SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 5377 June 15, 2006
VICTOR LINGAN, Complainant,
vs.
ATTYS. ROMEO CALUBAQUIB and JIMMY P. BALIGA, Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
CORONA, J.:
This is a complaint for disbarment1 filed by Victor Lingan against Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmy Baliga on November 16, 2000. Complainant alleged that respondents, both notaries public, falsified certain public documents.
The case has its roots in a complaint for annulment of title with damages2 filed by Isaac Villegas against complainant with the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao, Cagayan, docketed as Civil Case No. 5036. Respondent Calubaquib signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping3 of the complaint as notary public and entered the same as Doc. No. 182; Page No. 38; Book No. CLXXII; Series of 1996. Complainant alleges that this document was falsified because according to the records of the National Archives, the document entered as Doc. No. 182; Page 38; Book No. CLXXII; Series of 1996 in respondent Calubaquib’s notarial register was an affidavit of one Daniel Malayao.4
The trial court decided Civil Case No. 5036 in favor of complainant5 and, as a result, the plaintiff there, through respondent Calubaquib, appealed it to the Court of Appeals, where it was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 55837.
On file with the records of this case is a special power of attorney6 dated September 10, 1996 executed by Isaac Villegas appointing respondent Calubaquib as his attorney-in-fact to "enter into a compromise agreement under such terms and conditions acceptable to him" which was notarized by respondent Baliga and entered as Doc. No. 548, Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series of 1996.7 Complainant alleged that this special power of attorney was also falsified because, according to respondent Baliga’s notarial register, Doc. No. 548; Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series of 1996 pertains to an affidavit of loss of one Pedro Telan,8 dated August 26, 1996.
In addition, on January 2, 1995, respondent Baliga filed a petition for reappointment as notary public for and in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, which was notarized by respondent Calubaquib and entered in his notarial register as Doc. No. 31, Page No. 08, Book No. CXXX, Series of 1995. However, Notarial Register Book No. CXXX was for the year 1996 and entered there as Doc. No. 31, Page No. 08 was a cancellation of real estate mortgage dated January 11, 1996.
In his answer,9 respondent Baliga admitted the incorrectness of the entries and simply attributed them to the inadvertence in good faith of his secretary to whom he had left the task of entering all his notarial documents.
Respondent Calubaquib’s comment,10 however, contained a much lengthier account of the alleged events leading up to this case, the bulk of which was meant to cast complainant and his motives in a sinister light. In a nutshell, he made it appear that the reason for the complaint was that he (respondent) thwarted a fraudulent attempt by complainant to grab a parcel of land. He also stated that complainant had filed a case for falsification of documents against him with the Ombudsman but it was dismissed.
In the end, however, he (like his co-respondent Baliga) admitted to the mistaken entries and also ascribed the same to his "legal assistants." Similarly, by way of defense, he pointed out that the Notarial Law "provides that only contracts need to have their copies included in the notarial records. It does not require affidavits, verifications or subscriptions of petitions which are mere allegations of facts to be entered in the Notarial Register, despite widespread practice to the contrary."
Upon receipt of respondents’ comments, we referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
In the course of the proceedings before the IBP, complainant alleged that respondent Calubaquib, with the help of respondent Baliga and several other persons, was trying to deprive him (complainant) of a parcel of land he had bought from Isaac Villegas’ mother-in-law. According to complainant, respondent impersonated Villegas, who was in hiding due to several civil and criminal cases pending against him, by forging his signature in all documents and pleadings related to the civil case filed against him (complainant). He pointed to the incorrect notarial entries as proof of this falsification.
He presented in evidence a motion for withdrawal11 filed in the Court of Appeals, apparently by Villegas, disavowing any involvement in the case filed by respondent Calubaquib.
To further buttress his allegations of falsification, complainant pointed out that respondent Calubaquib seemed unable to physically produce Villegas. For example, when the Ombudsman ordered him to produce Villegas, respondent Calubaquib merely presented an affidavit12 supposedly executed by Villegas and sworn to before a "highly regarded [Department of Justice] official."
In the IBP’s report and recommendation,13 dated December 7, 2001, Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala found respondents "liable for inexcusable negligence" and recommended the revocation of the commission of respondents Calubaquib and Baliga as notaries public for two years from receipt of the final decision. Commissioner Maala’s report did not touch on complainant’s allegations of forgery.
When the IBP resolved14 to adopt Commissioner Maala’s report and recommendation, both complainant15 and respondent Baliga16 filed motions for reconsideration17 with this Court. Respondent Calubaquib opposed18 complainant’s motion for reconsideration.
In his motion for reconsideration, complainant assailed the penalty recommended by the IBP as grossly inadequate. Reiterating his allegation of forgery, he attached documents bearing Villegas’ allegedly forged signature as well as documents with his supposed real signature19 for comparison.
In his opposition/comment, respondent Calubaquib refuted complainant’s scathing accusations of fraud and abuse of his public position, and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. In his motion for reconsideration, respondent Baliga decried the penalty imposed as disproportionate to the infraction he had committed.
The respondents having admitted responsibility for the notarial entries, the question now is whether these were the product of a mere mistake or evidence of larger scheme to defraud complainant whose allegations, if true, are serious enough to merit the disbarment of both respondents.
The missing link, as it were, between the admitted infractions of respondents and the nefarious machinations alleged by complainant is whether or not the latter was able to prove that Villegas’ signature on the documents notarized by respondents was in fact forged.
Forgery cannot be presumed. It must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence. Mere allegation thereof is not evidence.20 One who alleges forgery has the burden of proving the same.21 We find that complainant failed to discharge this burden.
Complainant alleged mainly that Villegas could not possibly have signed the documents in question because he was a fugitive from justice, with "several civil and criminal cases pending against him." Assuming this allegation to be true, it proved nothing. The mere fact that Villegas was a fugitive from justice did not preclude the possibility that he might have secretly met with his lawyer for purposes of filing a suit. It would have been different had complainant presented evidence that Villegas was, at the time the questioned documents were executed, definitely somewhere else. But the bare argument that Villegas’ being a fugitive rendered it impossible for him to sign some documents was simply too nebulous to inspire belief.
As additional evidence, complainant presented, as attachments to his motion for reconsideration, a number of documents purportedly bearing Villegas’ real signature, the latest of which was the motion to withdraw allegedly filed by Villegas himself. However, the veracity of the last of those documents was vigorously contested by an affidavit also purportedly filed by Villegas. The two documents, both notarized, effectively cancelled each other out, absent some other credible proof.
It is true that there were dissimilarities between the signatures purportedly belonging to Villegas and his genuine signature on the conforme of the general power of attorney22 executed by his wife in favor of his mother-in-law. However, the fact of forgery cannot be presumed simply because there are dissimilarities between the standard and the questioned signatures.23 If complainant was so sure the signatures were fake, he should have submitted them for expert analysis to the National Bureau of Investigation, the Philippine National Police or some other handwriting expert. The records are bereft of any such analysis or even any attempt to have the signatures examined.
Furthermore, all the documents on which the contested signature appeared were notarized. Notarial documents carry the presumption of regularity. To contradict them, the evidence presented must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant.24 Complainant’s uncorroborated theory of an entire conspiracy of lawyers and government officials beholden to respondent Calubaquib did not constitute such evidence.
The forgery of Villegas’ signature having remained unproven, we can only hold respondents liable for their omissions that have actually been proved.
In this respect, we find that the recommendations of IBP Commissioner Maala adopted by the IBP were supported by the evidence on record, particularly the documents themselves as well as the respondents’ own admission.
In response, on the other hand, to respondents’ feeble attempts to deflect the blame from themselves and onto their staff, we call their attention to Sections 245, 246 and 249(b) of the Notarial Law.25
Sections 245 and 246 of the Notarial Law provided:
SEC. 245. Notarial Register. ― Every notary public shall keep a register to be known as the notarial register, wherein record shall be made of all his official acts as notary; and he shall supply a certified copy of such record, or any part thereof, to any person applying for it and paying the legal fees therefore. (emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
SEC. 246. Matters to be entered therein. — The notary public shall enter in such register, in chronological order, the nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him, the person executing, swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument, the witnesses, if any, to the signature, the date of execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the instrument, the fees collected by him for his services as notary in connection therewith, and, when the instrument is a contract, he shall keep a correct copy thereof as part of his records, and shall likewise enter in said records a brief description of the substance thereof and shall give to each entry a consecutive number, beginning with number one in each calendar year. The notary shall give to each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state on the instrument the page or pages of his register on which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries.
xxx xxx xxx
In this connection, Section 249(b) stated:
SEC. 249. Grounds for revocation of commission.—The following derelictions of duty on the part of a notary public shall, in the discretion of the proper judge of first instance, be sufficient ground for the revocation of his commission:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) The failure of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register touching his notarial acts in the manner required by law.
xxx xxx xxx
From the language of the subsection, it is abundantly clear that the notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register. Respondents cannot be relieved of responsibility for the violation of the aforesaid sections by passing the buck to their secretaries, a reprehensible practice which to this day persists despite our open condemnation.26 Respondents, especially Calubaquib, a self-proclaimed "prominent legal practitioner," should have known better than to give us such a simple-minded excuse.
We likewise remind respondents that notarization is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized to do so may act as notaries public. The protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from inflicting themselves upon the public, the courts and the administrative offices in general.27
Notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public one and makes it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity.28 Notaries public must therefore observe utmost care with respect to the basic requirements of their duties.29
Being not only lawyers but also public officers, respondents should have been acutely aware of their responsibilities. Respondents’ acts did not amount to mere simple and excusable negligence. Having failed to perform their sworn duty, respondents were squarely in violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility30 and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which provides:
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefore.—A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly and willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondents Atty. Romeo I. Calubaquib and Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga are hereby found guilty of violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and of their lawyer’s oath. They are both ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE YEAR effective immediately, with a warning that another infraction shall be dealt with more severely.
Their present commissions as notaries public, if any, are hereby REVOKED, with DISQUALIFICATION from reappointment as notaries public for a period of two years.
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the personal records of Atty. Romeo I. Calubaquib and Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga, and copies furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Court Administrator and Office of the Bar Confidant for dissemination to all courts nationwide.
This Resolution is immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Asscociate Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 1-4.
2 Id., pp. 48-54.
3 Id., p. 6.
4 Id., p. 7.
5 Id., pp. 60-64.
6 Id., p. 9.
7 Id., p. 9.
8 Id., p. 10.
9 Id., pp. 29-30.
10 Id., pp. 33-41.
11 Id., pp. 153-156.
12 Id., p. 137.
13 Id., pp. 76-78.
14 Id., pp. 74-75.
15 Id., pp. 84-114.
16 Id., pp. 202-209.
17 The records do not indicate that the motions for reconsideration were filed in the IBP; they were filed directly with the Supreme Court. The Court, consistent with the rules governing disbarment proceedings, treated the motions for reconsideration as petitions for review of the IBP resolution.
18 Id., pp. 195-200.
19 Id., pp. 134-136.
20 Tenio-Obsequio v. CA, G.R. No. 107967, 1 March 1994, 230 SCRA 550.
21 People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 153119, 13 April 2004, 427 SCRA 28; Fernandez v. Fernandez, 416 Phil. 322 (2001).
22 Rollo, p. 57.
23 People v. Reyes, supra.
24 Jimenez v. Commission on Ecumenical Mission, United Presbyterian Church, USA, 432 Phil. 895 (2002).
25 The Notarial Law (Chapter 11 of Act 2711) was in effect at the time of the commission of the acts subject of the complaint. It has been superseded effective August 1, 2004 by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC) promulgated on July 6, 2004.
26 Adaza v. Barinaga, 192 Phil. 198 (1981).
27 Lucente v. Atty. Evangelista, Jr., 444 Phil. 721 (2003).
28 Sections 19(b) and 23, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
29 Lucente v. Atty. Evangelista, Jr., supra.
30 Rule 1.01. – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
