MRS. REBECCA M. MIRANDA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. FRANCISCO FUENTES, RESPONDENT.

This
is a disbarment proceeding based upon a complaint filed by Mrs. Rebecca
M. Miranda against Atty. Francisco A. Fuentes for alleged malpractice
and unethical conduct consisting in having drafted and/or acknowledged,
in his capacity as notary public, a document which reads as follows:

MUTUAL AGREEMENT

“I,
JOSE C. RAMILO, Filipino, of age, and with residence and postal address
at Plaridel Street, City of Roxas, Philippines, hereinafter designated
as PARTY OF THE FIRST PART:

“CONSUELO BORRES, Filipina, of
age, and with residence and postal address at Barrio Bolo, City of
Roxas, Philippines, hereinafter designated as PARTY OF THE SECOND PART:

WITNESSETH—

“That we do hereby mutually, voluntarily and freely, and without any mental reservation of any kind agree, as follows:

“1.—That we were married before the Justice of the Peace of Roxas City
on March 4, 1950, but thereafter did not and have not lived together as
husband and wife;

“2.—That no child was born out of our wedlock, nor have we acquired any property of any kind;

“3.—That we renounce one from the other any kind of support or claim, real or personal, now and forever;

“4.—That the PARTY OF THE FIRST PART as well as the PARTY OF THE SECOND
PART have mutually agreed not to live together, and upon the signing of
this Agreement, they are free to choose, as they have been, their own
ways of life, both having the freedom of living with anyone, of acting
in whatever fashion they like, one not being answerable to the other
for the consequences thereof, nor the other having any claim or right
to prosecute the first as a result of the exercise of such freedom as
herein granted, but each shall be answerable unto himself therefor.

“FURTHER, deponents sayeth not.

“Done in the City of Roxas, this 4th day of November, 1953.

(Sgd.) JOSE C. RAMILO	(Sgd.) CONSUELO BORRES
WITNESSES:
(Sgd.) GERTRUDES RAMILO	(Sgd.) EDITH A. OROPIO

ACKNOWLEGMENT

Republic of the Philippines) } Roxas City)

S.S.

“On
this 5th day of December, 1953, personally appeared before me JOSE C.
RAMILO and CONSUELO BORRES, who exhibited to me their Residence
Certificate No. A-2092198 issued at Roxas City on October 6, 1953, and A-2092791 issued at Roxas City
on December 5th 1953, respectively, both of whom are known and to me
known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing agreement and
they acknowledged to me that the same is their free and voluntary act
and deed.

“WITNESS my hand and seal at the City of Roxas, Philippines.

(Sgd.) F. A. FUENTES Notary Public Until Dec. 31, 1953.

Doc. No. 548
Page No. 12
Book No. II
Series of 1953.”

The
case was referred by Us to the office of the Solicitor General and the
latter referred it xn turn to the Provincial Fiscal of Capiz for
investigation. Their respective reports are now in the record (pp.
258-265 and 266-271 respectively).

The following are substantially the facts which both investigators found proven by the evidence presented by the parties:

Sometime in November 1953, Jose C. Ramilo and his wife Consuelo C.
Borres approached respondent and delivered to him the document in
question—apparently to have it acknowledged. After reading it
respondent proceeded to ask some questions to the spouses and elicited
from them the fact that they were married in March 1950 but had never
lived together as husband and wife because the parents of Ramilo were
against his marrying Consuelo; that respondent made efforts to
reconcile them, even going to the extent of promising Ramilo a job
after the election, but his efforts were all in vain obviously because
at that time Consuelo was pregnant and Ramilo denied having anything to
do with her pregnancy; that after making certain corrections in the
document, he gave it to his typist to be put in final form; that upon
perusal of the final draft, respondent erased or crossed the words
“marrying or” between the words “of” and “living” which formed part of
the following sentence “Both having the freedom of marrying or living
with anyone” of the original document; that respondent advised the
spouses that they could not, under any circumstance, re-marry without
their marriage first being annulled.

Respondent did not prepare or draft the document in question but he
does not deny that it was acknowledged before him in his capacity as
notary public. He alleged, however, that he agreed to do so because
from what the parties had told him, it was not their intention or
purpose, in executing the document, to authorize each other to live
maritally with some other party or lead an immoral life. The report of
the Solicitor General states the following in relation to the
explanations given by respondent in the course of his testimony in
connection with the objectionable portions of the document:

“Regarding the clause in paragraph 4 of the Mutual Agreement which
reads as follows: ‘they are free to choose, as they have been, their
own ways of life, both having the freedom of living with anyone’,
respondent Francisco A. Fuentes explained this to mean as follows:

‘ATTY. FUENTES: The clause in paragraph No. 4 stating: ‘They are free
to choose, as they have been, their own ways of life, both having the
freedom of living with anyoner. What I understand this to mean from the
words of Jose Ramilo and Consuelo Borres up to the time they signed
this before me, was that each one was free to continue living with
their own respective families; that Ramilo would continue living with
his own mother and sisters without Consuelo Borres compelling him to
live with her; and on the other hand, Consuelo Borres should be allowed
by Jose Ramilo to continue living with her own parents in barrio Bolo,
Roxas City.’ (pp. 137-138, t.s.n.)

“Regarding the clause ‘of acting in whatever fashion they like, one not
being answerable to the other for the consequences thereof, nor the
other having any claim or right to prosecute the first as a result of
the exercise of such freedom as herein granted’, also found in
paragraph 4 of the Mutual Agreement, respondent Francisco A. Fuentes
explained this to mean as follows:

‘And the phrase in this same paragraph starting with the word ‘of
acting in whatever fashion they like, one not being answerable to the
other for the consequences thereof, nor the other having any claim or
right to prosecute the first as a result of the exercise of such
freedom as herein granted, but each shall be answerable unto himself
therefor.’ From my questions of the parties on November 4, 1953, they
made me understand that Consuelo Borres can continue to pursue her
occupation as a masseuse in a barber shop; that when they two signed
this document before me, Jose Ramilo was under the fear that the woman
might compel him either to recognize the unborn baby in the stomach of
the woman which Ramilo in my presence and in the presence of tneir
witnesses told me not to belong to him. As stated sometime this morning
I cancelled from the original document presented to me the clause or a
paragraph permitting both to marry again, iit the time the parties
signed this it was my understanding that each one of them wanted to be
fair against the demands of the other because of what they are and of
the situation of the woman. I interpreted this clause to be innocent. I
had no malice when I asked them to sign, I thought that they wanted
only a written statement of what was actually existing between thenu
For the complainant to inject into this clause any malice or any idea
that under this clause Jose Ramilo or Gonsuelo Borres could live a life
of immorality, that interpretation and that malice can only exist in
the mind of one with a wicked soul because even the most simplest
phrase or harmless clause can be implemented with evil by one used to a
life of lustful, lascivious and licentious way of life. That is all.”
(pp. 138-139, t.s.n.)

We have carefully read the document in question, particularly that
portion thereof which says that “upon the signing of this Agreement,
they are free to choose, as they have been, their own ways of life,
both having the freedom of living with anyone, of acting in whatever
fashion they like”, and our impression is that the language used does
not necessarily mean that the contracting parties had authorized each
other to do immoral acts or to live maritally with some other man or
woman, without the other having any right to complain. Of course,
connecting what has been just quoted with the portion which says: “nor
the other having any claim or right to prosecute the first as a result
of the exercise of such freedom as herein granted”, one might think
that the parties really had in mind allowing each other to do anything
for which he or she may be prosecuted upon the instance of the other,
but considering the nature of the present case, We believe that
whatever doubts may exist in the premises should be resolved in favor
of respondent. He have come to this conclusion not only because the
matter of respondent’s guilt of the charge under investigation appears
doubtful but also because trie record fully discloses that the
complaint was filed by Mrs. Miranda for purposes of revenge. In this
connection, it appears that respondent is the brother of Mrs. Isabel F.
Adonay; that the latter, on February 11, 1955, filed charges for
immorality against complainant, Mrs. Rebecca Miranda, a public school
teacher at the Central Elementary School of Panitan, Capiz; that Mrs.
Miranda, through a third person, asked respondent—who was Mrs. Adonay’s
counsel—to have his sister drop such charges for immorality and when
respondent refused or failed to do so, Mrs. Miranda filed the charge
for malpractice and unethical conduct against respondent on October 4,
1955. It is therefore clear that said complaint was not filed in good
faith.

In view of the foregoing, We approve
the recommendation of the Solicitor General to the effect that
respondent be reprimanded and admonished, as he is hereby reprimanded
and admonished to be more careful in the future in the acknowledgement
of documents similar in kind to the one involved in this case.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Regala, Makalintal, and Bengzon, J.P., JJ., concur.