Baylon vs. Almo

4.) CHARLES B.
BAYLON
vs.
ATTY. JOSE A. ALMO
FACTS:
Complainant averred that Pacita Filio, Rodolfo Llantino, Jr. and his late wife, Rosemarie Baylon,
conspired in preparing an SPA1 authorizing his wife to mortgage his real property located in Signal
Village, Taguig. He said that he was out of the country when the SPA was executed. To prove that his
signature on the SPA was forged, the complainant presented a report 4 from the National Bureau of
Investigation stating to the effect that the questioned signature on the SPA was not written by him.
The complainant likewise alleged that because of the SPA, his real property was mortgaged to
Lorna Express Credit Corporation and that it was subsequently foreclosed due to the failure of his wife to
settle her mortgage obligations.
In his answer, the respondent admitted notarizing the SPA, but he argued that he initially refused
to notarize it when the complainant's wife first came to his office on June 17, 1996, due to the absence of
the supposed affiant thereof. He said that he only notarized the SPA when the complainant's wife came
back to his office on June 26, 1996, together with a person whom she introduced to him as Charles
Baylon. He further contended that he believed in good faith that the person introduced to him was the
complainant because said person presented to him a Community Tax Certificate bearing the name
Charles Baylon. To corroborate his claims, the respondent attached the affidavit of his secretary, Leonilita
de Silva.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent had been negligent in the performance of his duties as a notary public
in this case.
RULING:
The Supreme Court held that respondent had indeed been negligent in the performance of his
duties as a notary public in this case.
In Santiago v. 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 instrument.
For this reason, notaries public should not take for granted the solemn duties pertaining to their
office. Slipshod methods in their performance of the notarial act are never to be countenanced. They are
expected to exert utmost care in the performance of their duties, which are dictated by public policy and
are impressed with public interest.
Mindful of his duties as a notary public and taking into account the nature of the SPA which in this
case authorized the complainant's wife to mortgage the subject real property, the respondent should have
exercised utmost diligence in ascertaining the true identity of the person who represented himself and
was represented to be the complainant. 12 He should not have relied on the Community Tax Certificate
presented by the said impostor in view of the ease with which community tax certificates are obtained
these days.13 As a matter of fact, recognizing the established unreliability of a community tax certificate in
proving the identity of a person who wishes to have his document notarized, we did not include it in the
list of competent evidence of identity that notaries public should use in ascertaining the identity of persons
appearing before them to have their documents notarized.
Moreover, considering that respondent admitted15 in the IBP hearing on February 21, 2005 that he
had already previously notarized some documents 16 for the complainant, he should have compared the
complainant's signatures in those documents with the impostor's signature before he notarized the
questioned SPA.
WHEREFORE, the notarial commission, if still extant, of respondent Atty. Jose A. Almo is hereby
REVOKED. He is likewise DISQUALIFIED to be reappointed as Notary Public for a period of two years.

Baylon vs. Almo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Baylon vs. Almo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Baylon vs. Almo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4.) CHARLES B.

You might also like