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 SantiagoJune 21, 1940Facts:In this administrative case, the Solicitor General chargedthe respondent Atty. Roque Santiago with malpracticeand prayed that disciplinary action be taken against him.The respondent gave legal advice to one ErnestoBaniquit who was living separately from his wife forsome nine consecutive years and seeking to contract asecond marriage. The respondent assured Baniquit thathe could secure a separation from his wife and marryagain. The lawyer prepared a document (Exhibit A)stating that the contracting parties, husband and wife,were authorized to marry again and at the same timegiving the authorization to renounce or waive eachmember’s right against the party marrying.The notary let the husband and wife execute andacknowledge the document and declared that theywere again single and as such could contract anothermarriage. Relying on this document, Baniquit contracteda second marriage.The respondent, upon realizing his mistake, sent for theparties and let them sign the deed of cancellation(Exhibit C) a month later but after the second marriageof Baniquit.Issue:1. Did the lawyer commit malpractice in his actsregarding the dispensation of such advice andpreparation of document?2. Is the document regarding separation (Exhibit A)valid?Held:1. Yes. The advice given by the respondent and hispreparation and acknowledgment by of the contractconstitute malpractice which justifies disbarment fromthe practice of law.2. No. Marriage separation should have should besanctioned in the proper court and before theseparation (see Selanova). Apart from this, thedocument subverts the vital foundation of the family,marriage, and is contrary to law, morals and publicpolicy.Decision:Respondent suspended from practice of law for oneyear.
Dicta:A. As a response to Baniquit’s question, Santiagoremarked that he would tear the diploma off the wall ifthe document did not turn out to be valid.B. Santiago was ignorant of the applicable provisionof the law or carelessly negligent in giving legal advice.C. The admission to the practice of law dependent ona lawyer’s remaining as a fit-and-safe person to society.Once he becomes unsafe or unfit to be entrusted withobligations, his professional privilege should beterminated.VENANCIO CASTAÑEDA and NICETAS HENSON,petitioners, vs. PASTOR D. AGO, LOURDES YU AGO andTHE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.