- The respondent lawyer advised a client that he could get a separation from his wife after 7 years of separation so he could marry again, and helped the client and his wife sign a document to that effect.
- However, the advice and document were contrary to law as 7 years separation does not enable one to remarry.
- Though the respondent claimed mistake and had the parties cancel the first document, his actions constituted malpractice.
- The court found the respondent guilty of malpractice and suspended him from practicing law for 1 year.
- The respondent lawyer advised a client that he could get a separation from his wife after 7 years of separation so he could marry again, and helped the client and his wife sign a document to that effect.
- However, the advice and document were contrary to law as 7 years separation does not enable one to remarry.
- Though the respondent claimed mistake and had the parties cancel the first document, his actions constituted malpractice.
- The court found the respondent guilty of malpractice and suspended him from practicing law for 1 year.
- The respondent lawyer advised a client that he could get a separation from his wife after 7 years of separation so he could marry again, and helped the client and his wife sign a document to that effect.
- However, the advice and document were contrary to law as 7 years separation does not enable one to remarry.
- Though the respondent claimed mistake and had the parties cancel the first document, his actions constituted malpractice.
- The court found the respondent guilty of malpractice and suspended him from practicing law for 1 year.
Republic of the Philippines paid or, as contended by the respondent, the service were rendered free
SUPREME COURT of charge.
Manila The respondent did not deny the preparation of Exhibit A, put up the EN BANC defense 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 A.C. No. 932 June 21, 1940 that reason prepared Exhibit A, but immediately after the execution of said document he realized that he had made a mistake and for that In re ATTY. ROQUE SANTIAGO, respondent, reason immediately sent for the contracting parties who, on June 30, 1939, came to his office and signed the deed of cancellation Exhibit A. Office of the Solicitor-General Ozaeta as petitioner-complainant. There is no doubt that the contract Exhibit A executed by and between the spouses Ernesto Baniquit and Soledad Colares upon the advice of LAUREL, J.: the respondent and prepared by the latter as a lawyer and acknowledged by him as a notary public is contrary to law, moral, and tends to subvert This is an administrative case initiated upon complaint of the Solicitor- the vital foundation of the family. The advice given by the respondent, the General against the respondent Roque Santiago, charging the latter with preparation and acknowledgment by him of the contract constitute malpractice and praying that disciplinary action be taken against him. malpractice which justifies disbarment from the practice of law. The admission of a lawyer to the practice of law is upon the implied condition It appears that one Ernesto Baniquit, who was living then separately from that his continued enjoyment of the privilege conferred is dependent upon his wife Soledad Colares for some nine consecutive years and who was his remaining a fit and safe person to society. When it appears that he, by bent on contracting a second marriage, sought the legal advice of the recklessness or sheer ignorance of the law, is unfit or unsafe to be respondent, who was at the time a practicing and notary public in the entrusted with the responsibilities and obligations of a lawyer, his right to Province of Occidental Negros. The respondent, after hearing Baniquit's continue in the enjoyment of this professional privilege should be side of the case, assured the latter that he could secure a separation declared terminated. In the present case, respondent was either ignorant from his wife and marry again, and asked him to bring his wife on the of the applicable provision of the law or carelessly negligent in giving the afternoon of the same day, May 29, 1939. This was done and the complainant legal advice. Drastic action should lead to his disbarment respondent right then and there prepared the document Exhibit A in and this is the opinion of some members of the court. The majority, which it was stipulated, among other things, that the contracting parties, however, have inclined to follow the recommendation of the investigator, who are husband and wife authorized each other to marry again, at the the Honorable Sotero Rodas, in view of the circumstances stated in the same time renouncing or waiving whatever right of action one might have report of said investigator and the fact that immediately after discovering against the party so marrying. After the execution and acknowledgment his mistakes, respondent endeavored to correct it by making the parties of Exhibit A by the parties, the respondent asked the spouses to shake sign another document cancelling the previous one. hands and assured them that they were single and as such could contract another and subsequent marriage. Baniquit then remarked, The respondent Roque Santiago is found guilty of malpractice and is "Would there be no trouble?" Upon hearing it the respondent stood up hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year. So and, pointing to his diploma hanging on the wall, said: "I would tear that ordered. off if this document turns out not to be valid." Relying on the validity of Exhibit A, Ernesto Baniquit, on June 11, 1939, contracted a second Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, Concepcion and Moran, JJ., concur. marriage with Trinidad Aurelio. There is also evidence to show that the respondent tried to collect for this service the sum of P50, but as the evidence on this point is not clear and the same is not material in the resolution of the present case, we do not find it necessary to make any express finding as to whether the full amount or any portion thereof was
Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Opinions of the Judges Thereof, in the Case of Dred Scott versus John F.A. Sandford
December Term, 1856.