Macarrubo v. Macarrubo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Atty. Edmundo L. Macarrubo, a former State Prosecutor and Ombudsman official, courted Florence Teves Macarrubo in 1991, representing himself as a bachelor. They married twice in December 1991. However, Respondent was already married to Helen Esparza since 1982. Respondent later entered a third marriage with Josephine T. Constantino while his union with Florence was still active. Complainant Florence alleged that Respondent abandoned her and their two children, Juris Alexis and Gabriel Enrico, without providing regular support, leaving them in precarious conditions. Procedural History: Florence filed a verified complaint for disbarment with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Respondent was initially declared in default but later moved to re-open the proceedings. He argued that Florence knew of his prior marriage and that their wedding was a 'sham' to protect her reputation due to pregnancy. He presented a Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision from Tuguegarao City which declared his marriage to Florence void ab initio. The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended a three-month suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors approved. The Petition: The matter was elevated to the Supreme Court for final disposition. Respondent raised the defenses of res judicata, claiming the judicial annulment of his marriage to Florence exonerated him from administrative liability. He further argued that he was coerced into the marriages and that he had provided support through educational plans and intermittent payments. The Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine if Respondent's conduct warranted the ultimate penalty of disbarment.
Issue(s)
Whether Respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and immorality warranting disbarment due to cohabitating with Complainant while his first marriage subsisted. Whether the judicial annulment of the marriage to Complainant serves as res judicata or exonerates Respondent from administrative liability for entering a bigamous union.
Ruling
Respondent Edmundo L. Macarubbo is found guilty of gross immorality and is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law. He is likewise ORDERED to show satisfactory evidence to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline and to this Court that he is supporting or has made provisions for the regular support of his two children by complainant.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found Respondent guilty of gross misconduct in his private affairs, noting that he lived with Complainant as husband and wife while his first marriage was still subsisting. This conduct constitutes concubinage under the Revised Penal Code and is a public assault upon the basic social institution of marriage. The Court rejected Respondent's claim of coercion, observing that he freely cohabited with Florence for years and sired a second child, which taxes the credulity of a 'shotgun marriage' defense. His pattern of entering multiple marriages and then leaving them by the expedient of legal annulments shows a vice that undermines the rearing of children and the well-being of the community. Such moral delinquency outrages generally accepted moral standards and reflects adversely on his fitness to practice law. Consequently, the Court determined that the recommended three-month suspension was insufficient given the gravity of the breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility. On Issue 2: The Court held that the annulment of the marriage does not cleanse Respondent's conduct of impropriety or exonerate him from administrative wrongdoing. Relying on the doctrine in In re Almacen, the Court emphasized that disbarment proceedings are sui generis, being neither purely civil nor purely criminal, but an investigation into the conduct of its officers. The judgment of annulment, especially one rendered in default, cannot serve as res judicata because the purpose of disbarment is to protect the public and the integrity of the legal profession, not to adjudicate private marital status. The Court noted that even if a lawyer is acquitted in a criminal action, liability still attaches in a disciplinary proceeding if the quantum of proof—clear preponderance of evidence—is met. Therefore, the Respondent's act of entering a bigamous union remained a valid ground for disbarment regardless of the subsequent civil declaration of nullity.
Main Doctrine
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with the condition of maintaining good moral character. A lawyer who enters into multiple marriages while prior unions are subsisting, and subsequently seeks to annul them to escape liability, exhibits a pattern of misconduct that undermines the institution of marriage. Such behavior constitutes gross immorality and warrants disbarment, as administrative liability is independent of the civil status of the marriages or the outcome of criminal proceedings.