Scribd
Upload
147 views1 page

In Re Atty. Rufillo D. Bucana

Respondent Rufillo D. Bucana, a notary public, was required to explain why he notarized an agreement between spouses Gonzalo Baltazar and Luisa Sorongon allowing each to remarry without objection. Bucana admitted notarizing the immoral agreement but claimed his clerk prepared it without his knowledge. He later found it notarized among his files and believed he inadvertently notarized it while distracted by his father's illness. The court ruled the agreement invalid as it purported to allow adultery and bigamy, which are immoral and criminal acts.

Uploaded by

Cookie Charm
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
147 views1 page

In Re Atty. Rufillo D. Bucana

Respondent Rufillo D. Bucana, a notary public, was required to explain why he notarized an agreement between spouses Gonzalo Baltazar and Luisa Sorongon allowing each to remarry without objection. Bucana admitted notarizing the immoral agreement but claimed his clerk prepared it without his knowledge. He later found it notarized among his files and believed he inadvertently notarized it while distracted by his father's illness. The court ruled the agreement invalid as it purported to allow adultery and bigamy, which are immoral and criminal acts.

Uploaded by

Cookie Charm
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

IN RE: ATTY. RUFILLO D. BUCANA, respondent.

FACTS:

Respondent Notary Public Rufillo D. Bucana was required by this Court in its Resolution of March
23, 1976, to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for having notarized on
November 10, 1975 at Dumangas, Iloilo an Agreement executed by the spouses Gonzalo Baltazar and
Luisa Sorongon wherein the afore-mentioned spouses agreed therein that "in case anyone of them will
remarry both parties offer no objection and waive all civil and criminal actions against them" and that
the afore-mentioned Agreement was "entered into for the purpose of agreement to allow each and
everyone of them to remarry without objection or reservation ...", which affidavit is contrary to law
because it sanctions an illicit and immoral purpose.

Respondent’s explanations:
1. Admitted that he notarized the afore-mentioned document and that the Agreement is "immoral and
against public policy"
2. But in mitigation he asserted that the document in question was Prepared by his clerk, Lucia D.
Doctolero, without his previous knowledge
3. Said document was presented to him for signature after it was signed by the parties but stated that he
refused to sign the same as the document was immoral.
4. Placed the said document on his table among his files and more than a week later, he asked his clerk
where the document was for the purpose of destroying it, but to his surprise he found that the same was
notarized by him as per his file copies in the office
5. When trying to get the copies from the contracting parties, said parties were not found in their
respective residences.
6. He must have inadvertently notarized the same in view of the numerous documents on his table and
at that time he was emotionally disturbed as his father (now deceased) was then seriously ill.

ISSUE:
WON the agreement that the respondent judge notarized is valid

RULING: NO.

There is no question that the afore-mentioned Agreement is contrary to law, morals and good customs.
Marriage is an inviolable social institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is
deeply interested for it is the foundation of the family and of society without which there could be
neither civilization nor progress.

The contract, in substance, purports to formulate an agreement between the husband and the wife to
take unto himself a concubine and the wife to live in adulterous relations with another man, without
opposition from either one, and what is more, it induces each party to commit bigamy.

This is not only immoral but in effect abets the commission of a crime

You might also like