Marcayda v. Naz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Salvacion E. Marcayda filed a letter on April 19, 1977, requesting that respondent Justiniano P. Naz's oath-taking as a lawyer be withheld due to an alleged child begotten with Salvacion. Naz denied paternity and alleged harassment. On April 28, 1977, Naz, a married man, and Salvacion executed a notarized agreement admitting an affair in 1964, resulting in the birth of Rey E. Marcayda on March 8, 1965. Naz agreed to provide back support and monthly support until Rey turned twenty-one. Based on this agreement, Salvacion withdrew her complaint, and Naz was allowed to take his oath on April 29, 1977. Procedural History: Salvacion filed a verified complaint on December 23, 1977, seeking to reopen the administrative case, alleging Naz failed to comply with the support agreement. She testified that Naz gave her minimal support after Rey's birth and only P100 for May 1977, failing to adhere to the notarized commitment. Naz claimed he was coerced into signing the agreement, likening the complaint to an "Armalite trained on the head." The Solicitor General noted that Naz was not guilty of gross immorality due to the admission of paternity and support agreement, which mitigated the immorality. The Petition: The Court reviewed the case to determine the appropriate disciplinary action against Naz for his conduct concerning the paternity admission, support agreement, and subsequent repudiation.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Justiniano P. Naz is guilty of gross immorality warranting disbarment. Whether respondent Naz can repudiate the notarized agreement for support on the ground of coercion. Whether respondent Naz's conduct is censurable and warrants disciplinary action.
Ruling
The Court resolved to severely reprimand respondent Naz for his attempt to nullify the notarial agreement to support a child whose filiation he had admitted. A copy of the resolution was ordered to be attached to his record in the Bar Confidant's office.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross immorality: The Court held that respondent Naz is not guilty of gross immorality. While his affair with Salvacion constituted immorality, the fact that he admitted the paternity of the child, Rey E. Marcayda, in a public document and agreed to support him rendered the immorality not so gross and scandalous. This admission and commitment to support served to mitigate the severity of the offense in the eyes of the Court, distinguishing it from cases of unmitigated immorality. On the repudiation of the agreement: The Court ruled that Naz cannot be allowed to repudiate the public instrument admitting paternity and agreeing to support the child on the ground of supposed coercion. The agreement of support was the very basis upon which Salvacion withdrew her complaint, which in turn paved the way for Naz's oath-taking as a member of the bar. To allow him to repudiate it would be to permit him to make a mockery of the judicial proceedings and to self-stultify his prior sworn statements and commitments. On the censurability of Naz's conduct: The Court found Naz's stand of not giving value to the public document he executed to be highly censurable and indicative of unscrupulousness unbecoming a member of the legal profession. His attempt to nullify the agreement, after using it to facilitate his admission to the bar, demonstrated a lack of integrity and a willingness to disregard solemn commitments. This conduct was deemed tantamount to self-stultification, as it implied he had lied brazenly about the filiation of Rey Marcayda solely to gain admission to the bar, violating his oath to do no falsehood.
Main Doctrine
While admitting paternity and agreeing to support an adulterous child may mitigate the grossness of immorality, repudiating a notarized agreement for support on the ground of coercion, after using it to gain admission to the bar, is highly censurable and may warrant disciplinary action, though not necessarily disbarment.