Loberes-Pintal vs. Baylosis

A notary public who notarizes a document without the personal presence of the signatory commits a gross violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting the penalty of permanent disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. The withdrawal or desistance of the complainant does not abate an administrative proceeding because such proceeding serves the public interest and involves no private cause of action.

Complainant Susan Loberes-Pintal initiated a disbarment action before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines after her husband, Roldan C. Pintal, filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage in the Caloocan City Regional Trial Court. She alleged that respondent Atty. Ramoncito B. Baylosis, counsel for her husband, caused the petition’s verification to be notarized on May 13, 2011 at a time when Roldan was outside the Philippines, thereby committing perjury, falsification of public documents, and use of falsified documents. A certification from the Bureau of Immigration was presented to prove the husband’s absence during the relevant period.

• The Complaint: Complainant alleged that Atty. Baylosis conspired with her husband Roldan C. Pintal to make it appear in the nullity petition that Roldan was a Caloocan City resident when he in fact resided in Quezon City. She further alleged that Atty. Baylosis notarized the verification and certification against non-forum shopping on May 13, 2011, even though Roldan was out of the country at that time. In support, she submitted a Barangay Chairman’s certification that Roldan was not a Caloocan resident and a Bureau of Immigration certification showing Roldan left the Philippines on April 10, 2011 and returned only on September 8, 2011.

• Respondent’s Defense: Atty. Baylosis denied the charges. He claimed that Roldan first came to his office in January 2011, where he was personally interviewed and asked to submit personal documents. A Certification from the Barangay Chairman stated that Roldan had been a resident of the barangay for six years. Atty. Baylosis maintained that in March 2011, after paying his acceptance fee, Roldan read and reviewed the petition’s allegations and affixed his signature on the verification and certification in Atty. Baylosis’s presence. The notarial date of May 13, 2011, he explained, was an “honest mistake and excusable error” by his staff; the final draft of the petition, accompanied by a corrected psychological report, was merely given to his secretary for filing on that date. He insisted that the personal appearance and oath had occurred earlier.

• Affidavit of Desistance: During the CBD mandatory conference but before its conclusion, complainant filed an Affidavit of Desistance on September 7, 2012, declaring lack of interest in further prosecuting the complaint and manifesting its withdrawal.

• IBP Resolution: The CBD recommended dismissal on the strength of the desistance. The IBP Board of Governors disagreed, holding that the immigration certification conclusively established Atty. Baylosis’s violation, and imposed the penalty of immediate revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification from reappointment as notary public for two years.

• Violation of Notarial Rules: Complainant maintained that Atty. Baylosis falsified a public document and committed perjury by notarizing the verification and certification on May 13, 2011 when the signatory was not in the Philippines, thereby violating the requirement of personal appearance under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

• Conspiracy and Falsification: Complainant argued that Atty. Baylosis conspired with Roldan to misrepresent the latter’s residence in the petition, which further demonstrated the respondent’s dishonest conduct.

• Personal Appearance Occurred Earlier: Atty. Baylosis countered that Roldan personally appeared before him in March 2011, read the petition’s allegations, and signed the verification and certification in his presence at that time; the May 13, 2011 date reflected only the ministerial act of filing encoded by his staff.

• Good Faith and Honest Mistake: Atty. Baylosis attributed the May 13, 2011 date to an excusable error by his secretary and denied any intent to violate the notarial rules.

• Violation of Notarial Rules: Whether Atty. Baylosis violated Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the petition’s verification and certification against non-forum shopping without the personal appearance of the signatory.

• Effect of Complainant’s Desistance: Whether the complainant’s affidavit of desistance warranted the dismissal of the administrative proceeding for disbarment.

• Violation of Notarial Rules: The violation was deemed established. The Bureau of Immigration certification demonstrated unequivocally that Roldan C. Pintal was outside the Philippines on May 13, 2011, having departed on April 10, 2011 and returned only on September 8, 2011. Atty. Baylosis’s claim of an earlier personal appearance was given no credence. Under Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public is prohibited from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not physically present at the time of notarization and is not personally known or identified through competent evidence. By affixing his signature and notarial seal, Atty. Baylosis attested to a fact—personal appearance on May 13, 2011—that was false. This act violated both the notarial rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01, Canon 1, which forbids a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct.

• Effect of Complainant’s Desistance: The desistance was held to be of no consequence. A suspension or disbarment proceeding is not a civil action in which the complainant is a party plaintiff; it is undertaken exclusively for the public welfare to preserve the courts and the profession from unfit practitioners. The participation of a private complainant is merely to bring the misconduct to the attention of the disciplinary authority, and her subsequent withdrawal does not divest the tribunal of jurisdiction or mandate dismissal. The complaint could thus proceed, and a penalty could be imposed, solely on the strength of the record.

• Notarization as a Substantive Public Act — Notarization is not a meaningless, routinary act; it converts a private document into a public document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity, and the notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. A notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of the duty; failure to do so undermines public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents.

• Disciplinary Proceedings Serve Public Interest — Disbarment and suspension proceedings are sui generis; they involve no private interest and are prosecuted solely for the public welfare, to preserve the courts from administration by unfit persons. The complainant is not a party in the sense of a civil litigant and has no proprietary interest in the outcome; consequently, the withdrawal or desistance of the complainant does not necessitate dismissal of the administrative case. What controls is whether the charge has been proven by the evidence on record.

• Strict Observance of Personal Appearance Requirement — A notary public is mandated to ensure the physical presence of the signatory at the very moment of notarization. The obligation is not satisfied by a prior or subsequent personal meeting; the signatory must be present “personally at the time of the notarization” as required by Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. A lawyer who disregards this requirement commits dishonesty and exposes himself to the severest administrative sanctions.

• “Notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest. The notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. A notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties; otherwise, the public’s confidence in the integrity of the document would be undermined.” (Quoting Gonzales v. Atty. Ramos)

• “A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.” (Quoting Bautista v. Bernabe)

• Gonzales v. Atty. Ramos, 499 Phil. 345 (2005) — Followed as controlling authority on the substantive character of notarization and the high degree of care required of notaries public.
• Sistual v. Atty. Ogena, A.C. 9807, February 2, 2016 — Cited in support of the proposition that a notary’s conduct in notarizing a document without due observance of the rules is fraught with dangerous possibilities given the conclusiveness that courts and the public accord to notarized documents.
• Re: Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice, A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC, January 21, 2015 — Applied to justify the penalty of permanent disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.
• Bautista v. Bernabe, 517 Phil. 236 (2006) — Applied for the rule that desistance of the complainant does not warrant dismissal of an administrative disciplinary proceeding.

• Rule IV, Section 2(b), 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Prohibits a notary public from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary’s presence personally at the time of the notarization and is not personally known or identified through competent evidence of identity. The provision was applied to hold that Atty. Baylosis’s notarization on May 13, 2011 was void ab initio and a violation of the notarial rules because the signatory was abroad.

• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Proscribes a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court applied this provision, finding that Atty. Baylosis’s act of falsely certifying personal appearance constituted dishonest and deceitful conduct in his capacity as a lawyer-notary.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, and Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Jose Catral Mendoza, Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Francis H. Jardeleza, and Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa. All concurred; there were no separate opinions.