A.C. No. 9917 - NORBERTO S. COLLANTES, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. ANSELMO B. MABUTI.

Ruling

accordingly, recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years. The IBP-IC found the evidence convincing that respondent was indeed not commissioned as a notary public at the time the subject "Memorandum of Agreement" was notarized. [14] Corollary thereto, the IBP-­IC brushed aside respondent's claim of double jeopardy, pointing out that the present administrative action concerns an act that is entirely different from the act for which he was found guilty of violation of the Notarial Rules in CBD Case No. 11-3036, i.e. , for notarizing a letter dated December 28, 2010 when he was likewise not commissioned as a notary public. In a Resolution [15] dated August 31, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the above findings and recommendation with modification, increasing the recommended penalty to: ( a ) perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a Notary Public since this is respondent's second offense; ( b ) revocation of his notarial commission, if subsisting; and (c) suspension for two (2) years from the practice of law. The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the IBP correctly found respondent liable for violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules. The Court's Ruling The Court affirms the findings and adopts with modification the recommendations of the IBP Board of Governors. The Court has emphatically stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. Notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. [16] A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit, [17] and as such, notaries public are obligated to observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. [18] For these reasons, notarization is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. [19] 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. [20] The requirements for the issuance of a commission as a notary public must not be treated as a mere casual formality. [21] 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. [22] Jurisprudence provides that 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. [24] In this case, the IBP found