IN RE: ATTY.

ROQUE SANTIAGO
A.C. NO. 932 | JUNE 21, 1940

PRESENTATION BY:
APRIL ANNE C. TOLEDO
BLOCK 1E - BASIC LEGAL ETHICS
SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG
SCHOOL OF LAW
 FACTS OF THE CASE

Ernesto Baniqui was living separately from

his wife Soledad Colares for nine consecutive
years and he was bent on contracting a second
marriage.
FACTS OF THE CASE

Ernesto then sought for the advice of Atty.

Roque Santiago, who at that time, a practicing
notary public.

Atty. Santiago assured Ernesto that he can

secure a separation from his wife and
remarry again. Moreover, Atty. Santiago
asked him to bring over Soledad in the
afternoon of the same day (May 29, 1939).
 FACTS OF THE CASE

Atty. Santiago prepared a document (Exhibit A) which

stipulated that the contracting parties, who are husband
and wife will be authorized to marry again, at the
same time renouncing or waiving whatever right of
action one might have against the party so
marrying.
 FACTS OF THE CASE

After the execution and acknowledgment of such

document, Atty. Santiago asked the spouses to
shake hands and assured them that they were
single and as such, they could contract another
and subsequent marriage.
FACTS OF THE CASE

Ernesto then asked, "Would there be no

trouble?"

Atty. Santiago just answered "I would tear that

off if this document turns out not to be valid.",
pointing to his diploma hanging on the wall.
FACTS OF THE CASE

Relying on the validity of the document,

Ernesto Baniquit, contracted a second
marriage with Trinidad Aurelio.
 FACTS OF THE CASE

The respondent did not deny the preparation of Exhibit A, but

argued that he had the idea that seven years separation of
husband and wife would entitle either of them to contract a
second marriage and for that reason prepared Exhibit A.

But immediately after the execution of said document, he realized

that he had made a mistake and for that reason immediately
sent for the contracting parties who, on June 30, 1939, came to
his office and signed the deed of cancellation of the Exhibit A.
 ISSUE

Whether or not Atty. Santiago should be sanctioned on

the ground that he committed malpractice when he
initiated the separation of the spouses through a
document or contract?
 RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT

Yes, the Supreme Court found Atty. Santiago guilty of

malpractice and was suspended from the practice
of law for one (1) year.

The admission of a lawyer to the practice of law is upon the

implied condition that his continued enjoyment of the
privilege conferred is dependent upon his remaining a
fit and safe person to society. When it appears that he, by
recklessness or sheer ignorance of the law, is unfit or unsafe
to be entrusted with the responsibilities and obligations of a
lawyer, his right to continue in the enjoyment of this
professional privilege should be declared terminated.
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT

Here, the Supreme Court said that the respondent was

either ignorant of the applicable provision of the law
or carelessly negligent in giving the complainant legal
advice. The acts of Atty. Santiago as a notary public were
contrary to law, moral, and tended to subvert the vital
foundation of the family.
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT

Given that the advice, preparation, and acknowledgment

of the document executed by Atty. Santiago as regards the
separation of spouses Ernesto and Soledad were contrary
to law and morality, the same constitutes malpractice
which justifies his suspension from the practice of
law for a year.