A.C. No.

104 January 28, 1954

BENITA S. BALINON, petitioner,

Office of the Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag, First Assistant Solicitor General Ruperto Kapunan, Jr.
and Solicitor Juan T. Alano for petitioner.
Celestino M. de Leon in his own behalf.
Justo T. Velayo in his own behalf.

PARAS, C.J.:

The Solicitor General has filed a complaint against the respondent Celestino M. de Leon and Justo
T. Velayo, duly qualified members of the bar in active practice, alleging that, since December, 1948,
respondent de Leon, still legally married to Vertudes Marquez, lived as husband and wife with
Regina S. Balinon; the said respondent prepared and subscribed on February 4, 1948, before
respondent Velayo, a notary public, an affidavit which reads as follows:

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

I, Celestino de Leon, of legal age, married, Filipino citizen, after having been duly sworn to
according to law depose and say:

That there exists a contract of separation executed and perfected between my wife, Vertudes
Marquez and myself;

That said contract states among other things that each of us is at liberty and free to take for
himself and herself a lifetime partner with the full consent and authorization of each other;

That by the same contract our conjugal partnership was dissolved and our existing property,
rights and interests were divided and apportioned;

That in the said contract my wife shall have full control, care and custody of the children, and
as such all of our conjugal property rights and interests were apportioned to her with the
exception of my private personal belongings and things pertaining to my law profession;

That, besides the dissolution and the apportionment, said contract further states about my
wife's and also my children's share to my current income by way of alimony and support;

Now, therefore, by virtue of the said contract of separation, I now by these presents take my
new found life-partner Regina S. Balinon, as my true and lawful wife;

That in order to protect her rights and interests with regards to her personality and future
property rights, I, hereby voluntarily and of my own free will solemnly swear under oath;

That I will uphold and defend her honor and dignity and prestige as a woman of the weaker
sex as well as any and all members of her family arising by reasons of said relationship;

That I will remain loyal and faithful to her as a lawful and devoted loving husband for the rest
of my life at all costs;
That I will maintain and preserve the new existing companionship, the love, respect and
goodwill prevailing among the members of her family of which I am now a member as well as
equally mine;

That I will not do any act that may tend to degrade or dishonor her or any member of her
family unbecoming the dignity of said relationship but would rather take and respect her as
my true and lawful wife;

That in case of intentional desertion on my part thereby frustrating the true and honest intent
of my affirmations, the same may be sufficient ground for my perpetual disbarment upon her
instance or any third party in interest;

That except for such minor dues and allowances by way of alimony and support mentioned
above, any and all such future properties, rights and interests that we shall acquire during
such relationship shall exclusively appertain and belong to her as her due share and shall
bear her name in all such titles and documents thereto, subject to her legal share as such;

That any offspring that we shall bear by reason of said companionship and relationship shall
be acknowledged by me as my true and legal child with all the rights and privileges accorded
by law pertaining to that of a legitimate child;

That this contract of companionship is done of my own accord, freely and voluntarily without
any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, So help me God.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my signature this 4th day of February 1949.

(Sgd.) CELESTINO M. DE LEON

Signed in the Presence of :

................................................................................................... ............
.......................................................................................

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES s.s.

Personally appeared before me this 4th day of February 1949, Celestino de Leon with
Residence Certificate No. ............ issued at ................ on ............... 1949 who executed the
foregoing affidavit with contract of companionship consisting of two pages, and
acknowledged by me that the same is his own free and voluntary act and deed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal on the place and date first
written above.

(Sgd.) CELESTINO M. DE LEON

The complaint also alleges that, notwithstanding the unlawful and immoral purposes of the foregoing
affidavit, respondent Velayo knowingly signed the same in violation of his oath of office as attorney
and notary public.

Respondent De Leon admits his continuous cohabitation with Regina S. Balinon during his
subsisting marriage with Vertudes Marquez and the fact the he prepared and subscribed the affidavit
above quoted, but contends that he has not been finally convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude; that while the affidavit may be illicit, it is not an agreement but a mere innocent unilateral
declaration of facts; and that while the execution of said affidavit may be illegal and void ab initio, no
specific law has been violated so as to give rise to an action. Respondent Velayo alleges, on the
other hand, that his participation was limited to the task of notarizing the affidavit, as a matter of
courtesy to a brother lawyer and without knowing its contents, and this allegation is corroborated by
respondent De Leon who further stated that no consideration whatsoever passed to the former.

This court had heretofore imposed the penalty of suspension upon an attorney who prepared a
document stipulating, among others, that the contracting parties, who are husband and wife,
authorized each other to marry again and that each renounced whatever right of action one might
have against the party so marrying (In re Roque Santiago, 40 Off. Gaz. [7th Supp.] p. 208). In effect
the affidavit prepared and signed by respondent De Leon has similar implication, in that although it
did not bluntly authorize said respondent to marry another during his subsisting wedlock with
Vertudes Marquez, he made it appear that he could take in another woman as a lifetime partner to
whom he would remain loyal and faithful as a lawful and devoted loving husband and whom he could
take and respect as his true and lawful wife; thereby virtually permitting himself to commit the crime
of concubinage. It is true, as respondent De Leon argues, that the consent or pardon of either
spouse constitutes a bar to a criminal prosecution for adultery and concubinage, but, as the Solicitor
General observes, said crimes are not thereby legalized, the result being merely that prosecution in
such cases would not lie. The contention that the affidavit is only a unilateral declaration of facts is of
no moment, since it undoubtedly enabled respondent De Leon to attain his purpose of winning over
Regina S. Balinon with some degree of permanence.

It is likewise insisted that the acts imputed to respondent De Leon had no relation with his
professional duties and therefore cannot serve as a basis for suspension or disbarment under
section 25 of Rule 127. It should be remembered, however, that a member of the bar may be
removed or suspended from office as a lawyer on grounds other than those enumerated by said
provision (In re Pelaez, 44 Phil., 567). Moreover, we can even state that respondent De Leon was
able to prepare the affidavit in question because he is a lawyer, and has rendered professional
service to himself as a client. He surely employed his knowledge of the law and skill as an attorney
to his advantage. (Manalo vs. Gan, Adm. Case No. 72, May 13, 1953.)

With reference with respondent Velayo, there is no question that he did nothing except to affix his
signature to the affidavit in question as a notary public. While, as contended by his counsel, the duty
of a notary public is principally to ascertain the identity of the affiant and the voluntariness of the
declaration, it is nevertheless incumbent upon him at least to guard against having anything to do
with an illegal or immoral arrangement. In the present case respondent Velayo was somewhat
negligent in just affixing his signature to the affidavit, although his fault is mitigated by the fact the he
had relied on the good faith of his co-respondent.
Wherefore, we hereby decree the suspension from the practice of law of respondent Celestino M. de
Leon for three years from the date of promulgation of this decision. Respondent Justo T. Velayo is
hereby merely reprimanded. So ordered.