G.R. No.: A.C. No. 9081; October 12, 2011
Case Title: RODOLFO A. ESPINOSA and MAXIMO A. GLINDO, Complainants, vs. ATTY. JULIETA A. OMAÑA, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Rodolfo A. Espinosa and Maximo A. Glindo filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Julieta A. Omaña for violation of her oath, malpractice, and gross misconduct. The complaint stemmed from a document entitled “Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay” (Contract of Separation) that Espinosa and his wife, Elena Marantal, executed on November 17, 1997. The complainants alleged that Espinosa and Marantal sought Omaña’s legal advice on dissolving their marriage, and Omaña prepared and notarized the contract. The contract stipulated their separation, custody arrangements for their three children, support, division of household property, and that future acquisitions would be separate, not conjugal. Believing the contract valid, the spouses began implementing its terms until Marantal took custody of all children and most of their property. Espinosa, upon Glindo’s advice that the contract was invalid, hired a lawyer to file the complaint.
Respondent Omaña denied preparing the contract, claiming she told Espinosa it was illegal when he requested notarization. She alleged that Espinosa returned the next day while she was out, and her part-time office staff, Arlene Dela Peña, forged her signature and notarized the document without her knowledge. Omaña submitted Marantal’s affidavit and a letter of apology from Dela Peña to support her defense. Espinosa later submitted an affidavit stating Omaña visited his residence with the girl who notarized the contract and that Omaña was not in her office during the notarization.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found Omaña violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, noting inconsistencies in her defense and her failure to exercise due diligence as a notary public. The IBP-CBD recommended a one-year suspension from law practice and a two-year suspension as a notary public, which the IBP Board of Governors approved. Omaña’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Julieta A. Omaña violated the Code of Professional Responsibility in the preparation and notarization of the “Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay.”

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP-CBD. The Court ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution of a conjugal partnership without judicial approval is void and against public policy. By preparing and notarizing the “Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay,” Omaña facilitated the disintegration of a marriage, an act previously sanctioned in analogous cases. The Court rejected Omaña’s defense that her staff notarized the document, agreeing with the IBP-CBD that she herself notarized it. Even if her staff did so, it demonstrated her negligence, as a notary public is personally responsible for notarial entries and cannot delegate this responsibility. In preparing and notarizing a void document, Omaña engaged in unlawful conduct in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court suspended Atty. Julieta A. Omaña from the practice of law for ONE YEAR, revoked her notarial commission (if still existing), and suspended her as a notary public for TWO YEARS.