View full case

REUBEN M. PROTACIO v. ATTY. ROBERTO M. MENDOZA

FACTS:

Complainant Reuben M. Protacio, president of Jumping Jap Trading Company, Inc. (JJTC, Inc.), filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Roberto M. Mendoza, who served as counsel for the spouses Nobuyasu and Carmencita Nemoto. Protacio alleged that Mendoza presented a resolution in an investigation that had been notarized by Mendoza, which purported to have been signed by Protacio and Nobuyasu Nemoto. Protacio claimed that he did not sign the resolution and that the signature was a forgery. He also alleged that Mendoza notarized the resolution without the presence of the party allegedly executing it. Additionally, Protacio claimed that another document called Deed of Assignment appeared to have been notarized by Mendoza, which purported to have been signed by Protacio, but Protacio denied signing it. Mendoza insisted that the resolution had been properly signed and notarized and that the Deed of Assignment was executed in his presence.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Roberto M. Mendoza failed to require the parties to a document he notarized to appear personally before him.

  2. Whether the signature purporting to be that of complainant in the board resolution and the Deed of Assignment were forged.

RULING:

  1. Yes, Atty. Roberto M. Mendoza failed to require the parties to the document he notarized to appear personally before him. It was established that complainant did not sign the board resolution and the Deed of Assignment. The certification from the Notarial Section of the Regional Trial Court of Manila also confirmed that the notarial reports for March 1998 and April 1998 submitted by respondent did not include the said documents.

  2. The court did not make a specific ruling on whether the signatures in the board resolution and the Deed of Assignment were forged. However, it questioned the authenticity of these documents and the credibility of respondent's claims. The court found it highly suspicious that the dates in the documents did not correspond to the actual events, and it noted that respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A lawyer who acts as a notary public should require the parties to a document to personally appear before him/her to ensure the authenticity and voluntariness of the execution of the document.

  • The burden of proof in disbarment cases rests on the complainant, but the court may also consider the respondent's actions and evidence presented.

  • Notarial documents should be properly submitted and recorded in the appropriate notarial register to ensure the validity and integrity of notarization.