Loberes-Pintal v. Baylosis
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Susan Loberes-Pintal filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Ramoncito B. Baylosis, alleging that he conspired with Roldan C. Pintal in committing perjury and falsification. Specifically, Atty. Baylosis allegedly made it appear that Roldan was a resident of Caloocan City when he was actually in Quezon City, and that Atty. Baylosis notarized the verification and certification against non-forum shopping of Roldan's Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on May 13, 2011, despite Roldan being out of the country at that time. Procedural History: The complaint was filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). Although the complainant later filed an Affidavit of Desistance, the CBD initially recommended the dismissal of the complaint. However, the IBP-Board of Governors reversed this recommendation, finding Atty. Baylosis guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and recommending the revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification for two years. The Petition: This case reached the Supreme Court following the IBP-Board of Governors' resolution. The Court reviewed the findings and agreed that Atty. Baylosis was negligent in his duties as a notary public by notarizing a document without the signatory being personally present, as evidenced by Roldan's travel records. The Court found this to be a violation of the Rule on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, leading to a penalty of permanent bar from being commissioned as a Notary Public.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Baylosis violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by notarizing a document in the absence of the signatory. Whether the complainant's Affidavit of Desistance warrants the dismissal of the administrative case.
Ruling
WHEREFORE, finding Atty. Ramoncito B. Baylosis GUILTY of violating the Rule on Notarial Practice and Rule 1.01 and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court hereby imposes the penalty of being PERMANENTLY BARRED from being commissioned as a Notary Public with a STERN WARNING that repetition of the same or similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that Atty. Baylosis was clearly negligent and violated Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. This rule explicitly prohibits a notary from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of notarization. The Bureau of Immigration (BI) Certification proved that the signatory, Roldan, was abroad on the date stated in the jurat. The Court rejected the respondent's defense of "honest mistake" by his staff, emphasizing that a notary public is personally responsible for the accuracy of the facts attested in the notarial certificate. By affixing his seal, he falsely represented that the party appeared before him, which constitutes dishonest conduct under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The Court reiterated that notarization is invested with substantive public interest, converting a private document into a public one admissible without further proof of its authenticity. On Issue 2: The Court held that the desistance of the complainant does not warrant the dismissal of the administrative proceeding. Citing Bautista v. Bernabe, the Court explained that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis and involve no private interest. They are undertaken solely for the public welfare and to preserve the integrity of the legal profession and the courts. The complainant is not a plaintiff but merely a person who calls the attention of the Court to the attorney's alleged misconduct. Therefore, as long as the facts on record support a finding of misconduct, the case must proceed regardless of the complainant's lack of interest. In this case, the documentary evidence from the Bureau of Immigration (BI) was sufficient to prove the violation despite the withdrawal of the complaint.
Main Doctrine
The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice strictly require the physical presence of the signatory at the time of notarization to ensure the integrity of public documents. A notary public's failure to observe this requirement constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifically the prohibition against engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Furthermore, administrative proceedings against lawyers are sui generis; they are maintained for the public interest to protect the courts and the public from unfit practitioners, meaning that a complainant's desistance or withdrawal of the complaint does not automatically result in the dismissal of the case if evidence of misconduct exists. This ensures that the legal profession remains populated by individuals who uphold the highest standards of fidelity and honesty.