Bolivar v. Simbol
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Concepcion Bolivar initiated disbarment proceedings against respondent Atty. Abelardo Simbol on moral grounds. Complainant testified, and the case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation. After several postponements, the Solicitor General filed a report recommending disciplinary action, noting a sworn withdrawal and desistance from the complainant. The Solicitor General filed a complaint seeking respondent's suspension for at least five years. Respondent's counsel informed the Court that respondent had ceased communication since October 1960 and provided a new address in Dumaguete City. A copy of the complaint sent to this address was returned unclaimed. At the hearing before the Supreme Court, neither the respondent nor his counsel appeared, and the case was submitted for decision. Procedural History: The case was initiated by disbarment proceedings filed by Concepcion Bolivar. The Supreme Court referred the case to the Solicitor General for investigation. The Solicitor General filed a report and a formal complaint. The Supreme Court sent notices to the respondent, which were returned unclaimed or not received. The respondent and his counsel failed to appear at the hearing before the Supreme Court. The Court proceeded to decide the case ex parte. The Petition: The disbarment proceedings were initiated by Concepcion Bolivar against Atty. Abelardo Simbol for grossly immoral conduct. The core issue revolved around the respondent's alleged deception of the complainant, including promising marriage, living with her, fathering a child, and subsequently marrying another woman while concealing this fact, all while continuing to accept financial support from the complainant.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court can proceed with the disbarment proceedings ex parte despite the complainant's withdrawal and desistance, and the respondent's failure to appear or answer. Whether the respondent's conduct constitutes "grossly immoral conduct" warranting disciplinary action. What is the appropriate penalty for the respondent's proven misconduct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court suspended respondent Abelardo Simbol y Manuel from the practice of law for a period of five (5) years.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that it could proceed with the disbarment proceedings ex parte. Citing Section 30 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, the Court stated that an attorney must be given full opportunity to answer charges and be heard. However, if upon reasonable notice, the attorney fails to appear and answer, the Court may proceed ex parte. The respondent had been notified multiple times, both through his counsel and directly at his last known addresses, but failed to respond or appear. His pattern of behavior, including numerous postponements and eventual non-appearance, indicated a deliberate avoidance of the proceedings, thereby waiving his right to be heard. The Court found that the respondent had been given ample opportunity to defend himself. On Issue 2: The Court found the respondent guilty of "grossly immoral conduct." The facts established that the respondent courted the complainant, promised marriage, lived with her, and fathered a child, all while accepting financial support for his studies and personal needs. Subsequently, he married another woman without informing the complainant and continued to live with the complainant for several months, concealing his marriage. The Court found his actuations indicative of a character unworthy of a member of the bar, stating he failed to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and required of a member of the bar. The complainant's withdrawal of the complaint did not absolve him, as his actions made the complainant and her child virtual outcasts of society. On Issue 3: The Court imposed a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of five (5) years. This penalty was deemed appropriate given the gravity of the respondent's misconduct, which involved deceit, breach of promise, and causing significant emotional and social hardship to the complainant and their child. The Court emphasized that the power to discipline lawyers is inherent and cannot be circumvented by compromise or withdrawal of charges when the facts warrant disciplinary action.
Main Doctrine
The power to discipline lawyers, who are officers of the court, may not be curtailed by a compromise agreement and withdrawal of charges, especially when the respondent's conduct demonstrates a failure to maintain the highest degree of morality expected of a member of the bar. The Court may proceed ex parte if the respondent fails to appear or answer after reasonable notice, having waived their right to be heard.