CONRADO S. ACUÑA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ISIDRO DUNCA AND TIMOTEO DAVID, RESPONDENTS.

This is an administrative case instituted by the complainant, Conrado S.
Acuña, to disbar the respondents, Timoteo David and Isidro Dunca, and to further
secure the cancellation of the latter’s commission as notary public on the
ground that the first had prepared and the second had notarized an affidavit,
Annex A to the complaint, purporting to be that of complainant’s daughter,
Adoracion Acuña, wherein she appears to have stated that she was determined to
marry a man whom she knew to be already married to another woman.

We gave due course to the complaint and required the respondents to answer
the same within ten days from notice. After respondents’ answer had been filed,
we referred the matter to the Solicitor General for investigation and
recommendation. While the case was pending in the Office of the Solicitor
Genral, the complainant filed a motion asking that the charge be dismissed, on
the ground that its filing was due to a mere misunderstanding between his
daughter Adoracion Acuña and the respondents, and that he is no longer
interested in the prosecution of the case. Based on this motion, the Solicitor
General recommended dismissal of the charge. This Court, however, in a
resolution dated January 29, 1957, denied the Solicitor General’s motion and
ordered that the investigation of the charge proceed.

The case was properly investigated in the Office of the Solicitor General.
Notice of the hearing was sent to all the parties concerned, and on the date set
therefor the complainant and his daughter Adoracion Acuña and the respondents
appeared. The complainant, however, confined himself to explaining why he filed
the motion to withdraw his complaint, refused to make any further statement to
substantiate its allegations and once more stated that he was no longer
interested in the prosecution of the case. Adoracion Acuña, in turn, likewise
refused to make any statement in substantiation of the allegations of her
father’s complaint, stating that she was already satisfied with the result of
the bigamy charge filed against her and her co-accused Alfonso Eugenio of which
they were both acquitted.

From the testimony of the respondents, the following facts appear proven: In
the year 1947, Alfonso Eugenio and the respondents Isidro Dunca and Timoteo
David had separate offices at the Chaco Building, Manila. Complainant’s daughter
Adoracion Acuña was at that time employed as secretary to respondent David. She
fell in love with and became deeply intimate with Eugenio, who despite his
marriage to Marta Cruz in 1932, was willing to marry Adoracion provided she
subscribed to a written statement professing her knowledge of his marital
status. Such an affidavit, he told her, would prevent her from charging him with
bigamy. Desperately wanting a marriage certificate with which to appease her
parents’ wrath over her misdeeds, Adoracion sought the help of her employer.
Respondent David, at first, refused to prepare the requested statement, and
explained to her that such an affidavit would be immoral and illegal. Because
however of Adoracion’s insistent pleas and explanations that it was the only way
by which she could be married to Eugenio and thus redeem her honor, finally
respondent David acceded to Adoracion’s request and on May 31, 1947, he drafted
the affidavit Annex A, which reads as follows:

“REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES		}SS
IN THE CITY OF MANILA

AFFIDAVIT

“I, ADORACION S. ACUÑA, of age, single and residing at 1415 Miguelin, Manila,
after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and say:

“That I know personally the status of ALFONSO H. EUGENIO, he being married in
lawful wedlock with one Marta Cruz of Pasig, Rizal, with three children begotten
of said marriage;

“That I am to contract marriage with the said ALFONSO H. EUGENIO in spite of
my personal knowledge of the above marriage so as to show to society of our good
intentions and further to hide my misdeeds from my parents;

“That I am executing this foregoing statements free from any force, duress or
any intimidation from any person whosoever and that the same is my voluntary
acts and deed;

“IN TRUTH OF ALL THE FOREGOING, I have hereunto affixed my hand below on this
31st day of May, 1947, in the City of Manila, Philippines.

	(Sgd.) A. S. ACUÑA
		Affiant

“Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 4th day of June, 1947, in the City
of Manila, the affiant exhibiting her residence certificate No. A-2727772 issued
in Manila, on May 27, 1947.

	(Sgd.) ISIDRO T. DUNCA
		Notary Public
Doc. No. 315	Until December 31, 1948
Page No. 64
Book No. II
Series of 1947

Adoracion signed this affidavit on that same date, and on that very day she
and Eugenio were married. Four days thereafter, or on June 4, 1947, evidently
upon the indication of Eugenio, Adoracion, accompanied by respondent David,
approached respondent Dunca and asked him to notarize the affidavit. The latter
acceded to the request.

Sometime in the year 1952, the complainant Conrado S. Acuña, evidently
informed of the civil status of Alfonso Eugenio, filed a charge of bigamy
against the latter. This sparked off a number of countercharges. Marta Cruz
accused Adoracion Acuña and Alfonso Eugenio of bigamy; Eugenio filed against
Adoracion Acuña a complaint for perjury. It developed, however, that Eugenio had
divorced his first wife Marta Cruz during the Japanese occupation. As a
consequence, Eugenio and Adoracion Acuña were both acquitted of the charge of
bigamy.

That the affidavit Annex A is immoral is not disputed; and it is admitted
fact that it was prepared for the signature of Adoracion Acuña by respondent
Timoteo David and notarized by respondent Isidro Dunca. Their only explanation
is that they did not have the courage to deny help to Adoracion Acuña who was an
employee of the former and a friend of the latter. It is, therefore, clear that
the respondents, who are both members of the bar, have committed disgraceful
acts which constitute gross misconduct in office and a violation of their oath
of office as attorneys at law, for which they may be disciplined by this Court.
Rule 127, sec. 25, Rules of Court; Panganiban vs. Borromeo, 58 Phil.,
367. Upon the facts, however, we agree with the Solicitor General that they are
entitled to a lenient treatment. We have no doubt that they committed the
immoral acts charged, not for monetary considerations, but only out of pure
generosity.

Wherefore, following precedents (Panganiban vs. Borromeo,
supra), it is hereby decreed that the respondents, Attorneys Isidro Dunca
and Timoteo David, be, as they are hereby, severely censured, with admonition
that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with
more severely.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon and De Leon, JJ.,
concur.