A.C. No.

6962
June 25, 2008
Charles B. Baylon vs. Atty. Jose A. Almo

FACTS: Charles B. Baylon (Baylon) claimed that Pacita Filio, Rodolfo Llantino, Jr. and
his wife, Rosemarie Baylon conspired in preparing Special Power of Attorney (SPA)
authorizing his wife mortgage his real property in Signal Village, Taguig. According to
Baylon, the SPA was executed on June 17, 1996 when he is out of the country where he
presented a certification from the Government of Singapore that he was vaccinated in that
country on June 17, 1996 and a certification from the Philippine Bureau of Immigration
proving that he was not in the country from March 21, 1995 to January 28, 1997. He also
claimed that his signature was forged on the said SPA. He alleged that because of this
SPA his real property was mortgage and foreclosed due to his wife failure to settle the
mortgage.

Atty. Jose A. Almo (Almo) acknowledged notarizing the SPA, however according to him
he initially refused to notarize it when Rosemarie came to his office and Baylon was not
present. He added that he would only notarize the SPA when Rosemarie return to his
office on June 26, 1996, together with the person named Charles Baylon. He believed
that he is in good faith when the person introduced to him was Baylon because they
presented a Community Tax Certificate stating the name Charles Baylon. Thus, Almo
denied being part in any arrangement to commit fraud, deceit or falsehood.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline

recommended the IBP Board of Governors that the respondent be strongly admonished
for notorizing the SPA, his notarial commission be revoked, and be barred from being a
notarial commission for one year. This recommendation was justified by the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline stated that reasonable diligence should have compelled
herein respondent to ascertain the true identity of the person seeking his legal services
considering the nature of the document. The only saving grace on the part of respondent
is that he relied on the fact that the person being authorized under the SPA to act as agent
and who accompanied the impostor.

On October 22, 2005, the IBP Board of Governors affirmed the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigation Commissioner that Atty. Almo is suspended from
the practice of law for one year and his notarial commission is revoked and disqualified
from reappointment as Notary Public for two years.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Almo negligently performs his duties as a notary public.

HELD: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the IBP that Atty. Almo had been
negligent in the performance of his duties as a notary public. As explained in the case of
Santiago vs. Rafanan, Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. 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 document.

Almo should not relied on the Community Tax Certificate presented by Rosemarie and
the impostor because now a days it is easy to obtained a community tax certificates.
Furthermore, the respondent shall exercise utmost diligence in determining the true
identity of the person presented to him. Almo also admitted that he had previously
notarized documents for Baylon, he should then compared the signatures in those
documents before he notarized the SPA.

Therefore, the notarial commission of Atty. Jose Almo is revoked and disqualified to be
reappointed as Notary Public for a period of two years.