Case Digest (G.R. No. L-24364)
Facts:
Norberto S. Collantes v. Atty. Anselmo B. Mabuti, A.C. No. 9917 (January 14, 2019), 845 Phil. 532; 115 OG No. 48, 13429 (December 2, 2019), Supreme Court Second Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court. Complainant Norberto S. Collantes filed a complaint-affidavit on May 10, 2013 with the Office of the Bar Confidant, accusing respondent Atty. Anselmo B. Mabuti of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC) and of breaching duties as a lawyer by notarizing a “Memorandum of Agreement” on October 10, 2009 in the City of Manila without being commissioned as a notary public for 2008–2009. Collantes attached a February 27, 2012 certification from the Notarial Section of the Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Manila attesting to respondent’s lack of commission.In his January 15, 2014 Comment, respondent denied authorship of the signature on the Memorandum, questioned complainant’s motives (noting pending estafa suits), and pleaded double jeopardy, pointing to an earlier Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) complaint (CBD Case No. 11-3036, Mina S. Bertillo) in which he claimed to have been disqualified from commission for two years; he attached the Commissioner’s Report (Aug. 3, 2012) and the IBP Board of Governor’s Resolution (Mar. 21, 2013) in that case.
Pursuant to procedure, the complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. The IBP Investigating Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation dated December 7, 2016 finding respondent administratively liable for performing notarial acts without a commission and recommending a two-year suspension from the practice of law. The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution dated August 31, 2017, adopted the findings but modified the penalty to: (a) perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public (as a second offense); (b) revocation of any subs...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the IBP correctly find respondent administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and related Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
- Could the IBP Board of Governors properly aggravate the penalty to perpetual disqualification on the basis of an alleged prior IBP infraction that has not been app...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)