G.R. No. 138 EN BANC A.C. No. 138; May 31, 1961
CONRADO S. ACUÑA, complainant, vs. ISIDRO DUNCA and TIMOTEO DAVID, respondents.

FACTS

The complainant, Conrado S. Acuña, filed an administrative case seeking the disbarment of respondents Timoteo David and Isidro Dunca, and the cancellation of Dunca’s notarial commission. The charge stemmed from the preparation and notarization of an affidavit (Annex A) purportedly executed by Acuña’s daughter, Adoracion. In this affidavit, Adoracion declared her knowledge that her intended spouse, Alfonso Eugenio, was already married to another woman, and her determination to marry him nonetheless to conceal her “misdeeds” from her parents. During the investigation by the Solicitor General, the complainant and his daughter refused to substantiate the complaint’s allegations and expressed a desire to withdraw the charges.
The investigation established that in 1947, Adoracion, then employed as secretary to respondent David, sought his help in drafting the affidavit. Eugenio had demanded such a document to shield himself from a potential bigamy charge. David initially refused, deeming the affidavit immoral, but eventually relented due to Adoracion’s insistent pleas to “redeem her honor.” He drafted the document, which Adoracion signed on May 31, 1947, the same day she married Eugenio. Four days later, respondent Dunca, a notary public, notarized the affidavit at their request.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Attorneys Timoteo David and Isidro Dunca are administratively liable for their respective roles in the preparation and notarization of the immoral affidavit.

RULING

Yes, the respondents are administratively liable for gross misconduct. The Court found the affidavit to be patently immoral, as it was designed to facilitate a marriage that was potentially bigamous and to obstruct the course of justice by providing a pre-emptive defense against a criminal charge. Both respondents, as members of the bar, admitted to their involvement. Their explanation—that they acted out of a misguided sense of generosity and a desire to help Adoracion, who was David’s employee and Dunca’s friend—does not exonerate them. By preparing and notarizing the document, they committed disgraceful acts constituting gross misconduct and a violation of their oath as attorneys, warranting disciplinary action under Rule 127, Section 25 of the Rules of Court.
However, the Court agreed with the Solicitor General’s recommendation for leniency. Mitigating circumstances were present: the acts were not committed for monetary gain but from a misplaced charitable impulse, and the subsequent legal proceedings revealed that Eugenio had previously divorced his first wife, leading to the acquittal of Eugenio and Adoracion on the bigamy charge. Consequently, the Court imposed the penalty of severe censure upon both respondents, with a stern admonition that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.