Malvar v. Baleros
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Dr. Basilio Malvar sold a parcel of land to Leah Mallari. An agreement was made for Dr. Malvar to facilitate the transfer of title. Without Dr. Malvar's knowledge, Mallari allegedly filed an Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land using Dr. Malvar's name and signature before the DENR. Mallari also filed a civil case for reimbursement of expenses and a criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) against Dr. Malvar due to unfunded checks issued as payment. A criminal case for falsification of public document was filed against Mallari, with allegations of conspiracy with respondent Atty. Cora Jane P. Baleros. The prosecutor found insufficient evidence to establish conspiracy between Mallari and Atty. Baleros, dropping her from the indictment. Procedural History: Complainant Dr. Malvar initiated the present disbarment case against Atty. Baleros, alleging falsification of the Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land by notarizing it without his presence. The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended the revocation of Atty. Baleros' notarial commission, disqualification for two years, and a stern warning. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this with modification, revoking her notarial commission, disqualifying her for two years, and suspending her from the practice of law for six months. The Petition: The complainant alleged that Atty. Baleros committed grave misconduct, falsification of public document, and violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing the Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land without the complainant's presence. The complainant presented evidence, including patient record cards, showing he was in Manila attending to patients on the date of the alleged notarization.
Issue(s)
Whether administrative liability should attach to the respondent for falsification of the Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land. Whether administrative liability should attach to the respondent for notarizing the aforesaid document in the absence of the complainant. Whether administrative liability should attach to the respondent for double entries in the Notarial Registry.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors with modification. Respondent Atty. Cora Jane P. Baleros was found guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Lawyer's Oath. Her notarial commission, if still existing, was revoked, and she was disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for two years. She was also suspended from the practice of law for six months.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Falsification of public document): The Court declined to rule on the criminal charge of falsification of public document, stating that it would not pre-empt the regular courts' jurisdiction over the pending criminal case. The Court noted that while disbarment proceedings are sui generis, it is judicious for the IBP-CBD not to issue contradictory findings to those of regular courts. Therefore, no administrative liability was imposed on the respondent for the specific act of falsification itself, as it was a matter for the criminal court to resolve. On Issue 2 (Notarization in the absence of the complainant): The Court found that the respondent violated Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Notarial Rules. The complainant's evidence, showing his presence in Manila on the date of alleged notarization, contradicted the respondent's claim of his appearance. The Court emphasized that a jurat requires the physical presence of the affiant and their signing of the document before the notary public. The respondent's unsubstantiated claim could not prevail over the complainant's evidence. Furthermore, even if the complainant were present, the respondent failed to ascertain his identity through competent evidence of identity, as required by the Rules, unless she personally knew him, which was not sufficiently established. On Issue 3 (Double Entries in the Notarial Registry): The Court found that the respondent displayed a lack of diligence by failing to properly record the Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land in her notarial register. The respondent assigned the same notarial details (entry number, page number, book number) to two different documents. The impugned document was not found in her register, and she admitted that her office staff usually filled up the register, which is a violation of the Notarial Rules and Canon 9, Rule 9.01 of the CPR. The Court reiterated that notarization is not a routinary act and failure to record it undermines the integrity of notarized documents. The Court clarified that the requirement to retain an original copy and submit a duplicate copy to the Clerk of Court applies to acknowledgments, not to documents with a jurat, thus no liability was ascribed on this specific ground.
Main Doctrine
A notary public who notarizes a document without the personal presence of the affiant and fails to properly record the act in the notarial register violates the Notarial Rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary sanctions.