IN RE: ATTY.

ROQUE SANTIAGO
A.C. No. 932 June 21, 1940 Laurel, J.
VII-4 Not Subject to Stipulation - NCC 221 Created by: Moairah Larita
Petitioners Respondents
Solicitor General Ozaeta Roque Santiago
Recit Ready Summary
Ernesto Baniquit, who was living then separately from his wife Soledad Colares for 9 years, sought the legal advice of the
respondent for a possible second marriage. Respondent instructed Baniquit to bring his wife on the same day and prepared
the document which waives whatever right of action the couple have against the party marrying. Baniquit then asked, "Would
there be no trouble?" The respondent points to his diploma and said: "I would tear that off if this document turns out not to be
valid." Hence, Baniquit contracted a second marriage. Respondent realized that he had made a mistake for the timeline of the
separation of husband and wife, and for that reason, he immediately sent for the contracting parties to sign the deed of
cancellation of the document.

The court suspended the respondent for one year since respondent’s advice and preparation of document as a notary public is
contrary to law, moral, and tends to subvert the vital foundation of the family. It constitutes malpractice which justifies
disbarment from the practice of law. Respondent was either ignorant of the applicable provision of the law or carelessly
negligent in giving the complainant legal advice. However, respondent was only suspended because of the fact that upon
immediately discovering his mistakes, he endeavored to correct it by making the parties sign another document cancelling the
previous one

Facts of the Case

1. Ernesto Baniquit, who was living then separately from his wife Soledad Colares for 9 years, sought the legal advice of
the respondent for a possible second marriage.
2. Respondent assured that Baniquit could secure a separation with his wife and remarry again. Respondent instructed
Baniquit to bring his wife on the same day and prepared the document which waives whatever right of action the
couple have against the party marrying.
3. Baniquit then asked, "Would there be no trouble?" The respondent points to his diploma and said: "I would tear that
off if this document turns out not to be valid."
4. Hence, Baniquit contracted a second marriage.
5. Respondent realized that he had made a mistake for the timeline of the separation of husband and wife, and for that
reason, he immediately sent for the contracting parties to sign the deed of cancellation of the document.

Issues
1. WON the respondent committed malpractice in dispensing such advice and preparation of such document.

Ruling:
1. Yes. The advice given by the respondent and his preparation and acknowledgment by of the contract constitute
malpractice which justifies disbarment from the practice of law.

Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
1. Santiago was ignorant of the applicable provision of the law or carelessly negligent in giving legal advice. The
admission to the practice of law dependent on a lawyer’s remaining as a fit-and-safe person to society. Once he
becomes unsafe or unfit to be entrusted with obligations, his professional privilege should be terminated.

Disposition
1. Respondent was suspended from practice of law for one year (Instead of being disbar, he was only suspended
because of the fact that immediately after discovering his mistakes, respondent endeavored to correct it by making
the parties sign another document cancelling the previous one.)