A.C. No. 9917 - Collantes vs. Mabuti

Case Summary (A.C. No. 9917)

Factual Background

Complainant alleged that on October 10, 2009 Respondent notarized a document entitled “Memorandum of Agreement” in the City of Manila. Complainant averred that verification showed Respondent was not commissioned as a notary public in the City of Manila for the years 2008-2009. 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 that absence of commission.

Respondent’s Pleadings and Defenses

Respondent filed a Comment dated January 15, 2014 denying authorship of the signature in the “Memorandum of Agreement.” He challenged Complainant’s motives by pointing to pending estafa cases filed against Complainant. Respondent also invoked double jeopardy and submitted documents from an earlier Integrated Bar of the Philippines proceeding, CBD Case No. 11-3036, including a Commissioner’s Report dated August 3, 2012 and an IBP Board of Governor’s Resolution dated March 21, 2013, asserting that he had been disqualified from commissioning as a notary public for two years in that prior matter.

Referral to the IBP and Investigative Findings

The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation. The IBP Investigating Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation dated December 7, 2016 finding Respondent administratively liable for violation of the Notarial Rules and recommending suspension from the practice of law for two years. The IBP-IC found the Notarial Section’s certification persuasive that Respondent lacked a notarial commission at the time of the October 10, 2009 notarization. The IBP-IC rejected the double jeopardy defense on the ground that the earlier IBP matter concerned a distinct act of notarization dated December 28, 2010.

IBP Board of Governors’ Action

In a Resolution dated August 31, 2017 the IBP Board of Governors adopted the IBP-IC’s findings but modified the recommended penalty. The Board increased the sanction to: perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public on account of a purported second offense; revocation of any subsisting notarial commission; and suspension from the practice of law for two years.

Issue Before the Court

The dispositive issue presented to the Court was whether the IBP correctly found Respondent administratively liable for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

The Court’s Disposition

The Court affirmed the IBP’s factual findings of administrative liability but adopted the IBP Board of Governors’ recommendations with modification. The Court found Respondent GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court imposed the following penalties effective immediately: suspension from the practice of law for one year; revocation of any incumbent notarial commission; and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for one year. The Court warned that repetition would be dealt with more severely and directed Respondent to file a manifestation confirming commencement of his suspension and to notify the courts and quasijudicial bodies where he had entered appearances. Copies of the resolution were ordered furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated that notarization is not a mere rote act but converts a private document into a public document and thus carries substantive public interest. The Court relied on authorities holding that a notarial document is entitled to full faith and credit and that notaries must observe with utmost care the requirements of their office, citing Mariano v. Echanez, Spouses Gacuya v. Solbita, and Gaddi v. Velasco. The Court stated that only those qualified should act as notaries and that unauthorized notarization by a lawyer amounts to reprehensible conduct, malpractice, and may involve falsification of public documents. The Court cited Uy v. Sano, Maniquiz v. Emelo, Saquing v. Mora, and Nunga v. Viray to support these propositions.

The Court found the Notarial Section’s certification to be conclusive evidence that Respondent lacked a notarial commission at the time of the alleged notarization. The Court concluded that by knowingly performing notarial acts without authority, Respondent violated the Notarial Rules and breached his lawyer’s oath as proscribed by Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, citing Virtusio v. Virtusio and Miranda, Jr. v. Alvarez, Sr.

Rejection of Aggravation Based on Prior IBP Action

The Court declined to adopt the IBP Board of Governors’ increased penalty of perpetual disqualification on the ground that the supposed prior IBP resolution in CBD Case No. 11-3036 had not been forwarded to or approved by the Court. The Court emphasized that the IBP’s factual findings and recommended penalties are recommendatory and subject to the Court’s r

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 9917)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Norberto S. Collantes filed a complaint affidavit dated May 10, 2013 before the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court, against Atty. Anselmo B. Mabuti for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and of his duties as a lawyer.
The complaint alleged that respondent notarized a document while not commissioned as a notary public in the City of Manila for the relevant years.
The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation, and was docketed before the IBP as CBD Case No. 16-5078.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner submitted a Report and Recommendation, and the IBP Board of Governors subsequently issued a Resolution adopting and modifying the IBP-IC findings.
The Supreme Court, through a resolution penned by Perlas-Bernabe, J., reviewed and acted upon the IBP recommendations.

Key Factual Allegations

The complainant alleged that respondent notarized a document entitled "Memorandum of Agreement" dated October 10, 2009 in the City of Manila.
The complainant attached a Certification dated February 27, 2012 from the Notarial Section of the Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Manila attesting that respondent was not commissioned as a notary public for 2008–2009.
Respondent denied signing the subject document and asserted that the signature in the "Memorandum of Agreement" was not his.
Respondent alleged that the complaint was motivated by pending estafa cases against complainant and invoked double jeopardy based on a prior IBP complaint by Mina S. Bertillo, CBD Case No. 11-3036.
Respondent attached to his submissions a Commissioner’s Report dated August 3, 2012 and an IBP Board of Governors Resolution dated March 21, 2013 pertaining to CBD Case No. 11-3036.

IBP Report and Recommendation

The IBP Investigating Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation dated December 7, 2016 finding respondent administratively liable for failure to comply with the Notarial Rules and recommending suspension from the practice of law for two years.
The IBP-IC found convincing evidence that respondent was not commissioned as a notary public at the time the "Memorandum of Agreement" was notarized.
The IBP-IC rejected respondent’s double jeopardy claim on the ground that the present allegation concerned a different notarial act than the one in CBD Case No. 11-3036.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the