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 presumedit 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 regularityto contradict
them, the evidence presented must be clear,
convincing and more than merely preponderant.
All
_______________
* 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. Complainants
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 simpleminded 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
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Lingan vs. Calubaquib
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.:
This is a complaint for disbarment1 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.
52
8

The case has its roots in a complaint for annulment

of title with damages2 filed by Isaac Villegas against
complainant with the Regional Trial Court of
Tuguegarao, Cagayan, docketed as Civil Case No.
5036. Respondent Calubaquib signed the
verification and certification of non-forum shopping 3
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

Lingan vs. Calubaquib

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
Calubaquibs notarial register was an affidavit of one
Daniel Malayao.4
The trial court decided Civil Case No. 5036 in favor
of complainant5 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 with the records of this case is a special
power of attorney6 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. 548,
Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series of 1996. 7

Complainant alleged that this special power of

attorney was also falsified because, according to
respondent Baligas notarial register, Doc. No. 548;
Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series of 1996 pertains
to an affidavit of loss of one Pedro Telan, 8 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.
In his answer,9 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
53
0

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Lingan vs. Calubaquib

tence in good faith of his secretary to whom he had
left the task of entering all his notarial documents.
Respondent Calubaquibs comment,10 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

Lingan vs. Calubaquib

He presented in evidence a motion for withdrawal 11
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, respondent
Calubaquib
merely
presented
an
affidavit 12
supposedly executed by Villegas and sworn to
before a highly regarded [Department of Justice]
official.
In the IBPs report and recommendation, 13 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 Maalas report did not touch on
complainants allegations of forgery.
When the IBP resolved14 to adopt Commissioner
Maalas
report
and
recommendation,
both
complainant15 and respondent Baliga16 filed
motions for reconsideration17 with this Court.
Respondent Calubaquib opposed18 complainants
motion for reconsideration.
In his motion for reconsideration, complainant
assailed the penalty recommended by the IBP as
grossly inadequate. Reit_______________

Id., pp. 153-156.

Id., p. 137.
Id., pp. 76-78.
Id., pp. 74-75.
Id., pp. 84-114.
Id., pp. 202-209.
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
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

53
2

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Lingan vs. Calubaquib

erating his allegation of forgery, he attached
documents bearing Villegas allegedly forged
signature as well as documents with his supposed
real signature19 for comparison.
In his opposition/comment, respondent Calubaquib
refuted complainants 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 evidence. Mere
allegation thereof is not evidence.20 One who
alleges forgery has the burden of proving the
same.21 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

Lingan vs. Calubaquib

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 signature on the conforme of the general
power of attorney22 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.23 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
53
4

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Lingan vs. Calubaquib

merely
preponderant.24
Complainants
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 to Sections 245, 246 and 249(b) of the
Notarial Law.25
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)
xxx
xxx
xxx
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

Lingan vs. Calubaquib

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.
xxx
xxx
xxx
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:
xxx
xxx
xxx
(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.
xxx
xxx
xxx
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
which to this day persists despite our open
condemnation.26
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
53
6

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Lingan vs. Calubaquib

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.27

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.28 Notaries public must therefore
observe utmost care with respect to the basic
requirements of their duties.29
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
of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility30 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

Lingan vs. Calubaquib

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 lawyers 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 lawyers 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 partys feeble claim to
the contrary. (Constantino vs. Court of Appeals, 264
SCRA 59 [1996])
538
53
8

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

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 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.