Macarubbo v. Macarubbo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Edmundo L. Macarubbo was disbarred from the practice of law due to gross immorality. This stemmed from his contracting a bigamous marriage with complainant Florence Teves and a third marriage with Josephine Constantino, while his first marriage to Helen Esparza remained valid. These actions were found to be in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 2. Procedural History: Following the disbarment decision on February 27, 2004, respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied with finality on June 1, 2004. Eight years later, on June 4, 2012, respondent filed a petition for extraordinary mercy and reinstatement. This petition was initially denied as a second motion for reconsideration on September 4, 2012. Subsequently, on December 18, 2012, the petition was endorsed by the Office of the Vice President for re-evaluation, leading the Court to consider its substantive merits. 3. The Petition: Respondent Edmundo L. Macarubbo filed a Petition (For Extraordinary Mercy) seeking reinstatement to the Roll of Attorneys. He invoked judicial clemency, presenting evidence of remorse, reformation, and a significant lapse of time since his disbarment. The petition highlighted his productive years ahead, his contributions to his community, and his continued support for his children, aligning with the Court's established guidelines for clemency requests.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Edmundo L. Macarubbo should be reinstated to the practice of law. Whether respondent has sufficiently shown remorse and reformation to warrant judicial clemency.
Ruling
The Court granted the petition and ordered the reinstatement of respondent Edmundo L. Macarubbo to the practice of law, with a reminder that the privilege is burdened with conditions of continued adherence to the rigid standards of intellect, moral uprightness, and strict compliance with the rules and the law.
Ratio Decidendi
On the reinstatement of respondent Edmundo L. Macarubbo: The Court found the petition meritorious based on the established guidelines for judicial clemency. Respondent demonstrated remorse and acknowledged his indiscretions, maintaining a cordial relationship with his children. After his disbarment, he returned to his hometown, tended an orchard, cared for his ailing mother, and became actively involved in local government and socio-civic activities. Numerous certifications and affidavits from community members, local government officials, and colleagues attested to his reformed ways and good standing. His parish priest also certified to his faithful practice of Catholic doctrines and regular church attendance. Furthermore, he had settled his marital squabbles and was regularly providing support to his children as previously ordered. The Court also noted the eight years that had elapsed since his disbarment and recognized his prior fourteen years of dedicated government service. Considering his age (58 years old) and the evidence of his atonement, the Court concluded that he still had productive years ahead to contribute to the legal profession and society, thus warranting compassion and reinstatement. On whether respondent has sufficiently shown remorse and reformation: The Court found that respondent had sufficiently shown remorse and reformation. He acknowledged his indiscretions and sought forgiveness from his children. His subsequent activities, including his employment in local government, part-time teaching, and active participation in socio-civic endeavors, along with the numerous attestations from various sectors of the community, strongly indicated a reformed character. The absence of any pending administrative cases or criminal involvement, as attested by the NBI and local government offices, further supported his claim of reformation. The Court specifically noted his compliance with the directive to provide support for his children, which is a crucial aspect of fulfilling his obligations and demonstrating accountability.
Main Doctrine
The Court may grant judicial clemency and reinstate a disbarred attorney to the practice of law upon a sufficient showing of remorse, reformation, lapse of sufficient time, promise of future good conduct, and other relevant factors, provided the applicant satisfies the requirement of good moral character.