FACTS:

The complaint for disbarment was filed by Victor Lingan against Attorneys Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmy Baliga, alleging that they falsified certain public documents. One of the documents in question is the verification and certification of non-forum shopping in a civil case filed by Isaac Villegas against Lingan. Lingan claims that the document was falsified as it pertained to an affidavit of another individual according to the records of the National Archives. The trial court ruled in favor of Lingan in the civil case.

Another document being questioned is a special power of attorney executed by Villegas appointing Calubaquib as his attorney-in-fact, which was notarized by respondent Baliga. Lingan claims that this document was falsified as it pertained to an affidavit of loss in Baliga's notarial register, not a special power of attorney.

Respondent Baliga filed a petition for reappointment as a notary public, which was notarized by respondent Calubaquib. However, the entry in Calubaquib's notarial register did not match the correct entry for that date.

Both respondents admitted the incorrectness of the entries in their notarial registers, attributing them to the mistakes of their respective legal assistants. Calubaquib also defended that the Notarial Law does not require affidavits or verifications to be included in the notarial records.

During the proceedings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Lingan alleged that respondent Calubaquib, with the help of Baliga and others, was trying to deprive him of a parcel of land he had bought. Lingan claimed that Calubaquib impersonated Villegas and forged his signature on the documents and pleadings related to the civil case. Lingan also presented a motion for withdrawal allegedly filed by Villegas disavowing any involvement in the case filed by Calubaquib.

The IBP found respondents liable for inexcusable negligence and recommended the revocation of their commission as notaries public for two years. The IBP's report did not address Lingan's allegations of forgery. Both Lingan and Baliga filed motions for reconsideration with the Supreme Court. Respondent Calubaquib opposed Lingan's motion for reconsideration, and Lingan provided documents with Villegas' allegedly forged signature for comparison.

The critical issue is whether Lingan can prove that Villegas' signature on the notarized documents was forged. Forgery cannot be presumed and must be proven by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. Lingan's allegations of forgery, if proven, could warrant the disbarment of the respondents.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the notarial entries made by respondents were the product of a mere mistake or evidence of a larger scheme to defraud the complainant.

2. Whether the complainant was able to prove that the signature of Isaac Villegas on the documents notarized by respondents was forged.

RULING:

1. The missing link between the admitted infractions of the respondents and the alleged nefarious machinations of the complainant is whether or not the complainant was able to prove that Villegas' signature on the documents notarized by respondents was forged. Forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence.

2. As there is no mention in the text of the case whether the complainant was able to prove the forgery of Villegas' signature, the ruling on this issue is unclear.

PRINCIPLES:

• Forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence.

• Mere allegation of forgery is not considered evidence.