A.C. No. 12081 - Lopez vs. Ramos

In January 2003, complainants Julian T. Balbin and Dolores E. Balbin entered into a loan agreement with Rapu-Raponhon Lending Company (RLC).
To secure the loan, RLC’s Manager, Charles M. Guianan, requested that the complainants affix their signatures on two blank documents:

Both documents were dated January 24, 2003, but were executed as blank instruments intended to secure the loan.

Atty. Mariano B. Baranda, Jr. notarized the subject documents on January 29, 2003.
It was later established that complainant Dolores did not personally appear before the respondent during the notarization process, as confirmed by the respondent’s admission during court proceedings.

After complainants failed to repay the loan, RLC foreclosed the mortgage, prompting the complainants to initiate a civil case before the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City (RTC) for annulment of the documents.
The RTC, in a Joint Decision dated July 6, 2009, dismissed the civil case on the ground that complainants failed to substantiate their allegations.
While the civil case was pending on appeal, complainants filed an administrative case with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against respondent for violations of both the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law.

Complainants faulted respondent for notarizing the documents in the absence of Dolores, making him liable for failing to observe the requirement that all signatories personally appear before the notary public.
Additionally, complainants alleged a conflict of interest, arguing that respondent was disqualified from notarizing since he later acted as counsel for RLC, the counter-party in the loan agreement.
Respondent admitted Dolores was not present for the notarization but argued that his conflict of interest claim was unfounded because he was retained as counsel by RLC only after the civil case had been initiated, and complainants were never his clients.

In a Modified Report and Recommendation dated June 20, 2013, the IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended reprimanding respondent for carelessness and misrepresentations on the notarial certificates.
The report noted that respondent should have stated in the certificate that only Julian and Charles appeared before him, given Dolores’ absence.
While the IBP found no merit in the conflict of interest allegation, it recommended sanctions for the notarial irregularity.
On August 9, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved sanctions:

Immediate revocation of respondent’s notarial commission.
Disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.
Suspension from the practice of law initially set at three (3) months, later modified.

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, offering a sincere apology for his carelessness and citing his advanced age (seventy years old) and long service since 1977.
The IBP Board of Governors, in its Resolution dated March 1, 2017, denied the motion for reconsideration and adjusted the suspension period from three (3) months to six (6) months.

Whether Atty. Mariano B. Baranda, Jr. should be held administratively liable for notarizing the documents without ensuring the personal appearance of all signatories—specifically, the absence of Dolores during notarization.

Whether the failure to have the absent party personally appear violates the mandatory requirements of the Notarial Law.

Whether respondent’s later engagement as counsel for RLC constitutes a conflict of interest sufficient to disqualify him from notarizing the subject documents.

Whether the conflict of interest allegation holds merit under the legal provisions of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility.