T-170452), yet he described it using only a tax declaration. A tax declaration is not proof of ownership but merely a possible indicium, especially when a certificate of title exists. This act demonstrated a lack of ordinary care and violated his duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Canon 3 (regarding truthful and objective statements), Canon 18 (competence and diligence), and Canon 19 (zeal within legal bounds), as well as the Notarial Law.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The Supreme Court DENIED respondent’s petition for review. Atty. Bernard P. Olalia is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months. His notarial commission, if presently existing, is immediately REVOKED. He is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years after serving his suspension.