Solarte vs. Atty.

Pugeda

A.C. No. 4751, July 31, 2000 ISSUE: W/N Atty. Pugeda should be charged with
gross misconduct

FACTS: Emelita Solarte filed an administrative ch

arge of gross misconduct against Atty. Teofilo Pug
eda, a Municipal Judge in 1960s. Solarte alleges t
hat Atty. Pugeda could not have notarized the doc
uments, to which he also acted as witness, involvi
ng the 2 deeds of sale in General Trias, Cavite. A
pparently, the land belonged to Catalino Nocon. S
he assails validity of the partition because one of
Nocon’s heirs, Hermina, was not a signatory theret
o because she was still a minor at the time. She al
so claims interest in the lots because she was a de
scendant of the original owner, Nocon, being her
grandfather. She avers that Atty. Pugeda and his w
ife, in administering the property, are responsible f
or the wrongful partition. Accordingly, she claims
that acts of Atty. Pugeda constitute misconduct.
RULING: NO. Nothing in law prohibits notary pu
blic from acting at the same time as witness in th
e document he notarized. The only exception is w
hen the document to be notarized is a will.
Solarte offered no proof, but only mere allegations
, that Atty. Pugeda was involved in the partition o
f the subject property, employing fraud to effect s
uch. This grave charge against a member of th
e bar and former municipal judge needs conc
rete substantiation to gain credence. It could
not prosper without adequate proof. Ultimatel
y, this charge is without merit.I

For his part, Atty. Pugeda counters that he was no

longer under any obligation to provide her with t
he documents she was asking for because he is no
longer anotary public ex officio. He says he was
willing to look for the documents he notarized so
me 30 years ago, but she was impatient. He also s
ays there is nothing in the law that prohibits the n
otary public from signing as witness the same doc
uments he notarized and that as municipal judge,
he was empowered to notarize documents under th
e Judiciary Act of 1948 and the Revised Administ
rative Code. The documents in question were notar
ized in the 1960s, which was before the SC declar
ed in 1980, that an ex officio notary public can on
ly notarize documents if such notarization is in co
nnection with the exercise of his official functions
and duties. He also denies that he or his wife was
responsible for the partition.

CFI upheld the validity of the partition and the de

eds of sale.

IBP recommended that the charge be dismissed for

Atty. Pugeda cannot be faulted for failure of Nati
onal Archives to provide Solarte with the copies s
he asked for, that he and his wife had no hand in
the partition and sale, and that there is no prohibit
ion for notary public to witness.