A.C. No. 11889 [Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5671] - RE: RESOLUTION* DATED AUGUST 30, 2017 IN OMB-C-C-13-0357, ETC., COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. EDITHA P. TALABOC, ATTY. DELFIN R. AGCAOILI, JR., AND ATTY. MARK S. OLIVEROS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, copies of the Joint Resolution and Joint Order of the OMB, as well as certified photocopies of pertinent documents, were forwarded to this Court through the Office of the Bar Confidant. [13] In the Court's Resolution, [14] the matter was referred to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation. [15] The IBP-CBD ordered Atty. Talaboc et al. to submit their respective answers to the OMB's Complaint, [16] but only Atty. Agcaoili submitted an Answer. [17] A Notice of Mandatory Conference [18] scheduled on December 3, 2019 was sent to the parties, but only counsel for the OMB appeared on said date and submitted its Mandatory Conference Brief. [19] The mandatory conference was reset to January 28, 2019. [20] Atty. Talaboc moved to reset the conference to February 25, 2019. [21] On the rescheduled mandatory conference held on March 4, 2019, counsel for the OMB appeared, and on the part of the respondents, only Atty. Agcaoili was present. Considering the absence of Atty. Talaboc and Atty. Oliveros, and the denial made by Atty. Agcaoili, the mandatory conference was terminated and Atty. Talaboc et al. were required to submit their respective verified position papers within a non-extendible period of 10 days from March 4, 2019. [22] In its Position Paper, [23] the OMB alleged that Talaboc et al. should be held administratively liable for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice [24] (Notarial Rules) for the following reasons: (1) Atty. Talaboc et al., who were commissioned notaries public in 2009 and 2010, with the exception of Atty. Agcaoili, performed notarial acts outside their place of work or business by allowing these acts to be performed on their behalf by employees at JLN Corporation Office, using their stamps, seals, registers, and specimen signatures, in contravention of Rule IV, Section 2(a) [25] of the Notarial Rules; (2) they allowed such notarial acts to be performed even without the signatories of the said documents appearing personally before them, and considering that the proofs of identities as appearing in the notarized documents were merely Community Tax Certificates ( cedula ), Atty. Talaboc et al. violated Rule IV, Section 2(b) [26] of the Notarial Rules; and (3) Atty. Talaboc et al. profited from the said scheme despite their notarial acts being unlawful and improper, thereby violating Section 4(a) [27] of the Notarial Rules. [28] The OMB submitted the following documents in support of its position: (1) copies of the documents allegedly notarized by Atty. Oliveros; [29] (2) a list of the documents allegedly notarized by Atty. Talaboc et al. with the names of the signatories and notarization details; [30] and (3) Certifications from the respective cities where Atty. Talaboc et al. were commissioned as a notary public. [31] In his Belated Position Paper (with Apology), [32] Atty. Agcaoili denied notarizing the questioned documents. He alleged that in all his notarial acts, he would always ascertain the ide