Calixto v. Baleros

A lawyer's suspension from practice may commence upon constructive receipt of the decision imposing the penalty when, despite diligent efforts, the lawyer's whereabouts are unknown or they have failed to update their address with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, thereby preventing actual service.

Complainants Joy and Rimas Calixto were the registered owners of a parcel of land. In the course of securing a loan, their property was fraudulently transferred through a series of transactions involving a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly executed by Rimas. The SPA, which authorized Joy to sell or mortgage the property, was notarized by respondent Atty. Cora Jane P. Baleros. Rimas Calixto denied ever signing the SPA or personally appearing before Atty. Baleros for its notarization, asserting he was in a different province at the time. The fraudulent transactions led to the cancellation of the original title and the issuance of a new one in the name of a third party.

• Nature of the Complaint: Complainants Joy and Rimas Calixto filed administrative complaints against Atty. Baleros for wrongfully notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) that purportedly authorized Joy to sell or mortgage their conjugal property.
• The Alleged Fraudulent Transactions: Joy Calixto secured a loan from a private financier. Subsequently, without her full knowledge, the title to their property was transferred through a series of transactions involving the SPA notarized by Atty. Baleros and a Deed of Absolute Sale. The title was eventually cancelled and a new one issued in the name of a third party, Editha Ramos.
• The Notarization Issue: Rimas Calixto denied signing the SPA or appearing before Atty. Baleros. He presented evidence that he was in Besao, Mountain Province, tending to his mother at the time of the alleged notarization. Joy corroborated this. The SPA also lacked required details of Atty. Baleros's notarial commission.
• Respondent's Whereabouts: The IBP discovered that Atty. Baleros had left the country with her family in 2015, closed her office, and did not update her contact information with the IBP. Multiple attempts to serve orders were unsuccessful.
• Prior Disciplinary Record: Atty. Baleros had a prior administrative sanction (six-month suspension) in Dr. Malvar v. Atty. Baleros for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

• Violation of Notarial Rules: Complainants argued that Atty. Baleros violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically the requirement of personal appearance under Rule IV, Section 2(b), by notarizing the SPA without Rimas Calixto's presence.
• Falsification and Lack of Due Diligence: It was contended that the SPA was falsified and that Atty. Baleros exhibited a lack of diligence that jeopardized the complainants' property rights.
• Aggravating Circumstance: Complainants cited Atty. Baleros's prior suspension as an aggravating circumstance warranting a stiffer penalty.

• N/A: Respondent Atty. Baleros did not file any responsive pleading or participate in the proceedings before the IBP CBD, as she could not be located.

• Due Process: Whether respondent Atty. Baleros was denied due process when the IBP CBD proceeded with the case and the Supreme Court imposed sanctions despite her non-receipt of the orders and the decision.
• Notarial Violation: Whether Atty. Baleros violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a document without the signatory's personal appearance.
• Appropriate Penalty: What is the appropriate administrative penalty for Atty. Baleros's misconduct, considering her prior offense.
• Commencement of Suspension: When does the period of suspension commence if the respondent lawyer's whereabouts are unknown, preventing actual receipt of the decision?

• Due Process: The requirements of due process were satisfied. The IBP CBD and the Court made exhaustive efforts to notify Atty. Baleros by sending multiple orders to her addresses on record. Since she herself made service impossible by leaving the country without updating her contact details, she is considered to have waived the right to actual notice. Due process in administrative proceedings is simply an opportunity to be heard, which was afforded to her.
• Notarial Violation: Atty. Baleros violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The personal appearance of the signatory is a core requirement to verify the genuineness of the signature and convert a private document into a public one. The uncontroverted evidence showed Rimas Calixto was not present during the notarization.
• Appropriate Penalty: Considering the violation is a serious offense under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) and is aggravated by a prior similar offense, the appropriate penalties are: (1) suspension from the practice of law for two years; (2) revocation of notarial commission; and (3) permanent disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.
• Commencement of Suspension: The suspension is effective upon constructive receipt. The phrase "upon receipt thereof by the respondent lawyer" in the Brillantes guidelines is construed to include constructive receipt when, after diligent efforts, the lawyer's whereabouts remain unknown or they have failed to update their IBP address. The decision is deemed received upon service to the lawyer's last known address with the IBP.

• Constructive Receipt for Commencement of Suspension — When a respondent lawyer meted with suspension cannot be located despite diligent efforts, or by their own fault has failed to update their address with the IBP, the decision imposing suspension is deemed constructively received upon service to the address on file with the IBP. This prevents erring lawyers from benefiting from their own negligence or evasion and ensures disciplinary sanctions are not rendered ineffective.
• Personal Appearance Requirement in Notarization — A notary public must not notarize a document unless the signatory is personally present at the time of notarization. This requirement enables the notary to verify the signature's genuineness and ensures the document is the signatory's free act and deed. Failure to comply violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and constitutes a breach of the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.

• "The principal function of a notary public is to authenticate documents. When a notary public certifies to the due execution and delivery of the document under his hand and seal he gives the document the force of evidence." — Citing Bernardo v. Atty. Ramos, this underscores the gravity of the notarial function.
• "The purpose of the requirement of personal appearance by the acknowledging party before the notary public is to 'enable the latter to verify the genuineness of the signature of the former.'" — Citing Flores v. Atty. Chua, this articulates the rationale for the personal appearance rule.
• "The commencement of the penalty must be placed beyond the power of the erring lawyer and should not be made dependent on his or her convenience." — This encapsulates the Court's rationale for adopting the constructive receipt doctrine to prevent evasion of discipline.

• Stemmerik v. Atty. Mas, 607 Phil. 89 (2009) — Applied for the principle that service on the address appearing in IBP records constitutes sufficient notice, and a lawyer who renders service impossible is deemed to have waived the notice requirement.
• Re: Order dated 01 October 2015... against Atty. Severo L. Brillantes, A.C. No. 11032, January 10, 2023 — The guidelines from this case requiring suspension to be effective upon receipt were modified by the Court to include the concept of constructive receipt for situations where actual receipt is impossible.
• Dr. Malvar v. Atty. Baleros, 807 Phil. 16 (2017) — Cited as respondent's prior administrative case for a notarial violation, serving as an aggravating circumstance in the present case.
• Dela Cruz-Sillano v. Atty. Pangan, 592 Phil. 219 (2008) — Cited to emphasize the adverse consequences of authenticating documents without the physical presence of the affiant.

• Rule IV, Section 2(b), 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Provides that a notary public shall not perform a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of notarization. This was the specific provision violated by Atty. Baleros.
• Canon VI, Sections 33(p), 37(a), 38, and 39, Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) — These provisions classify violation of notarial rules attended by bad faith as a serious offense, prescribe sanctions (including suspension exceeding six months), and provide for aggravating circumstances like prior administrative liability, which guided the Court in determining the appropriate penalty.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, Marquez, Kho, Jr., and Singh, JJ., concur. Lazaro-Javier and Dimaampao, JJ., were on official business.