De Lara, In re
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a notary public, Eugenio de Lara, who executed and acknowledged a document on February 21, 1912, between Cirilo San Pedro and Petronila Trias. The document stipulated that San Pedro would marry Trias within 30 days of his wife's death, and Trias would not contract marriage with any other man while single, with a P500 penalty for non-compliance. The prosecuting attorney of Manila received this instrument and, while not believing it to be a criminal matter, suspected misconduct by the notary. 2. Procedural History: The prosecuting attorney forwarded the matter to the Attorney-General, who in turn referred it to Justice E. Finley Johnson of the Supreme Court. Justice Johnson ordered Eugenio de Lara to appear and show cause why he should not be removed as a notary public under Act No. 136. De Lara submitted an answer denying he drafted the document, claiming it was presented to him already prepared. The Attorney-General investigated, using a typewriter expert who concluded both the disputed document and De Lara's defense were typed on the same machine by the same operator. Further investigation revealed that a witness presented by De Lara to support his claim was untruthful. Based on this report, the Attorney-General initiated proceedings to revoke De Lara's notary appointment. The Supreme Court then directed the Attorney-General to amend the complaint to include charges of perjury and submitting false testimony. 3. The Petition: The amended complaint sought the removal of Eugenio de Lara as a notary public and his disbarment as an attorney. The core of the petition alleged that De Lara falsely testified under oath during the investigation into his notary conduct and submitted false testimony from a witness, Regino Talag, knowing it to be false. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence, found De Lara guilty of deliberately, willfully, and corruptly testifying falsely. The Court noted the use of the same typewriter for the illicit document and De Lara's defense, along with other corroborating evidence, established his guilt beyond doubt. The Court concluded that De Lara's actions violated his oath of office and warranted the severest penalty, resulting in his disbarment and the revocation of his notary public appointment.
Issue(s)
Whether Eugenio de Lara, as a notary public and attorney, committed gross misconduct and violated his oath of office by drafting a questionable instrument and subsequently testifying falsely and submitting false evidence during the investigation into his conduct. Whether the proven misconduct warrants the revocation of his appointment as notary public and disbarment from the practice of law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Eugenio de Lara guilty of testifying falsely and submitting false evidence during the investigation. Consequently, the Court ordered his disbarment as an attorney and counselor at law and revoked his appointment as a notary public.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found beyond doubt that Eugenio de Lara composed and drew the instrument in question. This was established by evidence, including a typewriter expert's opinion demonstrating that the instrument and De Lara's defense answer were written on the same typewriter and likely by the same operator. Furthermore, the testimony of Regino Talag, who provided an affidavit supporting De Lara's denial, was proven false when Talag himself declared that Nemesio Agor, whom Talag claimed drafted the instrument, had no knowledge of it. De Lara's denial of drafting the document was therefore a falsehood, and his submission of Talag's false affidavit constituted the submission of false evidence. This conduct violated his oath as an attorney, particularly the promise to do no falsehood and to conduct himself with good fidelity to the courts. On Issue 2: The Court determined that the proven misconduct warranted the severest penalty. The proceeding for the removal of the respondent as a notary public was considered a proceeding in court, as the Supreme Court was the appointing power. De Lara's false testimony and submission of false evidence during this investigation constituted a violation of his oath of office. The Court emphasized that the permanent separation of a lawyer from his profession is a solemn matter, but the responsibility to the public and the bar demanded the action taken. Therefore, disbarment and revocation of his notary public appointment were deemed necessary and just consequences for his deliberate, willful, and corrupt actions.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court has the inherent power to discipline its members, including disbarment, for violations of their oath of office. This includes acts of deceit, malpractice, or gross misconduct, such as testifying falsely under oath and submitting false evidence during investigations concerning their professional conduct. Such violations demonstrate a lack of good fidelity to the courts and a breach of the solemn oath taken by every lawyer.