G.R. No. 199894 - People vs. Claro y Mahinay

On May 10, 2013, complainant Norberto S. Collantes executed a complaint affidavit before the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court, against respondent Atty. Anselmo B. Mabuti.
The complaint alleged that on October 10, 2009, respondent notarized a document entitled "Memorandum of Agreement" in the City of Manila while not being commissioned as a notary public for the years 2008–2009.
The complainant supported his allegations by attaching 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.

In his comment dated January 15, 2014, respondent denied the allegations and contended that the signature appearing on the "Memorandum of Agreement" was not his.
He questioned the motives of the complainant, noting that there were pending estafa cases against him.
Respondent argued for the dismissal of the complaint on double jeopardy grounds, asserting that this case stemmed from the same cause of action as an earlier complaint (CBD Case No. 11-3036) filed by Mina S. Bertillo, for which he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.
To support his claim, respondent attached the Commissioner’s Report dated August 3, 2012, and the IBP Board of Governors’ Resolution dated March 21, 2013 in CBD Case No. 11-3036.

The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, and on December 7, 2016, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent administratively liable for failure to comply with the 2004 Notarial Rules.
The IBP-IC’s investigation established that respondent notarized the "Memorandum of Agreement" without a valid notarial commission.
The IBP's report dismissed the double jeopardy argument by emphasizing that the act in the present case was distinct from the previous offense for which respondent was found guilty (notarizing a letter on December 28, 2010).

In its Resolution dated August 31, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the IBP-IC’s findings with modifications.
The modified recommendations imposed the following penalty on the respondent:

Perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, given that this was his second offense.
Revocation of his notarial commission, if it was still in effect.
Suspension from the practice of law for two years.

The Court examined the evidence, including the certification from the Notarial Section, which confirmed that respondent was not commissioned as a notary public at the relevant time.
The Court recognized that while the IBP had found respondent liable, its recommendations were subject to the Court’s review, and the prior administrative proceedings (CBD Case No. 11-3036) had not been finalized by the Court.

Whether the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) correctly found respondent liable for violating the 2004 Notarial Rules by notarizing a document without being duly commissioned.

Whether the respondent’s claim of double jeopardy, based on a prior complaint (CBD Case No. 11-3036), is valid in the context of the present administrative action.
Whether the unauthorized notarization, done by a member of the Philippine Bar, constitutes not only malpractice but also amounts to an offense that undermines the sanctity of public documents.