Case Digest (A.C. No. 13911)
Facts:
Joy Cadiogan Calixto v. Atty. Cora Jane P. Baleros, A.C. No. 13911; and Rimas Gawigaen Calixto v. Atty. Cora Jane P. Baleros, A.C. No. 13912, October 03, 2023, Supreme Court En Banc, Lopez, J., writing for the Court.Complainants Joy Cadiogan Calixto and Rimas Gawigaen Calixto (spouses) alleged that their title to a house-and-lot (TCT No. 79981) was surreptitiously transferred and that a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) authorizing the sale or mortgage of the subject property had been notarized by Atty. Cora Jane P. Baleros without the personal appearance of the purported principal(s). Joy stated she had sought a loan for their daughter's medical treatment and that others arranged transactions she did not fully comprehend; Rimas maintained he never executed or appeared for the SPA and that his signature thereon was not his. They filed complaint-affidavits in December 2021 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP CBD), docketed as CBD Case Nos. 22-6644 and 22-6648.
The IBP CBD required Atty. Baleros to file a verified Answer, warning that default would lead to ex parte proceedings; the Orders were sent to addresses on record with the IBP. The IBP-La Union Chapter informed the CBD that Atty. Baleros had left the country in 2015 and had not updated her forwarding address; further service by registered mail to the address in the IBP National Office failed (Postal Office tracking: "RTS REASON: Insufficient/Non-Existing Address"). Atty. Baleros did not file an Answer.
After hearing ex parte, the IBP CBD issued a Report and Recommendation finding sufficient notice and concluding that Atty. Baleros notarized the SPA without the parties’ personal appearance; it recommended indefinite suspension and permanent bar from appointment as notary public. The IBP Board of Governors approved and adopted that recommendation.
The matter was presented to the Supreme Court for resolution on the consolidated complaints and the IBP CBD/Board action; the Court reviewed the record, the relevant notarial rules (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, July 6, 2004), disciplinary precedents and the newly codified Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountabili...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was Atty. Baleros afforded due process / properly notified of the IBP administrative proceedings against her despite nonreceipt of the IBP Orders?
- Did Atty. Baleros violate the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the Special Power of Attorney without the personal appearance of the purported principal(s)?
- What sanctions are appropriate for the proven violations?
- When does the period of suspension commence where the respondent lawyer’s whereabouts are unknow...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)