September 1935 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1935 > September 1935 Decisions >
Per Rec. No. L-2555 September 3, 1935 - LEONARDO S. BITON v. ANDRES MOMONGAN
062 Phil 7:
062 Phil 7:
EN BANC
[Per Rec. No. L-2555. September 3, 1935.]
LEONARDO S. BITON, Petitioner, v. ANDRES MOMONGAN, Respondent.
The respondent in his own behalf.
Solicitor-General Hilado for the Government.
SYLLABUS
ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW; MALPRACTICE. — The act of ratifying a contract the covenants of which are contrary to law, morals, and good customs, and tend to subvert the vital foundation of the legitimate family, executed by a notary public who is at the same time a practicing attorney, constitutes malpractice, and this court, as disciplinary measure, may impose even disbarment. (Pañganiban v. Borromeo, 58 Phil., 367.)
D E C I S I O N
IMPERIAL, J.:
This administrative case originated from the complaint for malpractice filed against the respondent attorney. The latter was a legal practitioner and at the same time a notary public in the City of Cebu, Province of Cebu. On October 26, 1927, he ratified, as notary public, a document entitled "Legal Separation", executed by the spouses Leonardo Biton and Fortunata Quijano, as husband and wife, wherein it was agreed that they separated mutually and voluntarily, that they renounced their rights and obligations, and that they authorized each other to remarry, renouncing any action to which they might be entitled and each promising not to be a witness against the other.
The respondent admits that he ratified the document without reading its contents, but that he was not the one who prepared it. The complainant testified that the respondent prepared the document and that it was drawn up to conform with the respondent’s legal advice to him and his wife. The latter asserts that it was her husband who had prepared the document. In the face of this evidence, we are of the opinion that it is preponderantly in favor of the respondent’s claim that he did not draft the document.
It seems evident that the respondent ratified the document with knowledge of its contents. It is unbelievable that he had merely asked the parties to the document if they acknowledged its contents without he himself being familiar therewith. The word "pleases" appearing on the second line of the second paragraph has the respondent’s initials stamped over it. The latter admitted his initials and the authorship of the amendment. This admission necessarily implies knowledge of the contents of the document, for otherwise it would not have been possible for the respondent to make the amendment.The contract acknowledged by the respondent is indubitably illegal and immoral. Its covenants are contrary to law, morals, and good customs, and tend to subvert the vital foundation of the legitimate family. The ratification of a contract of this type, executed by a notary public who is a practicing attorney at the same time, constitutes malpractice, and as a disciplinary measure, this court may impose even disbarment. (Pañganiban v. Borromeo, 58 Phil., 367).
In imposing the punishment, there should be taken into account the recommendation for leniency made by the judge who conducted the investigation, and the circumstance that the respondent has been undoubtedly suspended from the office of notary public to which he will not be reappointed for an indefinite period; wherefore, we hold the respondent Andres Momongan guilty of malpractice, and he is hereby severely censured. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, Butte, Goddard, and Recto, JJ., concur.
The respondent admits that he ratified the document without reading its contents, but that he was not the one who prepared it. The complainant testified that the respondent prepared the document and that it was drawn up to conform with the respondent’s legal advice to him and his wife. The latter asserts that it was her husband who had prepared the document. In the face of this evidence, we are of the opinion that it is preponderantly in favor of the respondent’s claim that he did not draft the document.
It seems evident that the respondent ratified the document with knowledge of its contents. It is unbelievable that he had merely asked the parties to the document if they acknowledged its contents without he himself being familiar therewith. The word "pleases" appearing on the second line of the second paragraph has the respondent’s initials stamped over it. The latter admitted his initials and the authorship of the amendment. This admission necessarily implies knowledge of the contents of the document, for otherwise it would not have been possible for the respondent to make the amendment.The contract acknowledged by the respondent is indubitably illegal and immoral. Its covenants are contrary to law, morals, and good customs, and tend to subvert the vital foundation of the legitimate family. The ratification of a contract of this type, executed by a notary public who is a practicing attorney at the same time, constitutes malpractice, and as a disciplinary measure, this court may impose even disbarment. (Pañganiban v. Borromeo, 58 Phil., 367).
In imposing the punishment, there should be taken into account the recommendation for leniency made by the judge who conducted the investigation, and the circumstance that the respondent has been undoubtedly suspended from the office of notary public to which he will not be reappointed for an indefinite period; wherefore, we hold the respondent Andres Momongan guilty of malpractice, and he is hereby severely censured. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, Butte, Goddard, and Recto, JJ., concur.
