Espinosa v.

Omaña
A.C. No. 9081, October 12, 2011
Carpio, J. / KMD

SUBJECT MATTER: Concepts on Separation and Divorce; Agreements to Separate

CASE SUMMARY:

In this case, Espinosa and his wife Marantal sought legal advice from Atty. Omaña regarding
their intent to legally separate. Atty. Omaña prepared a “Kasunduan ng Paghihiwalay” which covered the
terms and conditions of the separation of the spouses. However, when Marantal did not adhere to what
was agreed (i.e took custody of all their children and took most of the conjugal properties), Espinosa
sought advice from Glindo, a law graduate friend, who revealed to Espinosa that the contract signed was
not valid. Hence, they filed a complaint for disbarment of Atty. Omaña with the Integrated Bar of the
Phils-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD). IBP-CBD ruled in favor of Espinosa and Glindo, and
recommended the suspension of Atty. Omaña for 1 year from practice of law and 2 years as notary public.

DOCTRINES:
The extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial approval is void. A
notary public should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging
separation of the spouses and extra-judicially dissolving the conjugal partnership.

Lawyers who prepare contracts between spouses which permit separation of the spouses and
dissolution of their property regimes without judicial approval may be reprimanded. These contracts are
void for being contrary to morals and public policy.

FACTS:
 This complaint for disbarment was filed by Rodolfo Espinosa and Maximo Glindo against Atty.
Julieta Omaña for violation her oath as a lawyer, malpractice, and gross misconduct.
 Espinosa and his wife, Elena Marantal, sought Omaña’s advice on whether they could legally live
separately and dissolve their marriage that was solemnized on July 23, 1983.
 Omaña then prepared a “Kasunduan ng Paghihiwalay” contract for the Espinosa and Marantal.
o After the school year, the children will choose to live with either parent.
o Whoever bought the property is entitled to own it.
 Believing in the validity of the contract, Espinosa and Marantal started implementing the terms of
conditions.
 However, Marantal eventually took custody of all their children and took most of the property
they acquired during their union, which was contrary to the terms and conditions of their contract.
 Espinosa sought advice of Glindo, a law graduate, who told Espinosa that the contract was not
valid.
 Espinosa and Glindo filed a complaint against Omaña before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines-Commision on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).
 According to Omaña:
 o She did not prepare such contract.
o The couple came to her office with the contract at hand asking Omaña to notarize it.
o Omaña told them that the contract is invalid and refused to notarize it.
o However, the couple returned the next day and managed to persuade Omaña’s office staff
to notarize the contract.
o The office staff forged Omaña’s signature.
 Espinosa later on submitted “Karagdagang Salaysay” saying that Omaña was indeed not in her
office when the contract was notarized.
 IBP-CBD found that Omaña violated rule 1.01 Canon I of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that lawyers shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
o Omaña failed to exercise due diligence.
o There were inconsistencies in Omaña’s defense.
 IBP-CBD recommended Omaña’s suspension for 1 year from the practice of law and 2 years as a
notary public.
 Omaña filed a Motion for Reconsideration that was DENIED.

ISSUE:
1) WON Omaña violated the Canon of Professional Responsibility in notarizing the
contract. (YES)

HOLDING:
1.) YES, Omaña violated the Canon Professional Responsibility in notarizing the contract.
Extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial approval is void. 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.

The allegation that her office staff notarized the contract is unacceptable. If it was true that the staff
forged her signature while Omaña was not around, it would strengthen the theory that she was negligent
in her notarial duties. Notary public should be personally responsible for the entries in his/her notarial
register.

IBP-CBD decision Affirmed.

Suspension from practice of law for 1 year and 2 years as a Notary Public.