Facts:

The case "In the Matter of the Disbarment of Eugenio de Lara, Attorney and Counselor at Law", was decided by the Philippine Supreme Court on March 17, 1914. The case arose after a document, executed by Cirilo San Pedro and Petronila Trias before Eugenio de Lara on February 21, 1912, came under scrutiny. This document contained provisions wherein San Pedro promised to marry Trias after the death of his existing wife. It also bound Trias not to engage with another man while single, under an obligation to pay damages of P500 should either party fail to comply with the contract. Concerns about this document's validity were raised by the prosecuting attorney of Manila, Honorable W.H. Bishop, who suggested that the notary public, de Lara, could face disciplinary action for his involvement. The Attorney-General reviewed the situation and recommended de Lara's removal, noting that the notary chief should not support the execution of such documents.

On July 8, 1912, de

...

Facts:

Execution of the Instrument and Notarial Act

• On February 21, 1912, Eugenio de Lara, acting in his capacity as a notary public, executed an instrument before Cirilo San Pedro and Petronila Trias.
• The instrument detailed a contract of espousal wherein Cirilo San Pedro promised to marry Petronila Trias within 30 days following the death of his current wife.
• The instrument also stipulated that Petronila Trias was to remain single and enter into no other marriage contract and that any breach of its provisions would incur damages amounting to P500.
• The document was duly signed by the parties and notarized by De Lara, with his official seal affixed.

Initial Referral and Administrative Notice

• The instrument came into the possession of the prosecuting attorney of Manila, Honorable W. H. Bishop, who noted potential impropriety in the execution of the document.
• In his indorsement, the prosecuting attorney suggested that although the matter might not fall squarely within penal laws, the involvement of a notary public in drafting such an instrument could justify disciplinary action by the Supreme Court under section 82 of Act No. 136.
• The document, along with the prosecuting attorney’s note, was forwarded to the Attorney-General for further consideration.

Summons to Explain and De Lara’s Answer

• On May 6, 1912, Justice E. Finley Johnson issued an order commanding Eugenio de Lara to appear before the Supreme Court on July 8, 1912, to explain his conduct regarding the notarization of the instrument.
• On the stipulated date, De Lara submitted his answer stating that he had merely notarized a document prepared by the parties.
• In his defense, he claimed that he neither drafted nor influenced the wording of the instrument and attributed its composition to his stenographer using his typewriter.

Investigation and Collation of Evidence

• The Attorney-General, upon receiving De Lara’s answer, conducted an investigation to determine if the notary had indeed drafted the instrument himself.
• A typewriter expert, Mr. Edwin C. Bopp, examined the instrument and De Lara’s answer using photographic enlargement techniques.
• Mr. Bopp opined that both documents were produced on the same typewriter and by the same operator, suggesting that De Lara himself had a hand in drafting them.
• Further inquiry involved obtaining affidavits: Regino Talag initially testified that he had drawn the instrument, but subsequent visitation and investigation by Assistant Attorney-General Felicisimo Feria, including a visit to Mr. Campbell’s office, revealed that another witness, Nemesio Agor, denied having any involvement.

Allegations of False Testimony and Additional Charges

• The conflicting affidavits exposed by the investigation led to the conclusion that Regino Talag’s statement was false.
• In light of the discrepancies, the Attorney-General amended the original complaint to include the allegation that De Lara had testified falsely and deliberately submitted false testimony under oath during the investigation.
• The ultimate charge was that De Lara, by assisting in drafting the instrument and later denying his role, had committed misconduct warranting both disbarment and revocation of his appointment as notary public.

Procedures Leading to the Final Disciplinary Action

• The matter, having been investigated thoroughly and presented to the Supreme Court, was then subjected to a hearing where additional testimony and documentary evidence were examined.
• The referral to a court-appointed referee resulted in a comprehensive report that compiled all evidence, with particular emphasis on the typewriter analysis and the false testimony.
• The cumulative findings revealed, without doubt, that De Lara had composed, prepared, and notarized the disputed instrument and had committed perjury by falsely denying his involvement.

Issue:

Whether Eugenio de Lara’s act of drafting the contract, contrary to his sworn declaration that he merely notarized the document, constitutes misconduct warranting his disbarment and removal as a notary public.

• Did the evidence, particularly the typewriter expert’s report, conclusively demonstrate that De Lara himself composed the instrument?
• Was his false testimony under oath sufficient grounds to justify severe disciplinary action?

Whether the commission of perjury and submission of false evidence by a lawyer, which breaches the oath to do “no falsehood in court,” violates the ethical standards and legal requirements set for attorneys and notaries in the Philippine Islands.

• To what extent does the violation of professional ethics, as evidenced by the misconduct, justify removal from the legal profession?

• Whether the investigation’s findings and the subsequent amended complaint provided a sufficient legal basis, under Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the relevant provisions of Act No. 136, to disbar a lawyer and revoke his notarial appointment.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)