Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83694:57796&catid=1588&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:00:33+00:00

Document:
A.C. No. 7919, October 08, 2014 - DOMADO DISOMIMBA SULTAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. CASAN MACABANDING, Respondent.
DOMADO DISOMIMBA SULTAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. CASAN MACABANDING, Respondent.
This is an administrative complaint1 filed on May 14, 2008 before the Office of the Bar Confidant by Domado Disomimba Sultan (complainant) against Atty. Casan Macabanding (respondent) for allegedly having notarized a falsified affidavit.
Thereafter, an Affidavit of Withdrawal of Certificate of Candidacy for Municipal Mayor3 (Affidavit of Withdrawal) dated April 10, 2007 was notarized and submitted by the respondent to the COMELEC, withdrawing the complainant’s candidacy without the latter’s knowledge or authorization.
When the complainant learned of this, he wrote a letter4 dated April 18, 2007 and submitted an Affidavit5 to Mamangcoday Colangcag (Colangcag), Acting Election Officer of the COMELEC in Buadipuso Buntong, Lanao del Sur. The complainant alleged that he neither executed the Affidavit of Withdrawal nor authorized anybody to prepare a document to withdraw his COC. He asked that the withdrawal be ignored and that his name be retained on the list of candidates.
On May 16, 2007, the complainant filed a petition with the COMELEC to count the votes cast in his favor. The complainant also filed a criminal complaint on May 17, 2007 with the Prosecutor’s Office of Marawi City against Abdulmojib Moti Mariano (Mariano) who was another candidate for the mayoralty position, the respondent, and Colangcag for Falsification of Public Documents.6 Information7 was thereby filed against the respondent and Colangcag which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 5842-08 in the Regional Trial Court of Lanao Del Sur, Marawi City.
The respondent countered that the instant administrative case was filed against him as political harassment because his family supported the complainant’s opponent, Mariano.13 He admitted that he notarized the affidavit after it was signed by the complainant voluntarily and in the presence of witnesses and thereafter, submitted the same to the COMELEC. However, the complainant changed his mind when Mariano, who was the only remaining mayoralty candidate, refused to pay millions of pesos to the complainant.14 The respondent withheld the identity of the witnesses allegedly to avoid problems within their family.
WHETHER THE RESPONDENT SHOULD BE HELD ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE BASED ON THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT.
The Court agrees with the findings of the IBP but modify the penalty imposed.
On this score, the Court refers to Mayor Abdulmojib Moti Mariano v. Commission on Elections and Domado Disomimba Sultan,24 wherein the Court resolved with finality the dismissal of Mariano’s petition before the Court alleging that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ordering the complainant’s reinstatement in the list of mayoralty candidates.
Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. It means evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. Under Section 1 of Rule 133, in determining whether or not there is preponderance of evidence, the court may consider the following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses’ interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number of witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the greater number.
In Carlito Ang v. Atty. James Joseph Gupana,32 the respondent therein was suspended from the practice of law for one year; his notarial commission was revoked and he was also disqualified from reappointment as notary public for a period of two years for notarizing an affidavit of loss without the presence of the party acknowledging the document.
In Isenhardt v. Real,35 the respondent therein was subjected to similar penalties when he notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) supposedly executed by the complainant. It was proven by documentary evidence that the complainant was in Germany at that time and therefore could not have appeared before the respondent to have the SPA notarized.
The complainant in Linco v. Lacebal36 filed an administrative case against the respondent notary public for notarizing a deed of donation despite the latter’s knowledge that the purported donor had already passed away on an earlier date. For this reason, the respondent’s notarial commission was revoked and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years. Furthermore, he was suspended from the practice of law for one year.
Thus, based on prevailing jurisprudence, the penalties meted out against a lawyer commissioned as a notary public who fails to discharge his duties as such are: the revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years, and suspension from the practice of law for one year.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Casan Macabanding is found administratively liable for misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year. Further, his notarial commission, if any, is REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two (2) years, with a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more severely. He is DIRECTED to report to this Court the date of his receipt of this Decision to enable it to determine when the revocation of his notarial commission and his disqualification from being commissioned as notary public shall take effect.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all courts all over the country. Let a copy of this Decision likewise be attached to the personal records of Atty. Casan Macabanding.
Peralta,* (Acting Chairperson), Villarama, Jr., Perlas-Bernabe,**and Jardeleza, JJ., concur., concur.
* Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 1815 dated October 3, 2014 vice Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.
** Additional member per Special Order No. 1816 dated October 3, 2014 vice Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.
15 Id. at 164-168; 179-183.
16 Id. at 168, 183.
17 Id. at 163, 178.
24 Court en banc Resolution dated January 13, 2009 in G.R. No. 183842.
27 A.C. No. 9259, August 23, 2012, 679 SCRA 1.
29Carlito Ang v. Atty. James Joseph Gupana, A.C. No. 4545, February 5, 2014, citing Flores v. Atty. Chua, 366 Phil. 132, 153 (1999).
30Maria v. Cortez, A.C. No. 7880, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 87, 93-94.
32 A.C. No. 4545, February 5, 2014.
33 A.C. No. 7350, February 18, 2013, 691 SCRA 1.
35 A.C. No. 8254, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 20.
36 A.C. No. 7241, October 17, 2011, 659 SCRA 130.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.