You are on page 1of 1

Espinosa and Glindo vs. Omaa Nature: Compalint for disbarment filed by Rodolfo A.

Espinosa and MAximo Glindo against ATty. Julieta A. Omaa Facts: 1. Complainants charged Omaa with violation of her oath as a lawyer, malpractice, and gross misconduct in office. 2. They alleged that Espinosa and his wife Elena Marantal sought the respondents advice on whether they could legally live separately and dissolve their marriage solemnized on 23 July 1983. Omaa prepared a document entitled Kasunduan ng Paghihiwalay. 3. Complainants fully convinced of the validity of the contract dissolving their marriage, started implementing its terms and condition. 4. When Marantal eventually took custody of all their children and took most of the property, Espinosa sough the advice of Glindo, a law graduate and learned that the contract was not valid. 5. They filed a complaint for disbarment against Omaa before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. 6. Omaa denied preparing the contract but admitted that she was requested to notarized the contract and she also told that it was illegal. However, Espinosa returned the next day while she was out of the office and managed to persuade her part-time office staff to notarized the document. Her staff forged her signature and notarized the contract. 7. She also presented the letter of apology from her staff. Espinosa desisted from the complaint. 8. IBP recommended one year suspension from the practice of law and two years as notary public. Issue: 1. Whether Omaa violated the Canon of Professional Responsibility in the notarization of Marantal and Espinosas Kasunduan ng Paghihiwalay? Ruling: 1. Yes. The Court has ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial approval is void. he Court has also ruled that 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 Omaa did in this case.