G.R. No. L-41278, September 9, 1933
JOSE R. PAÑGANIBAN, complainant, vs. ELIAS BORROMEO, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Atty. Elias Borromeo, a notary public, notarized a contract between spouses Alejandro Pabro and Juana Mappala. The contract contained provisions permitting the husband to take a concubine and the wife to live in an adulterous relationship with another man, with mutual consent. Borromeo admitted notarizing the document but claimed he did not fully understand its illegal character due to a dialect difference.

ISSUE

1. Whether the contract notarized by Borromeo sanctioned an illicit and immoral purpose.
2. Whether a lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed in the capacity of a notary public.

RULING

1. Yes. The contract contained provisions contrary to law, morals, and public order. While consent may bar prosecution for adultery or concubinage under the Revised Penal Code, it does not legalize such acts, and a contract facilitating them is void and not judicially recognizable.
2. Yes. A member of the bar who, as a notary public, engages in disgraceful or immoral conduct may be disciplined by the court, even to the extent of disbarment. The duties of a notary public require carefulness and faithfulness, and an attorney is responsible for both legal and notarial acts.
Given mitigating circumstances—lack of full realization of the document’s purport, no falsification, and revocation of his notarial commission—the Court imposed severe censure on Borromeo.

AI Generated by Armztrong.