A.C. No. 932 » June 21,1940 le Tn ve: ATTY. ROQUE SANTIAGO, respondeut Office of the Soliciter-Cemeral Oractar , Petitimer-cemplaln aut EN “gd CASE + al This ts om admidcrative case inifiakd upm eouplaint of the Selitity - General. ayainct the respmdent Roque Samingo, Ohang ing the latter wit malprocher dnd prying that l’suujetinany action be Yakew agasnst bln - AGS cit aa # gece) Emesto Bamiquit, who was living shew separately frow Wis wife Soledad Colares for some wine Comcecutive yeare and who was beat ow Controveting a stem mauniage, sought the legal advice of the Hespondeut, who was at the time a fornobcrng amd notary public th the Province — of Ocerdetal Negros: The respondeut, after heaning Bawiguits side of the case, assured the latter that he could seeure a “separation frm his wwlfe and many again, and asked line Ye bring Mis wife om the oC af the same day. Ths was done amd, respmdtut right thew avd ‘there prepared. awd exceed toe deeument (Exhibit A) stoting that the tontmekng parties ho are. husband ond wl ,outhavi each other te marry agoar amd walving whatever right of athion me wmight hae against the party to ing: He assured the parties that the olecument is valid anc that ane now single There i's alto ewidence tat the respon dent tried 40 wlleet for this corvie the Sum of P50, butlet in the resolution of the preseud. cate: i The respondent did not deny the prepayaron ss Exibit A, he believed thal a Seven yeaw separation of husband cmd wife wold tntife them to Curbmet a wees marriage: Taran dicctely , apler Joe exeeuchion df. the sath deenmek he realized Yrat he had made a wistake j,amel cancelled the Exhibit A There is no dowbt thar the coctrnet Exhibit A was exeewted upon te aduice ce recpondeut and prepared lay lun asa lamrgey Dard. i ae public cmrteuy to anh tends + subverl the vital foundation of ae Tha aduyesion of & lawmyor fo tee practic of lam i upon the lnaplied condition that bis Cowhucd enjoyment of the privelege conferred Is dependeut upon b's remaining a fet od Sak person to Society. when cyppens That her by recklessness or sheer Ignorance of the lawy /s waft or vnsafe to be evtuskd with the nespousibLities and coligations of a lawyers Mis night to Conhiae in the enjeyment of luc professional privelege should be declared Terminated: Ty the present case, responded war otro gees of the applicable provision of Hoe lam ov carelessly negligent the ging the tomplorrant begat advice. Some rrembort of “He — oourt opined fry lc di bar mend ~The rwatjenty however, Omsirdevs Ye fact that the recpoadeut endeagourcd fo coreet it ley cancelling the agreement The respmcleut Rogue Saahago is frund. mes oe _lmelprontic. ond ic horehu suspended tow tao