Tabiliran v. Tabiliran
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Teresita B. Tabiliran filed a verified complaint against her husband, respondent Atty. Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr., alleging that he abandoned the family home and lived with another woman by whom he had a child. Respondent denied the allegations, claiming complainant abandoned the family home without justifiable reasons and that he did not live with another woman nor have a child with her. Procedural History: The matter was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation. A hearing was scheduled but neither party appeared. The case was submitted for decision based on the Solicitor General's report. The Petition: The complainant sought the disbarment or suspension of the respondent attorney.
Issue(s)
Whether the complainant sufficiently substantiated her charges of abandonment and immorality against the respondent. Whether the respondent attorney should be disciplined for entering into a Deed of Settlement with stipulations contrary to law, morals, and public policy.
Ruling
The respondent is exonerated from the charges of abandonment of family and immorality. However, the respondent is reprimanded for entering into a Deed of Settlement with stipulations contrary to law, morals, and public policy.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charges of abandonment and immorality: The complainant failed to substantiate her charges against the respondent. Her own evidence, Exhibit "H", contradicted her claim of abandonment by stating she left the conjugal home against the respondent's will. Regarding the charge of living with another woman and having a child, the exhibits presented (Exhibits "B", "C", and "G") were deemed hearsay and inadmissible as they were not properly identified through testimonial evidence, and the persons who executed them were not presented for confrontation. Even if admitted, the exhibits contained discrepancies in the surname of the alleged other woman ('Pilarion' vs. 'Hilarion'). The respondent vehemently denied these allegations. The Court reiterated the rule that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the case must be established by convincing proof. The presumption is that an attorney is innocent until proven guilty. On the Deed of Settlement: The Court noted that the complainant and respondent executed a "Deed of Settlement of Spouses To Live Separately From Bed" which contained a stipulation allowing each spouse to live with another man or woman without objection. The Court found this stipulation, except for the part allowing separate living, to be contrary to law, morals, and public policy. However, considering extenuating circumstances, such as the deed being prepared by another lawyer at the complainant's instance, and the respondent's status as an "abandoned and disappointed husband" at the time of its execution (at age 29), the Solicitor General recommended only a reprimand, which the Court adopted.
Main Doctrine
Complainant failed to substantiate charges of abandonment and immorality against respondent attorney. Respondent is exonerated from these charges. However, respondent is reprimanded for entering into a Deed of Settlement with complainant which contained stipulations contrary to law, morals, and public policy.