SUMMARY: A couple sought a lawyer’s service to dissolve their marriage. Instead of undergoing the correct process, the lawyer merely notarized a void document entitled “Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay” and convinced her clients of its validity.
FACTS: Espinosa and his wife Marantal sought Omaña’s legal advice regarding the dissolution of their marriage. Omaña then prepared a document entitled “Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay”. Marantal and Espinosa, fully convinced of the validity of the contract dissolving their marriage, started implementing its terms and conditions. However, Marantal eventually took custody of all their children and took possession of most of the property they acquired during their union. Espinosa sought the advice of his fellow employee, Glindo, a law graduate, who informed him that the contract executed by Omaña was not valid. Complainants then filed a complaint against Omaña for violation of her oath as a lawyer, malpractice, and gross misconduct in office. Atty. Omaña alleged that her part-time office staff forged her signature and was the one who notarized the contract.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Omaña violated the CPR by notarizing Marantal and Espinosa’s “Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay.”
DECISION: Yes. Atty. Omaña is SUSPENDED from practice of law for 1 year, her notarial commission is revoked, and SUSPENDED as a notary public for 2 years.
Firstly, the Court held that a notary public should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging the separation of the spouses and extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal partnership, which is exactly what Omaña did in this case. Extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial approval is void.
Secondly, the Court cannot accept Omaña’s allegation that it was her part-time office staff who notarized the contract. And even if it were true that it was her part-time staff who notarized the contract, it only showed Omaña’s negligence in doing her notarial duties. The Court reiterated that a notary public is personally responsible for the entries in his notarial register and he could not relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the blame on his secretaries or any member of his staff.
In preparing and notarizing a void document, Omaña also violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of CPR which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
Read the full case here.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.