Collantes v. Mabuti
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Norberto S. Collantes filed a complaint against respondent Atty. Anselmo B. Mabuti for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and his duties as a lawyer. Complainant alleged that respondent notarized a "Memorandum of Agreement" on October 10, 2009, in Manila, despite not being commissioned as a notary public in Manila for the years 2008-2009. A certification from the Notarial Section of the Regional Trial Court of Manila supported this claim. Procedural History: Respondent denied the allegations, claiming the signature on the "Memorandum of Agreement" was not his and questioned the complainant's motives. He also raised the defense of double jeopardy, citing a prior IBP case (CBD Case No. 11-3036) where he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two years for notarizing a document without a commission. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent liable and recommended a two-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings but increased the penalty to perpetual disqualification, revocation of commission, and a two-year suspension from practice, considering it a second offense. The Supreme Court reviewed the IBP's findings and recommendations. The Petition: The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the IBP correctly found respondent liable for violating the 2004 Notarial Rules.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Anselmo B. Mabuti violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and his duties as a lawyer by notarizing a document without a valid commission. Whether the defense of double jeopardy is applicable in this administrative case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the IBP Board of Governors regarding the respondent's administrative liability but modified the recommended penalty. The Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for one (1) year, revoked his incumbent commission as a notary public, if any, and prohibited him from being commissioned as a notary public for one (1) year. The Court warned that repetition of the offense would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: The Court affirmed the IBP's finding that respondent notarized the "Memorandum of Agreement" without being commissioned as a notary public at the time. This fact was supported by a certification from the Notarial Section of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere formality but a substantive act that lends authenticity to a document, and notaries public are obligated to perform their duties with utmost care. By knowingly performing notarial acts without authorization, respondent violated the Notarial Rules and his lawyer's oath to obey the laws. This conduct constitutes malpractice and potentially the crime of falsification of public documents. On the defense of double jeopardy: The Court brushed aside respondent's claim of double jeopardy. It clarified that the present administrative action concerned a different act (notarizing the "Memorandum of Agreement" without a commission) from the act in the prior IBP case (CBD Case No. 11-3036), which involved notarizing a letter dated December 28, 2010, also without a commission. Furthermore, the Court noted that the resolution of the IBP in the prior case had not yet been forwarded to the Supreme Court for approval, rendering its findings and recommendations merely recommendatory and incapable of establishing a prior offense that could aggravate the penalty in the current case. The Court reiterated that it, not the IBP, has the constitutionally mandated duty to discipline lawyers, and the IBP's findings are only recommendatory.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who notarizes a document without a proper commission violates his lawyer's oath to obey the law and engages in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct, falling under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Such an act is considered malpractice and potentially the crime of falsification of public documents.