Bitanngcor v. Tan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: These consolidated administrative cases stem from two separate complaints filed against Rodolfo M. Tan, a successful 1971 bar examinee. The first complaint, filed by Aquilina Bitangcor, alleged immorality, detailing a relationship where Tan allegedly promised marriage to Bitangcor, leading to the dismissal of a prior rape case filed against him. Bitangcor further alleged that Tan denied paternity of their child, Imelda Bitangcor Tan, and failed to provide adequate support, despite a pending civil case for support filed by Bitangcor on behalf of their daughter. The second complaint, filed by Josefina Peredo, also alleged immorality, stating that Tan courted her with a promise of marriage, subsequently seduced her, and lived with her as husband and wife from September 1971 to January 1972. Peredo claimed Tan abandoned her without fulfilling his promise of marriage, causing her significant embarrassment and reputational damage. Procedural History: Upon the filing of these administrative complaints in February 1972, the Supreme Court resolved to hold in abeyance Rodolfo M. Tan's taking of the lawyer's oath. The cases were referred to Atty. Victor Sevilla for investigation, hearing, report, and recommendation. Numerous postponements occurred due to the parties' requests. Notably, complainant Aquilina Bitangcor later filed a motion to withdraw her complaint, citing a settlement with Tan involving a payment of P6,000.00, and an affidavit of desistance. The Court directed further investigation into the veracity of this withdrawal. The hearing then proceeded solely on Josefina Peredo's complaint. After the investigation, Atty. Sevilla submitted a report recommending that Tan be found not of good moral standing and unworthy to become a member of the Philippine Bar. The Supreme Court En Banc subsequently set the case for a final hearing, requiring all parties to appear personally. The Petition: The Supreme Court, in reviewing the consolidated administrative cases, considered the evidence presented by both complainants and the respondent. For A.C. No. 528-SBC, despite Bitangcor's withdrawal, the Court noted the birth certificate listing Tan as the father and Bitangcor as the mother, and Tan's admission of cohabitation. The Court also considered Tan's own pleading detailing his past relationship with Bitangcor. For A.C. No. 529-SBC, the Court weighed Peredo's testimony, supported by rental receipts and telegrams, against Tan's denials and the testimonies of his witnesses. The investigating officer found Peredo's testimony credible. Ultimately, the Court concluded that Tan had fallen short of the requisite morality for admission to the Bar, having violated the honor of both women. However, considering the passage of time, Tan's apparent contrition, and his pledge to uphold the standards of the legal profession, the Court set aside the previous resolution and allowed Rodolfo M. Tan to take the lawyer's oath.
Issue(s)
Whether the alleged immoral conduct of respondent Rodolfo M. Tan warrants his disqualification from taking the lawyer's oath. Whether the withdrawal of complainant Aquilina Bitangcor's complaint, due to a settlement, automatically dismisses the administrative case against respondent Tan. Whether the evidence presented by complainant Josefina Peredo sufficiently establishes respondent Tan's immoral conduct, and whether, despite any misconduct, respondent has sufficiently rehabilitated himself to be admitted to the Bar.
Ruling
The Resolution of February 29, 1972, holding in abeyance respondent's taking of the lawyer's oath, is set aside. Respondent Rodolfo M. Tan is allowed to take the lawyer's oath.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of disqualification due to alleged immoral conduct: The Court acknowledged that respondent's conduct, as alleged by the complainants, fell short of the requisite morality for admission to the Bar. In the case of Aquilina Bitangcor, the Court gave credence to her allegations, noting the birth certificate naming Rodolfo Tan as the father, which is prima facie evidence. The Court also considered respondent's admission of cohabitation. For Josefina Peredo, the Court found her testimony credible, despite the respondent's denials and the testimonies of his witnesses, concluding that respondent had indulged in pre-marital relations with her based on her testimony as a college graduate and the investigator's observation of her demeanor. The Court stated that respondent had violated the honor of two women. On the effect of withdrawal of complaint: The Court reiterated its adherence to the principle that a complainant's loss of interest does not automatically warrant the dismissal of an administrative case. This principle was applied in the case of Aquilina Bitangcor, where her withdrawal, despite a settlement, did not preclude the Court from investigating the charges. The Court emphasized that administrative cases are matters of public interest and are not solely dependent on the complainant's will. On the sufficiency of evidence for Josefina Peredo's complaint and respondent's rehabilitation: The Court found the evidence presented by Josefina Peredo, primarily her testimony, to be credible. Despite the respondent's denial and the testimonies of his witnesses who claimed Peredo never went to the bedrooms and that the bedrooms had only single beds, the Court gave weight to Peredo's testimony. The Court reasoned that a determined man could still engage in intimacy with a sweetheart promised marriage, and that the witnesses for the respondent, being close friends and townmates, might be biased. The Court also noted that a college graduate like Peredo would not likely admit to sexual intimacy if it were not true. Despite finding the respondent's conduct to have fallen short of the required morality, the Court considered the passage of time and the respondent's apparent contrition. The respondent had been waiting for ten years since qualifying for the Bar and nine years since being denied the privilege. He had sent telegrams to the Supreme Court expressing his submission to the Court's discipline and pledging to uphold the standards of attorneys. Citing the case of Barba vs. Pedro, the Court held that the punishment had waited long enough, and the respondent had sufficiently rehabilitated himself and expiated for his offense.
Main Doctrine
While a complainant's loss of interest does not automatically dismiss an administrative case, the Court may consider the respondent's contrition, passage of time, and evidence of rehabilitation in allowing admission to the Bar, especially when the alleged immoral conduct occurred many years prior and no other indiscretions have been attributed to the respondent.