Bunagan-Bansig v. Celera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Rose Bunagan-Bansig filed a Petition for Disbarment against respondent Atty. Rogelio Juan A. Celera for Gross Immoral Conduct. Bansig alleged that respondent married Gracemarie R. Bunagan on May 8, 1997. Subsequently, respondent contracted a second marriage on January 8, 1998, with Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba, while his first marriage was still valid and subsisting. Bansig asserted that this act constitutes grossly immoral conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar. Procedural History: The Court required respondent to file a comment, which he failed to do. Despite several resolutions directing him to comment and show cause for his failure, respondent repeatedly failed to comply, often claiming non-receipt of pleadings. The Court imposed a fine and later ordered his arrest for non-compliance. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) was referred the case and found respondent in default after he failed to appear at mandatory conferences and hearings. The IBP-CBD recommended respondent's suspension for two years. The Court eventually dispensed with the filing of respondent's comment, ordered his arrest, and referred the complaint to the IBP for investigation. The Petition: The complainant sought the disbarment of respondent for contracting a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting, constituting gross immoral conduct and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Rogelio Juan A. Celera is guilty of grossly immoral conduct for contracting a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting. Whether respondent Atty. Rogelio Juan A. Celera is guilty of willful disobedience of lawful orders of the Supreme Court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Rogelio Juan A. Celera guilty of grossly immoral conduct and willful disobedience of lawful orders. Consequently, he was ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grossly immoral conduct: The Court found a preponderance of evidence that respondent contracted a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting. Certified xerox copies of the marriage certificates, issued by public officers, were presented as evidence. The first marriage was solemnized on May 8, 1997, and the second on January 8, 1998. These documents, being public records, are admissible and accorded full faith and credence. The act of contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of a valid first marriage constitutes bigamy, which is a crime involving moral turpitude. Such conduct demonstrates a deplorable lack of morality required of a member of the Bar, making a mockery of marriage and rendering the respondent unfit to continue as an officer of the court. This falls under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court as grounds for disbarment. On the issue of willful disobedience of lawful orders: The Court noted respondent's defiant stance and repetitive disregard of its resolutions requiring him to file a comment on the complaint. This administrative case has been pending since 2002, spanning over a decade, during which numerous directives for compliance were issued. Respondent consistently failed to submit his comment, often feigning non-receipt of pleadings, yet he did not fail to notice show cause orders. The Court exhibited tolerance by accommodating respondent's requests for copies of the complaint and sending notices to various addresses. Despite these efforts, respondent's excuse of non-receipt became increasingly untenable, leading to his disappearance. His actions were deemed deliberate attempts to delay the disposition of the case and evade consequences. This willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the Court, under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, is itself a sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment. Respondent's cavalier attitude and obstinate refusal to comply demonstrate utter disrespect for the judicial institution and a high degree of irresponsibility, which cannot be countenanced.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who contracts a second marriage while the first marriage is subsisting commits grossly immoral conduct and willful disobedience of lawful orders, rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession, and is thus subject to disbarment. Furthermore, the repeated disregard of the Court's resolutions and orders, despite numerous opportunities to comply, constitutes willful disobedience of lawful orders, which is itself a sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment.