G.R. No. A.C. No. 13911 & A.C. No. 13912, October 03, 2023
JOY CADIOGAN CALIXTO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CORA JANE P. BALEROS, RESPONDENT. [CONSOLIDATED]

FACTS

Complainants Joy and Rimas Calixto, a married couple, alleged that their property was fraudulently transferred through a falsified Special Power of Attorney (SPA) notarized by Atty. Cora Jane P. Baleros. The SPA purportedly authorized Joy to sell or mortgage their family home. Rimas asserted he never executed the document, was out of town during its supposed notarization, and that the signature was not his. The document also lacked mandatory notarial details such as the notary’s commission serial number and office address. The complainants filed administrative cases before the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD).
The IBP CBD found Atty. Baleros liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. It noted her failure to file an answer despite notice and her prior suspension for similar misconduct in Dr. Malvar v. Atty. Baleros. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the CBD’s recommendation for a two-year suspension from the practice of law and a permanent ban from being a notary public. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for final action.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether Atty. Baleros should be held administratively liable for notarizing the falsified Special Power of Attorney. A secondary, novel procedural issue is when the period of suspension should commence if the lawyer’s whereabouts are unknown, preventing actual receipt of the Court’s decision.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Baleros is administratively liable. The Court affirmed the IBP’s findings but modified the penalty. Notarization is not a mere ministerial act; it invests a document with public faith, requiring notaries to exercise utmost care. Atty. Baleros violated Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules, which mandates that the parties must personally appear before the notary public at the time of notarization. Rimas’s categorical denial of his presence and signature, coupled with the document’s facial deficiencies, substantiated the violation. Her failure to answer the complaints constituted an admission of the allegations.
Considering her previous suspension for an identical offense, which is an aggravating circumstance under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, the Court imposed a three-year suspension from the practice of law and a perpetual disqualification from being a notary public. On the novel procedural issue, the Court ruled that when a suspended lawyer cannot be located, the period of suspension shall commence upon the finality of the decision. However, the suspension will only be lifted upon the lawyer’s submission of proof of compliance (e.g., a sworn statement of compliance) and only after the full suspension period has been served from the date of such submission. This ensures the penalty’s efficacy and prevents evasion of disciplinary action.