Facts:

The case involves a disbarment complaint filed by the Solicitor General against Celestino M. de Leon and Justo T. Velayo, both licensed lawyers. The complaint alleges that De Leon, who was still legally married to Vertudes Marquez, cohabited with Regina S. Balinon since December 1948 and prepared an affidavit on February 4, 1949, before Velayo, a notary public. The affidavit indicated that De Leon and Marquez had a contract of separation that allowed each to take life partners with mutual consent, effectively declaring his union with Balinon as equivalent to marriage. Despite De Leon’s acknowledgment of these actions, he argued that the affidavit was merely an innocent declaration and not an agreement, contending that he had not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. Velayo, on the other hand, maintained that his involvement was merely for notarization without knowledge of the document's contents.

Before the court, De Leon admitted to cohabitation and prepari

...

Facts:

Background and Allegations

• The Solicitor General filed a complaint against respondent Celestino M. de Leon and respondent Justo T. Velayo, both duly qualified lawyers in active practice.
• It was alleged that since December 1948, respondent De Leon, while still legally married to Vertudes Marquez, cohabited with Regina S. Balinon as his live-in partner.
• The complaint centered on an affidavit executed by respondent De Leon on February 4, 1949, in the presence of respondent Velayo as notary public, which purportedly set forth a contract of separation with provisions for a new companionship.

Contents and Implications of the Affidavit

• The affidavit declared that a contract of separation had been entered into between De Leon and his wife, Vertudes Marquez, including:
• The dissolution of the conjugal partnership and division of conjugal property rights and interests.
• An arrangement granting Vertudes custodial control of the children and outlining alimony and support provisions.
• A provision authorizing respondent De Leon to consider Regina S. Balinon as his “true and lawful wife” as part of his newly claimed life-partnership.
• The document contained detailed declarations regarding:
• His commitment to protect Balinon's rights, honor, and dignity.
• His vow to remain loyal and faithful to Balinon as her devoted husband.
• Provisions outlining that any property or rights acquired during the relationship would belong exclusively to Regina S. Balinon.
• The affidavit was presented as a unilateral declaration of facts but was seen to have the practical effect of endorsing an arrangement that could enable him to commit the crime of concubinage.

Conduct of the Respondents

• Respondent Celestino M. de Leon admitted to:
• His continuous cohabitation with Regina S. Balinon during his subsisting marriage.
• His preparation and execution of the controversial affidavit.
• His defense argued that:
• Although the affidavit might be illicit, it was merely an innocent unilateral declaration of facts, not a contractual agreement.
• He had not been finally convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude.
• Respondent Justo T. Velayo contended that:
• His role was confined to notarizing the affidavit as a matter of courtesy without scrutinizing its contents.
• No consideration was received, and he relied on the good faith of his co-respondent in signing the document.

Context and Prior Jurisprudence

• The court referenced a previous case that imposed suspension on an attorney for preparing a document with similar implications, namely In re Roque Santiago, where a document allowed contracting parties to effectively authorize remarriage.
• The court further pointed out that the actions of respondent De Leon, by utilizing his legal knowledge to create an affidavit that virtually permitted him to have a permanent extramarital relationship, demonstrated abuse of his professional skills.
• The discussion extended to the role of a notary public, highlighting that while his duty is to verify identity and voluntariness, there is also an imperative to avoid participation in any illegal or immoral arrangement.

Issue:

• Whether the preparation and execution of the affidavit by respondent De Leon, which ostensibly allowed him to take a lifetime partner while still subsisting in an existing marriage, constituted grounds for professional misconduct warranting suspension or disbarment.
• Whether respondent De Leon's act of preparing a document that implicitly enabled the commission of concubinage, despite his argument that it was a unilateral declaration of facts, was still legally and ethically reprehensible.
• Whether respondent Velayo’s participation merely as a notary public, by affixing his signature to the disputed document, absolved him from liability or if his negligence in verifying the legality and moral propriety of the affidavit also merited disciplinary sanction.
• Whether the conduct of both respondents falls within the ambit of disbarment or suspension under existing legal and ethical standards, even if a specific law directly condemning the act was not pinpointed.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)