Bigamy and Expired Notarial Commission: When a Lawyer’s Private Life Triggers Discipline

The Supreme Court has long held that a lawyer’s duty to uphold the law does not end at the office door. In St. Louis University Laboratory High School Faculty and Staff v. Atty. Rolando C. Dela Cruz (A.C. No. 6010, August 28, 2006), the Court suspended a lawyer for four years—two years for contracting a bigamous marriage and another two years for notarizing documents after his notarial commission had expired. The case is a reminder that a lawyer’s private conduct and notarial acts are both subject to professional discipline.

The Facts of the Case

Atty. Dela Cruz was the principal of Saint Louis University-Laboratory High School. The school’s faculty and staff filed a disbarment complaint against him based on three grounds: (1) gross misconduct, citing pending criminal, administrative, and labor cases against him; (2) grossly immoral conduct for contracting a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting; and (3) malpractice for notarizing documents after his notarial commission had expired.

The records showed that Dela Cruz married Teresita Rivera in 1982. In 1989, while that marriage was still valid, he married Mary Jane Pascua. That second marriage was annulled in 1994 for being bigamous.

On the notarization charge, the Court found that Dela Cruz notarized fourteen documents from 1988 to 1997, even though his notarial commission had expired on December 31, 1987. A certification from the Clerk of Court confirmed he never applied for a new commission during that period.

The Issue Before the Court

The central question was whether Dela Cruz should be disciplined for contracting a bigamous marriage and for notarizing documents without a valid commission—and, if so, what penalty was appropriate.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court found Dela Cruz guilty of both charges. On the bigamy charge, the Court held that his act constituted immoral conduct, but not necessarily “grossly immoral conduct” warranting disbarment. The Court considered mitigating circumstances: he had been separated from his first wife for seven years, he showed noble intentions toward his second wife, he supported his family, and he remained celibate after the annulment. Still, the Court stressed that a lawyer cannot feign ignorance of the law—he was admitted to the Bar in 1985 and should have known that a subsisting first marriage must first be annulled before contracting a second one.

On the notarization charge, the Court was firmer. It emphasized that notarization is not a mere routine act. A notarized document becomes a public document, admissible in court without further proof of authenticity. Notarizing without a commission is not just malpractice—it may constitute the crime of falsification of public documents. The Court cited Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, and Canon 7, which requires lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

The Court rejected Dela Cruz’s defenses of good faith and lack of malice. It imposed a total suspension of four years: two years for the bigamous marriage and two years for the unauthorized notarizations.

Why This Case Matters

This case clarifies two important points. First, a lawyer’s private life is not beyond the reach of professional discipline. The Court quoted the principle that a lawyer cannot divide his personality—being an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Second, notarization is a public trust. Acting as a notary without a commission undermines public confidence in the integrity of notarial documents.

Practical Takeaways

• A lawyer’s private conduct matters. Bigamy, even if later annulled, is a ground for suspension. The annulment does not erase the wrongdoing.
• Notarization is a serious responsibility. Only those with a valid commission may notarize. Doing so without one is malpractice and may constitute falsification of public documents.
• Good faith is not a defense. Claiming noble intentions or lack of malice will not excuse violations of the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Pending cases are not grounds for discipline. The Court refused to consider the pending criminal, administrative, and labor cases against Dela Cruz, noting that the presumption of innocence still applies.
• Disbarment is a last resort. The Court will impose a lesser penalty when it can achieve the same purpose of protecting the public and the integrity of the profession.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.