Espinosa v. Atty. Omana, A.C. NO.

9081 October 12, 2011

FACTS:

1. Espinosa and his wife, Elena Marantal, sought the legal advice of Atty. Omanas on
whether they could live separately and dissolve their marriage which was solemnized on
July 23, 1983. Atty. Omana then prepared a document entitled Kasunduan ng
Paghihiwalay and stipulated conditions regarding the spouses conjugal properties,
children visitations and custody, financial support, and the condition that the spouses are
separated thus giving each other the liberty to do what they like and that any property
acquired by any of them will no longer be considered conjugal. The Kasunduan ng
Paghihiwalay was signed by Espinosa and his wife and was duly notarized by Atty.
Omana.
2. The spouses implemented the conditions stipulated in the agreement, fully convinced that
the contract is valid and their marriage already dissolved. However, Elena Marantal,
Espinosas wife eventually took custody of their children and took possession of most of
the property they acquired during their union.
3. Espinosa sought the advice of his fellow employee, complainant Glindo, a law graduate,
who informed him that the contract executed by Atty. Omana was not valid. Espinosa and
Glindo then hired the services of a lawyer and filed a complaint against Atty. Omana
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).
4. Atty. Omana alleged that she knows Glindo but claimed that she does not personally
know Espinosa. She denied that she prepared the contract and admitted that Espinosa
went to see her and requested for the notarization of the contract but she told him that it
was illegal. Additionally, Atty. Omana alleged that Espinosa returned the next day while
she was out of the office and managed to persuade her part-time office staff to notarize
the document. Her office staff, according to Atty. Omana, forged her signature and
notarized the contract and presented a letter of apology from her staff which
acknowledged that her staff indeed notarized the document without her knowledge,
consent, and authority.
5. The IBP-CBD ruled against Atty. Omana and recommended for her 1 year suspension
from practice and two years as a notary public to which IBP Board of Governors adopted
and approved the recommendation.
6. Atty. Omana filed:
A Motion for Reconsideration, IBP Board of Governors denied it

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Kasunduan ng Paghihiwalay is valid

HELD:

NO. The Court ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without
judicial approval is void. In the case at bar, the Court also ruled that a notary public should not
facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging the separation of the
spouses and extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal partnership, which is exactly what Atty.
Omana did in this case. Atty. Omana prepared and notarized a void document and has violated
the Canon 1 Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not engage
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Moreover, Atty. Omana knew fully well
that the Kasunduan ng Paghihiwalay has no legal effect and is against public policy hence, the
Court ruled that Atty. Omana be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year and
REVOKED her notarial commission if existing and SUSPENDED her as notary public for two
years.