A.C. No. 5377 ; June 15, 2006
Victor Lingan, Complainant, vs. Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmy P. Baliga, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Victor Lingan filed a disbarment case against respondents Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmy Baliga, alleging they falsified public documents as notaries public. The case stemmed from a civil action for annulment of title filed against Lingan by Isaac Villegas, where Calubaquib notarized the complaint’s verification. Lingan alleged this document was falsified, as Calubaquib’s notarial register showed the same entry number corresponded to a different affidavit. Similarly, a Special Power of Attorney executed by Villegas and notarized by Baliga was alleged to be falsified, as its entry number in Baliga’s register pertained to an affidavit of loss. Another document, Baliga’s petition for reappointment as notary public notarized by Calubaquib, contained an incorrect book year reference.
In their defenses, both respondents admitted to the incorrect notarial entries but attributed them to the inadvertence of their secretaries or legal assistants. Calubaquib further argued that the Notarial Law did not require entries for affidavits or verifications, only for contracts. Lingan, however, insisted the incorrect entries were proof of a larger scheme to defraud him, alleging Calubaquib forged Villegas’s signature and impersonated him in the litigation. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondents liable for negligence and recommended revocation of their notarial commissions for two years.

ISSUE

Whether respondents are administratively liable for their actions concerning the notarization of the subject documents.

RULING

Yes, respondents are administratively liable. The Supreme Court found them guilty of violating their lawyer’s oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits dishonest or deceitful conduct. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a routinary act but imbues a document with public faith, requiring notaries public to observe the highest degree of care. Respondents’ admissions of incorrect entries in their notarial registers constituted a breach of this solemn duty. Their excuses of reliance on staff were unacceptable, as a lawyer’s duty to maintain accurate notarial records is personal and non-delegable.
Regarding the allegation of forgery, the Court ruled that Lingan failed to prove it by clear and convincing evidence. Forgery cannot be presumed. Consequently, the more severe penalty of disbarment was not warranted based on the evidence. However, the negligence and failure to uphold notarial standards were serious. The IBP-recommended penalty was deemed too lenient. The Court suspended both respondents from the practice of law for one year, revoked their notarial commissions (if any), and disqualified them from reappointment as notaries public for two years.