A.C. No. 575; February 14, 1991
MARCIANO JOSON, complainant, vs. ATTY. GLORIA M. BALTAZAR (now Baltazar-Aguirre), respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Marciano Joson filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Gloria M. Baltazar, charging her with violation of the Revised Penal Code and grave malpractice. The first charge alleged that on July 10, 1957, respondent notarized a deed of sale where she made it appear that complainant sold 150 square meters of his unregistered land, instead of the allegedly agreed-upon 50 square meters. The second charge asserted that at the time of notarization, respondent’s notarial commission had already expired on December 31, 1956, and was only renewed on September 17, 1957.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) investigated. Regarding the first charge, the OSG found it unsubstantiated. The complainant’s sole evidence was his own testimony attempting to vary the written terms of the deed, which was incompetent under the parole evidence rule. Complainant also admitted he read the deed, saw the 150-square-meter specification, expressed conformity, and signed voluntarily. The OSG suggested this claim was a scheme to nullify the sale.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Gloria M. Baltazar should be administratively disciplined for her actions related to the notarization of the deed of sale.

RULING

Yes, respondent is suspended from the practice of law for three months for unauthorized notarization. The Court acquitted respondent of the first charge. Complainant’s testimony was insufficient to prove the deed failed to express the true agreement, especially given his admissions of having read and conformed to the document. The parole evidence rule bars such oral testimony to vary the terms of a written contract absent evidence of mistake or imperfection.
However, the Court found respondent liable for the second charge. She did not deny notarizing the deed while her commission was expired. Her defense of good faith—that she believed her renewal application, filed prior to expiration, would be routinely approved—was unacceptable. She admitted knowing her petition had not been filed before she performed the notarization. The Court, citing City Fiscal R. Lozada v. Dominador E. Flores, ruled that notarizing without a valid commission constitutes malpractice and falsification of a public document, as notarization converts a private instrument into a public document upon which the public and courts rely. It is not a mere formality. Considering only one instance was involved (unlike the repeated acts in Flores), a three-month suspension was deemed an adequate administrative penalty.