A.C. No. 11346 - DR. BASILIO MALVAR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CORA JANE P. BALEROS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent's commission as a notary public be revoked; that she be disqualified for being a notary public for two (2) years with a stem warning that a repetition of similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. [25] In a Resolution [26] dated June 20, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved Commissioner Esquivel's report and recommendation with modification, to wit: RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification , the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", for failure of Respondent to observe due diligence in the performance of her duties and obligations as a Notary Public specifically Rule VI, Section 2 of the Notarial Law. Thus, [the respondent's] notarial commission, if presently commissioned, is immediately REVOKED . Furthermore, [she] is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a Notary Public for two (2) years and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months . [27] (Emphasis and italics in the original) The Issues Whether administrative liability should attach to the respondent by reason of the following acts alleged to have been committed by her: Falsification of the Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land; Notarization of the aforesaid document in the absence of the complainant; and Double Entries in the Notarial Registry. Ruling of the Court After a close scrutiny of the facts of the case, the Court finds no compelling reason to deviate from the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors. With regard to the imputation of falsification of public document, the Court shall not inquire into the merits of the said criminal case pending adjudication before the MTCC and make a ruling on the matter. Commissioner Esquivel correctly declined to resolve the falsification case pending resolution before the regular court to which jurisdiction properly pertains. Though disbarment proceedings are sui generis as they belong to a class of their own and are distinct from that of civil or criminal actions, it is judicious for an administrative body like IBP-CBD not to pre-empt the course of action of the regular courts in order to avert contradictory findings. [28] The Court concurs with the conclusion of Commissioner Esquivel that the respondent violated several provisions of the Notarial Rules. The complainant insists that the Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land was notarized sans his presence. An affidavit requiring a jurat which the respondent admittedly signed and notarized on August 18, 2010 forms part of the subject document. The jurat is that end part of the affidavit in which the notary certifies that the instrument is sworn to before her, thus, making the notarial certification essential. [29] The unsubstantiated claim of the respondent that the complainant appeared