G.R. No. 6927 . March 14, 2018
Tomas N. Orola and Phil. Nippon AOI Industry, Inc., Complainants, vs. Atty. Archie S. Baribar, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Tomas N. Orola and Phil. Nippon AOI Industry, Inc. filed an administrative case against Atty. Archie S. Baribar for alleged violations of his lawyer’s oath and the Rules of Court. They accused him of filing a baseless labor case, improperly including parties in an appeal, and, most significantly, notarizing a Verification attached to a Motion for Reconsideration on September 19, 2005, without the personal appearance of the affiant, Docufredo Claveria. Complainants presented a certification from the Bureau of Immigration proving Claveria was overseas on that date.
In his defense, Baribar denied the allegations, characterizing the complaint as harassment. He explained that for the labor case, he prepared an “Authority to Represent” document and personally verified the identities of most signatories in September 2004, though he notarized it later in April 2005 due to office renovations. Regarding the contested notarization, he admitted asking two clients to obtain Claveria’s signature on the Verification. He notarized the pre-signed document upon receipt, relying on his personal familiarity with Claveria’s signature, as it was the last day for filing the motion.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Archie S. Baribar should be held administratively liable for his actions, particularly for notarizing a document without the personal appearance of the affiant.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Baribar is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the modified recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors. The Court focused on the clear violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Baribar’s own admission that he asked others to secure Claveria’s signature and then notarized the pre-signed document conclusively proves he did not require the affiant’s personal presence, a mandatory requirement under the law. His reliance on familiarity with the signature and the time pressure of a filing deadline does not excuse the breach. The Notarial Law is founded on public policy, and a notary public must exercise utmost diligence to ensure the integrity of notarized documents.
The Court found that this act, along with his admission of having previously relied on assurances from client-leaders to verify identities for another document, demonstrated a pattern of disregard for notarial rules. While the other allegations (e.g., filing a baseless suit, inclusion of parties) were not substantiated enough to warrant separate sanctions, the notarial violation is grave. It undermines the sanctity of notarization, which converts a private document into a public instrument, enjoying prima facie evidence of its authenticity. Therefore, the Court suspended Baribar from the practice of law for one year, revoked his notarial commission (if any), and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, with a stern warning against repetition.