SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 5377. June 15, 2006.]

VICTOR LINGAN , complainant, vs . ATTYS. ROMEO CALUBAQUIB and

JIMMY P. BALIGA , respondents.

RESOLUTION

CORONA , J : p

This is a complaint for disbarment 1 led by Victor Lingan against Attys. Romeo
Calubaquib and Jimmy Baliga on November 16, 2000. Complainant alleged that
respondents, both notaries public, falsified certain public documents.
The case has its roots in a complaint for annulment of title with damages 2 led by
Isaac Villegas against complainant with the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao, Cagayan,
docketed as Civil Case No. 5036. Respondent Calubaquib signed the veri cation and
certi cation of non-forum shopping 3 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 falsi ed 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 a davit of one Daniel Malayao. 4
The trial court decided Civil Case No. 5036 in favor of complainant 5 and, as a result,
the plaintiff there, through respondent Calubaquib, appealed it to the Court of Appeals,
where it was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 55837.
On le with the records of this case is a special power of attorney 6 dated
September 10, 1996 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 respondent Baliga and entered as Doc. No. 548,
Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series of 1996. 7 Complainant alleged that this special power
of attorney was also falsi ed because, according to respondent Baliga's notarial register,
Doc. No. 548; Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series of 1996 pertains to an a davit of loss
of one Pedro Telan, 8 dated August 26, 1996. aIcDCH

In addition, on January 2, 1995, respondent Baliga led a petition for reappointment

as notary public for and in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, which was notarized by respondent
Calubaquib and entered in his notarial register as Doc. No. 31, Page No. 08, Book No.
CXXX, Series of 1995. However, Notarial Register Book No. CXXX was for the year 1996
and entered there as Doc. No. 31, Page No. 08 was a cancellation of real estate mortgage
dated January 11, 1996.
In his answer, 9 respondent Baliga admitted the incorrectness of the entries and
simply attributed them to the inadvertence in good faith of his secretary to whom he had
left the task of entering all his notarial documents.
Respondent Calubaquib's comment, 1 0 however, contained a much lengthier account
of the alleged events leading up to this case, the bulk of which was meant to cast
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 complainant and his motives in a sinister light. In a nutshell, he made it appear that the
reason for the complaint was that he (respondent) thwarted a fraudulent attempt by
complainant to grab a parcel of land. He also stated that complainant had led a case for
falsification of documents against him with the Ombudsman but it was dismissed.
In the end, however, he (like his co-respondent Baliga) admitted to the mistaken
entries and also ascribed the same to his "legal assistants." Similarly, by way of defense, he
pointed out that the Notarial Law "provides that only contracts need to have their copies
included in the notarial records. It does not require a davits, veri cations or subscriptions
of petitions which are mere allegations of facts to be entered in the Notarial Register,
despite widespread practice to the contrary."
Upon receipt of respondents' comments, we referred the case to the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
In the course of the proceedings before the IBP, complainant alleged that
respondent Calubaquib, with the help of respondent Baliga and several other persons, was
trying to deprive him (complainant) of a parcel of land he had bought from Isaac Villegas'
mother-in-law. According to complainant, respondent impersonated Villegas, who was in
hiding due to several civil and criminal cases pending against him, by forging his signature
in all documents and pleadings related to the civil case led against him (complainant). He
pointed to the incorrect notarial entries as proof of this falsification.
He presented in evidence a motion for withdrawal 1 1 led in the Court of Appeals,
apparently by Villegas, disavowing any involvement in the case led by respondent
Calubaquib. aETASc

To further buttress his allegations of falsi cation, complainant pointed out that
respondent Calubaquib seemed unable to physically produce Villegas. For example, when
the Ombudsman ordered him to produce Villegas, respondent Calubaquib merely
presented an a davit 1 2 supposedly executed by Villegas and sworn to before a "highly
regarded [Department of Justice] official."
In the IBP's report and recommendation, 1 3 dated December 7, 2001, Commissioner
Rebecca Villanueva-Maala found respondents "liable for inexcusable negligence" and
recommended the revocation of the commission of respondents Calubaquib and Baliga as
notaries public for two years from receipt of the nal decision. Commissioner Maala's
report did not touch on complainant's allegations of forgery.
When the IBP resolved 1 4 to adopt Commissioner Maala's report and
recommendation, both complainant 1 5 and respondent Baliga 1 6 led motions for
reconsideration 1 7 with this Court. Respondent Calubaquib opposed 1 8 complainant's
motion for reconsideration.
In his motion for reconsideration, complainant assailed the penalty recommended
by the IBP as grossly inadequate. Reiterating his allegation of forgery, he attached
documents bearing Villegas' allegedly forged signature as well as documents with his
supposed real signature 1 9 for comparison.
In his opposition/comment, respondent Calubaquib refuted complainant's scathing
accusations of fraud and abuse of his public position, and prayed for the dismissal of the
complaint. In his motion for reconsideration, respondent Baliga decried the penalty
imposed as disproportionate to the infraction he had committed.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 The respondents having admitted responsibility for the notarial entries, the question
now is whether these were the product of a mere mistake or evidence of larger scheme to
defraud complainant whose allegations, if true, are serious enough to merit the disbarment
of both respondents.
The missing link, as it were, between the admitted infractions of respondents and
the nefarious machinations alleged by complainant is whether or not the latter was able to
prove that Villegas' signature on the documents notarized by respondents was in fact
forged.
Forgery cannot be presumed. It must be proved by clear, positive and convincing
evidence. Mere allegation thereof is not evidence. 2 0 One who alleges forgery has the
burden of proving the same. 2 1 We find that complainant failed to discharge this burden.
Complainant alleged mainly that Villegas could not possibly have signed the
documents in question because he was a fugitive from justice, with "several civil and
criminal cases pending against him." Assuming this allegation to be true, it proved nothing.
The mere fact that Villegas was a fugitive from justice did not preclude the possibility that
he might have secretly met with his lawyer for purposes of ling a suit. It would have been
different had complainant presented evidence that Villegas was, at the time the
questioned documents were executed, de nitely somewhere else. But the bare argument
that Villegas' being a fugitive rendered it impossible for him to sign some documents was
simply too nebulous to inspire belief. TAScID

As additional evidence, complainant presented, as attachments to his motion for

reconsideration, a number of documents purportedly bearing Villegas' real signature, the
latest of which was the motion to withdraw allegedly led by Villegas himself. However,
the veracity of the last of those documents was vigorously contested by an a davit also
purportedly led by Villegas. The two documents, both notarized, effectively cancelled
each other out, absent some other credible proof.
It is true that there were dissimilarities between the signatures purportedly
belonging to Villegas and his genuine signature on the conforme of the general power of
attorney 2 2 executed by his wife in favor of his mother-in-law. However, the fact of forgery
cannot be presumed simply because there are dissimilarities between the standard and
the questioned signatures. 2 3 If complainant was so sure the signatures were fake, he
should have submitted them for expert analysis to the National Bureau of Investigation, the
Philippine National Police or some other handwriting expert. The records are bereft of any
such analysis or even any attempt to have the signatures examined.
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. 2 4
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.
In this respect, we nd that the recommendations of IBP Commissioner Maala
adopted by the IBP were supported by the evidence on record, particularly the documents
themselves as well as the respondents' own admission. cdasia06jur

In response, on the other hand, to respondents' feeble attempts to de ect the blame
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 from themselves and onto their staff, we call their attention to Sections 245, 246 and
249(b) of the Notarial Law. 2 5

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
o cial acts as notary; and he shall supply a certi ed copy of such record, or any
part thereof, to any person applying for it and paying the legal fees therefore.
(emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx

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. TIADCc

xxx xxx xxx

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 rst instance, be su cient ground for the revocation of his
commission:
xxx xxx xxx
(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.

xxx xxx xxx

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. 2 6 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 quali ed or authorized to do so may act as notaries public. The protection of that
interest necessarily requires that those not quali ed or authorized to act must be
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 prevented from in icting themselves upon the public, the courts and the administrative
offices in general. 2 7
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. 2 8 Notaries public
must therefore observe utmost care with respect to the basic requirements of their duties.
29

Being not only lawyers but also public o cers, 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 3 0
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 o ce as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other
gross misconduct in such o ce, 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. IEAHca

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.
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the personal records of Atty. Romeo I.
Calubaquib and Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga, and copies furnished the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, the O ce of the Court Administrator and O ce of the Bar Con dant for
dissemination to all courts nationwide.
This Resolution is immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Azcuna and Garcia, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 1-4.

2. Id., pp. 48-54.
3. Id., p. 6.
4. Id., p. 7.
5. Id., pp. 60-64.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 6. Id., p. 9.
7. Id., p. 9.
8. Id., p. 10.
9. Id., pp. 29-30.
10. Id., pp. 33-41.
11. Id., pp. 153-156.
12. Id., p. 137.
13. Id., pp. 76-78.
14. Id., pp. 74-75.
15. Id., pp. 84-114.
16. Id., pp. 202-209.
17. The records do not indicate that the motions for reconsideration were filed in the IBP;
they were filed directly with the Supreme Court. The Court, consistent with the rules
governing disbarment proceedings, treated the motions for reconsideration as petitions
for review of the IBP resolution.
18. Id., pp. 195-200.
19. Id., pp. 134-136.
20. Tenio-Obsequio v. CA, G.R. No. 107967, 1 March 1994, 230 SCRA 550.
21. People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 153119, 13 April 2004, 427 SCRA 28; Fernandez v. Fernandez,
416 Phil. 322 (2001).
22. Rollo, p. 57.
23. People v. Reyes, supra.
24. Jimenez v. Commission on Ecumenical Mission, United Presbyterian Church, USA, 432
Phil. 895 (2002).
25. The Notarial Law (Chapter 11 of Act 2711) was in effect at the time of the commission
of the acts subject of the complaint. It has been superseded effective August 1, 2004 by
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC) promulgated on July 6, 2004.
26. Adaza v. Barinaga, 192 Phil. 198 (1981).
27. Lucente v. Atty. Evangelista, Jr., 444 Phil. 721 (2003).
28. Sections 19(b) and 23, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

29. Lucente v. Atty. Evangelista, Jr., supra.

30. Rule 1.01. — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com