Case Summary (A.C. No. 6927)
Allegations and Denials
Complainants asserted that Baribar represented clients in a labor case without a valid connection to AOI Kogyo Company Ltd.-Japan, which was purportedly failing to provide labor benefits. They contended that Baribar included individuals not originally part of the complaint in the appeal filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Additionally, they claimed that Baribar notarized a Motion for Reconsideration without the presence of Docufredo Claveria, who was reportedly abroad, while acknowledging that Baribar had a history of administrative issues that were detrimental to the legal profession.
Baribar's Defense
Baribar countered these allegations, asserting that the complaint was a harassment tactic by a political rival. He claimed that the labor case presented was based on a joint affidavit of his clients and was legitimate. Baribar described the process of obtaining authorization from clients for representation, detailing that he had interacted with most signatories directly and confirming their identities through residence certificates.
Investigation and Recommendations
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for an investigation, which concluded with a report recommending Baribar be reprimanded, with his notarial commission revoked and barred from future commissions for three years. The IBP Commissioner noted that an attorney’s choice of legal strategy is not ground for administrative sanction, and the evidence did not conclusively prove the presence of forged signatures.
Summary of Findings by the IBP
While the IBP acknowledged Baribar’s errors in the notarial process and the lack of personal appearance of Claveria, it stated that these actions were careless rather than malicious. The Board of Governors ultimately modified the Commissioner’s recommendation, deciding upon a one-year suspension from legal practice and a two-year ban from being commissioned as a notary public.
Court's Ruling on Notarization and Professional Duty
The Court upheld the IBP's recommendation, noting the factual imperatives surrounding notarization, including the requirement of personal presence to verify authenticity and grant authority to the notary public. It stressed that notarization is a solemn responsibility that bears significant public interest and that lawyers must maintain the integrity of their profession.
Penalties and Considerations
Baribar argued that the penalties imposed were excessively harsh compared to previous jurisprudence. The Court considered this contention while emphasizing that penalties need not be uniform but must be appropriate to eac
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 6927)
Case Overview
- The case arises from a complaint filed on October 17, 2005, by complainants Tomas N. Orola and Phil. Nippon Aoi Industry, Inc. against Atty. Archie S. Baribar.
- Allegations include fabrication of offenses, procurement of documents with forged signatures, misrepresentation, and improper notarization of documents.
- The complaint asserts Baribar acted against his professional duties, violating his lawyer's oath and specific provisions of the Rules of Court.
Allegations Against Atty. Baribar
- Baribar is accused of filing a labor case on behalf of 24 clients against the complainants, which the latter claim to be baseless.
- Orola denied any connection with AOI Kogyo Company Ltd.-Japan, which allegedly failed to provide labor benefits.
- It is alleged that Baribar notarized a significant document (Motion for Reconsideration) without the presence of one of the signatories, Docufredo Claveria, who was overseas at the time.
Respondent's Defense
- Atty. Baribar refuted all allegations, claiming the complaint was a harassment suit from a political rival.
- He contended that the labor complaint was legitimate and supported by a joint affidavit from his clients.
- Baribar admitted to a delay in notarizing an "Authority to Represent" document due to office renovations but maintained he verified signatures in good faith.
Investigation and Findings
- The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines