AC 9917; (January, 2019) (Digest)
A.C. No. 9917, January 14, 2019
Norberto S. Collantes, Complainant vs. Atty. Anselmo B. Mabuti, Respondent
FACTS
Complainant Norberto S. Collantes alleged that respondent Atty. Anselmo B. Mabuti notarized a Memorandum of Agreement on October 10, 2009, in the City of Manila. He attached a Certification from the Notarial Section of the Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, dated February 27, 2012, attesting that respondent was not commissioned as a notary public in Manila for the years 2008-2009. In his defense, respondent denied the signature on the document, questioned complainant’s motives due to pending estafa cases, and invoked double jeopardy. He claimed the present complaint was based on the same cause of action as a prior IBP case (CBD Case No. 11-3036), where he was already penalized with a two-year disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a similar violation involving a 2010 document.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent is administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent administratively liable. The Court affirmed the IBP’s findings but modified the penalty. The legal logic is anchored on the profound public interest in notarization. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, granting it full faith and credit. Therefore, notaries public must perform their duties with utmost care, and only those duly commissioned are authorized to act. Performing a notarial act without a commission is a reprehensible act that constitutes malpractice and potentially falsification of public documents. It violates the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws, specifically the Notarial Rules, and breaches the Code of Professional Responsibility (Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Canon 7).
The Certification from the Manila RTC Clerk of Court conclusively proved respondent lacked the requisite commission in 2009. His defense of double jeopardy failed because the present case involved a distinct notarial act (the 2009 MOA) from the prior case (a 2010 letter), constituting a separate offense. Given this was respondent’s second offense of the same nature, the Court imposed a stiffer penalty to protect the public and the integrity of the notarial system. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for two years and perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public.