Victor Lingan VS. Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmu P. BaligaA.C. No. 5377, June 15, 2006

CORONA, J.:FACTS:A complaint for disbarment wasfiled by Victor Linganagainst Attys. Romeo Calubaquiband JimmyBaliga on November 16, 2000. Complainant alleged that respondents, both notaries public, falsified certain public documents, as follows:1. A complaint for annulment of title with damagesfiled by Isaac Villegas against complainant with the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao,Cagayan.Respondent Calubaquibsigned the verification and certification of non-forum shoppingof the complaint as notary public and entered the same as Doc. No. 182; Page No. 38; Book No. CLXXII; Series of 1996, which 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 Calubaquibsnotarialregister was an affidavit of one Daniel Malayao.2. A special power of attorneydated September 10, 1996 executed by Isaac Villegas appointing respondentCalubaquibas his attorney-in-fact to enter into a compromise agreement under such terms and conditions acceptable to him which was notarized by respondentBaligaand entered as Doc. No. 548, Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series of 1996, which according to respondentBaligasnotarial register, Doc. No. 548; Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series of 1996 pertains to an affidavit of loss of one Pedro Telan,dated August 26, 1996.3. A petition for reappointment as notary public for and inTuguegarao,Cagayan by respondent Baliga, which was notarized by respondentCalubaquib and entered in hisnotarial register as Doc. No. 31, Page No. 08, Book No. CXXX, Series of 1995.However, NotarialRegister 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.RespondentsCalubaquib and Baligaboth admitted the incorrectness of the entries and simply attributed them to the inadvertence in good faith of their secretary and legal assistants to whom they had left the task of entering all hisnotarial documents.ISSUE:Whether or not respondents violated the Notarial Practice Law

RULING:

It is abundantly clear that the notary public is personally accountablefor all entries in hisnotarialregister.Section 245 of theNotarial Law provides that every notary public shall keep a register to be known as thenotarial register, wherein record shall be made ofallhis 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. Section 246 of the same law also provides that 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 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. In this connection, Section 249(b) provides that the failure of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in hisnotarial register touching his notarialacts in the manner required by law shall, in the discretion of the proper judge of first instance, be sufficient ground for the revocation of his commission: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.Notarization is not an empty, meaningless orroutinaryact 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.

FALLO:WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondents Atty. Romeo I.Calubaquib and Atty. Jimmy P.Baligaare hereby found guilty of violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and of their lawyers oath. They are both orderedSUSPENDEDfrom the practice of law forONE YEAReffective 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 DISQUALIFICATIONfrom 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.Calubaquiband 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 immediatelyexecutory.SO ORDERED.