Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 59 views

    Sia Vs Reyes Case Digest (2019)

    Uploaded by

    MTCD
    Topics: a) Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, as amended) b) Relation to Code of Professional Responsibility c) Suspension, disbarment and discipline of lawyers

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sia Vs Reyes Case Digest (2019)

    Uploaded by

    MTCD
    59 views2 pages
    Topics: a) Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, as amended) b) Relation to Code of Professional Responsibility c) Suspension, disbarment and discipline of lawyers

    Original Title

    Sia vs Reyes Case Digest (2019)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Topics: a) Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, as amended) b) Relation to Code of Professional Responsibility c) Suspension, disbarment and discipline of lawyers

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    59 views2 pages

    Sia Vs Reyes Case Digest (2019)

    Uploaded by

    MTCD
    Topics: a) Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, as amended) b) Relation to Code of Professional Responsibility c) Suspension, disbarment and discipline of lawyers

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Case Title: Ruben S. Sia vs Atty. Tomas A. Reyes (A.C. No. 10015.

    June 6,
    2019)
    Topics:
     Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, as amended)
     Relation to Code of Professional Responsibility
     Suspension, disbarment and discipline of lawyers

    Facts:
    The petitioner, President and duly authorized representative of Ruby Shelter
    Builders and Realty Development Corporation, entered a Memorandum of
    Agreement (MOA) with Mr. Obiedo and Tan (creditors) for the debt incurred
    secured by a real estate mortgage. The mortgage was foreclosed since there
    was nonpayment of debt hence, petitioner executed deed of absolute sale in
    favor of his creditors. However, the date of the subject deeds were left bank.

    Subsequently, the petitioner claimed that he learned that the subject deeds
    were notarized by Atty. Reyes (respondent) on January 3, 2006 by supplying
    by supplying entries in the blank spaces without his knowledge, consent and
    physical presence.

    On the other hand, the respondent averred that during the notarization of the
    subject deeds, he personally asked petitioner whether it was his (petitioner's)
    signature that was affixed on the subject deeds and whether the execution of
    the subject deeds was his free and voluntary act, to which petitioner
    affirmatively answered.

    With this, the petitioner filed an administrative case against respondent for
    grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a notary public.

    Question:
    Whether respondent is administratively liable for grave misconduct and
    conduct unbecoming of a notary public?

    SUPREME COURT RULING:


    No. It is axiomatic that the law presumes that an attorney is innocent of the
    charges against him, until the contrary is proven. The Court will exercise its
    disciplinary power over members of the Bar if, and only if, the complainant
    successfully shows that the charges against the respondent has been
    convincingly established by clearly preponderant evidence. The serious
    consequences that flow from disbarment or suspension of a lawyer must call
    for the production or presentation of clear, convincing, and preponderant
    evidence.
    In this case, the petitioner did not challenge the authenticity of his signatures
    in the subject deeds. It is emphasized that he filed this administrative suit
    belatedly or after four years and eight months after respondent notarized the
    subject deeds on January 3, 2006. His inaction or delay for such a considerable
    period of time casts doubt not only upon his motive or sincerity, but also upon
    the validity or truth of his claim. Further, the petitioner admitted that on the
    said date, he met with his creditors to discuss the interest of the loan but he
    was not apprised that respondent was about to notarize the subject deeds. In
    effect, petitioner admits that he appeared before respondent and
    acknowledged his signature in the subject.

    You might also like