SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 6927, March 14, 2018
TOMAS N. OROLA AND PHIL. NIPPON AOI INDUSTRY, INC., Complainants, v. ATTY. ARCHIE S. BARIBAR, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
The case stemmed from a Complaint1 dated October 17, 2005 filed before this Court by complainants Tomas N. Orola (Orola) and Phil. Nippon AOI Industry, Inc. (Phil. Nippon) against Atty. Archie S. Baribar (Baribar), for allegedly inventing numerous offenses against them, procuring documents with forged signatures, representing a person not his client, and notarizing a document without the person appearing before him as required by law, in violation of his lawyer's oath and Rule 138, Section 20 (c), (d) and (g) of the Rules of Court.
Complainants alleged that Baribar filed a baseless labor case on behalf of his twenty-four (24) clients against them. Orola denied any connection with AOI Kogyo Company Ltd.-Japan which was allegedly not paying labor benefits. In the appeal filed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Baribar included certain individuals who were not original complainants. Complainants further averred that Baribar notarized the Motion for Reconsideration on September 19, 2005 without the personal appearance of Docufredo Claveria (Claveria) since the records of the Bureau of Immigration show that he was overseas at that time. It was also mentioned that Baribar has a prior administrative case, which demonstrates his penchant for committing acts inimical to the image of the legal profession.
In his Comment,2 Baribar denied all the allegations against him. He 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. During the campaign for 2004 congressional elections, Orola's family's employees approached him to represent them; however, he suggested that they file the case after the elections to avoid misinterpretation. The labor complaint was not baseless since it was supported by a joint affidavit of his clients against Orola and Phil. Nippon.
Sometime in March 2004, he prepared an "Authority to Represent" document. He requested Claveria, Apolonio Akol, Jr. (Akol) and Connie Labrador (Labrador) to obtain the signatures of the others who live in different municipalities of Negros Occidental. On September 6, 2004, he personally met 24 of the 27 signatories, asked them to produce their residence certificates and confirm their signature in the document. He confirmed the identities of the others who were unable to bring their residence certificates through their leaders. He overlooked the notarization of the document and was only able to notarize the same on April 15, 2005 because of the renovation of their law office from October 2004 to February 2005. He averred that his mistake to strike through the names of four individuals in the Authority to Represent and verification of the labor complaint left the impression that the latter were parties to the appeal.
Akol and Labrador signed the verification of the motion for reconsideration in his presence. He then asked them to secure Claveria's signature. Thereafter, he received the verification on the last day of filing, and did not hesitate to notarize the same since he personally knew Claveria and was familiar with the latter's signature. He claimed that he acted in the best interest of his client and in good faith.
In a Resolution3 dated November 22, 2006, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation or decision.
On October 30, 2008, IBP Commissioner Rico A. Limpingco (Commissioner Limpingco) submitted his Report recommending, thus:
Given the foregoing circumstances, it is therefore recommended that respondent Atty. Archie Baribar be REPRIMANDED, that his incumbent notarial commission, if any, be REVOKED, and that he be prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for three (3) years, effective immediately, with a stem warning that [a] repetition of the same or similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more severely.4In his report, Commissioner Limpingco stated that an attorney should not be administratively sanctioned for filing a suit on behalf of his client, or for availing of proper procedural remedies, since the choice of legal strategy or theory is his sole concern. Complainants may or may not be liable in the labor case, but the administrative proceeding is not the proper forum to resolve the issue. An examination of the joint affidavit reveals that one Romulo Orola merely stated that he did not authorize any lawyer to represent him, and that he never appeared before Baribar to subscribe any document. Thus, it was not established that he procured documents with forged signatures. Baribar was careless in failing to remove the names of four individuals in the pleadings. He and his clients could not have gained any kind of possible benefit or advantage to the said error.
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution [as] Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and for performing a notarial act without requiring the personal appearance of the person involved as signatory to the document at the time of the notarization, Atty. Archie S. Baribar is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and DISQUALIFICATION from being commissioned as notary public for two (2) years.5Baribar moved for the reconsideration of the above decision, but the same was denied. Resolution No. XX-2012-619 reads:
RESOLVED to unanimously DENY Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration there being no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the Commission and it being a mere reiteration of the matters which had already been threshed out and taken into consideration. Thus, Resolution No. XVIII-2009-17 dated February 19,2009 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SECTION 1. Acknowledgment. - "Acknowledgment" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:The responsibility to faithfully observe and respect the legal solemnity of the oath in an a knowledgment or jurat is more pronounced when the notary public is a lawyer because of his solemn oath under the Code of Professional Responsibility to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. 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.12(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument or document;x x x
(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and
(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that capacity. (Emphasis supplied)
SEC. 2. Prohibitions. - ...(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as 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.
Endnotes:
* Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018.
1Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 1-9.
2Id. at 72-84.
3Id. at 92.
4Rollo, Vol. IV, p. 9.
5Id. at 1.
6Rollo, Vol. I, pp,-56, 58.
7Sappayani v. Gasmen, 768 Phil. 1, 8 (2015).
8Spouses Anudon v. Atty. Cefra, 753 Phil. 421, 428 (2015).
9Id.
10Spouses Domingo v. Reed, 513 Phil. 339, 350 (2005).
11Flores v. Atty. Chua, 366 Phil. 132, 152 (1999).
12Agbulos v. Atty. Viray, 704 Phil. 1, 9 (2013).
13 312 Phil. 100, 106 (1995).
14Sappayani v. Gasmen, supra note 7, at 9.
15 382 Phil. 1, 7 (2000).
16 A.C. No. 9364, February 8, 2017.