Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jovita Bustamante-Alejandro and Atty. Warfredo Tomas Alejandro were married in 1971 and had three sons. In 1990, Atty. Alejandro abandoned his family to live with Atty. Maricris A. Villarin. In 1992, Atty. Villarin gave birth to a son, Paolo, and registered the birth naming Atty. Alejandro as the father and herself as 'Ma. Cristina V. Alejandro,' claiming they were married in May 1990. Procedural History: Jovita filed an administrative complaint for bigamy and concubinage in 1994. Atty. Alejandro evaded service of the Court's resolutions multiple times, leading the Court to deem him served via substituted service in 1996. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which recommended the disbarment of both respondents for gross immorality. The Petition: The complainant sought the disbarment of both respondents, arguing that their illicit relationship and the birth of their child evidenced a deplorable lack of integrity. She emphasized that Atty. Alejandro was unfit for the Bar, especially as he was then being nominated for a position as a Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Alejandro is guilty of gross immorality warranting disbarment. Whether Atty. Villarin can be disbarred based on the current state of the proceedings.
Ruling
Atty. Warfredo Tomas Alejandro is DISBARRED. The complaint against Atty. Maricris A. Villarin is REFERRED BACK to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court has consistently held that good moral character is a condition precedent for admission to the Bar and a continuing requirement for membership. A lawyer cannot divide his personality into professional and private spheres; he is expected to be honorable and reliable at all times. Atty. Alejandro's abandonment of his family and maintenance of an illicit relationship with another woman, resulting in a child, constitutes a deplorable lack of morality. His conduct is further aggravated by his flight to another country to escape the consequences of his misconduct and his evasion of the Court's processes. On Issue 2: The Court observed that the resolution requiring comment was never 'deemed served' upon Atty. Villarin as it was for Atty. Alejandro. It appeared that the administrative complaint and the resolution were only addressed to Atty. Alejandro, even if sent to their shared address. Due process in disbarment proceedings requires that the respondent be given a full opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges. The IBP's attempt to serve the complaint at an old address, despite a new address being on record, was insufficient to constitute valid notice. Therefore, the case against Atty. Villarin must be referred back to the IBP to ensure she is given the chance to present her defense.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. He is expected to be competent, honorable, and reliable at all times since he who cannot apply and abide by the laws in his private affairs can hardly be expected to do so in his professional dealings. The requirement of good moral character is a condition precedent for admission to the Bar and a continuing requirement for membership therein.