| CONTACT: |
| Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
| (632) 8524-2706 |
| libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
828 Phil. 1
SECOND DIVISION
[ A.C. No. 6927, March 14, 2018 ]
TOMAS N. OROLA AND PHIL. NIPPON AOI INDUSTRY, INC., COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. ARCHIE S. BARIBAR, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
The case stemmed from a Complaint[1] dated October 17, 2005 filed before this Court by complainants Tomas N. Orola (Orola) and Phil. Nippon AOI Industry, Inc. (Phil. Nippon) against Atty. Archie S. Baribar (Baribar), for allegedly inventing numerous offenses against them, procuring documents with forged signatures, representing a person not his client, and notarizing a document without the person appearing before him as required by law, in violation of his lawyer's oath and Rule 138, Section 20 (c), (d) and (g) of the Rules of Court.
Complainants alleged that Baribar filed a baseless labor case on behalf of his twenty-four (24) clients against them. Orola denied any connection with AOI Kogyo Company Ltd.-Japan which was allegedly not paying labor benefits. In the appeal filed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Baribar included certain individuals who were not original complainants. Complainants further averred that Baribar notarized the Motion for Reconsideration on September 19, 2005 without the personal appearance of Docufredo Claveria (Claveria) since the records of the Bureau of Immigration show that he was overseas at that time. It was also mentioned that Baribar has a prior administrative case, which demonstrates his penchant for committing acts inimical to the image of the legal profession.
In his Comment,[2] Baribar denied all the allegations against him. He claimed that the administrative complaint was a mere harassment suit filed by a political opponent's brother whose wounded family pride caused them to pursue imaginary causes of action against him. During the campaign for 2004 congressional elections, Orola's family's employees approached him to represent them; however, he suggested that they file the case after the elections to avoid misinterpretation. The labor complaint was not baseless since it was supported by a joint affidavit of his clients against Orola and Phil. Nippon.
Sometime in March 2004, he prepared an "Authority to Represent" document. He requested Claveria, Apolonio Akol, Jr. (Akol) and Connie Labrador (Labrador) to obtain the signatures of the others who live in different municipalities of Negros Occidental. On September 6, 2004, he personally met 24 of the 27 signatories, asked them to produce their residence certificates and confirm their signature in the document. He confirmed the identities of the others who were unable to bring their residence certificates through their leaders. He overlooked the notarization of the document and was only able to notarize the same on April 15, 2005 because of the renovation of their law office from October 2004 to February 2005. He averred that his mistake to strike through the names of four individuals in the Authority to Represent and verification of the labor complaint left the impression that the latter were parties to the appeal.
Akol and Labrador signed the verification of the motion for reconsideration in his presence. He then asked them to secure Claveria's signature. Thereafter, he received the verification on the last day of filing, and did not hesitate to notarize the same since he personally knew Claveria and was familiar with the latter's signature. He claimed that he acted in the best interest of his client and in good faith.
In a Resolution[3] dated November 22, 2006, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation or decision.
On October 30, 2008, IBP Commissioner Rico A. Limpingco (Commissioner Limpingco) submitted his Report recommending, thus:
Lastly, Baribar did not deny that Claveria was not present when he notarized the document on September 19, 2005. When he asked Akol and Labrador to obtain the signature for him, he effectively admitted that it was not his intent to require Claveria's personal presence before him. The Notarial Law mandates that a notary public shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as a signatory to the instrument is not in his presence personally at the time of notarization.
The Board of Governors adopted the findings of the IBP Commissioner, but modified the recommendation in Resolution No. XVIII-2009-17, to wit:
The Court grees with the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.
In this case, the Bureau of Immigration certified that Claveria departed from the Philippines on April 27, 2005, and that his name did not appear in its database file of Arrival from April 28, 2005 to October 17, 2005.[6] Baribar also readily admits that Claveria was not present when he notarized the Motion for Reconsideration on September 19, 2005. He explained that he asked the other two affiants, Akol and Labrador, to obtain Claveria's signature. He notarized the signed verification he received as he personally knew Claveria and was familiar with his signature.
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. It. is impressed with substantial public interest, and only those who are qualified or authorized may act as such. It is not a purposeless ministerial act .of acknowledging documents executed by parties who. are willing to pay fees for notarization.[7] Notarization of documents ensures the authenticity and reliability of a document. Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies and public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument.[8]
A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.[9] It is his duty to demand that the document presented to him for notarization be signed in his presence.[10] The purpose of the requirement of personal appearance by the acknowledging party before the notary public is to enable the latter to verify the genuineness of the signature of the former. It may be added, too, that only by such personal appearance may the notary public be able to ascertain from the acknowledging party himself that the instrument or document is his own free act and deed.[11]
The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice stresses the necessity of the affiant's personal appearance before the notary public. Rule II, Section 1 and Rule IV, Section 2 (b) provide:
As a lawyer, Baribar is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of the legal profession.
As to the penalty, Baribar alleges in his Supplication dated June 24, 2009 that his penalty was grossly disproportionate and inequitable. He cites the 1995 case of Gamido v. New Bilibid Prisons (NBP) Officials[13] where the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) to the lawyer who notarized the jurat in the verification of the petition in the absence of his client who was then an inmate in the NBP and thus was unable to sign before him.
Jurisprudence provides that a notary public who fails to discharge his duties as such is meted out the following penalties: (1) revocation of notarial commission; (2) disqualification from being commissioned as notary public; and (3) suspension from the practice of law-the terms of which vary based on the circumstances of each case.[14] In this case, the IBP Commissioner recommended the penalty of reprimand and prohibition from being commissioned as notary public for three (3) years. The Board of Governors, however, modified the penalty imposing one year of suspension from the practice of law and disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for two (2) years.
There are instances where the Court imposed the penalty of revocation of notarial commission and disqualification from being commissioned for one year. In Villarin v. Atty. Sabate, Jr.,[15] the Court suspended respondent's commission as a notary public for one year for notarizing the Verification of the Motion to Dismiss with Answer when threof the affiants thereof were not before him and for notarizing the same instrument of which he was one of the signatories. In Coquia v. Atty. Laforteza,[16] the Court revoked respondent's notarial commission and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of one year for notarizing a pre-signed subject document presented to him and failing to personally verify the identity of all parties who purportedly signed the subject documents as he merely relied upon the assurance of Luzviminda that her companions are the actual signatories to the said documents.
In this case, Baribar asked Akol and Labrador to acquire Claveria's signature in the Verification of the Motion for Reconsideration and subsequently notarized the pre-signed document upon receiving it. We agree with the IBP Commissioner that Baribar did not intend to require Claveria's personal appearance before him. It is also noted that he admitted that in another notarized document, he merely relied on the assurances of his clients' leaders that the others who were unable to pr sent competent evidence of identity were the actual signatories of the document.
Clearly, Baribar failed to exercise due diligence in upholding his duty as a notary public. His acts also show his offhand disregard of the Notarial rules as to requiring the personal presence of the affiants and the presentation of competent evidence of identity. He must now accept the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion. To deter further violations, the Court deems it proper to impose the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year, revocation of incumbent commission as a notary public, if any, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Archie S. Baribar GUILTY of breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one (1) year; REVOKES his incumbent commission, if any; and PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years, effective immediately. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Let all the courts, through the Office of the Court Administrator, as well as the IBP and the Office of the Bar Confidant, be notified of this Decision and be it entered into respondent's personal record.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio,* Acting C. J., (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.
* Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018.
[1] Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 1-9.
[2] Id. at 72-84.
[3] Id. at 92.
[4] Rollo, Vol. IV, p. 9.
[5] Id. at 1.
[6] Rollo, Vol. I, pp,-56, 58.
[7] Sappayani v. Gasmen, 768 Phil. 1, 8 (2015).
[8] Spouses Anudon v. Atty. Cefra, 753 Phil. 421, 428 (2015).
[9] Id.
[10] Spouses Domingo v. Reed, 513 Phil. 339, 350 (2005).
[11] Flores v. Atty. Chua, 366 Phil. 132, 152 (1999).
[12] Agbulos v. Atty. Viray, 704 Phil. 1, 9 (2013).
[13] 312 Phil. 100, 106 (1995).
[14] Sappayani v. Gasmen, supra note 7, at 9.
[15] 382 Phil. 1, 7 (2000).
[16] A.C. No. 9364, February 8, 2017.
Complainants alleged that Baribar filed a baseless labor case on behalf of his twenty-four (24) clients against them. Orola denied any connection with AOI Kogyo Company Ltd.-Japan which was allegedly not paying labor benefits. In the appeal filed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Baribar included certain individuals who were not original complainants. Complainants further averred that Baribar notarized the Motion for Reconsideration on September 19, 2005 without the personal appearance of Docufredo Claveria (Claveria) since the records of the Bureau of Immigration show that he was overseas at that time. It was also mentioned that Baribar has a prior administrative case, which demonstrates his penchant for committing acts inimical to the image of the legal profession.
In his Comment,[2] Baribar denied all the allegations against him. He claimed that the administrative complaint was a mere harassment suit filed by a political opponent's brother whose wounded family pride caused them to pursue imaginary causes of action against him. During the campaign for 2004 congressional elections, Orola's family's employees approached him to represent them; however, he suggested that they file the case after the elections to avoid misinterpretation. The labor complaint was not baseless since it was supported by a joint affidavit of his clients against Orola and Phil. Nippon.
Sometime in March 2004, he prepared an "Authority to Represent" document. He requested Claveria, Apolonio Akol, Jr. (Akol) and Connie Labrador (Labrador) to obtain the signatures of the others who live in different municipalities of Negros Occidental. On September 6, 2004, he personally met 24 of the 27 signatories, asked them to produce their residence certificates and confirm their signature in the document. He confirmed the identities of the others who were unable to bring their residence certificates through their leaders. He overlooked the notarization of the document and was only able to notarize the same on April 15, 2005 because of the renovation of their law office from October 2004 to February 2005. He averred that his mistake to strike through the names of four individuals in the Authority to Represent and verification of the labor complaint left the impression that the latter were parties to the appeal.
Akol and Labrador signed the verification of the motion for reconsideration in his presence. He then asked them to secure Claveria's signature. Thereafter, he received the verification on the last day of filing, and did not hesitate to notarize the same since he personally knew Claveria and was familiar with the latter's signature. He claimed that he acted in the best interest of his client and in good faith.
In a Resolution[3] dated November 22, 2006, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation or decision.
On October 30, 2008, IBP Commissioner Rico A. Limpingco (Commissioner Limpingco) submitted his Report recommending, thus:
Given the foregoing circumstances, it is therefore recommended that respondent Atty. Archie Baribar be REPRIMANDED, that his incumbent notarial commission, if any, be REVOKED, and that he be prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for three (3) years, effective immediately, with a stem warning that [a] repetition of the same or similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more severely.[4]In his report, Commissioner Limpingco stated that an attorney should not be administratively sanctioned for filing a suit on behalf of his client, or for availing of proper procedural remedies, since the choice of legal strategy or theory is his sole concern. Complainants may or may not be liable in the labor case, but the administrative proceeding is not the proper forum to resolve the issue. An examination of the joint affidavit reveals that one Romulo Orola merely stated that he did not authorize any lawyer to represent him, and that he never appeared before Baribar to subscribe any document. Thus, it was not established that he procured documents with forged signatures. Baribar was careless in failing to remove the names of four individuals in the pleadings. He and his clients could not have gained any kind of possible benefit or advantage to the said error.
Lastly, Baribar did not deny that Claveria was not present when he notarized the document on September 19, 2005. When he asked Akol and Labrador to obtain the signature for him, he effectively admitted that it was not his intent to require Claveria's personal presence before him. The Notarial Law mandates that a notary public shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as a signatory to the instrument is not in his presence personally at the time of notarization.
The Board of Governors adopted the findings of the IBP Commissioner, but modified the recommendation in Resolution No. XVIII-2009-17, to wit:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution [as] Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and for performing a notarial act without requiring the personal appearance of the person involved as signatory to the document at the time of the notarization, Atty. Archie S. Baribar is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and DISQUALIFICATION from being commissioned as notary public for two (2) years.[5]Baribar moved for the reconsideration of the above decision, but the same was denied. Resolution No. XX-2012-619 reads:
RESOLVED to unanimously DENY Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration there being no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the Commission and it being a mere reiteration of the matters which had already been threshed out and taken into consideration. Thus, Resolution No. XVIII-2009-17 dated February 19,2009 is hereby AFFIRMED.
The Court's Ruling
The Court grees with the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.
In this case, the Bureau of Immigration certified that Claveria departed from the Philippines on April 27, 2005, and that his name did not appear in its database file of Arrival from April 28, 2005 to October 17, 2005.[6] Baribar also readily admits that Claveria was not present when he notarized the Motion for Reconsideration on September 19, 2005. He explained that he asked the other two affiants, Akol and Labrador, to obtain Claveria's signature. He notarized the signed verification he received as he personally knew Claveria and was familiar with his signature.
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. It. is impressed with substantial public interest, and only those who are qualified or authorized may act as such. It is not a purposeless ministerial act .of acknowledging documents executed by parties who. are willing to pay fees for notarization.[7] Notarization of documents ensures the authenticity and reliability of a document. Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies and public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument.[8]
A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.[9] It is his duty to demand that the document presented to him for notarization be signed in his presence.[10] The purpose of the requirement of personal appearance by the acknowledging party before the notary public is to enable the latter to verify the genuineness of the signature of the former. It may be added, too, that only by such personal appearance may the notary public be able to ascertain from the acknowledging party himself that the instrument or document is his own free act and deed.[11]
The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice stresses the necessity of the affiant's personal appearance before the notary public. Rule II, Section 1 and Rule IV, Section 2 (b) provide:
SECTION 1. Acknowledgment. - "Acknowledgment" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:The responsibility to faithfully observe and respect the legal solemnity of the oath in an a knowledgment or jurat is more pronounced when the notary public is a lawyer because of his solemn oath under the Code of Professional Responsibility to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.[12](a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument or document;x x x
(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and
(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that capacity. (Emphasis supplied)
SEC. 2. Prohibitions. - ...(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document -(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
As a lawyer, Baribar is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of the legal profession.
As to the penalty, Baribar alleges in his Supplication dated June 24, 2009 that his penalty was grossly disproportionate and inequitable. He cites the 1995 case of Gamido v. New Bilibid Prisons (NBP) Officials[13] where the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) to the lawyer who notarized the jurat in the verification of the petition in the absence of his client who was then an inmate in the NBP and thus was unable to sign before him.
Jurisprudence provides that a notary public who fails to discharge his duties as such is meted out the following penalties: (1) revocation of notarial commission; (2) disqualification from being commissioned as notary public; and (3) suspension from the practice of law-the terms of which vary based on the circumstances of each case.[14] In this case, the IBP Commissioner recommended the penalty of reprimand and prohibition from being commissioned as notary public for three (3) years. The Board of Governors, however, modified the penalty imposing one year of suspension from the practice of law and disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for two (2) years.
There are instances where the Court imposed the penalty of revocation of notarial commission and disqualification from being commissioned for one year. In Villarin v. Atty. Sabate, Jr.,[15] the Court suspended respondent's commission as a notary public for one year for notarizing the Verification of the Motion to Dismiss with Answer when threof the affiants thereof were not before him and for notarizing the same instrument of which he was one of the signatories. In Coquia v. Atty. Laforteza,[16] the Court revoked respondent's notarial commission and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of one year for notarizing a pre-signed subject document presented to him and failing to personally verify the identity of all parties who purportedly signed the subject documents as he merely relied upon the assurance of Luzviminda that her companions are the actual signatories to the said documents.
In this case, Baribar asked Akol and Labrador to acquire Claveria's signature in the Verification of the Motion for Reconsideration and subsequently notarized the pre-signed document upon receiving it. We agree with the IBP Commissioner that Baribar did not intend to require Claveria's personal appearance before him. It is also noted that he admitted that in another notarized document, he merely relied on the assurances of his clients' leaders that the others who were unable to pr sent competent evidence of identity were the actual signatories of the document.
Clearly, Baribar failed to exercise due diligence in upholding his duty as a notary public. His acts also show his offhand disregard of the Notarial rules as to requiring the personal presence of the affiants and the presentation of competent evidence of identity. He must now accept the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion. To deter further violations, the Court deems it proper to impose the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year, revocation of incumbent commission as a notary public, if any, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Archie S. Baribar GUILTY of breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one (1) year; REVOKES his incumbent commission, if any; and PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years, effective immediately. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Let all the courts, through the Office of the Court Administrator, as well as the IBP and the Office of the Bar Confidant, be notified of this Decision and be it entered into respondent's personal record.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio,* Acting C. J., (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.
* Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018.
[1] Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 1-9.
[2] Id. at 72-84.
[3] Id. at 92.
[4] Rollo, Vol. IV, p. 9.
[5] Id. at 1.
[6] Rollo, Vol. I, pp,-56, 58.
[7] Sappayani v. Gasmen, 768 Phil. 1, 8 (2015).
[8] Spouses Anudon v. Atty. Cefra, 753 Phil. 421, 428 (2015).
[9] Id.
[10] Spouses Domingo v. Reed, 513 Phil. 339, 350 (2005).
[11] Flores v. Atty. Chua, 366 Phil. 132, 152 (1999).
[12] Agbulos v. Atty. Viray, 704 Phil. 1, 9 (2013).
[13] 312 Phil. 100, 106 (1995).
[14] Sappayani v. Gasmen, supra note 7, at 9.
[15] 382 Phil. 1, 7 (2000).
[16] A.C. No. 9364, February 8, 2017.