A.C. No. 6927 - Orola vs. Baribar

Complainants: Tomas N. Orola and Phil. Nippon AOI Industry, Inc.; Respondent: Atty. Archie S. Baribar. Complaint dated October 17, 2005 filed with the Supreme Court alleging multiple improprieties in connection with a labor case and notarial acts.
Allegations by complainants: Baribar allegedly invented numerous offenses against them, procured documents with forged signatures, represented persons who were not his clients (included parties in an NLRC appeal who were not original complainants), and notarized a Motion for Reconsideration on September 19, 2005 without the personal appearance of one affiant, Docufredo Claveria, in violation of his lawyer’s oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 20(c), (d) and (g) of the Rules of Court.

Baribar’s contentions: He denied bad faith, characterized the administrative complaint as harassment and politically motivated, and maintained that the labor complaint was supported by a joint affidavit of his clients. He explained preparatory steps: he prepared an "Authority to Represent" in March 2004, personally met 24 of the 27 signatories on September 6, 2004, had others identified through community leaders, and attributed a delay in notarization to law office renovation (October 2004–February 2005).
Notarization and signatures: Baribar admitted he notarized the Motion for Reconsideration on September 19, 2005 but claimed he did so after receiving a verification allegedly signed by Claveria, Akol and Labrador. He asserted personal familiarity with Claveria’s signature and stated he asked Akol and Labrador to secure Claveria’s signature when Claveria was not personally present before him. He also acknowledged striking through four names in the Authority to Represent and that this may have given the impression that those individuals were parties to the appeal.
Prior administrative matter: Complainants pointed to a prior administrative case against Baribar as indicative of a pattern; Baribar characterized prior suits as similarly baseless or politically motivated.

Referral and IBP investigating commissioner: On November 22, 2006 the Supreme Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. IBP Investigating Commissioner Rico A. Limpingco recommended reprimand, revocation of any incumbent notarial commission, and prohibition from being commissioned as notary public for three (3) years, finding negligence in notarial practice but recognizing that filing a labor case alone is not sanctionable.
IBP Board of Governors’ action: The Board adopted the investigating commissioner’s findings but modified the penalty. In Resolution No. XVIII-2009-17 (Feb. 19, 2009) it suspended Baribar from the practice of law for one (1) year and disqualified him from being commissioned as notary public for two (2) years.
Motion for reconsideration and IBP denial: Baribar’s motion for reconsideration to the IBP Board was denied (Resolution No. XX-2012-619), affirming the suspension and disqualification.
Relevant documentary evidence: The Bureau of Immigration certified that Claveria departed the Philippines on April 27, 2005 and did not appear in arrival records from April 28 to October 17, 2005, which conflicts with Baribar’s notarization date of September 19, 2005 and supports the conclusion that Claveria was not physically before the notary at notarization.

Whether Atty. Archie S. Baribar committed administrative misconduct by notarizing a document (Verification of the Motion for Reconsideration) without requiring the personal appearance of an affiant (Docufredo Claveria), thereby violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether Baribar’s alleged inclusion of non-parties in the NLRC appeal and purported procurement of documents with forged signatures amount to administrative misconduct warranting discipline.

If misconduct is established, what disciplinary penalties are appropriate considering precedent and the circumstances (e.g., negligence, bad faith, risk to public trust, prior history)?