IN THE MATTER OF THE DISBARMENT OF EUGENIO DE LARA, ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW.

On or about the 29th day of April, 1912, the following instrument, executed
before Eugenio de Lara, a notary public, on the 21st day of February, 1912, came
into the possession of the prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila, Honorable
W. H. Bishop:

“Know all men by these presents: That we, Cirilo San Pedro and
Petronila Trias, both of lawful age and residents of the city of Manila, P. I.,
solemnly state and declare:

“1. That the said Cirflo San Pedro states and promises that he will legally
marry the said Petronila Trias within, 30 days following the death of his wife,
to whom he is at present married.

“2. That the said Petronila Trias also states and promises that she will make
no contract of espousal or of marriage with any other man than said Cirilo San
Pedro while she remains single, she agreeing to await and fulfill that which she
has agreed to in the present instrument

“3. Both parties are obligated to comply with the provisions of this
instrument, and the party refusing to do so shall pay as damages the sum of
P500.

“In witness whereof we sign the present agreement and bind ourselves to
respect all the paragraphs thereof, this 21st day of February,
1912.

(Signed) “C. SN. PEDRO.

“PETRONILA TRIAS.”

The prosecuting attorney made the following indorsement upon a copy of said
instrument and forwarded the same to the Attorney-General:

“Respectfully referred to the Honorable the Attorney-General, inviting
attention to the foregoing documents and testimony, taken before my assistant,
Mr. Sobral.

“I do not believe that this matter is covered by the penal laws, but it
occurs to me that a notary public who would execute such papers, particularly in
view of paragraph 1 of the document, could be disciplined by the Supreme
Court.

“Hence, I submit the matter to you for your consideration.”

The Attorney-General made the following indorsement:

“Respectfully referred to the Honorable E. F. Johnson, Justice of the Supreme
Court, inviting attention to the in closed papers.

“It is respectfully recommended that the notary herein referred to be removed
from office under section 82 of Act No. 136.”

On May 6, 1912, the Honorable E. Finley Johnson, vacation justice, made the
following order:

“Respectfully forwarded to the clerk of the Supreme Court, with directions
that an order be issued under the seal of the court, directed to Eugenio de
Lara, the notary public mentioned in the within annexed documents, ordering him
to appear personally before the Supreme Court at 9 o’clock a. m. on the 8th day
of July, 1912, and to show in writing why he should not be removed as a notary
public, in accordance with the provisions of section 82 of Act No. 136, for the
alleged misconduct complained of by the prosecuting attorney of the city of
Manila, and which is fully set out in the documents hereto attached.

“The clerk will accompany the order herein made by a certified copy of all
the documents hereto attached.”

On the 8th of July, 1912, Eugenio de Lara presented his answer to the order
to show cause, in which appear the following paragraphs:

“That the complaint of the prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila in this
matter refers to a contract of espousal signed and acknowledged before the
undersigned by Cirilo San Pedro and Petronila Trias, said complaint being
founded upon the declarations of Petronila Trias and her father, who allege that
said instrument was drawn by tfye notary before whom it was acknowledged.

“On the 21st of February, 1912, the said Cirilo San Pedro and Petronila Trias
came into the office of the undersigned notary with the documentjn prepared for
ratification. The undersigned read the document and after having interpreted it
to the parties thereto called their attention to its contents; they said that
they were informed as to its contents and that it was in conformity with their
will and purpose.

“The notary before whom the document was acknowledged neither induced nor
counseled the parties thereto to execute or sign said document, nor did he
intervene directly or indirectly in formulating it, which appears from the
adjoined affidavit of the witness who signed the document and as also appears
from the language and expressions appearing in the contract from beginning to
end and which show that they never could have been written by a lawyer. There,
therefore, exists no basis for the complaint presented by the
Attorney-General.

“The mere fact that the said instrument was signed and acknowledged before a
notary public, who annexed his name and official seal, is not, in the humble
judgment of the undersigned, sufficient ground under Act No. 136 to require his
removal from office, * * *.”

Relative to the issues thus framed the Attorney-General took a considerable
amount of evidence, and after duly considering1 the same presented to this
court, the following report:

“The undersigned, Attorney-General of the Philippine Islands, in compliance
with the order of this court dated the 10th of July last, transferring to this
office the answer and affidavit presented ‘by the notary public Eugenio de Lara
in order that this office might express its opinion with reference to said
complaint, appears before the court and respectfully shows:

“1. That this office, in view of the denial of Eugenio de Lara, notary
public, to having drawn the instrument acknowledged before him by Cirilo San
Pedro &ndf Petronila Trias, presenting in support of his denial an affidavit
signed and sworn to by one Regino Talag, obtained the opinion of a typewriter
expert in the office of the Constabulary, Mr. Edwin C. Bopp, relative to whether
the instrument in question ancTthe answer presented in his defense by Mr. Lara
were written on the same typewriter.

“2. The said expert, after an examination of the two writings by aid of
photography, by which the letters and characters were very much enlarged, which
photographs are attached hereto, gave it as his opinion that the two documents
were written not only upon the same jnachine but also by the same operator, as
appears from his report which is hereto atfeched. This opinion and the papers
thereto attached demonstrate clearly that said contract in question was drawn in
the office of Eugenio de Lara, in conformity with the testimony of one of the
parties thereto, Petronila Trias, Mr. De Lara having, in his testimony taken in
the office of the Assistant Attorney-General, Mr. Feria, declared that his
answer filed herein and referred to above was written by his stenographer and on
the machine which he has in his office.

“3. That, as still further corroboration of the fact that the instrument in
question was written and drawn by Eugenio de Lara, the undersigned ordered the
Assistant Attorney-General of this office, Mr. Felicisimo R. Feria, to visit the
office of Mr. Campbell, where Regino Talag, who gave the affidavit to Mr. Lara,
works, in order to take his declaration and that of his companion, who,
according to the affidavit of Talag, drew the instrument in question.

“4. The said Assistant Attorney General went to the office of Mr. Campbell on
the 9th of this month and took the sworn declaration of said Regino Talag, as
well as of one Nemesio Agor, who, according to Talag, was the one who drew the
instrument. From these sworn declarations, which are adjoined hereto, it appears
that said Agor did not draw or write the said instrument nor did he know
anything about it, nor did he see Cirilo San Pedro and Petronila Trias. This
shows that the declaration of Talag presented to this court by Mr. De Lara and
repeated in his sworn testimony before the Assistant Attorney-General is false.

“5. From the foregoing facts it appears: (1) That Mr. Eugenio de Lara is the
one who wrote the instrument which is the object of the present complaint and
that, therefore, he did not tell the truth in his answer presented to this court
denying that act; and (2) that the sworn declation of Regino Talag presented by
Eugenio de Lara to this court to corroborate his denial that he wrote the said
instrument and which also was repeated in his sworn declaration before the
Assistant Attorney-General is not entitled to any credit
whatever.

“Wherefore, we submit to the consideration of this honorable
court that although there exists no penal law affecting the act of Mr. De Lara,
such act ought not to pass without being corrected, especially when we take into
consideration that said notary Mr. De Lara is also a lawyer.”

Upon this report and the facts presented by the evidence upon which it was
based, the Attorney-General initiated a proceeding against said De Lara for the
revocation of his appointment as notary public. This court, however, upon said
report and evidence, returned the same to the Attorney-General with instructions
that, if in the opinion of the Attorney-General the facts warranted it, there be
included in the complaint filed on January 10, 1913, the charge that the said
Eugenio de Lara in an investigation instituted for the purpose of determining
whether there was sufficient foundation to the charges against him notary public
to warrant their prosecution, declaring as a witness, under oath, testified
false and submitted, in support of his false evidence, other testimony which he
at the time well knew to be false.

Thereupon the Attorney-General amended his complaint by inserting therein the
allegation found in paragraph 3 thereof, to wit:

“3. That at the investigation held by Mr. Felicisimo R. Feria, an assistant
attorney of this office, on the above contract on August 8, 1912, the said
Eugenio de Lara testified falsely and submitted the testimony of one Regino
Talag, well knowing that the same was false.”

The prayer of the complaint was “that said Eugenio de Lara be removed and
disbarred from practicing law in the courts of the Philippine Islands and that
his appointment as notary public be revoked.”

The accused attorney having answered the complaint, the matter was referred
to the clerk of this court as a referee to take testimony. On the completion of
the hearings the referee reported the case with the evidence to this court.

Upon the evidence and the record we are satisfied beyond any doubt whatever
that the accused attorney upon the investigation instituted in the proceeding to
revoke his appointment as notary public, as a witness therein declaring under
oath, testified falsely and did so deliberately, willfully, and corruptly. That
he composed and drew the document in question there can be no doubt. The same
typewriter was used with respect to the document in question as was used in the
answer which the accused attorney filed to the charges made againsthim as notary
public. The testimony of the other witnessed of the case and the failure of the
accused attorney to present as a witness the person whose affidavit he filed in
support of his own sworn declaration that he did not compose or draw the
instrument in question, of themselves establish beyond doubt that he is guilty
of the charges made. When taken together with the evidence of Mr. Bopp, and the
exhibits presented in connection with his testimony, by which it is demonstrated
to the point of absolute clearness that the instrument in question was written
upon De Lara’s typewriter and very likely by De Lara operator, his guilt is
placed beyond the range of doubt.

Every lawyer who is admitted to practice in the courts of the Philippine
Islands takes an oath, a part of which is as follows:

“I do solemnly
swear that I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; * *
*” “Sec. 18, Code Civ. Proc.)

Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides:

“Disbarments.—A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from
his office as lawyer by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other
gross misconduct in such office, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude or for any violation of either of the oaths aforesaid,
or for the willful disobedience of any lawful order of the Supreme Court or
Courts of First Instance, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as a lawyer
for a party to an action or proceeding without authority so to
do.”

It needs no argument to demonstrate that the conduct of the respondent in
this case is a violation of his oath of office, particularly that part thereof
in which he deposed that he would do no falsehood in court and that he would
conduct himself in the office of a lawyer within the courts according to the
best of his knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity to the courts as to
his clients.

The proceeding for the removal of the respondent notary public was a
proceeding, in effect, in court, court being the appointing power and the
complaint against the respondent to that end having been presented to this court
and referred by it to the Attorney-General.

In that investigation the respondent was guilty of the acts in this
proceeding complained of and thereby violated the oath to which we have
referred. The same conduct was persisted in upon the proceeding to disbar him.
While we recognize and deeply appreciate that the permanent separation of a man
from his chosen profession, to which he has dedicated a large part of his
lifetime and which may be his only support, is a most important and solemn
matter, we feel that this case warrants the severest penalty which the law
imposes and that the responsibility under which we lie both to the public and to
the bar demands the action which we take in the premises.

It is hereby adjudged and decreed that said Eugenio de Lara be and hereby is
disbarred and inhibited as an attorney and counselor at law of the Philippine
Islands and as an officer of the courts thereof; that his license to practice
and act as such be and the same is hereby revoked, canceled, and annulled.

It is further adjudged and decreed that his appointment as notary public be,
and the same is hereby, revoked, canceled, and annulled, and that his license
and certificate to practice and act as such be and the same is hereby also
revoked, canceled, and annulled.

Arellano C. J., Carson, Moreland, Trent, and Araullo,
JJ.

Respondent disbarred from practice of law and his appointment as notary
public revoked.