lingan vs. calubaquib et. al

8/16/2019 Lingan vs. Calubaquib Et. Al.

1/14

5/2/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 490

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001546fe4080d42ec158a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

A.C. No. 5377. June 15, 2006.*

VICTOR LINGAN, complainant, vs. ATTYS. ROMEO

CALUBAQUIB and JIMMY P. BALIGA, respondents.

Forgery; Evidence; Burden of Proof; Forgery cannot be

presumed—it must be proved by clear, positive and convincing

evidence, and one who alleges it has the burden of proving the

same.—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. One who alleges

forgery has the burden of proving the same. We find thatcomplainant failed to discharge this burden.

Same; Same; The fact of forgery cannot be presumed simply

because there are dissimilarities between the standard and the

questioned signatures.—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

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.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.

Same; Same; Notarial Law; Notarial documents carry the

presumption of regularity—to contradict them, the evidence

presented must be clear, convincing and more than merely


2/14


http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001546fe4080d42ec158a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2

preponderant.—All

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

527

VOL. 490, JUNE 15, 2006 527

Lingan vs. Calubaquib

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.

Notarial Law; The notary public is personally accountable for

all entries in his notarial register.—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 reprehensiblepractice 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.

Same; 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; 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.—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


3/14



without further proof of its authenticity. Notaries public must

therefore observe utmost care with respect to the basic requirements

of their duties.

Same; Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Where lawyers acting as notaries

public failed to perform their sworn duty, they are squarely in

violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court .—

Being not only lawyers but also public officers, respondents shouldhave 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

528

528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility 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, grosslyimmoral 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.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court.Disbarment.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

R E S O L U T I O N

CORONA, J.:


4/14



This is a complaint for disbarment filed 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 damages2

filed by Isaac Villegas against

complainant with the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao,

Cagayan, docketed as Civil Case No. 5036. RespondentCalubaquib signed the verification and certification of non-

forum shopping3

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

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 1-4.

2 Id., pp. 48-54.

3 Id., p. 6.

529

VOL. 490, JUNE 15, 2006 529


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.4

The trial court decided Civil Case No. 5036 in favor of

complainant5

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 file with the records of this case is a special power of

attorney6

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 falsified

because, according to respondent Baliga’s notarial register,

Doc. No. 548; Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series of 1996

pertains to an affidavit of loss of one Pedro Telan,8

dated

August 26, 1996.


5/14



In addition, on January 2, 1995, respondent Baliga filed

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 inadver-

_______________

4 Id., p. 7.

5 Id., pp. 60-64.

6 Id., p. 9.

7 Id., p. 9.

8 Id., p. 10.

9 Id., pp. 29-30.

530



tence in good faith of his secretary to whom he had left the

task of entering all his notarial documents.

Respondent Calubaquib’s comment,10

however, contained

a much lengthier account of the alleged events leading up to

this case, the bulk of which was meant to cast 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

filed a case for falsification of documents against him withthe 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 affidavits, verifications or

subscriptions of petitions which are mere allegations of facts

to be entered in the Notarial Register, despite widespread


6/14



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 hehad 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 filed against him

(complainant). He pointed to the incorrect notarial entries

as proof of this falsification.

_______________

10 Id., pp. 33-41.

531

VOL. 490, JUNE 15, 2006 531


He presented in evidence a motion for withdrawal11

filed in

the Court of Appeals, apparently by Villegas, disavowing

any involvement in the case filed by respondent

Calubaquib.

To further buttress his allegations of falsification,

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 affidavit12

supposedly executed by Villegas and sworn to before a

“highly regarded [Department of Justice] official.”In the IBP’s report and recommendation,

13

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 final decision. Commissioner

Maala’s report did not touch on complainant’s allegations of

forgery.

When the IBP resolved14

to adopt Commissioner Maala’s


7/14



report and recommendation, both complainant and

respondent Baliga16

filed motions for reconsideration17

with

this Court. Respondent Calubaquib opposed18

complainant’s

motion for reconsideration.

In his motion for reconsideration, complainant assailed

the penalty recommended by the IBP as grossly inadequate.

Reit-

_______________

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.

532



erating his allegation of forgery, he attached documents

bearing Villegas’ allegedly forged signature as well as

documents with his supposed real signature19

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, respondentBaliga decried the penalty imposed as disproportionate to

the infraction he had committed.

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


8/14



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.20

One who alleges forgery has the burden of

proving the same.21

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

_______________

19 Id., pp. 134-136.

20 Tenio-Obsequio v. Court of Appeals, 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; 363 SCRA 811 (2001).

533

VOL. 490, JUNE 15, 2006 533Lingan vs. Calubaquib

have secretly met with his lawyer for purposes of filing a

suit. It would have been different had complainant

presented evidence that Villegas was, at the time the

questioned documents were executed, definitely 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. 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 filed by

Villegas himself. However, the veracity of the last of those

documents was vigorously contested by an affidavit also

purportedly filed by Villegas. The two documents, both

notarized, effectively cancelled each other out, absent some

other credible proof.


9/14



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

attorney22

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.23

If complainant was so sure the

signatures were fake, he should have submitted them forexpert 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

_______________

22 Rollo, p. 57.

23 People v. Reyes, supra.

534



merely preponderant.24

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 find that the recommendations of IBP

Commissioner Maala adopted by the IBP were supported bythe evidence on record, particularly the documents

themselves as well as the respondents’ own admission.

In response, on the other hand, to respondents’ feeble

attempts to deflect the blame from themselves and onto

their staff, we call their attention to Sections 245, 246 and

249(b) of the Notarial Law.25

Sections 245 and 246 of the Notarial Law provided:

SEC. 245. Notarial Register.—Every notary public shall keep a


10/14



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)

x x x x x x x x x

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, theperson 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

_______________

24 Jimenez v. Commission on Ecumenical Mission, United Presbyterian Church,

USA, 432 Phil. 895; 383 SCRA 326 (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.

535

VOL. 490, JUNE 15, 2006 535


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.

x x x x x x x x x

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:


11/14



x x x x x x x x x

(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.

x x x x x x x x x

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.26

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 whoare

_______________

26 Adaza v. Barinaga, 192 Phil. 198; 104 SCRA 684 (1981).

536



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.27

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.28

Notaries

public must therefore observe utmost care with respect to

the basic requirements of their duties.29

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


12/14



Responsibility 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.

_______________

27 Lucente v. Atty. Evangelista, Jr., 444 Phil. 721 ; 396 SCRA 627

(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.

537

VOL. 490, JUNE 15, 2006 537


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 Office of the Court Administrator and Office

of the Bar Confidant for dissemination to all courts


13/14



nationwide.

This Resolution is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Puno (Chairperson), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Azcuna

and Garcia, JJ ., concur.

Atty. Romeo I. Calubaquib and Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga

suspended from practice of law for one (1) year for violation

of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of Code of Professional Responsibility

and lawyer’s oath, with warning against repetition of similar

infraction. Their notarial commissions revoked, with

disqualification from appointment as notaries public for two

(2) years.

Notes.—The fact that the deed was notarized in Manila

when it could have been notarized in Bulacan casts doubt

on the procedural regularity in the preparation, executionand signing of the deed—consequently, the claim of the

signatories that they did not sign the document before a

notary public is more plausible than another party’s feeble

claim to the contrary. (Constantino vs. Court of Appeals, 264

SCRA 59 [1996])

538


Nacionales vs. Madlangbayan

The person in possession of a forged deed of sale is presumed

to be the author thereof, despite the absence of any direct

evidence of his authorship of the forgery. (Recebido vs.

People, 346 SCRA 881 [2000])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.


14/14


lingan vs. calubaquib et. al

Documents