EN BANC

[A.C. No. 7186. March 13, 2018.]

ROMEO A. ZARCILLA and MARITA BUMANGLAG , complainants, vs.

ATTY. JOSE C. QUESADA, JR. , respondent.

DECISION

PER CURIAM : p

Before us is a Petition for Disbarment 1 dated February 9, 2006 led by

complainants Romeo A. Zarcilla (Zarcilla) and Marita Bumanglag (Bumanglag) against
respondent Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. (Atty. Quesada) for gross misconduct. acEHCD

The facts are as follows:

On August 5, 2002, complainant Zarcilla executed an A davit-Complaint 2
against respondent Atty. Quesada and complainant Marita Bumanglag, among others,
for falsi cation of public documents docketed as I.S. No. 02-128-SF. Zarcilla alleged
that Bumanglag conspired with certain spouses Maximo Quezada and Gloria Quezada
(Spouses Quezada) and Atty. Quesada to falsify a Deed of Sale 3 dated April 12, 2002
by making it appear that his parents, Perfecto G. Zarcilla and Tarcela A. Zarcilla, sold a
parcel of land under TCT No. T-18490 in favor of the Spouses Quezada despite
knowledge that his parents were already deceased since March 4, 2001 and January 9,
1988, respectively, as per Death Certificates 4 issued by the O ce of the Municipal Civil
Registrar of Santo Tomas, La Union. Said signing of deed of sale was allegedly
witnessed by a certain Norma Zafe and Bumanglag, and notarized by Atty. Quesada.
Other than the alleged falsi ed deed of sale, Zarcilla also claimed that on March
20, 2002, the Spouses Quezada led a petition for the administrative reconstitution of
the original copy of TCT No. 18490 where they presented the Joint A davit of his then
already deceased parents, the spouses Perfecto Zarcilla and Tarcela A. Zarcilla as the
petitioners. 5 Said Joint-A davit of the Spouses Quezada was again notarized by Atty.
Quesada.
However, on October 9, 2002, Bumanglag executed a Counter-a davit 6 in the
same case where she claimed to be the real owner of the property after Perfecto
Zarcilla sold the same to her mother. Bumanglag also stated therein that she facilitated
the sale transaction to the Spouses Quezada which, in effect, exonerated her co-
respondents, including Atty. Quesada, the pertinent portion of which reads:
xxx xxx xxx
6. That after the death of my mother I needed money to pay for the
expenses she incurred when she was sick and need medication and all the (sic)
to pay for the expenses of her burial. I offered to sell the property to Spouses
MAX QUEZADA and GLORIA QUEZADA. I showed them the Deed of Sale
between PERFECTO ZARCILLA and my mother. I also showed them the paper
that my mother signed giving me the land;
7. That the Spouses Quezada told me that they will buy the land
provided I will be the one to transfer the said land to their name. They gave me
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 an advance payment so that I could transfer the land to them. I made it
appear that PERFECTO ZARCILLA sold the property to the said
spouses because the title of the land was still in the name of Perfecto
Zarcilla. I did not have [any] criminal intent when I did it because the
land no longer belong to Perfecto Zarcilla. I did all the subsequent acts
like Petition for Reconstitution in the name of Perfecto Zarcilla because then,
the title was still in his name. However, there was no damage to the heirs of
PERFECTO ZARCILLA because the land had long been sold to my mother and
the sons and daughters no longer had no legal claim to the said land;
8. That SPOUSES MAXIMO QUEZADA & GLORIA QUEZADA
did not falsify any document because I was the one who facilitated
the transaction knowing that the land I was selling really belonged to
me. Not one of my brothers and (sic) sisters never (sic) complained
when I sold the land. I just delivered the document to the Spouses
MAXIMO QUEZADA & GLORIA QUEZADA including the title in their
name. I was paid the balance after the Certi cate of Title in their name was
finally delivered. 7
All other respondents in the said falsi cation case, except for Atty. Quesada, also
led their respective counter-a davits where they reiterated Bumanglag's admission. 8
In a Resolution 9 dated April 14, 2003, the O ce of the Provincial Prosecutor of
La Union held Bumanglag only to undergo trial. All other respondents, including Atty.
Quesada who did not even le his counter-a davit, were exonerated for insu ciency of
evidence.
Both Zarcilla and Bumanglag led their respective motions for reconsideration,
but both were denied. Consequently, Bumanglag was indicted for four counts of
falsi cation of public documents before the Municipal Trial Court of Sto. Tomas, La
Union, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 3594, 3595, 3597, and 3598.
However, Zarcilla later on withdrew said cases when he learned that Bumanglag
was not aware of the contents of her counter-a davit when she signed the same. He
also found out that Bumanglag was deceived by her co-accused, including Atty.
Quesada. Thus, upon the motion of Zarcilla, in an Order 1 0 dated July 27, 2005, the court
dismissed all falsification cases against Bumanglag.
In a Resolution 1 1 dated June 26, 2006, the Court resolved to require Atty.
Quesada to file a comment on the complaint against him.
On August 28, 2006, Atty. Quesada le a Motion for Extension of Time to File
Comment 1 2 due to voluminous workload. On September 18, 2006, Atty. Quesada led
a second motion for extension to le comment. In a Resolution 1 3 dated November 20,
2006, the Court granted Atty. Quesada's motions for extension with a warning that the
second motion for extension shall be the last and that no further extension will be given.
On September 26, 2007, due to Atty. Quesada's failure to le a comment on the
complaint against him within the extended period which expired on October 17, 2006,
the Court resolved to require Atty. Quesada to (a) show cause why he should not be
disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt from such failure, and (b) comply with the
Resolution dated June 26, 2006 by submitting the required comment. 1 4
Due to Atty. Quesada's failure to comply with the Show Cause Resolution dated
September 26, 2007, the Court resolved to (a) impose upon Atty. Quesada, a ne of
P1,000.00, and (b) require Atty. Quesada to comply with the Resolution dated June 26,
2006 by filing the comment required therein. 1 5 SDHTEC

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 No payment of ne was made as of January 13, 2009 as evidenced by a
Certification 1 6 which was issued by Araceli Bayuga, Supreme Court Chief Judicial Staff
Officer.
Again, failing to comply with the directives of the Court to pay the ne imposed
against him and to submit his comment, the Court, in a Resolution 1 7 dated February 16,
2009, resolved to (a) impose upon Atty. Quesada an additional ne of P1,000.00, or a
penalty of imprisonment of ve (5) days if said nes are not paid within 10 days from
notice, and (b) order Atty. Quesada to comply with the Resolution dated June 26, 2006
to submit his comment on the complaint against him. Atty. Quesada was also warned
that should he fail to comply, he shall be ordered arrested and detained by the National
Bureau of Investigation until he shall have made the compliance or until such time as
the Court may order.
Despite repeated notices and warnings from the Court, no payment of ne was
ever made as of September 3, 2010 as evidenced by a Certi cation 1 8 which was
issued by Araceli Bayuga, Supreme Court Chief Judicial Staff O cer. On December 28,
2010, another Certi cation 1 9 was issued anew showing no record of payment of ne
by Atty. Quesada.
Thus, in a Resolution 2 0 dated March 9, 2011, the Court resolved to (1) increase
the ne imposed on Atty. Quesada to P3,000.00, or imprisonment of ten (10) days if
such ne is not paid within the prescribed period; and (2) require Atty. Quesada to
comply with the Resolution dated June 26, 2006 by submitting the required comment
on the complaint.
No payment of ne was made as of July 12, 2011, as evidenced by a Certi cation
21 which was issued by Araceli Bayuga, Supreme Court Chief Judicial Staff Officer.
It appearing that Atty. Quesada failed to comply with the numerous Resolutions
of the Court to pay the ne imposed upon him and submit comment on the complaint
against him, in a Resolution 2 2 dated August 24, 2011, the Court ordered the arrest of
Atty. Quesada, and directed the NBI to arrest and detain him until he shall have
complied with the Court's Resolution dated March 9, 2011. Subsequently, the Court
issued a Warrant of Arrest. 2 3
Apparently forced by his looming detention, after ve (5) years, Atty. Quesada
led his Comment 2 4 dated October 10, 2011, in compliance with Resolution dated
June 26, 2006. He claimed that he is a victim of political harassment, vengeance and
retribution, and that the instant case against him was led solely for the purpose of
maligning his person. Attached to his compliance was postal money order in the
amount of P3,000.00 as payment for the fine imposed upon him.
In a Letter 2 5 dated October 10, 2011, Atty. Ricardo S. Pangan, Jr., Regional
Director of the NBI, informed the Court that Atty. Quesada voluntarily surrendered
before the agents of the NBI on October 11, 2011, and claimed that he had already
complied with the Resolution of the Court. Atty. Quesada submitted a copy of his
comment and payment of ne, thus, on the same day, Atty. Quesada was immediately
released from custody.
On February 1, 2012, the Court referred the instant case to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. 2 6
During the mandatory conference before the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline
(IBP-CBD), only Bumanglag and her counsel appeared. Atty. Quesada failed to appear
thereto, thus, the mandatory conference was reset to July 11, 2012. However, on July
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 11, 2012, Atty. Quesada failed again to appear, thus, the mandatory conference was
reset anew to July 25, 2012. Meanwhile, Bumanglag informed the IBP-CBD that co-
complainant Romeo Zarcilla passed away in 2005.
On July 23, 2012, Atty. Quesada requested that the mandatory conference be
reset due to health reasons. He submitted his Medical Certi cate dated May 2, 2012
showing that he underwent a head operation and that he is still on recovery period.
On July 25, 2012, Atty. Quesada failed again to appear, thus, the parties were
directed to appear on August 23, 2012 and submit their respective veri ed position
papers. However, on August 23, 2012, only Bumanglag and her counsel appeared, and
Atty. Quesada failed to appear anew. Thus, considering that the parties were duly
notified of the hearing, the case was deemed submitted for resolution.
On May 30, 2014, the IBP-CBD, in its Report and Recommendation,
recommended that respondent Atty. Quesada be disbarred from the practice of law.
In a Resolution No. XXI-2015-097 dated January 31, 2015, the IBP-Board of
Governors resolved to adopt and approve the report and recommendation of the IBP-
CBD.
RULING
We adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
A disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal,
but is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its o cers. 2 7 The issue
to be determined is whether respondent is still t to continue to be an o cer of the
court in the dispensation of justice. Hence, an administrative proceeding for
disbarment continues despite the desistance of a complainant, or failure of the
complainant to prosecute the same, or in this case, the failure of respondent to answer
the charges against him despite numerous notices.
However, in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of
proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint. Substantial evidence
has been de ned as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion. For the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the
case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory
proof. As in this case, considering the serious consequence of the disbarment or
suspension of a member of the Bar, this Court has consistently held that clear
preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative
penalty. 2 8 AScHCD

Thus, in the instant case, the allegations of falsi cation or forgery against Atty.
Quesada must be competently proved because falsi cation or forgery cannot be
presumed. As such, the allegations should rst be established and determined in
appropriate proceedings, like in criminal or civil cases, for it is only by such proceedings
that the last word on the falsity or forgery can be uttered by a court of law with the legal
competence to do so. A disbarment proceeding is not the occasion to determine the
issue of falsi cation or forgery simply because the sole issue to be addressed and
determined therein is whether or not the respondent attorney is still fit to continue to be
an o cer of the court in the dispensation of justice. Accordingly, We decline to rule
herein whether or not the respondent had committed the supposed falsi cation of the
subject a davit in the absence of the prior determination thereof in the appropriate
proceeding. 2 9
We, however, noted that Atty. Quesada violated the notarial law for his act of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 notarizing the: (1) Deed of Sale 3 0 dated April 12, 2002 purportedly executed by and
between the spouses Maximo F. Quezada and Gloria D. Quezada, the buyers, and
complainant Zarcilla's parents, the spouses Tarcela Zarcilla and Perfecto Zarcilla; and
the (2) Joint A davit 3 1 dated March 20, 2002 purportedly executed by the spouses
Tarcela Zarcilla and Perfecto Zarcilla for the reconstitution of TCT No. T-18490, when in
both occasions the spouses Tarcela Zarcilla and Perfecto Zarcilla could no longer
execute said documents and appear before Atty. Quesada since they have long been
deceased as evidenced by their death certi cates. Tarcela Zarcilla died on January 9,
1988, while Perfecto Zarcilla died on March 4, 2001. 3 2
Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice stresses the
necessity of the affiant's personal appearance before the notary public:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as
signatory to the instrument or document —
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the
notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise
identi ed by the notary public through competent evidence of
identity as defined by these Rules.
Thus, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who
signed the same is the very same person who executed and personally appeared
before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. Without
the appearance of the person who actually executed the document in question, the
notary public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the
acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act or deed.
Here, Atty. Quesada's act of notarizing the deed of sale appeared to have been done to
perpetuate a fraud. This is more evident when he certi ed in the acknowledgment
thereof that he knew the vendors and knew them to be the same persons who executed
the document. When he then solemnly declared that such appeared before him and
acknowledged to him that the document was the vendor's free act and deed despite
the fact that the vendors cannot do so as they were already deceased, Atty. Quesada
deliberately made false representations, and was not merely negligent.
Thus, by his actuations, Atty. Quesada violated not only the notarial law but also
his oath as a lawyer when he notarized the deed of sale without all the a ant's personal
appearance. His failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only damage
to those directly affected by the notarized document but also in undermining the
integrity of a notary public and in degrading the function of notarization. The
responsibility to faithfully observe and respect the legal solemnity of the oath in an
acknowledgment or jurat is more pronounced when the notary public is a lawyer
because of his solemn oath under the Code of Professional Responsibility to obey the
laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. Lawyers commissioned as
notaries public are mandated to discharge with delity the duties of their o ces, such
duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. 3 3
Time and again, We have held that notarization of a document is not an empty act
or routine. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are
quali ed or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private
document into a public document, thus, making that document admissible in evidence
without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large
must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and
appended to a private instrument. 3 4
For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the con dence of the public
in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined. Hence, a notary public
should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very
same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the
contents and truth of what are stated therein. The purpose of this requirement is to
enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the
acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act and
deed. 3 5
Aside from Atty. Quesada's violation of his duty as a notary public, what this
Court nd more deplorable was his de ant stance against the Court as demonstrated
by his repetitive disregard of the Court's directives to le his comment on the
complaint. Despite several Court resolutions, notices, directives and imposition of nes
for Atty. Quesada's compliance and payment, he ignored the same for more than ve
years. Consequently, this case has dragged on for an unnecessary length of time. More
than ve (5) years have already elapsed from the time the Court issued the rst
Resolution dated June 26, 2006 which required Atty. Quesada to le his comment until
his eventual submission of comment on October 10, 2011. It took a warrant of arrest to
nally move Atty. Quesada to le his Comment and pay the nes imposed upon him.
While the Court has been tolerant of his obstinate refusal to comply with its directives,
he shamelessly ignored the same and wasted the Court's time and resources.
And even with the submission of his comment, he did not offer any apology
and/or any justi cation for his long delay in complying with the directives/orders of this
Court. We surmised that when Atty. Quesada nally complied with the Court's
directives, his compliance was neither prompted by good faith or willingness to obey
the Court nor was he remorseful of his infractions but was actually only forced to do so
considering his impending arrest. There is, thus, no question that his failure or obstinate
refusal without justi cation or valid reason to comply with the Court's directives
constitutes disobedience or de ance of the lawful orders of Court, amounting to gross
misconduct and insubordination or disrespect. 3 6 AcICHD

Atty. Quesada's acts constitute willful disobedience of the lawful orders of this
Court, which under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is in itself alone is a
su cient cause for suspension or disbarment. His cavalier attitude in repeatedly
ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial
institution. His conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. We have repeatedly
held that a Court's Resolution is "not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be
complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively." Atty. Quesada's obstinate refusal
to comply with the Court's orders "not only betrays a recalcitrant aw in his character; it
also underscores his disrespect of the Court's lawful orders which this Court will not
tolerate." 3 7
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court,
grounds therefor. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from
his o ce as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other
gross misconduct in such o ce, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude or for any violation of the oath
which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The
practice of soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
As an o cer of the court, it is a lawyer's duty to uphold the dignity and authority
of the court. The highest form of respect for judicial authority is shown by a lawyer's
obedience to court orders and processes. 3 8 Considering Atty. Quesada's
predisposition to disregard not only the laws of the land but also the lawful orders of
the Court, it only shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good
demeanor. Worse, with his repeated disobedience to this Court's orders, Atty. Quesada
displayed no remorse as to his misconduct which, thus, proved himself unworthy of
membership in the Philippine Bar. Clearly, Atty. Quesada is un t to discharge the duties
of an officer of the court and deserves the ultimate penalty of disbarment.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING , We nd respondent ATTY. JOSE C.
QUESADA JR. GUILTY of gross misconduct and willful disobedience of lawful orders
rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession. He is, thus,
ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name stricken-off of the Roll of
Attorneys, effective immediately. We, likewise, REVOKE his incumbent notarial
commission, if any, and PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIES him from being
commissioned as a notary public.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the O ce of the Bar Con dant, which
shall forthwith record it in the personal le of respondent. All the Courts of the
Philippines; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which shall disseminate copies
thereof to all its Chapters; and all administrative and quasi-judicial agencies of the
Republic of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED .
Carpio, ** Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perlas-
Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, Caguioa, Martires, Tijam, Reyes, Jr. and Gesmundo, JJ.,
concur.
Sereno, * C.J., is on leave.

Footnotes
* On leave.
** Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018.
1. Rollo, pp. 1-5.

2. Id. at 6.
3. Id. at 21-22.
4. Id. at 23-24.
5. Id. at 25.
6. Id. at 7-8.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 7. Id. at 7. (Emphasis ours)
8. Id. at 9-10.

9. Id. at 11-13.
10. Id. at 18-19.
11. Id. at 26.
12. Id. at 27-28.
13. Id. at 36.

14. Id. at 37.

15. Resolution of the Third Division of the Supreme Court, dated June 16, 2008; id. at 38.
16. Rollo, p. 39.
17. Id. at 40.

18. Id. at 42.

19. Id. at 45.
20. Id. at 46.
21. Id. at 48.
22. Id. at 64-65.

23. Id. at 66-67.

24. Id. at 52-57.
25. Id. at 63.
26. Id. at 87-88.
27. In re: Almacen, No. L-27654, February 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 562.

28. Ferancullo v. Atty. Ferancullo, 538 Phil. 501, 511 (2006).

29. See Flores-Salado v. Villanueva, Jr., A.C. No. 11099, September 27, 2016.
30. Rollo, pp. 21-22.
31. Id. at 25.

32. Id. at 24, 23.

33. Agbulos v. Atty. Viray , 704 Phil. 1, 9 (2013).
34. Vda. de Rosales v. Atty. Ramos, 383 Phil. 498, 504 (2002).
35. Dela Cruz v. Atty. Dimaano, Jr., 586 Phil. 573, 578 (2008).
36. In Re: Resolution dated August 14, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94656 v.
Mortel, 798 Phil. 1, 9 (2006).
37. See Sebastian v. Atty. Bajar, 559 Phil. 211, 224 (2007).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 38. Santeco v. Atty. Avance, 659 Phil. 48, 51 (2011).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com