Collantes vs. Mabuti

A lawyer who performs notarial acts without a valid commission violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.

Complainant Norberto S. Collantes filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Anselmo B. Mabuti for notarizing a "Memorandum of Agreement" in the City of Manila on October 10, 2009, despite lacking a notarial commission in that city for the years 2008-2009. The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.

Complainant Norberto S. Collantes executed a complaint affidavit on May 10, 2013, charging respondent Atty. Anselmo B. Mabuti with violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and his duties as a lawyer. Collantes alleged that on October 10, 2009, respondent notarized a document entitled "Memorandum of Agreement" in the City of Manila. Upon verification, complainant discovered that respondent was not commissioned as a notary public in the City of Manila for the years 2008-2009. This was supported by 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, claiming that the signature in the Memorandum of Agreement was not his. He questioned the complainant's motives, pointing out that the latter had pending Estafa cases against him. Respondent also moved for dismissal on the ground of double jeopardy, arguing that the present case was based on the same cause of action as an earlier complaint filed by a certain Mina S. Bertillo before the IBP, docketed as CBD Case No. 11-3036, for which he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. He attached the Commissioner's Report and the IBP Board of Governor's Resolution from that earlier case to support his claim.

The case was referred to the IBP for investigation. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent administratively liable, noting convincing evidence that he was not commissioned at the time of notarization and brushing aside his claim of double jeopardy, as the present case concerned a different act than the one in CBD Case No. 11-3036. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings but modified the penalty to include perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, treating the matter as respondent's second offense. The case reached the Supreme Court for final resolution, where the Court examined respondent's personal record and ascertained that the IBP resolution in the earlier case had not yet been forwarded for the Court's approval.

• Unauthorized Notarization: Complainant alleged that respondent notarized a "Memorandum of Agreement" on October 10, 2009, in the City of Manila without a valid notarial commission for the years 2008-2009, supported by a certification from the RTC Manila.

• Denial of Signature: Respondent claimed that the signature appearing on the "Memorandum of Agreement" was not his.
• Ulterior Motive: Respondent questioned the complainant's motives, asserting that the complainant had pending Estafa cases against him.
• Double Jeopardy: Respondent argued that the administrative complaint should be dismissed on the ground of double jeopardy, as it was based on the same cause of action as an earlier IBP complaint (CBD Case No. 11-3036) for which he was already penalized with disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.

• Administrative Liability: Whether respondent is administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice for notarizing a document without a valid commission.
• Propriety of Penalty: Whether the IBP correctly recommended the penalty of perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public based on a prior offense.

• Administrative Liability: Yes. Respondent was found guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility for performing notarial acts without a valid commission.
• Propriety of Penalty: No. The penalty of perpetual disqualification was not adopted because the prior IBP resolution treating the case as a second offense had not yet been approved by the Court and was therefore merely recommendatory.

• Administrative Liability: Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, and only those qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. A lawyer who performs a notarial act without a commission violates the lawyer's oath to obey the laws and the Notarial Rules. In this case, the Notarial Section of the RTC of Manila certified that respondent was not commissioned at the time he notarized the subject document. By knowingly performing notarial acts without authorization, respondent violated the Notarial Rules, Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibit unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct and require upholding the integrity of the legal profession.
• Propriety of Penalty: The IBP Board of Governors recommended perpetual disqualification based on an alleged earlier infraction in CBD Case No. 11-3036. However, the Supreme Court's examination of respondent's personal record revealed that the IBP's resolution in that prior case had not yet been forwarded to the Court for approval. Under prevailing jurisprudence, the factual findings and recommended penalties of the IBP are merely recommendatory and subject to review by the Court. Pending such approval, the prior findings cannot establish that respondent has already been held liable for a prior offense, and thus cannot serve to aggravate the penalty in the present case. Consequently, the Court imposed a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one year, immediate revocation of his notarial commission if any, and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for one year.

• Notarization as a Substantive Public Interest — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest. It converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. Only those qualified or authorized may act as notaries public, and those not qualified must be prevented from imposing upon the public and the courts.
• Recommendatory Nature of IBP Findings — The factual findings and recommendations of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline and the Board of Governors are recommendatory and subject to review by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, not the IBP, has the constitutionally mandated duty to discipline lawyers. Pending approval by the Court, IBP resolutions cannot establish prior liability for the purpose of aggravating a penalty in a subsequent administrative case.

• "Notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity." — This passage defines the legal effect of notarization and underscores the public interest protected by the Notarial Rules.
• "A lawyer who performs a notarial act without such commission violates the lawyer's oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Rules." — This articulates the ratio decidendi for holding lawyers administratively liable for unauthorized notarization.
• "[F]actual findings and recommendations of the [IBP] Commission on Bar Discipline and the Board of Governors xx x are recommendatory, subject to review by the Court." — This establishes the doctrine that IBP resolutions in disciplinary cases do not attain finality until approved by the Supreme Court, preventing their use as a basis for aggravating penalties in subsequent cases.

• Virtusio vs. Virtusio, 694 Phil. 148 (2012) — Cited to support the proposition that a lawyer who notarizes a document without a proper commission violates the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Canon 7.
• Torres vs. Dalangin, A.C. No. 10758, December 5, 2017 — Cited for the doctrine that the Supreme Court, not the IBP, has the constitutionally mandated duty to discipline lawyers, and that IBP findings and recommended penalties are merely recommendatory.

• 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC) — Applied to hold respondent administratively liable for performing notarial acts without a valid commission.
• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Applied to find that notarizing without a commission constitutes unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct in violation of a lawyer's oath to obey the laws.
• Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility — Applied to show that unauthorized notarization undermines the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

Carpio (Chairperson), Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., and Hernando, JJ.