Orola v. Baribar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Tomas N. Orola and Phil. Nippon AOI Industry, Inc. filed a complaint against Atty. Archie S. Baribar for allegedly inventing offenses, procuring documents with forged signatures, representing a person not his client, and notarizing a document without the signatory's personal appearance. Specifically, they alleged that Baribar filed a baseless labor case for 24 clients, included individuals not in the original complaint in an appeal, and notarized a Motion for Reconsideration without the signatory, Docufredo Claveria, appearing before him, as Claveria was overseas. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Commissioner recommended that Atty. Baribar be reprimanded, his notarial commission revoked, and he be prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for three years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but modified the recommendation, suspending Atty. Baribar from the practice of law for one year and disqualifying him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. Atty. Baribar's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case based on the IBP's findings and recommendations.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Baribar violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a document without the personal appearance of the signatory. Whether the penalty imposed by the IBP Board of Governors is proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the IBP Board of Governors. Atty. Archie S. Baribar was found guilty of breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, his incumbent commission as a notary public was revoked, and he was prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of violation of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court found Atty. Baribar guilty of failing to require the personal appearance of Docufredo Claveria when notarizing the Motion for Reconsideration. The Bureau of Immigration certified that Claveria departed the Philippines before the notarization date, and Atty. Baribar himself admitted that Claveria was not present. He explained that he asked other affiants to obtain Claveria's signature and notarized the document based on his personal knowledge of Claveria and familiarity with his signature. However, the Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere ministerial act but is impressed with public interest, requiring the notary public to ensure the authenticity and reliability of the document. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice explicitly mandates the personal appearance of the signatory before the notary public to attest to the contents and truth of the instrument, and to enable the notary to verify the genuineness of the signature and ascertain that the document is the signatory's free act and deed. Atty. Baribar's reliance on assurances from others and his failure to strictly follow the notarial requirements constituted a breach of his duties as a lawyer and notary public. His actions demonstrated a disregard for the solemnity of the oath and the integrity of the legal profession. On the propriety of the penalty: The Court agreed with the IBP Board of Governors' modified recommendation. While the IBP Commissioner recommended a reprimand and prohibition, the Board of Governors imposed a one-year suspension from the practice of law and a two-year disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. The Court cited jurisprudence where similar failures to discharge duties as a notary public resulted in penalties such as revocation of commission, disqualification, and suspension from practice, with terms varying based on circumstances. Given Atty. Baribar's admission of not requiring personal appearance and his admitted practice of relying on assurances for other notarizations, the imposed penalty was deemed proper to deter further violations and uphold the integrity of the notarial system and the legal profession.
Main Doctrine
A notary public, especially a lawyer, must strictly adhere to the notarial laws requiring the personal appearance of the signatory to ensure the authenticity and reliability of documents. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of duty and professional responsibility, warranting disciplinary action.