Espinosa and Glindo vs. Omaña

A lawyer who prepares and notarizes a void document that extrajudicially dissolves a marriage and the conjugal partnership, without judicial approval, engages in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law and revocation or suspension of notarial commission.

Rodolfo A. Espinosa and his wife Elena Marantal were married on 23 July 1983. Maximo A. Glindo was Espinosa's fellow employee and a law graduate. Atty. Julieta A. Omaña was a notary public with an office in Gumaca, Quezon, holding PTR No. 3728169 issued on 10 January 1997. The dispute arose from the ethical obligations of lawyers acting as notaries public, specifically the prohibition against facilitating the extrajudicial dissolution of marriage and the conjugal partnership through the preparation and notarization of separation agreements.

On 17 November 1997, Rodolfo Espinosa and his wife Elena Marantal sought legal advice from Atty. Julieta A. Omaña on whether they could legally live separately and dissolve their marriage, which had been solemnized on 23 July 1983. Omaña then prepared a document entitled "Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay," a separation agreement in Filipino, which provided that the spouses would separate and live their own lives, that each could find another partner, that their three children — Ariel John (14), Aiza (11), and Aldrin (10) — would choose which parent to live with, that the father would give monthly support for Aldrin, that household appliances would be given to the wife, and that all future properties would be separately owned and no longer conjugal. The document was signed by both spouses and notarized by Omaña as Notary Public, bearing Doc. No. 482, Page No. 97, Book No. XI, Series of 1997.

Fully convinced of the validity of the contract dissolving their marriage, Espinosa and Marantal began implementing its terms and conditions. However, Marantal eventually took custody of all their children and possessed most of the property acquired during their union. Espinosa sought the advice of his fellow employee, Maximo Glindo, a law graduate, who informed him that the contract executed by Omaña was not valid. Espinosa and Glindo then hired a lawyer and filed a complaint against Omaña before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), charging her with violation of her oath as a lawyer, malpractice, and gross misconduct in office.

Omaña denied preparing the contract. She admitted that Espinosa went to see her and requested notarization of the contract, but claimed she told him it was illegal. She alleged that Espinosa returned the next day while she was out of the office and persuaded her part-time office staff to notarize the document, and that the staff forged her signature. Omaña presented Marantal's affidavit supporting her version and a letter of apology from her staff, Arlene Dela Peña, acknowledging that she notarized the document without Omaña's knowledge, consent, and authority. Espinosa later submitted a supplemental affidavit stating that Omaña arrived at his residence together with a girl whom he recognized as the person who notarized the contract, and that Omaña was not in her office when the notarization occurred.

The IBP-CBD found Omaña's defense inconsistent — she first claimed it was her part-time staff who notarized the contract, then later claimed it was her former maid. The IBP-CBD concluded that Omaña herself signed the questioned document yet disclaimed its authorship, revealing a propensity to lie and deceive, and recommended suspension for one year from the practice of law and two years as notary public. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation on 19 September 2007 and denied Omaña's motion for reconsideration on 26 June 2011.

• Violation of Professional Ethics: Complainants Espinosa and Glindo charged Omaña with violation of her oath as a lawyer, malpractice, and gross misconduct in office for preparing and notarizing the "Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay," which led the spouses to believe their marriage was validly dissolved.
• Invalidity of the Contract: Complainants maintained that the contract was not valid, as Glindo, a law graduate, informed Espinosa that the document executed by Omaña had no legal effect, prompting the filing of the disbarment complaint.

• Denial of Authorship: Omaña denied preparing the contract, claiming Espinosa only requested notarization, which she refused on the ground that it was illegal.
• Staff Notarization Without Knowledge: Omaña alleged that Espinosa returned the next day while she was out of the office and persuaded her part-time office staff to notarize the document, and that the staff forged her signature without her knowledge, consent, or authority. She presented a letter of apology from staff member Arlene Dela Peña to support this claim.
• Complaint Instigated by Glindo: Omaña presented Marantal's affidavit to support her version of events and to show that the complaint was instigated by Glindo, whom she personally knew, while she did not personally know Espinosa.

• Notarial Misconduct and Ethical Violation: Whether Omaña violated the Code of Professional Responsibility in the notarization of Marantal and Espinosa's "Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay."

• Notarial Misconduct and Ethical Violation: Yes. Omaña violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by preparing and notarizing a void document that extrajudicially dissolved a marriage and the conjugal partnership, constituting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

• Notarial Misconduct and Ethical Violation: The extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial approval is void, as the Court has consistently ruled. A notary public should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging the separation of spouses and extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal partnership — which is exactly what Omaña did. The Court rejected Omaña's defense that her part-time staff notarized the contract without her knowledge, agreeing with the IBP-CBD that Omaña herself notarized it. Even assuming arguendo that her staff did the notarization, this only demonstrated Omaña's negligence in performing her notarial duties, because a notary public is personally responsible for the entries in the notarial register and cannot relieve himself or herself of that responsibility by blaming secretaries or staff members. The IBP-CBD also noted the inconsistencies in Omaña's defense — she first claimed it was her part-time staff, then later claimed it was her former maid — undermining her credibility. Because Omaña knew fully well that the "Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay" had no legal effect and was against public policy, preparing and notarizing it constituted unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law and revocation of her notarial commission.

• Voidness of Extrajudicial Dissolution of Marriage and Conjugal Partnership — The extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial approval is void. A notary public should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging the separation of spouses and extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal partnership. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that Omaña's preparation and notarization of the "Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay" constituted unethical conduct, as the document had no legal effect and was against public policy.

• Personal Responsibility of a Notary Public for Notarial Register Entries — A notary public is personally responsible for the entries in his or her notarial register and cannot relieve himself or herself of that responsibility by passing the blame on to secretaries or any member of staff. The Court applied this principle to reject Omaña's defense that her staff notarized the document without her knowledge, holding that even if true, it only showed negligence in the performance of her notarial duties.

• Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Preparing and notarizing a void document that one knows has no legal effect and is against public policy constitutes a breach of this rule, warranting suspension from the practice of law and revocation or suspension of notarial commission.

• "This Court has ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial approval is void." — This passage states the controlling legal principle underlying the disbarment ruling: that separation agreements extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal partnership are void absent judicial approval.

• "A notary public should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging the separation of the spouses and extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal partnership, which is exactly what Omaña did in this case." — This passage articulates the ethical duty of a notary public not to participate in or facilitate the extrajudicial dissolution of marriage, directly linking the doctrine to the facts of the case.

• "We reiterate that a notary public is personally responsible for the entries in his notarial register and he could not relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the blame on his secretaries or any member of his staff." — This is the canonical formulation of the personal responsibility doctrine for notaries public, frequently cited in subsequent notarial misconduct jurisprudence.

• "Omaña knew fully well that the 'Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay' has no legal effect and is against public policy. Therefore, Omaña may be suspended from office as an attorney for breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility." — This passage states the ratio decidendi connecting the voidness of the document, the lawyer's knowledge thereof, and the resulting ethical violation under Rule 1.01, Canon 1.

• Selanova vs. Judge Mendoza, A.M. No. 804-CJ, 159-A Phil. 360 (1975) — Controlling precedent cited for the proposition that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial approval is void. The Court also cited this case for the collection of cases where lawyers were sanctioned for notarizing similar separation documents.

• Albano vs. Mun. Judge Gapusan, A.M. No. 1022-MJ, 162 Phil. 884 (1976) — Followed for the principle that a notary public should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging separation and extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal partnership.

• Panganiban vs. Borromeo, 58 Phil. 367 (1933) — Cited as an example of a case where a lawyer was sanctioned for notarizing a document permitting spouses to take concubines and live with other persons.

• Biton vs. Momongan, 62 Phil. 7 (1935) — Cited as an example where a lawyer was sanctioned for ratifying a "Legal Separation" document authorizing spouses to remarry and renounce rights and obligations.

• In re: Atty. Roque Santiago, 70 Phil. 66 (1940) — Cited as an example where a lawyer was sanctioned for preparing a document authorizing a separated married couple to marry again.

• Balinon vs. De Leon, 94 Phil. 277 (1954) — Cited as an example where a lawyer was sanctioned for preparing a document declaring the conjugal partnership dissolved.

• Lingan vs. Calubaquib and Baliga, 524 Phil. 60 (2006) — Followed for the principle that a notary public is personally responsible for entries in the notarial register and cannot shift blame to secretaries or staff.

• Catu vs. Rellosa, A.C. No. 5738, 19 February 2008, 546 SCRA 209 — Followed for the proposition that a lawyer may be suspended from office for breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." The Court applied this provision to hold Omaña liable for preparing and notarizing a void separation agreement, as she knew the document had no legal effect and was against public policy, thereby constituting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct warranting suspension from the practice of law and revocation of notarial commission.

Justice Arturo D. Brion, Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, and Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1114 dated 3 October 2011).