0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
73 просмотров2 страницы
1. Attorney Roque Santiago advised Ernesto Baniquit that he could secure a separation from his wife Soledad Colares and marry again after only 7 years of separation, when in fact 9 consecutive years of separation is required by law. 2. Santiago then prepared and had Baniquit and Colares sign a document allowing each other to remarry, which was invalid and contrary to law. 3. Baniquit then remarried in reliance on the invalid document. 4. Santiago is found guilty of malpractice and suspended from practicing law for 1 year for preparing the invalid document and providing incorrect legal advice, though the penalty was lessened because he tried to correct his mistake.
1. Attorney Roque Santiago advised Ernesto Baniquit that he could secure a separation from his wife Soledad Colares and marry again after only 7 years of separation, when in fact 9 consecutive years of separation is required by law. 2. Santiago then prepared and had Baniquit and Colares sign a document allowing each other to remarry, which was invalid and contrary to law. 3. Baniquit then remarried in reliance on the invalid document. 4. Santiago is found guilty of malpractice and suspended from practicing law for 1 year for preparing the invalid document and providing incorrect legal advice, though the penalty was lessened because he tried to correct his mistake.
1. Attorney Roque Santiago advised Ernesto Baniquit that he could secure a separation from his wife Soledad Colares and marry again after only 7 years of separation, when in fact 9 consecutive years of separation is required by law. 2. Santiago then prepared and had Baniquit and Colares sign a document allowing each other to remarry, which was invalid and contrary to law. 3. Baniquit then remarried in reliance on the invalid document. 4. Santiago is found guilty of malpractice and suspended from practicing law for 1 year for preparing the invalid document and providing incorrect legal advice, though the penalty was lessened because he tried to correct his mistake.
Office of the Solicitor- General Ozaeta as petitioner-complainant.
Facts contended that the service was free of
charge. On this point the evidence is not Ernesto Baniquit, who was living separately material for this case, finding it unnecessary from his wife, Soledad Colares, for nine to discover whether the payment was made consecutive years. He was bent on in full or any portion paid. contracting a second marriage and eventually sought legal advice from the Although he did not deny the preparation of respondent, Atty. Roque Santiago, who was Exihibit A, he put up the defense that he had at the time practicing and notary public in the the idea that seven years of separation of Province of Negros Occidental. The spouses would entitle either of them to respondent after hearing Baniquit’s side of contract a second marriage. Eventually he the case, assured the latter that he could realized he made a mistake and immediately secure a separation from his wife and marry making both parties to sign the deed of again, he asked him to bring his wife on the cancellation of Exhibit A. afternoon of the same day, May 29, 1939. The respondent then prepared the Issue: Whether the contract made by Atty. document Exibition A in which was Santiago valid. stipulated, among other things, that the contracting parties, who are husband and Decision: The respondent Roque Santiago is wife authorized each other to marry again, at found guilty of malpractice and is hereby the same time renouncing or waiving suspended from the practice of law for a whatever right of action one might have period of one year. So ordered. against the party so marrying. Rationale: There is no doubt that the Baniquit ask if there would there be no contract prepared by Atty. Santiago is trouble, the respondent stood up and, contrary to law, moral, and tends to subvert pointing to his diploma hanging on the wall, the vital foundation of the family. The advice said: “I would tear that off if this document given by the respondent to the spouses turns out not to be valid. Relying on the Ernesto Baniquit and Soledad Colares, the validity of the document Exhibition A, preparation and acknowledge by him of the Ernesto Baniquit, on June 11, 1939, contract would constitute malpractice which contracted a second marriage with Trinidad justifies disbarment from the practice of law. Aurelio. Some members of the court believe that There is also evidence to show that results of his drastic action should be respondent tried to collect for this service the penalized disbarment. While majority of the sum of P50.00, the respondent then members of the court inclined to follow the recommendation of the investigator, the Honorable Sotero Rodas. In his report, stating that the fact that immediately after discovering his mistakes, respondent endeavored to correct it by making the spouses sign another document cancelling the previous one.