Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 44 views

    7.in Re Santiago 70 Phil 661

    Uploaded by

    Ramchand Caitor
    The Solicitor General charged attorney Roque Santiago with malpractice for providing false legal advice. Santiago advised a client, Ernesto Baniquit, that he could legally separate from his wife and marry again. Santiago prepared and notarized a document authorizing the separation and future marriages. Relying on this document, Baniquit married again. However, the document Santiago prepared was invalid and contrary to law. The Supreme Court found Santiago guilty of malpractice for his reckless legal advice and invalid document preparation. Santiago was suspended from practicing law for one year.

    Copyright:

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

    7.in Re Santiago 70 Phil 661

    Uploaded by

    Ramchand Caitor
    44 views1 page
    The Solicitor General charged attorney Roque Santiago with malpractice for providing false legal advice. Santiago advised a client, Ernesto Baniquit, that he could legally separate from his wife and marry again. Santiago prepared and notarized a document authorizing the separation and future marriages. Relying on this document, Baniquit married again. However, the document Santiago prepared was invalid and contrary to law. The Supreme Court found Santiago guilty of malpractice for his reckless legal advice and invalid document preparation. Santiago was suspended from practicing law for one year.

    Original Title

    7.In re Santiago 70 Phil 661

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Solicitor General charged attorney Roque Santiago with malpractice for providing false legal advice. Santiago advised a client, Ernesto Baniquit, that he could legally separate from his wife and marry again. Santiago prepared and notarized a document authorizing the separation and future marriages. Relying on this document, Baniquit married again. However, the document Santiago prepared was invalid and contrary to law. The Supreme Court found Santiago guilty of malpractice for his reckless legal advice and invalid document preparation. Santiago was suspended from practicing law for one year.

    Copyright:

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

    7.in Re Santiago 70 Phil 661

    Uploaded by

    Ramchand Caitor
    The Solicitor General charged attorney Roque Santiago with malpractice for providing false legal advice. Santiago advised a client, Ernesto Baniquit, that he could legally separate from his wife and marry again. Santiago prepared and notarized a document authorizing the separation and future marriages. Relying on this document, Baniquit married again. However, the document Santiago prepared was invalid and contrary to law. The Supreme Court found Santiago guilty of malpractice for his reckless legal advice and invalid document preparation. Santiago was suspended from practicing law for one year.

    Copyright:

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

    A.C. No.

    932             June 21, 1940

    In re ATTY. ROQUE SANTIAGO, respondent,

    Office of the Solicitor-General Ozaeta as petitioner-complainant.

    LAUREL, J.:

    This is an administrative case initiated upon complaint of the Solicitor-General against the
    respondent Roque Santiago, charging the latter with malpractice and praying that disciplinary action
    be taken against him.

    Facts:
    In this administrative case, the Solicitor General charged the respondent Atty. Roque Santiago with
    malpractice and prayed that disciplinary action be taken against him.
    The respondent gave legal advice to one Ernesto Baniquit who was living separately from his wife
    for some nine consecutive years and seeking to contract a second marriage. The respondent
    assured Baniquit that he could secure a separation from his wife and marry again. The lawyer
    prepared a document (Exhibit A) stating that the contracting parties, husband and wife, were
    authorized to marry again and at the same time giving the authorization to renounce or waive each
    member’s right against the party marrying.
     The notary let the husband and wife execute and acknowledge the document and declared that they
    were again single and as such could contract another marriage. Relying on this document, Baniquit
    contracted a second marriage.
    The respondent, upon realizing his mistake, sent for the parties and let them sign the deed of
    cancellation (Exhibit C) a month later but after the second marriage of Baniquit.

    Issue:
    Whether or Not respondent committed malpractice in giving False advice and issued invalid
    documents to his clients;

    Ruling:
    • 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.

    the contract Exhibit A executed by and between the spouses Ernesto Baniquit and Soledad Colares
    upon the advice of the respondent and prepared by the latter as a lawyer and acknowledged by him
    as a notary public is contrary to law, moral, and tends to subvert the vital foundation of the family.
    The advice given by the respondent, the preparation and acknowledgment by him of the contract
    constitute malpractice which justifies disbarment from the practice of law.

    The admission of a lawyer to the practice of law is upon the implied condition that his continued
    enjoyment of the privilege conferred is dependent upon his remaining a fit and safe person to
    society. When it appears that he, by recklessness or sheer ignorance of the law, is unfit or unsafe to
    be entrusted with the responsibilities and obligations of a lawyer, his right to continue in the
    enjoyment of this professional privilege should be declared terminated.

    Decision:
    The respondent Roque Santiago is found guilty of malpractice and is hereby suspended from
    the practice of law for a period of one year.

    You might also like