Togle (JD 3-4)

Legal Forms, Atty. Aura Rizza A. Garcia-Gabriel

DETAILS

Case Title Collantes v. Mabuti

Docket Number A.C. No. 9917

Ponencia, SC Division Perlas-Bernabe, J., Second Division

Date 14 January 2019

Topic (Syllabus) Commission as Notary Public

Case Summary (For The complainant alleged that the respondent, Mabuti has notarized a document
recit) entitled "Memorandum of Agreement without having been commissioned as a
notary public In the City of Manila.

The respondent denied the allegation as and claimed that the signature in the
MOA was not his and that the case be dismissed on the ground of double
jeopardy. He alleged that the cause of action in this case is the same with the
earlier CBD Case No. 11-3036 filed against him by Bertillo.

The IBP found that the respondent was indeed not commissioned as a notary
public at the time the MOA was notarized and imposed upon the him the
following penalty: (a) perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a
Notary Public since this is respondent's second offense; (b) revocation of his
notarial commission, if subsisting; and (c) suspension for two (2) years from the
practice of law.

The Court affirms the IBP’s finding with modification. Jurisprudence provides that
without a commission, a lawyer is unauthorized to perform any of the notarial
acts. A lawyer who performs a notarial act without such commission violates the
lawyer's oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Rules. In this case,
it was found that respondent have notarized the MOA without being
commissioned as a notary public at the time of notarization. Thus, by knowingly
performing notarial acts at the time when he was not authorized to do so,
respondent clearly violated the Notarial Rules and in consequence, should be
held administratively liable. However, the court meted the respondent with the
following: (a) suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year; (b) immediate
revocation of his notarial commission, if any; and (c) disqualification from being
commissioned as a notary public for a period of one (1) year only.

DOCTRINE/LEGAL BASIS

● Jurisprudence provides that without a commission, a lawyer is unauthorized to perform any of the
notarial acts. A lawyer who performs a notarial act without such commission violates the lawyer's
oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Rules.

FACTS

● Complainant alleged that on October 10, 2009, respondent notarized a document entitled
"Memorandum of Agreement" in the City of Manila. Upon verification, however, he discovered that
respondent was not commissioned as a notary public in the City of Manila for the years 2008-
2009.
Togle (JD 3-4)
Legal Forms, Atty. Aura Rizza A. Garcia-Gabriel

● In support thereof, complainant attached a Certification dated February 27, 2012 issued by the
Notarial Section of the Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial
Court of Manila attesting to the same.
● The respondent denied the allegations and claimed that the signature in the "Memorandum of
Agreement" is not his. He prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of double
jeopardy. In this regard, he pointed out that the present case is based on the same cause of action
subject of an earlier complaint, filed by a certain Mina S. Bertillo before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), docketed as CBD Case No. 11-3036, for which he was disqualified from being
commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.
● The IBP found the evidence convincing that respondent was indeed not commissioned as a
notary public at the time the subject "Memorandum of Agreement" was notarized. Corollary
thereto, the IBP-IC brushed aside respondent's claim of double jeopardy, pointing out that the
present administrative action concerns an act that is entirely different from the act for which he
was found guilty of violation of the Notarial Rules in CBD Case No. 11-3036, i.e., for notarizing a
letter dated December 28, 2010 when he was likewise not commissioned as a notary public.
● In a Resolution dated August 31, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the above findings
and recommendation with modification, increasing the recommended penalty to: (a) perpetual
disqualification from being commissioned as a Notary Public since this is respondent's second
offense; (b) revocation of his notarial commission, if subsisting; and (c) suspension for two (2)
years from the practice of law.

ISSUE #1 – Whether or not the IBP correctly RULING: YES.

RATIO

The Court affirms the findings and adopts with modification the recommendations of the IBP Board of
Governors.

The requirements for the issuance of a commission as a notary public must not be treated as a mere
casual formality. Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time
when he has no authorization or commission to do so, an act which the Court has characterized as
reprehensible, constituting as it does, not only malpractice, but also the crime of falsification of public
documents, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action. Jurisprudence provides that without a
commission, a lawyer is unauthorized to perform any of the notarial acts. A lawyer who performs a notarial
act without such commission violates the lawyer's oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial
Rules.

In this case, the IBP found that respondent notarized the subject document, "Memorandum of Agreement,"
without being commissioned as a notary public at the time of notarization. This fact has been duly certified
to by none other than the Notarial Section of the Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila. Thus, by knowingly performing notarial acts at the time when he was not
authorized to do so, respondent clearly violated the Notarial Rules and in consequence, should be held
administratively liable.

Notably, while the Court agrees with the IBP's findings as regards respondent's administrative liability, the
Court, however, cannot adopt the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors to increase the penalty
against respondent to "perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public" in view of
an alleged earlier infraction for which he was found guilty of violating the Notarial Rules by the IBP in CBD
Case No. 11-3036.

It is the Supreme Court, not the IBP, which has the constitutionally mandated duty to discipline lawyers.
The factual findings of the IBP can only be recommendatory. Its recommended penalties are also, by their
nature, recommendatory.
In fine, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, respondent is meted with the following: (a) suspension
Togle (JD 3-4)
Legal Forms, Atty. Aura Rizza A. Garcia-Gabriel

from the practice of law for one (1) year; (b) immediate revocation of his notarial commission, if any; and
(c) disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of one (1) year only.

DISPOSITIVE

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds respondent Atty. Anselmo B. Mabuti (respondent) GUILTY of
violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, effective immediately, the Court: SUSPENDS him from the
practice of law for one (1) year; REVOKES his incumbent commission as a notary public, if any; and
PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public for one (1) year. He is WARNED that a
repetition of the same offense or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

The suspension in the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from being
commissioned as a notary public shall take effect immediately upon receipt of this Resolution by
respondent. He is DIRECTED to immediately file a Manifestation to the Court that his suspension has
started, copy furnished all courts and quasijudicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as
counsel.

Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent's
personal record as an attorney; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its information and guidance; and
the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.