SUMMARY: A lawyer unlawfully notarized a Memorandum Agreement despite not being commissioned as a notary public.
FACTS: Collantes alleged that Atty. Mabuti notarized a Memorandum Agreement (MA) despite not being commissioned as a notary public in 2008-2009. Atty. Mabuti denied the allegation and claimed that the signature was not his. The IBP found convincing evidence that Atty. Mabuti was indeed not commissioned as a notary public at the time he notarized the subject MA. This fact has been duly certified by the Notarial Section of the Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the RTC Manila.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Mabuti is liable for violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules.
DECISION: Yes. SUSPENDED for 1 YEAR. His notarial commission is, if any, is REVOKED; and is PROHIBITED from being commissioned as a notary public for 1 year. Atty. Mabuti is guilty of violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and of Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Canon 7 of the CPR.
The SC stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. Thus, by knowingly performing notarial acts at the time when he was not authorized to do so, Atty. Mabuti clearly violated the Notarial Rules and in consequence, should be held administratively liable. Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or commission to do so, an act which the Court has characterized as reprehensible, constituting as it does, not only malpractice but also the crime of falsification of public documents, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action.
Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. As a corollary to the protection of that interest, those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from imposing upon the public, the courts, and the administrative offices in general.
Read the full case here.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.