Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 283 views

    In Re Santiago Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Pouǝllǝ ɐlʎssɐ
    Santiago, a notary public, advised a married couple that they could authorize each other to remarry after only 9 years of separation. He prepared a document for them stipulating this. However, the contract was invalid as it was contrary to law and morals. While Santiago's actions constituted malpractice and justified disbarment, the court ultimately suspended him for one year, as he made efforts to correct his mistake by having the couple sign a cancellation of the original document.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    In Re Santiago Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Pouǝllǝ ɐlʎssɐ
    283 views1 page
    Santiago, a notary public, advised a married couple that they could authorize each other to remarry after only 9 years of separation. He prepared a document for them stipulating this. However, the contract was invalid as it was contrary to law and morals. While Santiago's actions constituted malpractice and justified disbarment, the court ultimately suspended him for one year, as he made efforts to correct his mistake by having the couple sign a cancellation of the original document.

    Original Description:

    In Re Santiago Case Digest (Persons)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Santiago, a notary public, advised a married couple that they could authorize each other to remarry after only 9 years of separation. He prepared a document for them stipulating this. However, the contract was invalid as it was contrary to law and morals. While Santiago's actions constituted malpractice and justified disbarment, the court ultimately suspended him for one year, as he made efforts to correct his mistake by having the couple sign a cancellation of the original document.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    283 views1 page

    In Re Santiago Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Pouǝllǝ ɐlʎssɐ
    Santiago, a notary public, advised a married couple that they could authorize each other to remarry after only 9 years of separation. He prepared a document for them stipulating this. However, the contract was invalid as it was contrary to law and morals. While Santiago's actions constituted malpractice and justified disbarment, the court ultimately suspended him for one year, as he made efforts to correct his mistake by having the couple sign a cancellation of the original document.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    IN RE SANTIAGO

    70 Phil 66 II June 20, 1940 II Agustin


    FACTS:
    1. Complaint of SG v Roque Santiago of malpractice, praying for disciplinary action against Santiago.
    2. Ernesto Baniquit, separated from Soledad Colares for 9 years, wanted second marriage. He sought legal advice of Santiago as
    notary public in Negros Occidental.
    3. May 29, 1939 - Santiago assured that Baniquit can separate with wife to remarry, and told latter to bring wife that afternoon.
    4. Santiago prepared document stipulating that parties authorize each other to remarry, renouncing or waiving their right of action
    one might have against the marrying party – Responded admits this.
    5. Spouses shake hands, Santiago announce their single-ness, and they can contract another marriage. Santiago say he will tear his
    diploma apart if agreement turns out to be invalid.
    6. Santiago: thought 7 years of separation entitles parties to remarry. That on June 30, parties signed a deed of cancellation of
    agreement.
    ISSUES:
    WON the document prepared by Santiago stipulating that spouses authorize each other to remarry is valid.
    RATIO:
    1. Contract is contrary to law, morals. And subvert vital foundation of family.
    2. Santiago’s actions constitute malpractice and justify disbarment.
    a. Admission of a lawyer to practice of law is upon the implied condition that his continued enjoyment of privilege conferred
    is dependent on his remaining a fit and safe person to society, otherwise right to practice is terminated.
    b. Here, Santiago was either ignorant or carelessly negligent. Should be disbarred, acc. to minority of Court.
    3. Majority, though, follow the recommendation of Honorable Sotero Rodas, Santiago is suspended for 1 year.
    a. He endeavored to correct his mistakes immediately by making parties sign another document cancelling previous one.
    RULING:
    Santiago is guilty of malpractice and is suspended for one year.

    You might also like