View full case

DR. BASILIO MALVAR v. ATTY. CORA JANE P. BALEROS

FACTS:

The case involves a complaint for disbarment filed by Dr. Basilio Malvar against Atty. Cora Jane P. Baleros for acts of grave misconduct, including falsification of public document, violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complainant executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Leah Mallari over a parcel of land he owned. The complainant alleged that Mallari, without his knowledge and consent, filed an Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land using the complainant's name and signing the application. A civil case and a criminal case were filed by Mallari against the complainant. A criminal case for falsification of public document was filed against Mallari, and the complainant alleged that the crime was consummated through the conspiracy of Mallari and the respondent. The complainant initiated the present petition for disbarment against the respondent, claiming that she falsely notarized the Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines found the respondent negligent and in violation of the Notarial Rules and recommended the revocation of her commission as a notary public and a two-year disqualification. The recommendation was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors with modification.

The respondent in this case is a lawyer and a notary public. She was charged with falsification of the Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land, notarizing the document in the absence of the complainant, and making double entries in the Notarial Registry. The complainant alleged that the respondent notarized the document without the complainant's presence, and provided evidence that he was attending to patients in a hospital on the same day the document was allegedly notarized. The respondent admitted to signing and notarizing the document, but claimed that the complainant appeared before her and signed it in her presence. The complainant filed a criminal case for falsification against the respondent, which was pending before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commissioner found the respondent guilty of violating several provisions of the Notarial Rules by notarizing the document without the complainant's presence and failing to ascertain his identity. The IBP Board of Governors affirmed the Commissioner's ruling. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for review.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondent violated Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Notarial Rules by not having the affiant physically present during the notarization and failing to ascertain the affiant's identity.

  2. Whether the respondent failed to comply with Section 2 of Rule VI of the Notarial Rules by not properly recording the details of the notarial act in her notarial register.

  3. Whether the respondent notary public failed to record the challenged document in her notarial register.

  4. Whether the respondent violated the duty of a notary public to personally perform her notarial functions.

  5. Whether the respondent's acts constitute a breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  6. Whether or not the respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Lawyer's Oath.

  7. Whether or not the respondent should be penalized for such violations.

RULING:

  1. The respondent violated Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Notarial Rules by not having the affiant physically present during the notarization and failing to ascertain the affiant's identity.

  2. The respondent failed to comply with Section 2 of Rule VI of the Notarial Rules by not properly recording the details of the notarial act in her notarial register.

  3. The respondent admitted to signing and notarizing the challenged document but failed to record it in her notarial register. Notarization is a significant act that converts a private document into a public one. The failure to record the document in the notarial register casts doubt on its notarization.

  4. The respondent's delegation of her notarial function of recording entries in her notarial register to her staff is in violation of the Notarial Rules and Canon 9, Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits the delegation of tasks that should only be performed by a lawyer.

  5. The respondent's acts not only constitute a failure to fulfill her duties as a notary public, but also a breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The acts demonstrate a disregard for the integrity and dignity owed to the legal profession.

  6. The respondent is found guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Lawyer's Oath. As a result, her notarial commission, if still existing, is revoked. She is also disqualified from reappointment as a Notary Public for two years, suspended from the practice of law for six months, and warned of more severe consequences if she repeats the violations in the future.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Physical presence of the affiant is required during the notarization of a document in order to ensure the proper execution of the notary public's duties.

  • Notarization without the personal presence of the affiant is prohibited under the Notarial Rules.

  • Competent evidence of identity, such as an identification card with photograph and signature, must be provided by the affiant unless the notary public personally knows the affiant.

  • A 'jurat' refers to an act wherein the affiant appears in person before the notary public, is known to the notary public or identified through competent evidence of identity, signs the document in the presence of the notary, and takes an oath or affirmation before the notary.

  • The notary public has the obligation to record certain details of the notarial act in the notarial register, including the entry number, date and time of the act, type of notarial act, names and addresses of the principal and witnesses, competent evidence of identity if necessary, fee charged, and any other relevant circumstances.

  • Notarial details should not be assigned to the wrong document, and each document should have a corresponding number in the notary's register.

  • Notarization converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in evidence.

  • The duty to record entries in the notarial register cannot be delegated to unqualified persons.

  • Lawyers should not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

  • Lawyers have a duty to uphold the laws and the legal system.

  • Failure to fulfill duties as a notary public can result in disciplinary sanction, including revocation of notarial commission and suspension from the practice of law.

  • Lesser penalties, such as reprimand, temporary suspension, or fine, may be imposed instead of disbarment when appropriate.

  • Violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Lawyer's Oath may result in penalties such as revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from reappointment as a Notary Public, suspension from the practice of law, and warnings.

  • Lawyers have an ethical duty to comply with the rules and standards set forth in the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath.

  • The Supreme Court has the authority to impose disciplinary measures upon lawyers who violate ethical standards and professional rules.