Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
____________________
A.C.No.9081.October12,2011.*
1
2
not accept Omaas allegation that it was her parttime office staff
who notarized the contract. We agree with the IBPCBD that
Omaa herself notarized the contract. Even if it were true that it
was her parttime staff who notarized the contract, it only showed
Omaasnegligenceindoinghernotarialduties.Wereiteratethata
notarypublicispersonallyresponsiblefortheentriesinhisnotarial
register and he could not relieve himself of this responsibility by
passingtheblameonhissecretariesoranymemberofhisstaff.
(Glindo)againstAtty.JulietaA.Omaa(Omaa).
The Antecedent Facts
ComplainantsEspinosaandGlindochargedOmaawith
violation of her oath as a lawyer, malpractice, and gross
misconductinoffice.
Complainants alleged that on 17 November 1997,
Espinosa and his wife Elena Marantal (Marantal) sought
Omaas legal advice on whether they could legally live
separately and dissolve their marriage solemnized on 23
July 1983. Omaa then prepared a document entitled
Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay(contract)whichreads:
REPUBLIKANGPILIPINAS
BAYANNGGUMACA
LALAWIGANNGQUEZON
KASUNDUANNGPAGHIHIWALAY
KAMI, ELENA MARANTAL AT RODOLFO ESPINOSA, mga
Filipino, may sapat na gulang, dating legal na magasawa,
kasalukuyangnaninirahan
3
atmaypahatirangsulatsaBrgy.Buensoceso,Gumaca,Quezon,at
COMELEC, Intramuros, Manila ayon sa pagkakasunodsunod,
mataposmakapanumpangnaaayonsabatasaynagpapatunayng
nagkasundongmgasumusunod:
1.Na nais na naming maghiwalay at magkanyakanya ng
aming mga buhay ng walang pakialaman, kung kayat bawat isa
saaminaymaaaringhumanapngmakakasamasabuhay;
2.NaangamingmgaanaknasinaArielJohnEspinosa,14na
taong gulang; Aiza Espinosa, 11 taong gulang at Aldrin Espinosa,
10 taong gulang ay namili na kung kanino sasama sa aming
dalawa.SiArielJohnatAizaEspinosaaysasamasakanilangama,
RodolfoEspinosa,atangbunso,AldrinEspinosaatsasamanaman
sainanasiElena;
3.Na dahil sina Ariel John at Aiza ay nagsisipagaral sa
kasalukuyan sila ay pansamantalang mananatili sa kanilang ina,
habang tinatapos ang kanilang pagaaral. Sa pasukan sila ay
maaaringisamangama,salugarkungsaansiyaaynaninirahan;
4.Na ang mga bata ay maaaring dalawin ng sino man sa
amingdalawatuwingmaypagkakataon;
5.Na magbibigay ng buwanang gastusin o suporta ang ama
kay Aldrin at ang kakulangan sa mga pangangailangan nito ay
pupunanngina;
6.NalahatngmgakasangkapansabahaytuladngT.V.,gas
stove,mgakagamitansakusinaayaking(Rodolfo)ipinagkakaloob
kayElenaathindinaakointeresadodito;
7.Na lahat ng maaaring maipundar ng sino man sa amin
dalawasamgapanahongdaratingayamingmgasarisarilingpag
aarinaathindinapinagsamahanoconjugal.
BILANG PATUNAY ng lahat ng ito, nilagdaan namin ito
ngayongika17ngNobyembre,1997,ditosaGumaca,Quezon.
(Sgd)(Sgd)
ELENAMARANTALRODOLFOESPINOSA
NagkasundoNagkasundo
PINATUNAYANATPINANUMPAANditosaharapkongayong
ika17ngNobyembre,1997,ditosaGumaca,Quezon
ATTY.JULIETAA.OMAA
NotaryPublic
PTRNo.3728169;11097
Gumaca,Quezon
4
Doc.No.482;
PageNo.97;
BookNo.XI;
Seriesof1997.
ComplainantsallegedthatMarantalandEspinosa,fully
convinced of the validity of the contract dissolving their
marriage, started implementing its terms and conditions.
However, Marantal eventually took custody of all their
children and took possession of most of the property they
acquiredduringtheirunion.
Espinosa sought the advice of his fellow employee,
complainantGlindo,alawgraduate,whoinformedhimthat
the contract executed by Omaa was not valid. Espinosa
and Glindo then hired the services of a lawyer to file a
complaintagainstOmaabeforetheIntegratedBarofthe
PhilippinesCommissiononBarDiscipline(IBPCBD).
Omaa alleged that she knows Glindo but she does not
personallyknowEspinosa.Shedeniedthatshepreparedthe
contract. She admitted that Espinosa went to see her and
requested for the notarization of the contract but she told
him that it was illegal. Omaa alleged that Espinosa
returned the next day while she was out of the office and
managed to persuade her parttime office staff to notarize
the document. Her office staff forged her signature and
notarized the contract. Omaa presented Marantals
Sinumpaang Salaysay (affidavit) to support her
allegations and to show that the complaint was instigated
byGlindo.Omaafurtherpresentedaletterofapologyfrom
her staff, Arlene Dela Pea, acknowledging that she
notarized the document without Omaas knowledge,
consent,andauthority.
Espinosa later submitted a Karagdagang Salaysay
statingthatOmaaarrivedathisresidencetogetherwitha
girlwhomhelaterrecognizedasthepersonwhonotarized
thecontract.HefurtherstatedthatOmaawasnotinher
officewhenthecontractwasnotarized.
5
notarypublicispersonallyresponsiblefortheentriesinhis
notarial register and he could not relieve himself of this
responsibility by passing the blame on his secretaries9 or
anymemberofhisstaff.
We likewise agree with the IBPCBD that in preparing
andnotarizingavoiddocument,OmaaviolatedRule1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides that [a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest,immoralordeceitfulconduct.Omaaknewfully
well that the Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay has no legal
effectandisagainstpublicpolicy.Therefore,Omaamaybe
suspendedfromofficeasanattorneyforbreachoftheethics
of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
ProfessionalResponsibility.10
WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Julieta A. Omaa
fromthepracticeoflawforONEYEAR.WeREVOKEAtty.
Omaas notarial commission, if still existing, and
SUSPENDherasanotarypublicforTWOYEARS.
LetacopyofthisDecisionbeattachedtoAtty.Omaas
personal record in the Office of the Bar Confidant. Let a
copyofthisDecisionbealsofurnishedtoallchaptersofthe
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to all courts in the
land.
SOORDERED.
Brion, Sereno, Reyes andPerlasBernabe,** JJ.,concur.
Atty. Julieta A. Omaa suspended from practice of law for
one (1) year, her notarial commission revoked and is
suspended as notary public for two (2) years.
Note.Anotarypublicmustdemandthatthedocument
fornotarizationbesignedinhispresence.(Williams vs. Icao,
575SCRA347[2008])
o0o
_______________
9 Lingan v. Calubaquib and Baliga, 524 Phil. 60; 490 SCRA 526
(2006).
10Catu v. Rellosa,A.C.No.5738,19February2008,546SCRA209.
** Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1114 dated 3
October2011.