G.R. No. 135022 - People vs. Dela Cruz

On November 25, 1931, Alejandro Pabro and Juana Mappala, husband and wife, executed a contract before Elias Borromeo, who was acting in his capacity as both a notary public and a member of the Philippine Bar.
The document was prepared by the municipal secretary of Naguilian, Isabela, and was received by the respondent for legalization.

The contract provided for an agreement between the spouses whereby the husband was permitted to take a concubine and the wife was allowed to engage in an extramarital relationship with another man, with mutual consent.
Although the contract was executed under the current laws of the time—originally under the Spanish Penal Code as altered by Act No. 1773 and later subject to the Revised Penal Code—the provisions within the contract were controversial.
The critical point was that, even though the Revised Penal Code provided that consent by the offended party might bar prosecution for adultery or concubinage, the contract was seen as attempting to legalize acts that were inherently immoral and illicit.

As a notary public, the respondent admitted to having legalized the document in question, being aware that it contained provisions which were contrary to law, morals, and public order.
In his defense, he claimed that he had no previous knowledge of the document’s illegal character and that any failure to grasp its full purport might have been due to a dialectal difference, suggesting possible limitations in fully understanding the document’s contents.
His dual capacity as both a lawyer and a notary public imposed on him a higher level of responsibility to verify and be informed about the contents of the document he was certifying.

The case was brought before the court on the representation by the Solicitor-General, prompting inquiry into professional malpractice and the correctness of certifying a document with immoral and questionable legal provisions.
The key issue was whether the contract, though executed with consent and under prevailing legal frameworks, effectively attempted to legalize conduct (i.e., adultery and concubinage) that should remain criminal and contrary to public morals.
The proceedings were an inquiry not only into the contract’s legality but also into whether disciplinary action against the respondent, as a member of the bar acting in the capacity of notary public, was warranted.

Whether the contract executed between Alejandro Pabro and Juana Mappala sanctioned an illicit and immoral purpose by attempting to legalize adultery and concubinage.
Whether, notwithstanding the provision in the Revised Penal Code that exempts prosecution when the offended party consents, the contract should be deemed contrary to law, morals, and public order in light of the inherent criminality of the acts involved.

Whether a lawyer, when acting as a notary public, may be subject to disciplinary measures for professional misconduct if he participates in the legalization of a document that contains provisions discrediting the law and public morals.
The extent of the lawyer’s responsibility for ensuring that the document’s contents are legal, proper, and not against the public interest, particularly in his dual role as both lawyer and notary.