Title
Panganiban vs. Borromeo
Case
Decision Date
Sep 9, 1933
A lawyer-notary public notarized an immoral contract permitting adultery and concubinage, claiming ignorance due to a language barrier. The Court ruled the contract void, emphasizing lawyers' duty to uphold law and morals, but mitigated discipline due to lack of intent.

Relevant Facts

On November 25, 1931, Alejandro Pabro and Juana Mappala signed a contract before notary public Elias Borromeo, who was a member of the Philippine Bar. The contract had been prepared by the municipal secretary of Naguilian, Isabela. It allowed Pabro to take a concubine and permitted Mappala to engage in an adulterous relationship with another man, without opposition from one another. Borromeo acknowledged that he authenticated the document and admitted that it contained provisions contrary to law, morals, and good customs, although he claimed lack of knowledge regarding its illicit character due to potential misunderstandings arising from linguistic differences.

Legal Issues Presented

The case raises two pivotal legal questions: first, whether the contract endorsed immoral and illicit purposes; and second, whether a lawyer can face disciplinary measures for misconduct in his duties as a notary public, specifically related to the execution of such a contract.

Admissibility of the Contract

The court assessed whether the contract sanctioned an immoral arrangement, ultimately determining that it did, which contravened established legal, moral, and public order standards. Although the application of the Revised Penal Code provides that consent or pardon from the offended party can serve as a bar to prosecution for adultery or concubinage, the court noted that this does not imply the legislature’s intent to legitimize such acts. The contract, therefore, was deemed not judicially recognizable, as legalizing such arrangements would disregard fundamental moral tenets.

Disciplinary Authority of the Court

The court reaffirmed its jurisdiction to discipline attorneys for misconduct, emphasizing that a notary public holds responsibilities that require due diligence and integrity. Given that a notary public is often a member of the bar, they have an obligation to ensure their certifications are lawful and ethical. The court highlighted that any

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.