Lingan vs. Baliba

2/17/22, 11:03 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 490
*
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
that complainant 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
preponderant.—All
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f05a2e1a00a2556b8000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/13
_______________
* 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
reprehensible practice 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 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 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
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,
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.
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court.

Disbarment.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
RESOLUTION
CORONA, J.:
1
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
2
in a complaint for annulment of
title with damages filed by Isaac Villegas against
complainant with the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao,
Cagayan, docketed as Civil Case No. 5036. Respondent

Calubaquib signed
3
the verification and certification of non-
forum shopping 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 4
notarial
register was an affidavit of one Daniel Malayao.
The trial 5court decided Civil Case No. 5036 in favor of
complainant 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
6
with the records of this case is a special power of
attorney 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.7
548, Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series of 1996.
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 8of 1996 pertains to an affidavit of loss of one
Pedro Telan, dated August 26, 1996.
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.
9
9
In his answer, 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.
10
Respondent Calubaquib’s comment, 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 with the 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 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 he
had 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

11
He presented in evidence a motion for withdrawal 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, 12
respondent Calubaquib merely presented an affidavit
supposedly executed by Villegas and sworn to before a
“highly regarded [Department of Justice] official.” 13
In the IBP’s report and recommendation, 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
14
forgery.
When the IBP resolved to adopt Commissioner Maala’s 15
report and recommendation,
16
both complainant 17
and
respondent Baliga filed motions for reconsideration
18
with
this Court. Respondent Calubaquib opposed 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 19
as
documents with his supposed real signature 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,
respondent Baliga 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
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
20
evidence. Mere allegation thereof is
not evidence. One21who alleges forgery has the burden of
proving the same. 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 533

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.
It is true that there were dissimilarities between the
signatures purportedly belonging to Villegas and his
genuine 22signature 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 23
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.
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

24
merely preponderant. 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
by the 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
25
to Sections 245, 246 and
249(b) of the Notarial Law.
Sections 245 and 246 of the Notarial Law provided:
SEC. 245. Notarial Register.—Every notary public shall keep a

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,
the person 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:
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 which26 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.
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
_______________
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 27public, 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 28
evidence without further proof of its authenticity.
Notaries public must therefore observe utmost29 care with
respect to the basic requirements of their duties.
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 of30 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,
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
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, execution
and 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 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Lingan vs. Baliba

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lingan vs. Baliba

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/17/22, 11:03 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 490

VICTOR LINGAN, complainant, vs. ATTYS. ROMEO

Forgery; Evidence; Burden of Proof; Forgery cannot be

VOL. 490, JUNE 15, 2006 527

Lingan vs. Calubaquib

the documents on which the contested signature appeared were

squarely in violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of

528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lingan vs. Calubaquib

Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

Cagayan, docketed as Civil Case No. 5036. Respondent

1 Rollo, pp. 1-4.

VOL. 490, JUNE 15, 2006 529

according to the records of the National Archives, the

530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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

was in hiding due to several civil and criminal cases

10 Id., pp. 33-41.

VOL. 490, JUNE 15, 2006 531

11 Id., pp. 153-156.

14 Id., pp. 74-75.

532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

erating his allegation of forgery, he attached documents

19 Id., pp. 134-136.

VOL. 490, JUNE 15, 2006 533

have secretly met with his lawyer for purposes of filing a

534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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

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

VOL. 490, JUNE 15, 2006 535

services as notary in connection therewith, and, when the

In this connection, Section 249(b) stated:

SEC. 249. Grounds for revocation of commission.—The following

From the language of the subsection, it is abundantly clear

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

536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

qualified or authorized to do so may act as notaries public.

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme

VOL. 490, JUNE 15, 2006 537

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondents Atty.

Puno (Chairperson), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Azcuna

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

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

538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The person in possession of a forged deed of sale is

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like