IN RE: Santiago

Facts:

In Re Atty. Roque Santiago, Adm. Case No. 923, June 21, 1940, the Supreme Court, Laurel, J., writing for the Court (with Avancena, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concurring). This administrative proceeding was instituted on the complaint of the Solicitor‑General against Roque Santiago, then a practicing attorney and notary public in the Province of Occidental Negros, charging him with malpractice and seeking disciplinary action.

The complaint arose from events beginning May 29, 1939, when Ernesto Baniquit, who had been living separately from his wife Soledad Colares for about nine years and sought to contract a second marriage, consulted respondent Roque Santiago for legal advice. After hearing Baniquit’s account, Santiago prepared and had the spouses execute a document marked Exhibit A that purported to stipulate, among other things, that the husband and wife authorized each other to marry again and waived whatever right of action might arise from such a later marriage. Santiago acknowledged Exhibit A in his capacity as notary public and orally assured the parties that they were “again single” and free to remarry; he even indicated confidence by pointing to his diploma and saying he would tear it off if the document proved invalid.

Relying on Exhibit A, Ernesto Baniquit on June 11, 1939 contracted a second marriage with Trinidad Aurelio. There is some testimony that Santiago attempted to collect P50 for his services, though the record on payment is unclear and the Court deemed it immaterial. The respondent admitted preparing Exhibit A but defended on the ground that he believed a seven‑year separation entitled either spouse to remarry; he further asserted that upon realizing his mistake he promptly summoned the parties and had them execute a cancellation, Exhibit C, on June 30, 1939.

An investigation was conducted (report by Investigator Hon. Sotero Rodas), and the Solicitor‑General pursued disciplinary proceedings befor...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Did respondent Roque Santiago commit malpractice by advising the spouses, preparing and acknowledging Exhibit A, and thereby facilitating a purported second marriage?

• If respondent is guilty of malpractice, what disciplinary sanction is appropriate: disbar...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)