GG 108 Case Title: Victor Lingan vs Attys.

Romeo Calubaquib & Jimmy Baliga

G.R. Number & Date: A.C. No. 5377. June 15, 2006

Facts:
The case has its roots in a complaint for annulment of title with damages filed by Isaac
Villegas against complainant (Victor Lingan) with the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao,
Cagayan, docketed as Civil Case No. 5036. Respondent Calubaquib signed the verification
and certification of non-forum shopping of the complaint as notary public and entered the same
as Doc. No. 182; Page No. 38; Book No. CLXXII; Series of 1996.

Complainant alleges that this document was falsified because according to the records of the
National Archives, the document entered as Doc. No. 182; Page 38; Book No. CLXXII; Series
of 1996 in respondent Calubaquib's notarial register was an affidavit of one Daniel Malayao.

Also on file with the records of this case is a special power of attorney executed by Isaac Villegas
appointing respondent Calubaquib as his attorney-in-fact to enter into a compromise agreement
under such terms and conditions acceptable to him which was notarized by Atty. Baliga.
Complainant also alleged that this SPA was also falsified because according to Baligas notarial
register, this doc number pertains to an affidavit of loss of one Pedro Telan dated August 26,
1996.

At first, Atty Calubaquib reasoned out that the complaint filed against him was a fraudulent
attempt by complainant to grab a parcel of land.

Both the respondents eventually admitted the incorrected of the entries and simply
attributed them to the inadvertence in good faith of their respective secretaries to whom
they had left the task of entering all their notarial documents.

Petitioners Arguments:
Lingan alleged that respondent Calubaquib with the help of Baliga and several other persons
was trying to deprive him (Lingan) of a parcel of land he had bought from Isaac Villegas mother-
in-law. According also to Lingan, an SPA cannot be simply executed by Villegas for Villegas was
in hiding due to several civil and criminal cases filed against him.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondents Atty. Calubaquib & Atty. Baliga should be suspended from the
practice of law for falsification of documents?

FALLO: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondents Atty. Romeo I. Calubaquib and Atty.
Jimmy P. Baliga are hereby found guilty of violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and of their lawyer's oath. They are both ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for ONE YEAR effective immediately, with a warning that another infraction shall be dealt with more
severely.

Their present commissions as notaries public, if any, are hereby REVOKED, with DISQUALIFICATION
from reappointment as notaries public for a period of two years.

HELD: YES.
1. The allegation regarding the falsified SPA issued by Villegas should be presumed. The Court
stated that forgery cannot be simply presumed. It must be proved by clear, positive and
convincing evidence. Mere allegation thereof is not evidence and one who alleges forgery has
the burden of proving the same which the complainant failed to do.

Furthermore, all the documents on which the contested signature appeared were notarized.
Notarial documents carry the presumption of regularity. To contradict them, the evidence
presented must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant. Complainant's
uncorroborated theory of an entire conspiracy of lawyers and government officials beholden to
respondent Calubaquib did not constitute such evidence.

The forgery of Villegas' signature having remained unproven, we can only hold respondents
liable for their omissions that have actually been proved.

2. The contention of the respondents is not tenable. As what has been stated in the Notarial Law:

Sections 245 and 246 of the Notarial Law provided:

SEC. 245. Notarial Register. Every notary public shall keep a register to be known as the notarial
register, wherein record shall be made of all his official acts as notary; and he shall supply a certified copy
of such record, or any part thereof, to any person applying for it and paying the legal fees therefore.
(emphasis supplied)

SEC. 246. Matters to be entered therein. The notary public shall enter in such register, in chronological order,
the nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him, the person executing, swearing to,
or acknowledging the instrument, the witnesses, if any, to the signature, the date of execution, oath, or
acknowledgment of the instrument, the fees collected by him for his services as notary in connection therewith, and,
when the instrument is a contract, he shall keep a correct copy thereof as part of his records, and shall likewise
enter in said records a brief description of the substance thereof and shall give to each entry a consecutive number,
beginning with number one in each calendar year. The notary shall give to each instrument executed, sworn to, or
acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state on the instrument
the page or pages of his register on which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries.

In this connection, Section 249(b) stated:

SEC. 249. Grounds for revocation of commission. The following derelictions of duty on the part of a notary public
shall, in the discretion of the proper judge of first instance, be sufficient ground for the revocation of his commission:

(b) The failure of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register touching his notarial acts in
the manner required by law.

From the language of the subsection, it is abundantly clear that the notary public is
personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register. Respondents cannot be
relieved of responsibility for the violation of the aforesaid sections by passing the buck
to their secretaries, a reprehensible practice which to this day persists despite our
open condemnation. Respondents, especially Calubaquib, a self-proclaimed
"prominent legal practitioner," should have known better than to give us such a simple-
minded excuse.

We likewise remind respondents that notarization is not an empty, meaningless or

routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who
are qualified or authorized to do so may act as notaries public. The protection of that
interest necessarily requires that those not qualified or authorized to act must be
prevented from inflicting themselves upon the public, the courts and the administrative
offices in general.

Notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public one and makes
it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Notaries public must
therefore observe utmost care with respect to the basic requirements of their duties.
Being not only lawyers but also public officers, respondents should have been acutely
aware of their responsibilities. Respondents' acts did not amount to mere simple and
excusable negligence. Having failed to perform their sworn duty, respondents were
squarely in violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
30 and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which provides:

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefore. A member of the bar may
be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude,
or for any violation of the oath which is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of
any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly and willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.