A.C. No.
932 June 21, 1940
In re Atty. Santiago
Office of the Solicitor- General Ozaeta as petitioner-complainant.
Facts
Ernesto Baniquit, who was living separately
from his wife, Soledad Colares, for nine
consecutive years. He was bent on
contracting a second marriage and
eventually sought legal advice from the
respondent, Atty. Roque Santiago, who was
at the time practicing and notary public in the
Province of Negros Occidental. The
respondent after hearing Baniquit’s side of
the case, assured the latter that he could
secure a separation from his wife and marry
again, he asked him to bring his wife on the
afternoon of the same day, May 29, 1939.
The respondent then prepared the
document Exibition A in which was
stipulated, among other things, that the
contracting parties, who are husband and
wife authorized each other to marry again, at
the same time renouncing or waiving
whatever right of action one might have
against the party so marrying.
Baniquit ask if there would there be no
trouble, the respondent stood up and,
pointing to his diploma hanging on the wall,
said: “I would tear that off if this document
turns out not to be valid. Relying on the
validity of the document Exhibition A,
Ernesto Baniquit, on June 11, 1939,
contracted a second marriage with Trinidad
Aurelio.
There is also evidence to show that
respondent tried to collect for this service the
sum of P50.00, the respondent then
contended that the service was free of
charge. On this point the evidence is not
material for this case, finding it unnecessary
to discover whether the payment was made
in full or any portion paid.
Although he did not deny the preparation of
Exihibit A, he put up the defense that he had
the idea that seven years of separation of
spouses would entitle either of them to
contract a second marriage. Eventually he
realized he made a mistake and immediately
making both parties to sign the deed of
cancellation of Exhibit A.
Issue: Whether the contract made by Atty.
Santiago valid.
Decision: The respondent Roque Santiago is
found guilty of malpractice and is hereby
suspended from the practice of law for a
period of one year. So ordered.
Rationale: There is no doubt that the
contract prepared by Atty. Santiago is
contrary to law, moral, and tends to subvert
the vital foundation of the family. The advice
given by the respondent to the spouses
Ernesto Baniquit and Soledad Colares, the
preparation and acknowledge by him of the
contract would constitute malpractice which
justifies disbarment from the practice of law.
Some members of the court believe that
results of his drastic action should be
penalized disbarment. While majority of the
members of the court inclined to follow the
recommendation of the investigator, the
Honorable Sotero Rodas. In his report, stating
that the fact that immediately after
discovering his mistakes, respondent
endeavored to correct it by making the
spouses sign another document cancelling
the previous one.