WHEREFORE,
Atty. Eliseo B. Alampay is hereby
FINED in the amount of
5,000.00 for appearing as
₱
an attorney for a party to a case without authority to
do so and WARNED that a repetition of similar
infraction in the future shall be dealt with more
severely. Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished
the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Office of the
Court Administrator to be distributed to all courts of
the land for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
In Re Atty. Roque Santiago
June 21, 1940
Facts:
In this administrative case, the Solicitor General charged
the respondent Atty. Roque Santiago with malpractice
and prayed that disciplinary action be taken against him.
The respondent gave legal advice to one Ernesto
Baniquit who was living separately from his wife for
some nine consecutive years and seeking to contract a
second marriage. The respondent assured Baniquit that
he could secure a separation from his wife and marry
again. The lawyer prepared a document (Exhibit A)
stating that the contracting parties, husband and wife,
were authorized to marry again and at the same time
giving the authorization to renounce or waive each
member’s right against the party marrying.
The notary let the husband and wife execute and
acknowledge the document and declared that they
were again single and as such could contract another
marriage. Relying on this document, Baniquit contracted
a second marriage.
The respondent, upon realizing his mistake, sent for the
parties and let them sign the deed of cancellation
(Exhibit C) a month later but after the second marriage
of Baniquit.
Issue:
1. Did the lawyer commit malpractice in his acts
regarding the dispensation of such advice and
preparation of document?
2. Is the document regarding separation (Exhibit A)
valid?
Held:
1. Yes. The advice given by the respondent and his
preparation and acknowledgment by of the contract
constitute malpractice which justifies disbarment from
the practice of law.
2. No. Marriage separation should have should be
sanctioned in the proper court and before the
separation (see Selanova). Apart from this, the
document subverts the vital foundation of the family,
marriage, and is contrary to law, morals and public
policy.
Decision:
Respondent suspended from practice of law for one
year.
Dicta:
A.
As a response to Baniquit’s question, Santiago
remarked that he would tear the diploma off the wall if
the document did not turn out to be valid.
B.
Santiago was ignorant of the applicable provision
of the law or carelessly negligent in giving legal advice.
C.
The admission to the practice of law dependent on
a lawyer’s remaining as a fit-and-safe person to society.
Once he becomes unsafe or unfit to be entrusted with
obligations, his professional privilege should be
terminated.
VENANCIO CASTAÑEDA and NICETAS HENSON,
petitioners, vs. PASTOR D. AGO, LOURDES YU AGO and
THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
