Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 162 views

    2 Espinosa Vs Omaña

    Uploaded by

    doraemoan
    1) Attorney Omaña prepared a document called "Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay" that attempted to extrajudicially dissolve the marriage of Rodolfo Espinosa and Elena Marantal, which is illegal. 2) The IBP-CBD found that Omaña failed to exercise due diligence as a notary and comply with legal requirements, recommending a 1-year suspension from law practice and 2 years from notary duties. 3) The Court upheld the IBP's decision, finding that a notary cannot facilitate the illegal dissolution of marriage, and that Omaña was responsible even if she claimed an employee notarized it without consent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    2 Espinosa Vs Omaña

    Uploaded by

    doraemoan
    162 views1 page
    1) Attorney Omaña prepared a document called "Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay" that attempted to extrajudicially dissolve the marriage of Rodolfo Espinosa and Elena Marantal, which is illegal. 2) The IBP-CBD found that Omaña failed to exercise due diligence as a notary and comply with legal requirements, recommending a 1-year suspension from law practice and 2 years from notary duties. 3) The Court upheld the IBP's decision, finding that a notary cannot facilitate the illegal dissolution of marriage, and that Omaña was responsible even if she claimed an employee notarized it without consent.

    Original Description:

    FDSDF

    Original Title

    2 Espinosa vs Omaña

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Attorney Omaña prepared a document called "Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay" that attempted to extrajudicially dissolve the marriage of Rodolfo Espinosa and Elena Marantal, which is illegal. 2) The IBP-CBD found that Omaña failed to exercise due diligence as a notary and comply with legal requirements, recommending a 1-year suspension from law practice and 2 years from notary duties. 3) The Court upheld the IBP's decision, finding that a notary cannot facilitate the illegal dissolution of marriage, and that Omaña was responsible even if she claimed an employee notarized it without consent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    162 views1 page

    2 Espinosa Vs Omaña

    Uploaded by

    doraemoan
    1) Attorney Omaña prepared a document called "Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay" that attempted to extrajudicially dissolve the marriage of Rodolfo Espinosa and Elena Marantal, which is illegal. 2) The IBP-CBD found that Omaña failed to exercise due diligence as a notary and comply with legal requirements, recommending a 1-year suspension from law practice and 2 years from notary duties. 3) The Court upheld the IBP's decision, finding that a notary cannot facilitate the illegal dissolution of marriage, and that Omaña was responsible even if she claimed an employee notarized it without consent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Espinosa v. Atty.

    Omaña  IBP-CBD stated that Omaña had failed to exercise due diligence in the
    A.C. No. 9081| OCTOBER 12, 2011 | ESTERA performance of her function as a notary public and to comply with
    Topic: Marriage the requirements of the law. IBP-CBD recommended that Omaña be
    suspended for one year from the practice of law and for two years as
    FACTS: a notary public.
     On November 17, 1997, Rodolfo Espinosa and his wife Elena  Omaña filed a motion for reconsideration.
    Marantal sought Atty. Omaña’s legal advice on whether they could  IBP Board of Governors denied Omaña’s motion for reconsideration
    dissolve their marriage and live separately.
     Atty. Omaña prepared a document entitled “Kasunduan Ng ISSUE: Whether the Kasunduaan ng Paghihiwalay is valid
    Paghihiwalay.” Espinosa and Marantal started implanting the
    conditions of the said contract. HELD: No. This Court has ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution of the
     However, Marantal took custody of all their children and took conjugal partnership without judicial approval is void. The Court has also
    possession of most of the conjugal property. ruled that a notary public should not facilitate the disintegration of a
     Espinosa sought the advice of Glindo, his fellow employee who is a marriage and the family by encouraging the separation of the spouses and
    law graduate, who informed him that the contract executed by Atty. extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal partnership, which is exactly what
    Omaña was not valid. Omaña did in this case.1avvphi1
     They hired the services of a lawyer to file a complaint against Atty.
    Omaña before the IBP-CBD. We cannot accept Omaña’s allegation that it was her part-time office staff
     Atty. Omaña denied that she prepared the contract. who notarized the contract. We agree with the IBP-CBD that Omaña herself
     She admitted that Espinosa went to see her and requested for the notarized the contract. Even if it were true that it was her part-time staff
    notarization of the contract but she told him that it was illegal. who notarized the contract, it only showed Omaña’s negligence in doing her
     Omaña alleged that Espinosa returned the next day while she was notarial duties. We reiterate that a notary public is personally responsible
    out of the office and managed to persuade her part-time office staff for the entries in his notarial register and he could not relieve himself of this
    to notarize the document. Her office staff forged her signature and responsibility by passing the blame on his secretaries9 or any member of his
    notarized the contract. staff
     Omaña presented Marantal’s "Sinumpaang Salaysay" (affidavit) to
    support her allegations and to show that the complaint was Therefore, Omaña may be suspended from office as an attorney for breach
    instigated by Glindo. of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
     Omaña further presented a letter of apology from her staff, Arlene Responsibility
    Dela Peña, acknowledging that she notarized the document without
    Omaña’s knowledge, consent, and authority. The KASUNDUAN had absolutely no force and effect on the validity of the
     Espinosa later submitted a "Karagdagang Salaysay" stating that marriage between complainant and his wife. Article 1 FC provides that
    Omaña arrived at his residence together with a girl whom he later “marriage is an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences and
    recognized as the person who notarized the contract. He further incidents are governed by law and NOT subject to stipulation ”. It is an
    stated that Omaña was not in her office when the contract was institution of public order or policy governed by rules established by law
    notarized. which CAN NOT be made inoperative by the stipulation of the parties.

    You might also like