Facts:

This case involves an administrative complaint filed by Charles B. Baylon (complainant) against Atty. Jose A. Almo (respondent) for fraud and deceit related to the notarization of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA). The events leading to the complaint began when the complainant alleged that Pacita Filio, Rodolfo Llantino, Jr., and his late wife, Rosemarie Baylon, conspired to prepare an SPA that authorized Rosemarie to mortgage the complainant's real property located in Signal Village, Taguig. The complainant asserted that he was out of the country during the execution of the SPA on June 17, 1996, and its notarization by the respondent on June 26, 1996. To substantiate his claim, he presented a certification from the Government of Singapore indicating he was vaccinated there on June 17, 1996, and a certification from the Philippine Bureau of Immigration confirming his absence from the country from March 21, 1995, to January 28, 1997. Additionally, the complainant provided ...

Facts:

Background of the Case

The case originated from an administrative complaint filed by Charles B. Baylon against Atty. Jose A. Almo at the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Baylon accused Almo of fraud and deceit for notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) that bore his forged signature. The SPA authorized Baylon's wife, Rosemarie Baylon, to mortgage his real property in Signal Village, Taguig.

Complainant's Allegations

Baylon claimed that he was out of the country when the SPA was executed on June 17, 1996, and when it was notarized by Almo on June 26, 1996. To substantiate his claims, he presented:

1. A certification from the Government of Singapore showing he was vaccinated there on June 17, 1996.
2. A certification from the Philippine Bureau of Immigration confirming he was abroad from March 21, 1995, to January 28, 1997.
3. A report from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) stating that the signature on the SPA was forged.

Baylon further alleged that the SPA led to the mortgage of his property to Lorna Express Credit Corporation, which was later foreclosed due to his wife's failure to settle the mortgage obligations.

Respondent's Defense

Atty. Almo admitted to notarizing the SPA but claimed he initially refused to do so on June 17, 1996, due to the absence of the supposed affiant (Baylon). He stated that he only notarized the SPA on June 26, 1996, when Baylon's wife returned with a person she introduced as Charles Baylon. Almo relied on a Community Tax Certificate presented by the impostor as proof of identity. He denied any involvement in fraud or deceit and submitted an affidavit from his secretary, Leonilita de Silva, to corroborate his account.

Issue:

1. Whether Atty. Jose A. Almo was negligent in notarizing the SPA bearing the forged signature of Charles B. Baylon.
2. Whether Almo's actions constituted a violation of his duties as a notary public and warranted disciplinary action.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)