Biton v. Momongan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An administrative case for malpractice was filed against respondent Andres Momongan, a practicing attorney and notary public in Cebu City. The complaint stemmed from the ratification on October 26, 1927, of a document entitled "Legal Separation" executed by spouses Leonardo Biton and Fortunata Quijano. The document stipulated mutual and voluntary separation, renunciation of rights and obligations, authorization to remarry, renunciation of actions, and a promise not to be a witness against each other. Procedural History: The respondent admitted ratifying the document without reading its contents, claiming he did not prepare it. The complainant asserted the respondent prepared the document based on his legal advice, while the wife claimed her husband prepared it. The court found the evidence preponderantly favored the respondent's claim that he did not draft the document. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for review of the disciplinary action against the respondent attorney.
Issue(s)
Whether a notary public who is also a practicing attorney is guilty of malpractice for ratifying a document that allows spouses to separate and remarry by mutual agreement.
Ruling
The Supreme Court held Andres Momongan guilty of malpractice and imposed a severe censure. The Court ordered that he be suspended from the office of notary public and not be reappointed for an indefinite period.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the contract acknowledged by the respondent is indubitably illegal and immoral because its covenants are contrary to laws, morals, and good customs. Such agreements are prohibited because they tend to subvert the vital foundation of the legitimate family, which is a matter of public concern. The Court explicitly rejected the respondent's defense that he had not read the document, pointing out that his initials were stamped over an amendment (the word 'pleases') on the second page. This admission of authorship of the amendment necessarily implies that the respondent had knowledge of the document's contents. Applying the rule from Pañganiban vs. Borromeo (58 Phil., 367), the Court ruled that the ratification of such a contract by a lawyer-notary constitutes malpractice. Although the act could warrant disbarment, the Court considered the investigating judge's recommendation for leniency and the fact that the respondent had already been suspended from his notarial commission. Consequently, the Court determined that a severe censure was the appropriate disciplinary measure in this specific instance.
Main Doctrine
A practicing attorney who, as a notary public, ratifies a contract that is illegal and immoral, constituting malpractice, may be subjected to disciplinary measures, including disbarment.