A.C. No. 11346 - Malvar vs. Baleros

Case Summary (A.C. No. 11346)

Factual Background

Complainant alleged ownership of a parcel of land in Barangay Pagudpud, San Fernando City, La Union, and the execution on January 7, 2011 of a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Leah Mallari for P500,000. A related document entitled Confirmation of Sale was executed by his children. Complainant averred that, without his knowledge or consent, Mallari filed and signed an Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land before the DENR, San Fernando City, La Union, and that the contested application was notarized by Respondent. Subsequent civil and criminal actions arose between the parties, including a criminal prosecution for falsification of a public document pending before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of San Fernando City, La Union, and a bouncing-checks case; Complainant asserted conspiracy between Mallari and Respondent, though the prosecutor dropped Respondent’s name from the indictment for insufficiency of evidence.

Proceedings Before the IBP

On August 19, 2014 the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines issued a Notice of Mandatory Conference, which took place on December 2, 2014 with Complainant personally appearing and Respondent represented by attorney-in-fact and counsel. Commissioner Maria Angela Esquivel issued a Report and Recommendation dated June 15, 2015 finding negligence and recommending revocation of Respondent’s notarial commission and disqualification for two years. The IBP Board of Governors, by resolution dated June 20, 2015, adopted the recommendation with modification: it revoked Respondent’s notarial commission, disqualified her from being commissioned as notary public for two years, and suspended her from the practice of law for six months.

Issues Presented

The core issues were whether administrative liability attached to Respondent for: (1) falsification of the Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land; (2) notarization of that document in the absence of Complainant; and (3) double or improper entries in her notarial register and related failures to keep and submit required records.

Parties’ Contentions

Complainant maintained that the subject application was notarized without his presence and submitted a Sworn Judicial Affidavit and hospital patient record cards showing attendance to patients at De Los Santos Medical Center on August 18, 2010, the date of the jurat. He argued that the presumption of regularity in notarization was overcome and that Respondent consummated the crime of falsification under Article 171, Revised Penal Code. Respondent denied the allegations, averring that Complainant, his sons and a third party came to her office, that she was certain of his identity, and that the charges formed part of a scheme by Complainant to avoid obligations to Mallari.

Ruling of the IBP

Commissioner Esquivel concluded that Respondent was negligent and had violated the Notarial Rules, recommending revocation of her notarial commission and disqualification for two years with a stern warning. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report with modification to add a six-month suspension from the practice of law in addition to the revocation and two-year disqualification.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Court affirmed the IBP disposition. It declined to adjudicate the merits of the criminal falsification charge pending before the MTCC and refused to pre-empt the regular court, but it found that Respondent violated the Notarial Rules and the CPR. The Court revoked Respondent’s notarial commission if still existing, disqualified her from appointment as notary public for two years, suspended her from the practice of law for six months, and issued a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely. The Court declined to order disbarment.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court refrained from resolving the pending criminal falsification case in deference to the proper jurisdiction of the regular courts, citing the prudential principle that administrative bodies should not pre-empt criminal adjudication (citing Tan v. IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, 532 Phil. 605). On the notarial issues, the Court emphasized the essential nature of a jurat and the concomitant duties of a notary public: physical presence of the affiant, personal knowledge or competent evidence of identity, signing in the notary’s presence, and entry into the notarial register (as defined in Sections 6 and 12 of Rule II, Section 2(b) of Rule IV, and Section 2 of Rule VI of the Notarial Rules). The Court found that Respondent affixed her official signature and seal to a jurat on August 18, 2010 while the evidence indicated that Complainant was impossibly in Manila attending to patients that day, and that Respondent failed to require competent evidence of identity or to establish personal knowledge of the affiant. The Court further found that Respondent failed to record the notarized Application in her notarial register, and that the entry numbers and pages she submitted corresponded to a different document. The DENR could not produce the original application despite its receipt, and the clerk of court’s certification revealed the absence of the challenged document from Respondent’s register. The Court held that delegation of the duty to record in the notarial register to office staff contravened the Notarial Rules and violated Canon 9, Rule 9.01 of the CPR, which forbids delegation to unqualified persons of tasks that by law may be performed only by a member of the Bar. The Court rejected imposition of liability under Section 2(h) of Rule VI for retention and submission of duplicate copies because that requirement pertains to acknowledgments and not jurats, citing prior authority. Precedent supported the sanctions for failure to record a notarized document, notarization without the affiant’s presence, and inadequate identification, including Dizon v. Atty. Cabucana, Jr., Atty. Benigno T. Bartolome v. Atty. Christopher A. Basilio, and other decisions cited in the opinion.

Disposition and Sanctions

Based on the foregoing breaches of the Notarial Rules, the CPR,

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 11346)

Parties and Procedural Posture

DR. BASILIO MALVAR filed a complaint for disbarment on June 30, 2014 against ATTY. CORA JANE P. BALEROS for alleged grave misconduct.
The complaint charged falsification of public document, violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline issued a Notice of Mandatory Conference and Commissioner Maria Angela Esquivel prepared a Report and Recommendation dated June 15, 2015.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and modified the Report and Recommendation by Resolution dated June 20, 2015 revoking the respondent’s notarial commission, disqualifying her for two years as a notary public, and suspending her from the practice of law for six months.
The case was elevated to the Supreme Court, Third Division, under A.C. No. 11346, resulting in a Decision rendered March 8, 2017 and received March 28, 2017.

Key Facts

DR. BASILIO MALVAR executed a Deed of Absolute Sale on January 7, 2011 in favor of Leah Mallari for PHP 500,000 for a parcel in Barangay Pagudpud, San Fernando City, La Union.
The sale was confirmed by the complainant’s children through a document denominated as Confirmation of Sale.
LEAH MALLARI allegedly filed an Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land before the DENR using the complainant’s name and signing the application without his knowledge or consent.
A civil action for collection ensued and a compromise agreement failed when two checks issued by the complainant were dishonored, after which criminal and civil proceedings followed among the parties.
A criminal charge for falsification of public document against LEAH MALLARI was pending before the MTCC of San Fernando City, Branch 1, and the Office of the Prosecutor had earlier declined to indict the respondent for conspiracy.
The Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land contained an affidavit with a jurat dated August 18, 2010 which the respondent admitted signing and notarizing.
The complainant produced sworn judicial affidavit and hospital patient records indicating he attended to patients in Manila on August 18, 2010 and could not have been personally present for the notarization.
The respondent’s notarial register did not list the challenged document and the register entry Document No. 288, Page No. 59, Book No. LXXIII, Series of 2010 corresponded to a different instrument entitled Joint Affidavit of Adjoining Owners.
The DENR certified that despite diligent efforts it could not locate the impugned document in its files.

Issues Presented

Whether administrative liability attached to ATTY. CORA JANE P. BALEROS for alleged falsification of the Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land.
Whether administrative liability attached for notarizing the subject document in the absence of the affiant.
Whether administrative liability attached for double or erroneous entries and the failure to record the document in the notarial register.

Parties' Contentions

DR. BASILIO MALVAR contended that the respondent notarized the challenged document in his absence and that the presumption of regularity in notarization was rebutted by his evidence of presence in Manila on the alleged date.
DR. BASILIO MALVAR relied on patient record cards and a sworn judicial