Boers v. Calubaquib
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jean Marie S. Boers (Boers) filed a complaint-affidavit against Atty. Romeo Calubaquib (Calubaquib) for alleged violations of the Rules on Notarial Practice. Boers claimed that her signature on a Deed of Sale of a Portion of Land on Installment Basis, dated October 16, 1991, was forged, as she was in Canada at the time of its purported execution and notarization. The Deed of Sale was notarized by Calubaquib on the same date. Procedural History: The Commission on Bar Discipline (Commission) directed Calubaquib to file an answer, conducted a mandatory conference, and ordered the submission of position papers. The Commission submitted its Report and Recommendation to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors (IBP Board of Governors), which adopted and approved the report and forwarded it to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Boers presented her passport and Philippine visa to prove she was in Canada from December 20, 1990, until at least February 7, 1991, thus unable to appear before Calubaquib on October 16, 1991. She also noted the absence of a residence certificate number or other competent identification in the notarization. Furthermore, the Deed of Sale was not found in Calubaquib's notarial file at the National Archives; instead, an affidavit by Alfred Danao for the same notarial entry was recorded. Boers also cited a previous sanction against Calubaquib in Lingan v. Calubaquib (A.C. No. 5377, June 15, 2006). Calubaquib, in defense, presented a joint affidavit from Boers' aunt and cousin, which, however, corroborated that Boers was no longer in the country at the time of notarization.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Romeo Calubaquib violated the Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a Deed of Sale without the personal appearance of the signatory. Whether Atty. Romeo Calubaquib violated the Rules on Notarial Practice by failing to record the notarized Deed of Sale in his notarial register. Whether the penalty imposed by the Commission and the IBP Board of Governors is appropriate.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed with modification the Resolution No. XX-2014-136 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Atty. Romeo Calubaquib is suspended for TWO (2) YEARS from the practice of law, his notarial commission is REVOKED, and he is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public. He is also STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a document without the personal appearance of the signatory: The Court held that Calubaquib clearly violated Rule II, Section 1 of the Rules on Notarial Practice, which defines an acknowledgment. This rule requires that an individual must appear in person before the notary public, be personally known or identified by competent evidence, and represent that the signature was voluntarily affixed for the stated purposes. The Court emphasized that the personal appearance of the parties is crucial for the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signatures and ensure the voluntary execution of the document. Boers satisfactorily proved her absence from the country during the notarization, and Calubaquib's own evidence, the joint affidavit, corroborated this fact. Therefore, the imposition of disciplinary sanctions for this violation is proper. On the violation of the mandatory recording requirements under the Rules: The Court found that Calubaquib also violated Section 1 and Section 2 of Rule VI of the Rules on Notarial Practice, which mandate the keeping and timely recording of every notarial act in a notarial register. The Court reiterated the importance of the notarial register as a record of official acts, stating that failure to record a document is tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when it was not, thereby casting doubt on its status as a public document. The Certification from the National Archives confirmed Calubaquib's failure to record the Deed of Sale. In the absence of any explanation from Calubaquib, this constituted a further violation of the Rules. On the appropriateness of the penalty: The Court noted that Calubaquib had previously been sanctioned for violations of the Rules on Notarial Practice in Lingan v. Calubaquib. This prior offense served as an aggravating circumstance, warranting a harsher penalty than typically imposed in similar cases. Citing precedents like Sappayani v. Gasmen and Sultan v. Macabanding, where similar violations led to revocation of notarial commission, suspension, and disqualification, the Court found the recommended penalty of two years suspension, revocation of notarial commission, and perpetual disqualification to be justified, especially considering the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. The Court affirmed the findings of the Commission and the IBP Board of Governors, modifying the IBP's resolution only to include a stern warning against future misconduct.
Main Doctrine
A notary public violates the Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a document without the personal appearance of the signatory, and by failing to record the notarial act in the notarial register. Such violations, especially when repeated, warrant severe disciplinary sanctions including suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.