Case Summary (A.C. No. 12041)
Facts of the Case
In January 2003, Julian and Dolores Balbin executed a loan agreement with the lending company, where they were required to sign two blank documents: a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage and a Promissory Note, both dated January 24, 2003. Atty. Baranda notarized these documents on January 29, 2003. After the Balbins failed to repay the loan, the lending company foreclosed the mortgage. The couple subsequently filed a case in the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City seeking to annul the documents, claiming they had not received any loan proceeds. The RTC dismissed their case in July 2009, citing a lack of substantiation of their claims.
Allegations Against the Respondent
The complainants asserted that Atty. Baranda was negligent in notarizing the documents without the presence of Dolores, which he acknowledged in open court. Furthermore, they raised concerns about a conflict of interest, arguing that Atty. Baranda's representation of the lending company disqualified him from notarizing the documents. In response, Atty. Baranda claimed there was no conflict, as he began acting as counsel for the lending company only after the civil case was initiated.
Investigating Commissioner’s Findings
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner, in a modified report dated June 20, 2013, recommended that Atty. Baranda be reprimanded for his lack of diligence and inaccuracies in the notarial certificates. Since Dolores was not present during the notarization, it was advised that this should have been reflected in the documents. However, the commissioner found no merit in the conflict of interest allegations.
IBP Board of Governors Resolution
On August 9, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors accepted the recommendations with modifications. Penalties imposed included immediate revocation of Atty. Baranda’s notarial commission and a two-year prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public, along with a three-month suspension from legal practice. Atty. Baranda sought reconsideration of this decision, citing his age and longstanding service but was denied, although his suspension was extended to six months.
Legal Issue for Resolution
The central issue was whether Atty. Baranda should face administrative liability for the notarization actions claimed by the complainants.
Court Ruling
The Court affirmed the IBP’s findings and emphasized the necessity for notary public compliance with prescribed procedures, particularly the requirement for personal appearance of signatories. Respondent Atty. Baranda's admission of non-compliance justified administrative liability.
Significance of Notarial Acts
The Court underscored that a notarial act imparts legal connotations that elevate a private document to a public document, requiring notaries to meticulously observe pertinent laws and standards to uphold integrity in the legal process.
Penalty Justification
The Court, following
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 12041)
Background of the Case
- This administrative case arose from a complaint filed on September 1, 2012, by Spouses Julian T. Balbin and Dolores E. Balbin against Atty. Mariano B. Baranda, Jr.
- The complaint was lodged before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the Notarial Law.
Factual Context
- In January 2003, the complainants entered into a loan agreement with Rapu-Raponhon Lending Company (RLC) and were asked by RLC's Manager, Charles M. Guianan, to sign two blank documents: a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage and a Promissory Note, both dated January 24, 2003.
- Atty. Baranda notarized these documents on January 29, 2003.
- The complainants later defaulted on the loan, leading RLC to foreclose the mortgage. They subsequently filed a case in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legazpi City seeking to annul the documents, claiming they had not received the loan proceeds and were misled into signing blank documents.
Proceedings in the RTC
- The RTC dismissed the annulment case on July 6, 2009, for lack of evidence to support the complainants’ claims.
- While the civil case was under appeal, the complainants initiated the administrative complaint against Atty. Baranda, citing that he notarized the documents without Dolores’ presence, a fact he admitted in court.
Admission of Wrongdoing
- During the RTC proceedings, Atty. Baranda confirmed that Dolores was not present during the notarization, admitting that only Julian, Charles, and two witnesses appeared before him.
- The complainants also contended that Atty. Baranda had a conflict of interest, as he was the legal counsel for RLC, the opposing party in the transaction.
Respondent's Defense
- Atty. Baranda acknowledged the absence of Dolores during the notarization but claimed he was not in conflict of interest as he only became RLC's couns