[A.C. No. 6148.

February 27, 2004]

FLORENCE TEVES MACARR !O, "#e M$%or& ' R(S ALE)(S T. MACARR !O a%* +A!R(EL ENR(CO T. MACARR !O a& re,re&e%"e* by "#e$r Mo"#er-+uar*$a%, FLORENCE TEVES MACARR !O, complainant, vs. ATT.. E/M N/O L. MACARR !O, respondent. Florence Teves Macarrubo (complainant), by herself and on behalf of her two children, filed on June 6, 2000 a verified complaint !" for disbarment a#ainst $tty% &dmundo '% Macarubbo (respondent) with the (nte#rated )ar of the *hilippines (()*), doc+eted as ,)- ,ase .o% 00/012/$, alle#in# that respondent deceived her into marryin# him despite his prior subsistin# marria#e with a certain 3elen &spar4a% -etailin# the circumstances surroundin# respondent5s complained act, complainant averred that he started courtin# her in $pril !66!, he representin# himself as a bachelor7 that they eventually contracted marria#e which was celebrated on two occasions administered by 8ev% 8o#elio J% )olivar, the first on -ecember !9, !66! 2" in the latter5s Manila office, and the second on -ecember 29, !66! 1" at the $sian (nstitute of Tourism 3otel in :ue4on ,ity7 and that althou#h respondent admitted that he was married to 3elen &spar4a on June !6, !692, he succeeded in convincin# complainant, her family and friends that his previous marria#e was void% ,omplainant further averred that respondent entered into a third marria#e with one Josephine T% ,onstantino7 and that he abandoned complainant and their children without providin# them any re#ular support up to the present time, leavin# them in precarious livin# conditions% ,omplainant submitted documentary evidence consistin# of the marria#e contract between respondent and 3elen &spar4a 2" and that between her and respondent, ;" and photo#raphs 6" of their (complainant and respondent) nuptials and of captured moments in their life as a couple and a family% ,opy of the complaint could not be immediately served upon respondent owin# to the difficulty of locatin# him% 0" ,omplainant later filed a Manifestation 9" before the ()*, furnishin# therein respondent5s address where he supposedly resided with his third wife Jo T% ,onstantino/Macarubbo% The ()* ,ommission on )ar -iscipline thereupon thrice 6" re<uired respondent to file his $nswer% 3e failed to do so, however, on motion of complainant, !0" he was declared in default% !!" ,omplainant was thus allowed to present evidence ex parte. The ()* (nvesti#atin# ,ommissioner came out with a 8eport and 8ecommendation on January 22, 200!% !2" )y 8esolution of May 26, 200!, !1" however, the ()* )oard of =overnors remanded the case to the (nvesti#atin# ,ommissioner to >ensure proper notice or another opportunity to serve notice to the respondent%? @ubse<uently or on @eptember ;, 200!, respondent filed a ManifestationAEx Parte Motion to 8e/Bpen *roceedin#s !2" which was #ranted% !;" )y ,omment of Bctober !9, 200!, !6" respondent denied employin# deception in his marria#e to complainant, insistin# instead that complainant was fully aware of his prior subsistin# marria#e to 3elen &spar4a, but that she dra##ed him a#ainst his will to a >sham weddin#? to protect her and her family5s reputation since she was then three/months pre#nant% 8espondent submitted in evidence the final and eCecutory Bctober 10, 2000 -ecision of )ranch (D of the 8e#ional Trial ,ourt (8T,) of Tu#ue#arao ,ity in ,ivil ,ase .o% ;6!0, Edmundo L. Macarubbo v. Florence J. Teves, !0" declarin# his marria#e to complainant void ab initio. 3e drew attention to the trial court5s findin#s on the basis of his evidence which was not controverted, that the marria#e was indeed >a sham and ma+e believe? one, >vitiated by fraud, deceit, force and intimidation, and further eCacerbated by the eCistence of a le#al impediment? and want of a valid marria#e license% 8espondent also submitted a certification from the .ational @tatistics Bffice that complainant5s name does not appear in the .ational (ndeC of Marria#es for )ride7 !9" another certification from the .ational @tatistics Bffice/Bffice of ,ivil 8e#istrar =eneral that it has no record of the -ecember 29, !66! marria#e of complainant and respondent7 !6" and an attestation from the Bffice of the Municipal ,ivil 8e#istrar of )acoor, ,avite that Marria#e 'icense .o% 002!0622! which was used in complainant and respondent5s marria#e is not on file in its records% 20" $dmittin# havin# sired complainant5s two children, Juris $leCis and =abriel &nrico, respondent denied ever abandonin# them% (n his @upplemental ,omment, 2!" respondent claimed that he left complainant and their two children with her consent after eCplainin# to her that the pain and shame of livin# in sin and ridicule was unbearable%

To refute the char#e that he had abandoned complainant and their two children, he presented copies of fully paid educational plans 22" for the hi#h school and colle#e education of the children7 a *hilippine .ational )an+ chec+ dated January !9, !666 for *22,;;6%11 representin# his payment of the final amorti4ation of his car which has been in complainant5s possession since !6607 21" a copy of a petition of complainant in a civil case filed a#ainst respondent with the :ue4on ,ity 8T,, for Eudicial authori4ation to sell certain properties of respondent, wherein she admitted that respondent issued three postdated chec+s in the amount of *2,000%00 each for his children5s allowance coverin# the period Bctober !666 to -ecember !6667 22" and copy of his $u#ust 6, !666 letter to complainant demandin# custody of his children, he havin# been barred from seein# them, as well as the return of his personal properties in complainant5s possession% 2;" To disprove that he is of depraved moral character, respondent submitted certifications from the Bffice of the )ar ,onfidant, Bffice of the Bmbudsman, 20" -epartment of Justice, 29" and the *hilippine .ational *olice in his hometown in &nrile, ,a#ayan 26" that he has no cases of any nature pendin# with them% $nd he too submitted letters from the -epartment of (nterior and 'ocal =overnment 10" and the Metro Manila -evelopment $uthority 1!" addressed to him to show that he is a civic/spirited person%
26"

Finally, respondent, in his @upplemental ,omment, raised the additional defenses that the Eudicial decree of annulment of his marria#e to complainant is res judicata upon the present administrative case7 that complainant is in estoppel for admittin# her status as mere live/in partner to respondent in her letter to Josephine T% ,onstantino7 12" and that she resorted to forum/shoppin# in brin#in# both this administrative action and the civil case with the :ue4on ,ity 8T,% @tressin# that he had always been the victim in his marital relations, respondent invo+ed the final and eCecutory $u#ust 2!, !669 -ecision of )ranch !;9 of the *asi# ,ity 8T, in J-8, ,ase .o% 2120, > Edmundo L. Macarubbo v. Helen . Espar!a,? 11" declarin# his first marria#e void on the #round of his wife5s psycholo#ical incapacity% $fter hearin# durin# which both complainant and respondent too+ the witness stand, the (nvesti#atin# ,ommissioner rendered a 8eport and 8ecommendation 12" the dispositive portion of which readsF G3&8&FB8&, premises considered, it is recommended that respondent $tty% &dmundo '% Macarrubo be @H@*&.-&- FB8 T38&& MB.T3@ for #ross misconduct reflectin# unfavorably on the moral norms of the profession% Moreover, it must li+ewise be impressed on respondent that he should comply with the moral and le#al obli#ations incumbent upon him as a father of the children as a result of his relationship with complainant% (Hnderscorin# supplied) The ()* )oard of =overnors subse<uently passed 8esolution .o% ID/2001/1;! 1;" which adopted and approved the 8eport and 8ecommendation of the (nvesti#atin# ,ommissioner% The final disposition of the present administrative case is now before this ,ourt% (t appears that respondent be#an his le#al career in !696 as 'e#al Bfficer of the -epartment of &ducation, ,ulture and @ports after which he became @upervisin# ,ivil @ervice $ttorney of the ,ivil @ervice ,ommission% 16" 3e later became an Bmbudsman =raft (nvesti#ation Bfficer, then a @tate *rosecutor of the -epartment of Justice, before finally bowin# out of public service after about !2 years or in July 2000 to en#a#e in private practice% 10" The rule that a lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wantin# in moral character, in honesty, in probity and #ood demeanor, thus renderin# him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court 19" bears reiteratin#% Hpon the evidence on record, respondent is indeed #uilty of #ross misconduct in his private affairs which warrant disciplinary action by this ,ourt as the #uardian of the purity and inte#rity of the le#al profession% The incontrovertible facts show that while respondent had a subsistin# marria#e with 3elen &spar4a with whom he had two children, 16" he entered into a second marria#e with complainant% Ghile the marria#e between complainant and respondent has been annulled by final Eud#ment, this does not cleanse his conduct of every tin#e of impropriety% 3e and complainant started livin# as husband and wife in -ecember !66! when his first marria#e was still subsistin#, as it was only on $u#ust 2!, !669 that such first marria#e was annulled, renderin# him liable for concubina#e% 20" @uch conduct is inconsistent with the #ood moral character that is re<uired for the continued ri#ht to practice law as a member of the *hilippine bar% 2!" (t imports moral turpitude and is a public assault upon the basic social institution of marria#e% 22" &ven assumin# ar"uendo that respondent was coerced by complainant to marry her, the duress, by his own admission as the followin# transcript of his testimony reflects, ceased after their weddin# day, respondent havin# freely cohabited with her and even be#ot a second child by her% CCC

$TTJ% *$=H($ ,omplainant5s ,ounsel" :F $re you claimin# that the complainant coerced you a#ain to marry herK $F Jes, ( was% :F -id she use a #un to coerce youK $F $ lot of people appearin# around and a lot of bad mouth from her, threats to sue me and to even +ill me by people around% :F @o insofar as you are concerned the complainant committed a crime of coercion a#ainst yourselfK $F Jes% :F $nd is it correct for me to say that you did not file any case before the *rosecutor5s Bffice% $F ( reported that matter to the police% ,BMM(@@(B.&8 ,B.,&*,(B. L :F (n what way did M s"% Florence Teves coerce youK $F @he placed me in a place where she could #uard me and she treated (sic) to sue me, destroy my career% $nd at the time of the marria#e she sent people to fetch me from my place to be there% $nd there are a lot of people with stran#e faces% $TTJ% *$=H($ L :F 0o1 2a%y *ay& or #our& *$* "#$& 3oer3$o% 4a&"5 $F T#a"6& 3o%"$%u$%7. :F Fro2 1#a" *ay "o 1#a" *ay5 $F ("6& &"ar"e* 1#e% &#e &a$* &#e 1a& ,re7%a%" u%"$4 "#e *a"e o8 "#e a44e7e* 2arr$a7e. :F ,an you tell the 3onorable ,ommission who #ot her pre#nant at that timeK $F $lthou#h there was a carnal +nowled#e once% :F Bf course you +now that the complainant delivered the child after your marria#e, is it notK $F Jes, siC months after because she was already pre#nant three months durin# that time already% :F ,an you tell the 3onorable ,ommission what is the name of the child was (sic)K $F Juris% ( reco#ni4ed the children% There5s no problem about that% ( #ave them educational plan, ( #ave them support% :F $fter the first child you continued livin# with the complainant, is it notK $F (%"er2$""e%"4y ( 7e" ou" a%* "#e% &#e 1ou4* 3a44 pagkat may sakit yong bata &o ( #a9e "o 7o ba3:. :F Bf course it was your responsibility as father to the child to see the condition of the childK $F Jes, that5s why whenever she comes and tells me that the child is sic+ ( #o there% :F A8"er your 1e**$%7 1$"# "#e 3o2,4a$%a%" 3a% you "e44 "#e 0o%orab4e Co22$&&$o% 1#ere you re&$*e*5 ,BMM(@@(B.&8 ,B.,&*,(B. L :F ;#e% you &ay 1#ere you re&$*e*, bo"# o8 "#e25 $TTJ% *$=H($F Jes, Jour 3onor% $F (% "#e re&$*e%3e o8 F4ore%3e. $TTJ% *$=H($ L :F 0o1 4o%7 *$* you 4$9e 1$"# "#e 3o2,4a$%a%" a8"er your 1e**$%75

$F (%"er2$""e%"4y a7a$% 8e1 2o%"#& "#e% ( 7e" ou" "#e% 1#e% "#e 3#$4* $& &$3: ( #a9e "o 9$&$". ,BMM(@@(B.&8 ,B.,&*,(B. L :F ;#e% you &ay $%"er2$""e%"4y you *o%6" &"ay "#ere5 $F No" ,er2a%e%"4y. $TTJ% *$=H($ L :F 3ow often did you come home to the residence of the complainantK $F Ghenever she call that the child is sic+% :F @o you live (sic) with her up to what yearK $F (ntermittently !66;% :F Jou mentioned that you have two children with the complainantK $F Jes% :F ,an you remember when your second child with the complainant was bornK $F ( cannot remember% :F -o you +now how old the second child with the complainant isK $F ( #uess siC or seven% :F Ghat is his nameK $F Mico% :F Gho provided the support for these children from the time they were born up to the presentK $F Ghen ( was there ( #ave for their subsistence% :F Gill you please tell the ,ommission how much was thatK $F ( buy #roceries for them and ( #ave also for their leisure and for their education% :F Ghen you #ave this support durin# the intermittently that you had with themK $F (ntermittently also% $F 8ou#hly, ,ompaMero, can you tell the 3onorable ,ommission from that time they were born to this time how much you were #ivin# themK $F ( cannot compute% ,BMM(@@(B.&8 ,B.,&*,(B. L :F Ghat about on a monthly basis, do you recallK $F ( cannot compute althou#h when ( left with her consent in !660 ( left valuables in the amount of *200,000%00% :F Ghen you say with her consent, did you tell her that you are leavin#K $F Jes, Jour 3onor, she a#reed because ( said ( can no lon#er bear livin# with sin% C C C 21" (&mphasis and underscorin# supplied) The sayin# that photo#raphs do not lie could not be any truer in those submitted in evidence by complainant which show a typical happy family with respondent essayin# out his role as a husband to complainant and a father to their two +ids% 8espondent cannot thus ta+e refu#e in the earlier mentioned findin# in the decision of Tu#ue#arao ,ity trial court in the annulment case he filed a#ainst complainant% The decision, re%*ere* $% *e8au4" o8 3o2,4a$%a%", cannot serve as res judicata on the final resolution of the present case% $s this ,ourt held in #n re $lmacen, 22" a disbarment case is sui "eneris for it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal but is rather an investi#ation by the ,ourt into the conduct of its officers% Thus, if the ac<uittal of a lawyer in a criminal action is not determinative of

an administrative case a#ainst him, 2;" or if an affidavit of withdrawal of a disbarment case does not affect its course, 26" then the Eud#ment of annulment of respondent5s marria#e does not also eConerate him from a wron#doin# actually committed% @o lon# as the <uantum of proof L clear preponderance of evidence L in disciplinary proceedin#s a#ainst members of the bar is met, then liability attaches% 20" The disturbin# fact that respondent was able to secure the annulment of his first two marria#es and is in the process of procurin# the annulment of his third bears notin#% ,ontrary to the findin# of the (nvesti#atin# ,ommissioner, respondent, by his own admission, contracted a third marria#eF CCC $TTJ% *$=H($ L :F $fter #ettin# married to the complainant is it a fact that you entered into a third marria#e to one Josephine ,onstantinoK $F ( thin+ that is % % % :F ( will reform, Jour 3onor% -o you +now a person by the name of Josephine ,onstantinoK $F Jes :F Ghat relation if any do you have with herK $F ( am separated to her since 2000% ,BMM(@@(B.&8 ,B.,&*,(B. L :F Gere you married to Josephine ,onstantinoK $F .e&, bu" $"6& $% "#e ,ro3e&& o8 a%%u42e%". C C C 29" (&mphasis and underscorin# supplied) (n both his marria#es to his first wife and to complainant, respondent claimed that he was made to enter into the marital union a#ainst his will% That claim is an affront to the intelli#ence of the members of this ,ourt to distin#uish fact from fiction, reality from fantasy% (t is not easy to believe that a lawyer li+e respondent could easily be cowered to enter into any marria#e% Bne incident of a >shot#un marria#e? is believable, but two such in succession would taC one5s credulity% $nd then, there is a third marria#e to Josephine T% ,onstantino which is a#ain the subEect of another annulment case% (t would not come as a surprise if in that pendin# case, he would a#ain put blame on his third wife in order to send the marria#e to oblivion% 8espondent here has eChibited the vice of enterin# into multiple marria#es and then leavin# them behind by the mere eCpedient of resortin# to le#al remedies to sever them% The impact of respondent5s conduct is incalculable upon his eC/wives as well as the children he had by them, their lives havin# been dislocated beyond recall% 8espondent5s assertion that he has not failed to support his children by complainant is not totally supported by the evidence on record% 3e may have secured educational plans for them and doled out some sums of money in the past, but it appears that he has failed to provide them re#ular, monthly support% (n fact, he admitted that even before he left complainant5s residence in !66;, he was only #ivin# intermittent support to his children with her% 26" @uch pattern of misconduct by respondent undermines the institutions of marria#e and family, institutions that this society loo+s to for the rearin# of our children, for the development of values essential to the survival and well/bein# of our communities, and for the stren#thenin# of our nation as a whole% This must be chec+ed if not stopped% $s officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of #ood moral character but must also be perceived to be of #ood moral character and must lead a life in accordance with the hi#hest moral standards of the community% ;0" The moral delin<uency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such, includin# that which ma+es a moc+ery of the inviolable social institution of marria#e, ;!" outra#es the #enerally accepted moral standards of the community% (n sum, respondent has breached the followin# precepts of the ,ode of *rofessional 8esponsibilityF 8ule !%0! L $ lawyer shall not en#a#e in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct%

,$.B. 0 L $ lawyer shall at all times uphold the inte#rity and di#nity of the le#al profession, and support the activities of the (nte#rated )ar% 8ule 0%01 L $ lawyer shall not en#a#e in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the le#al profession% There can then be no other fate that awaits respondent, as a conse<uence of his #rossly immoral conduct, than to be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law% ;2" The penalty of 1 months suspension recommended by the ()* is, not commensurate to the #ravity of his conduct% ;0EREFORE, respondent &dmundo '% Macarubbo is found #uilty of #ross immorality and is hereby -(@)$88&- from the practice of law% 3e is li+ewise B8-&8&- to show satisfactory evidence to the ()* ,ommission on )ar -iscipline and to this ,ourt that he is supportin# or has made provisions for the re#ular support of his two children by complainant% ;1" 'et respondent5s name be stric+en off the 8oll of $ttorneys% SO OR/ERE/.