Norberto Colllantes Vs. Atty. Mabuti
Domagoso denied the
Complainant alleged that respondent notarized
a memorandum of agreement but discovered
that is not commissioned as a notary public
Respondent, Atty. Mabuti denied the
allegations and claimed that the signature in the
"Memorandum of Agreement" is not his.
Respondent questioned complainant's motives
for filing the present case against him, claiming
that the latter has pending cases for Estafa filed
against him.
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether
or not the IBP correctly found respondent liable
for violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules.
ruling:
without a commission, a lawyer is unauthorized
to perform any of the notarial acts.23 A lawyer
who performs a notarial act without such
commission violates the lawyer's oath to obey
the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Rules.
Suspended
SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one
(1) year; REVOKES his incumbent commission as
a notary public, if any; and PROHIBITS him from
being commissioned as a notary public for one
(1) year. He is WARNED that a repetition of the
same offense or similar acts in the future shall
be dealt with more severely.
Atty. Maranan V. Francisco
Domagoso
Atty. Maranan filed a complaint agains
Francisco Domagoso charging him with
Falsification of Public Documents and violation
of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act involving
consultancy contracts.
allegation and claim that In defense, Domagoso
claimed, among others, that he signed the
consultancy contracts was in order and that it
was Atty. Maranan who actually notarized the
subject contracts.
Ombudsman dismissed the charges against
Domagoso7 and refen-ed the matter to the IBP
for determination of Atty. Maranan's
administrative liability for having notarized the
consultancy contracts.
Atty. Maranan argued that hed did not
authorized such contracts and that it does not
appear I his monthly notarial reports
The sole issue for the Court's consideration is w
hether or not grounds exist to hold Atty.
Maranan administratively liable.
Ruling- upon investigation although
signatures appear to be dissimilar the contracts
bore his notarial seal.
Atty. Maranan failed to provide a justifiable
explanation to prove that he had performed
his mandatory duties as a notary public which
include the duty to safeguard his notarial seal
to prevent possible tampering or misuse
thereof.
Atty. Goi1zales was the counsel of a certain
Domingo C. Reyes (Mr. Reyes), one of the
owners of Anaped Lstate, Inc. (Anaped).
Through Atty. Gonzales, Mr. Reyes and his
siblings filed a criminal compla
Complainant averred that in addition to Attv.
Gonzales' failure to record the Director~-s
Ce1iificate in his notarial register, he also
pa1iicipated in its f.tlsi:fication because the
Director's Certifi cate was never f-.uthorized
by the Anaped's Board of Directors.