G.R. No. L-10181
Date: March 17, 1914
Case Title: In the matter of the disbarment of EUGENIO DE LARA, attorney and counselor at law.

FACTS:
On April 29, 1912, the City Prosecuting Attorney of Manila forwarded to the Attorney-General a document notarized by Attorney Eugenio de Lara on February 21, 1912. The document was a contract between Cirilo San Pedro and Petronila Trias, wherein San Pedro promised to marry Trias within 30 days after the death of his current wife, and Trias promised not to marry anyone else while single, with a penalty of ₱500 for breach. The Prosecuting Attorney, while noting no penal law violation, recommended disciplinary action against De Lara for notarizing such an instrument, particularly given its objectionable content.

The Attorney-General recommended De Lara’s removal as a notary public under Section 82 of Act No. 136. The Supreme Court ordered De Lara to show cause why he should not be removed. In his answer, De Lara denied drafting the document, claiming the parties brought it already prepared, and he merely notarized it after explaining its contents. He submitted an affidavit from Regino Talag to support his claim.

The Attorney-General’s investigation, including expert testimony from a typewriter examiner, proved that the controversial document and De Lara’s answer were typed on the same typewriter, likely by the same operator. Further, witnesses recanted, establishing that De Lara’s supporting affidavit was false. Consequently, the complaint was amended to include the charge that De Lara testified falsely under oath during the investigation and presented knowingly false testimony.

ISSUE:
Whether Attorney Eugenio De Lara should be disbarred and his notarial commission revoked for (1) notarizing a scandalous and immoral contract, and (2) committing falsehood under oath by denying he drafted the document and presenting fabricated evidence in the ensuing investigation.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court DISBARRED Eugenio De Lara and REVOKED his notarial commission.

The Court found De Lara guilty of gross misconduct as a lawyer and notary public. First, the contract he notarized was contrary to good morals and public policy, as it promoted an illicit relationship and trivialized marriage. Second, and more egregiously, De Lara committed falsehood under oath during the investigation by denying he drafted the document and by submitting a false affidavit from Regino Talag. Expert evidence conclusively showed the document was prepared in his office. This conduct violated his lawyer’s oath, specifically the pledge to “do no falsehood,” and constituted deceit and gross misconduct under Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, warranting disbarment.

The Court emphasized that the integrity of the legal profession demands the highest standards of honesty and candor, especially in court proceedings. De Lara’s actions demonstrated a willful and corrupt disregard for these standards, justifying the severest penalty of permanent removal from the practice of law and revocation of his notarial appointment.