Garrido v. Garrido
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Angel E. Garrido married Maelotisea Sipin in 1962 while his first marriage to Constancia David was still subsisting. During his marriage to Maelotisea, he entered into a relationship with Atty. Romana P. Valencia, eventually marrying her in Hong Kong in 1978. Maelotisea discovered the relationship and the existence of a child in 1991, leading to Angel abandoning the conjugal home in 1993. Maelotisea filed a complaint for disbarment against both Angel and Romana, alleging gross immorality and failure to provide financial support for their six children. Procedural History: Maelotisea filed a complaint-affidavit for disbarment with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Discipline. The respondents filed motions to suspend and dismiss based on a pending criminal complaint for concubinage and a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by Angel against Maelotisea. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) eventually declared the marriage between Angel and Maelotisea void ab initio. Maelotisea later filed a motion to dismiss her own complaint to maintain friendly relations. The IBP Board of Governors recommended the disbarment of Atty. Garrido but the dismissal of the case against Atty. Valencia. The Petition: Atty. Angel Garrido sought relief through a petition for review of the IBP Board of Governors' resolution, arguing that his actions did not constitute gross immorality, the offenses had prescribed under IBP rules, and pleading for humanitarian consideration due to his age. He further argued that since his marriage to Maelotisea was declared void, she had no personality to file the complaint. The Director of the Commission on Bar Discipline recommended a modification of the penalty to reprimand, noting Angel's age and lack of prior administrative cases.
Issue(s)
Whether the affidavit of desistance by the complainant and the prescription of the offense warrant the dismissal of the disbarment case. Whether the acts committed by Atty. Angel Garrido before his admission to the Bar can be grounds for disbarment. Whether Atty. Angel Garrido is guilty of gross immorality warranting disbarment; and whether Atty. Romana Valencia is also guilty of gross immorality warranting disbarment.
Ruling
Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Romana P. Valencia are DISBARRED.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that laws dealing with procedure, such as prescription of offenses or the filing of affidavits of desistance, do not apply in disbarment proceedings. Admission to the practice of law is a matter of public interest, and the complainant is merely a witness who brings the matter to the Court's attention. Consequently, an affidavit of desistance cannot abate the proceedings once evidence has been presented. The Court emphasized that the State has a vested interest in inquiring into the moral fitness of its officers. Thus, Maelotisea's withdrawal, motivated by compassion or financial interest, did not affect the merits of the evidence already on record. On Issue 2: The Court held that the possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement for Bar membership. Admission to the Bar does not preclude a subsequent judicial inquiry into the moral fitness of a respondent for acts committed before they became a lawyer. The presumption of qualification created by admission is rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence of past misconduct. In this case, Atty. Garrido's bigamous marriage to Maelotisea and his subsequent relationship with Atty. Valencia occurred around the time of his admission, reflecting a lack of the required moral character. The Court clarified that the disciplinary authority is incidental to the power to admit applicants to the practice of law. On Issue 3: Both respondents were found guilty of gross immorality. Atty. Garrido's conduct involved a pattern of deception, including misrepresenting his civil status to Maelotisea, contracting a bigamous marriage, and maintaining a double life with two families for over a decade. The Court rejected the argument that his petition for nullity was an act of mending his ways, viewing it instead as a tool to escape liability. Regarding Atty. Valencia, the Court found her actions grossly immoral because she entered into a romantic relationship with a man she knew was married and later entered into a 'clandestine' Hong Kong marriage to avoid bigamy charges. Her conduct was deemed unprincipled and scandalous, shocking the community's sense of decency by 'sharing' a husband and helping him maintain a double life.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court emphasizes that the requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent for admission to the Bar but also a continuing requirement for the privilege of practicing law. This mandate allows the Court to inquire into a lawyer's conduct even if the acts were committed prior to their admission, as the presumption of fitness created by the lawyer's oath is rebuttable. Furthermore, the Court clarifies that administrative proceedings against lawyers are distinct from criminal or civil actions; thus, they are not subject to the defense of prescription or the effects of an affidavit of desistance. Ultimately, gross immorality is determined by the corrupt, unprincipled, or scandalous nature of the acts, regardless of whether the underlying marriage is later declared void.