SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12820. November 15, 2021.]
RENE U. BAYSA, petitioner, vs.ATTY. JONATHAN B. TAMBOL, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated15 November 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"A.C. No. 12820 (Rene U. Baysa v. Atty. Jonathan B. Tambol). — This administrative complaint arose from an Affidavit-Complaint 1 dated January 28, 2014 filed by complainant Rene U. Baysa (Baysa) before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The Affidavit-Complaint prayed for the disbarment of respondent Atty. Jonathan B. Tambol (Atty. Tambol) for engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The following facts of the case are culled from the Report and Recommendation 2 of the IBP-CBD:
In October 2013, the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) in Baguio City organized a send-off party for one of its resigning employees, Julio Pasabing (Pasabing). During some employees' good-bye speeches, they voiced out their grievances on certain anomalies committed within PEZA. As a result, a fact-finding committee was created which included Criselda Cruz (Cruz), Bernadette Quitoriano (Quitoriano), and Teresita Cadena (Cadena). 3
Thereafter, the fact-finding committee gathered facts and interviewed several PEZA personnel, among whom are Joseph Galong (Galong), Roland Guibong (Guibong), Mario De Vera (De Vera), Alberto Factora (Factora), Antonio Alonzo (Alonzo), Vergo Lucas (Lucas), Nestor Macay (Macay), Rosario Laguilles (Laguilles), and Pasabing. The fact-finding committee prepared their affidavits, 4 the said PEZA personnel signed the same. Respondent Atty. Tambol, a commissioned notary public of Baguio City, notarized the affidavits.
One of the persons complained of in the affidavits is herein complainant Baysa, division chief II and acting legal officer of Baguio PEZA. 5 Baysa was required to give his comment and explanation on the fact-finding committee report and the submitted affidavits. 6 On January 16, 2014, PEZA administrator Dante Quindoza recommended the filing of administrative charges against Baysa. 7
Not long thereafter, Baysa filed a criminal complaint for libel, falsification and perjury against Quitoriano, Cadena, Cruz, Macay, Lucas, Pasabing, Laguilles and Atty. Tambol with the Office of the City Prosecutor, Baguio City. 8 On March 6, 2014, Baysa executed an affidavit of desistance, 9 praying for the dismissal of the criminal complaint. In a Resolution, 10 the Office of the City Prosecutor granted the affidavit of desistance and dismissed the criminal case.
Before the dismissal of the criminal case, on January 28, 2014, Baysa also filed a case for disbarment against Atty. Tambol before the IBP-CBD. In his affidavit-complaint, 11 Baysa alleged that the contents of the affidavits of Pasabing, 12 Lucas, 13 and Macay, 14 and notarized by Atty. Tambol, were baseless and malicious. He further alleged that Pasabing, Lucas, and Macay were not sworn to before Atty. Tambol on the dates appearing in the jurat because they did not actually appear before him. Baysa also deemed as untruthful the affidavit of Laguilles. 15 As to Guibong 16 and Factora, 17 they attested that they did not appear before Atty. Tambol when their affidavits were notarized.
On the other hand, Atty. Tambol, in his answer to the complaint, 18 asserted that on November 28 and 29, 2013, a group of individuals led by Pasabing, Lucas, and Macay came to his office in Baguio City, bringing with them several copies of prepared and signed affidavits for notarization. Upon examination of the documents, Atty Tambol questioned whether they were the ones who signed the affidavits, whether they understood the contents thereof, and whether the same are true based on their personal knowledge. 19 The men all answered in the affirmative. Even if Atty. Tambol knew some of them personally, he still required all of them to submit their competent evidence of identity, photocopies of which are attached to the records. 20 Thereafter, Atty. Tambol proceeded to notarize the said affidavits by affixing his signature and notarial seal thereon. 21
Report and Recommendation of
In its Report and Recommendation 22 dated April 15, 2015, the IBP-CBD resolved that Atty. Tambol is not guilty of misconduct for notarizing the subject affidavits. The IBP-CBD found that out of the nine affiants, only Guibong and Factora executed subsequent affidavits attesting that they did not personally appear before Atty. Tambol when he notarized the subject affidavits. However, they submitted their identification cards to him in substantial compliance with Section 6, Rule 2 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. 23 Also, the IBP-CBD found no ill will or malicious motive on the part of Atty. Tambol in notarizing the affidavits as he is not a counsel or a person in conflict with PEZA. Thus, the Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Atty. Tambol.
On June 6, 2015, the IBP-Board of Governors (BOG) reversed and set aside the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the CBD. 24 The Resolution reads thus:
RESOLUTION NO. XXI-2015-412Atty. Rene U. Baysa v. Atty. Jonathan B. Tambol
RESOLVED to REVERSE as it is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A," considering Respondent's violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice when he notarized an affidavit without the presence of the affiant. Thus, Atty. Jonathan B. Tambol's notarial commission, if presently commissioned, is immediately REVOKED. Furthermore, he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a Notary Public for two (2) years and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months. 25
On October 24, 2018, the IBP-BOG passed an Extended Resolution 26 affirming the penalties recommended in the June 2015 Resolution. The pertinent portions of the Extended Resolution read as follows:
Respondent lawyer transgressed the rules and must thus be held accountable for such transgression when he did not require Guibong and Factora to personally appear before him when he notarized their affidavits.
WHEREFORE, the IBP Board of Governors hereby resolves to reverse and set aside the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner by finding respondent lawyer guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and hereby recommends that respondent lawyer be meted out the penalty of revocation of his current commission as notary public, disqualification from being commissioned thereafter as notary public for two (2) years, and suspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. 27
On June 17, 2019, the IBP-BOG denied Atty. Tambol's motion for reconsideration 28 but modified the penalties, to wit:
CBD Case No. 14-4117Atty. Rene U. Baysa v. Atty. Jonathan B. Tambol
RESOLVED to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration, and motu proprio, modify the penalty to REPRIMAND with a Stern Warning that repetition of similar offense will be dealt with more severely; and Immediate Revocation of Notarial Commission, if subsisting, and Disqualification from being appointed as Notary Public for a period of two (2) years. 29
Our Ruling
The Court adopts and affirms the findings and recommendation of the IBP. Atty. Tambol clearly violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, particularly Rule IV, Section 2 (b),·which states:
RULE IV
SEC. 2. Prohibitions. — (a) x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as the signatory to the instrument or document —
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules. (Emphasis supplied)
Atty. Tambol tried to justify his act by claiming that Guibong and Factora submitted valid identification cards together with their affidavits. According to Atty. Tambol, this proved that they intended their affidavits to be notarized by him even in their absence. 30 Also, Guibong and Factora voluntarily signed their affidavits and never questioned the signatures and their due execution. 31
The Court disagrees. The above-stated prohibition is clear. A notary public cannot perform a notarial act without the two requisites: (1) personal presence of the signatory to the instrument or document; and (2) the signatory is personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. Guibong and Factora's mere submission of valid identification cards to Atty. Tambol as competent evidence of identity is not enough. Both should have been personally present before Atty. Tambol to have their affidavits notarized.
Time and again, the Court has stressed that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of the statements therein. Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the document in question, the notary public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act or deed. 32 The notarization of a document is not an empty act or routine. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public document thus making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. 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. 33
Atty. Tambol's failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only in damage to those directly affected by the notarized document, but also in a mockery of the integrity of a notary public and degradation of the function of notarization.
As to the penalties, the Court agrees with the IBP 34 that a mere reprimand against Atty. Tambol would suffice since only two out of the nine affiants did not personally appear before him when he notarized their affidavits. However, a stern warning must also be issued that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. Also, his notarial commission, if still subsisting, shall be revoked and he shall be disqualified from being appointed a notary public for a period of two years.
WHEREFORE, the Court REPRIMANDS Atty. Jonathan Tambol for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice when he notarized an affidavit without the presence of the affiants, and STERNLY WARNS him that a repetition of the same of similar offense will be dealt with more severely. Furthermore, Atty. Jonathan Tambol's Notarial Commission, if subsisting, shall IMMEDIATELY BE REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED from being appointed as notary public for a period of two years.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent's personal record as attorney. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED." (S.A.J. Perlas-Bernabe, on official leave; J. Hernando, Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2855 dated November 10, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-7.
2.Id. at 141-144. Penned by Commissioner Portia A. Martinez-Panergo.
3.Id. at 141.
4.Id. at 8-34.
5.Id. at 142.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 143.
9.Id. at 69.
10.Id. at 68.
11.Id. at 2-7.
12.Id. at 8-11.
13.Id. at 12-17.
14.Id. at 18-21.
15.Id. at 22-23.
16.Id. at 35-36.
17.Id. at 37-38.
18.Id. at 51-67.
19.Id. at 63.
20.Id.
21.Id.
22.Id. at 141-144.
23.Id. at 144. Section 6, Rule 2 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice state:
Section 6. Jurat. — "Jurat" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document;
(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity a s defined by these Rules;
(c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and
(d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document.
24.Id. at 139-140.
25.Id. at 139.
26.Id. at 145-148.
27.Id. at 148.
28.Id. at 149-155.
29.Id. at 160.
30.Id. at 153.
31.Id.
32.Prospero and Castillo v. Atty. Delos Santos and Atty. San Jose, A.C. No. 11583, December 3, 2019, citing Fabay v. Atty. Resuena, 779 Phil. 151, 158 (2016).
33.Id.
34.Rollo, pp. 160-161.