A.C. No.

932 IN RE: SANTIAGO 70 PHIL 66

IN RE: ATTY. ROQUE SANTIAGO
A.C. No. 932
June 21, 1940

FACTS: Ernesto Baniquit, who was living then separately from his wife Soledad Colares for 9
years, sought the legal advice of the respondent for a possible second marriage.

They prepared the document. Baniquit then asked, "Would there be no trouble?" The
respondent points to his diploma and said: "I would tear that off if this document turns out not to
be valid."

Hence, he contracted a second marriage.

Respondent realized that he had made a mistake for the timeline of the separation of husband
and wife, and for that reason, he immediately sent for the contracting parties to sign the deed of
cancellation of the document.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent be suspended.

RULING: Yes. The advice of the respondent and the document prepared by him as a notary
public is contrary to law, moral, and tends to subvert the vital foundation of the family. It
constitutes malpractice which justifies disbarment from the practice of law.

In the present case, respondent was either ignorant of the applicable provision of the law or
carelessly negligent in giving the complainant legal advice.

A.C. No. 932 IN RE: SANTIAGO 70 PHIL 66

IN RE: ATTY. ROQUE SANTIAGO
A.C. No. 932
June 21, 1940
FACTS: Ernesto Baniquit, who was living then separately from his wife Soledad Colares for 9
years, sought the legal advice of the respondent for a possible second marriage.

They prepared the document. Baniquit then asked, "Would there be no trouble?" The
respondent points to his diploma and said: "I would tear that off if this document turns out not to
be valid."

Hence, he contracted a second marriage.

Respondent realized that he had made a mistake for the timeline of the separation of husband
and wife, and for that reason, he immediately sent for the contracting parties to sign the deed of
cancellation of the document.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent be suspended.

RULING: Yes. The advice of the respondent and the document prepared by him as a notary
public is contrary to law, moral, and tends to subvert the vital foundation of the family. It
constitutes malpractice which justifies disbarment from the practice of law.

In the present case, respondent was either ignorant of the applicable provision of the law or
carelessly negligent in giving the complainant legal advice.