Orola and Phil. Nippon AOI Industry, Inc. vs. Baribar

A notary public must not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The requirement of personal appearance is mandatory under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and a lawyer-notary who notarizes a pre-signed document without the affiant's personal appearance violates both the Notarial Rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.

Complainants Tomas N. Orola and Phil. Nippon AOI Industry, Inc. filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Archie S. Baribar, a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, for allegedly violating his lawyer's oath and Rule 138, Section 20 (c), (d), and (g) of the Rules of Court. The complaint arose from Baribar's representation of twenty-four clients in a labor case against the complainants, and his subsequent notarization of pleadings in connection with that case. The Court referred the matter to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation.

Complainants Tomas N. Orola and Phil. Nippon AOI Industry, Inc. filed an administrative complaint dated October 17, 2005 against Atty. Archie S. Baribar, alleging that he invented numerous offenses against them, procured documents with forged signatures, represented a person not his client, and notarized a document without the person appearing before him as required by law. The complaint alleged that Baribar filed a baseless labor case on behalf of his twenty-four clients against them, and that in the appeal before the National Labor Relations Commission, Baribar included certain individuals who were not original complainants.

Baribar denied all allegations, claiming the administrative complaint was a mere harassment suit. He admitted that he prepared an "Authority to Represent" document in March 2004 and requested Docufredo Claveria, Apolonio Akol, Jr., and Connie Labrador to obtain the signatures of others who lived in different municipalities of Negros Occidental. He claimed he personally met 24 of the 27 signatories on September 6, 2004, and overlooked the notarization of the document until April 15, 2005 due to office renovation. He admitted that he asked Akol and Labrador to secure Claveria's signature on the verification of the motion for reconsideration, and thereafter notarized the pre-signed document upon receiving it, since he personally knew Claveria and was familiar with his signature.

The Bureau of Immigration certified that Claveria departed from the Philippines on April 27, 2005, and that his name did not appear in its database file of Arrival from April 28, 2005 to October 17, 2005. Baribar readily admitted that Claveria was not present when he notarized the Motion for Reconsideration on September 19, 2005. The IBP Commissioner found that Baribar was careless in failing to remove the names of four individuals in the pleadings, but that it was not established that he procured documents with forged signatures. The Commissioner found, however, that Baribar did not deny that Claveria was not present when he notarized the document, and that by asking Akol and Labrador to obtain the signature for him, he effectively admitted that it was not his intent to require Claveria's personal presence before him.

• Violation of Notarial Law: Complainants alleged that Baribar notarized the Motion for Reconsideration on September 19, 2005 without the personal appearance of Docufredo Claveria, since the records of the Bureau of Immigration show that he was overseas at that time.
• Procuring Forged Documents: Complainants alleged that Baribar procured documents with forged signatures, including representing a person not his client.
• Baseless Labor Case: Complainants alleged that Baribar filed a baseless labor case on behalf of his clients against them, and that Orola denied any connection with AOI Kogyo Company Ltd.-Japan which was allegedly not paying labor benefits.
• Prior Administrative Case: Complainants mentioned that Baribar had a prior administrative case, which demonstrates his penchant for committing acts inimical to the image of the legal profession.

• Harassment Suit: Baribar claimed that the administrative complaint was a mere harassment suit filed by a political opponent's brother whose wounded family pride caused them to pursue imaginary causes of action against him.
• Labor Case Not Baseless: Baribar argued that the labor complaint was not baseless since it was supported by a joint affidavit of his clients against Orola and Phil. Nippon.
• Good Faith in Notarization: Baribar claimed that he acted in the best interest of his client and in good faith, and that he personally knew Claveria and was familiar with the latter's signature, which justified his notarization of the pre-signed document.
• Penalty Disproportionate: Baribar alleged in his Supplication dated June 24, 2009 that his penalty was grossly disproportionate and inequitable, citing the 1995 case of Gamido vs. New Bilibid Prisons (NBP) Officials where the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos to a lawyer who notarized a jurat in the absence of his client.

• Violation of Notarial Rules: Whether Baribar violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he notarized the Verification of the Motion for Reconsideration without the personal appearance of affiant Docufredo Claveria.
• Propriety of Penalty: Whether the penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law and two years disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public is proper under the circumstances.

• Violation of Notarial Rules: Yes. Baribar violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically Rule II, Section 1 and Rule IV, Section 2 (b), which mandate that a notary public shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of notarization.
• Propriety of Penalty: Yes. The penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law, revocation of incumbent commission as notary public, and two years disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public is proper, given Baribar's offhand disregard of the Notarial Rules and to deter further violations.

• Violation of Notarial Rules: The Court held that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act; it is impressed with substantial public interest. Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. 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, and to ascertain from the acknowledging party himself that the instrument or document is his own free act and deed. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule II, Section 1 and Rule IV, Section 2 (b), stress the necessity of the affiant's personal appearance before the notary public. In this case, the Bureau of Immigration certified that Claveria departed from the Philippines on April 27, 2005, and Baribar readily admitted that Claveria was not present when he notarized the Motion for Reconsideration on September 19, 2005. By asking Akol and Labrador to obtain Claveria's signature, Baribar effectively admitted that it was not his intent to require Claveria's personal presence before him. The Court also noted that in another notarized document, Baribar merely relied on the assurances of his clients' leaders that the others who were unable to present competent evidence of identity were the actual signatories of the document. Thus, Baribar failed to exercise due diligence in upholding his duty as a notary public, and his acts show his offhand disregard of the Notarial rules as to requiring the personal presence of the affiants and the presentation of competent evidence of identity.
• Propriety of Penalty: The Court noted that jurisprudence provides that a notary public who fails to discharge his duties as such is meted out the following penalties: (1) revocation of notarial commission; (2) disqualification from being commissioned as notary public; and (3) suspension from the practice of law—the terms of which vary based on the circumstances of each case. The Court distinguished the cases cited by Baribar, noting that in Villarin vs. Atty. Sabate, Jr. and Coquia vs. Atty. Laforteza, the Court imposed penalties of revocation of notarial commission and disqualification for one year. In this case, Baribar asked Akol and Labrador to acquire Claveria's signature in the Verification of the Motion for Reconsideration and subsequently notarized the pre-signed document upon receiving it. The Court agreed with the IBP Commissioner that Baribar did not intend to require Claveria's personal appearance before him. To deter further violations, the Court deemed it proper to impose the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one year, revocation of incumbent commission as a notary public, if any, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years.

• Personal Appearance Requirement in Notarization — A notary public shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization, and is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the affiant and to ascertain from the acknowledging party himself that the instrument or document is his own free act and deed. In this case, Baribar violated this requirement when he notarized a pre-signed Verification of the Motion for Reconsideration without Claveria's personal appearance, as he asked other affiants to obtain Claveria's signature.
• Notarization as an Act Impressed with Public Interest — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act; it is impressed with substantial public interest. Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies, and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument. A lawyer commissioned as a notary public is mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of such office, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.
• Penalties for Notarial Misconduct — A notary public who fails to discharge his duties as such is meted out the following penalties: (1) revocation of notarial commission; (2) disqualification from being commissioned as notary public; and (3) suspension from the practice of law—the terms of which vary based on the circumstances of each case. The Court imposed the penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law, revocation of incumbent commission, and two years disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, to deter further violations.

• "Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. It is impressed with substantial public interest, and only those who are qualified or authorized may act as such. It is not a purposeless ministerial act of acknowledging documents executed by parties who are willing to pay fees for notarization." — This passage articulates the foundational principle that notarization carries substantial public interest and is not a mere ministerial act, establishing the standard against which notarial misconduct is measured.
• "A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. It is his duty to demand that the document presented to him for notarization be signed in his presence." — This passage states the core duty of a notary public regarding personal appearance and signature verification, which is the ratio decidendi of the case.
• "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. It may be added, too, that only by such personal appearance may the notary public be able to ascertain from the acknowledging party himself that the instrument or document is his own free act and deed." — This passage explains the rationale behind the personal appearance requirement, which is essential to understanding why Baribar's conduct constituted a violation.

• Sappayani vs. Gasmen, 768 Phil. 1, 8 (2015) — Cited for the proposition that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act and is impressed with substantial public interest, and for the enumeration of penalties for notarial misconduct.
• Spouses Anudon vs. Atty. Cefra, 753 Phil. 421, 428 (2015) — Cited for the principle that notarization of a private document converts it into a public one and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity, and that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the signatories personally appeared before him.
• Spouses Domingo vs. Reed, 513 Phil. 339, 350 (2005) — Cited for the duty of a notary public to demand that the document presented for notarization be signed in his presence.
• Flores vs. Atty. Chua, 366 Phil. 132, 152 (1999) — Cited for the purpose of the personal appearance requirement, which is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature and ascertain that the instrument is the affiant's free act and deed.
• Agbulos vs. Atty. Viray, 704 Phil. 1, 9 (2013) — Cited for the principle that the responsibility to faithfully observe the legal solemnity of the oath is more pronounced when the notary public is a lawyer because of his solemn oath under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Gamido vs. New Bilibid Prisons (NBP) Officials, 312 Phil. 100, 106 (1995) — Cited by Baribar in his Supplication to argue that his penalty was grossly disproportionate, where the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos to a lawyer who notarized a jurat in the absence of his client.
• Villarin vs. Atty. Sabate, Jr., 382 Phil. 1, 7 (2000) — Cited as an instance where the Court suspended respondent's commission as a notary public for one year for notarizing a Verification of the Motion to Dismiss with Answer when three of the affiants were not before him.
• Coquia vs. Atty. Laforteza, A.C. No. 9364, February 8, 2017 — Cited as an instance where the Court revoked respondent's notarial commission and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for one year for notarizing a pre-signed document and failing to personally verify the identity of all parties.

• Rule 138, Section 20 (c), (d), and (g), Rules of Court — The provision under which the administrative complaint was filed, enumerating grounds for disciplinary action against lawyers, including deceit, gross misconduct, and violation of the lawyer's oath.
• Rule II, Section 1, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Defines "Acknowledgment" and requires that an individual appears in person before the notary public, presents an integrally complete instrument, is personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity, and represents that the signature was voluntarily affixed. The Court applied this provision to find that Baribar violated the personal appearance requirement.
• Rule IV, Section 2 (b), 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Prohibits a person from performing a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of notarization and is not personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity. The Court found that Baribar violated this provision when he notarized the pre-signed document without Claveria's personal appearance.
• Code of Professional Responsibility — The Court found Baribar guilty of breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.

Carpio, Acting C.J. (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concurred.