Perez v. Catindig
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dr. Elmar O. Perez (complainant) filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Tristan A. Catindig and Atty. Karen E. Baydo (respondents) for gross immorality and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Dr. Perez and Atty. Catindig became friends in the mid-1960s and reconnected in 1983 when Atty. Catindig courted her. Atty. Catindig admitted he was married to Lily Corazon Gomez (Gomez) since May 18, 1968, but claimed he married her due to pregnancy and fear of scandal jeopardizing his Harvard Law School scholarship. He informed Dr. Perez he was obtaining a foreign divorce and would marry her thereafter. In 1984, Atty. Catindig and Gomez obtained a divorce decree from the Dominican Republic. Atty. Catindig assured Dr. Perez the divorce was lawful and valid, and there was no impediment to their marriage. Consequently, Atty. Catindig married Dr. Perez in Virginia, USA, on July 14, 1984, and they had a child. Years later, Dr. Perez learned their marriage was a nullity as Philippine laws do not recognize the Dominican Republic divorce. Atty. Catindig allegedly promised to legalize their union and adopt their son once he obtained a declaration of nullity of his marriage to Gomez. In 2001, Dr. Perez received an anonymous letter about Atty. Catindig's affair with Atty. Baydo and later found a love letter from Atty. Catindig to Atty. Baydo dated April 25, 2001, professing love and a promise to marry once his "impediment is removed." Atty. Baydo allegedly requested a halt to their affair until Atty. Catindig obtained annulment. On August 13, 2001, Atty. Catindig filed a petition to declare his marriage to Gomez null and void. On October 31, 2001, Atty. Catindig abandoned Dr. Perez and their son, moving to a condominium where Atty. Baydo was frequently seen. Procedural History: The Court directed respondents to file comments. Atty. Catindig admitted marrying Gomez on May 18, 1968, but claimed their marriage deteriorated due to Gomez's intimacy problems, leading to a de facto separation in 1984. He stated they consulted Atty. Wilhelmina Joven, who advised a property regime of complete separation and obtaining a Dominican Republic divorce for comfort. Atty. Catindig and Gomez executed Special Powers of Attorney, and a divorce by mutual consent was ratified by a Dominican Republic court on June 12, 1984. They also filed a Joint Petition for Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership, granted on June 23, 1984. Atty. Catindig claimed Dr. Perez knew the divorce had no effect in the Philippines and that his marriage to Gomez subsisted, yet she demanded he marry her. He married Dr. Perez in July 1984 in the USA, admitting Dr. Perez knew their marriage was not valid as his first marriage was subsisting, but he married her out of love and fear of losing her. He claimed their relationship soured, and he left in October 2001 to prevent acrimony, denying Atty. Baydo was the cause, stating his relationship with Dr. Perez deteriorated in 1997 and Atty. Baydo joined his firm in September 1999 and resigned in January 2001, having rejected his advances. Atty. Baydo denied the affair, stating Atty. Catindig courted her while she worked for him, but she rejected him due to his marital status and age difference, and he continued to pursue her, leading to her resignation. The case was referred to the IBP for investigation. The parties agreed to submit the case for resolution based on pleadings. The IBP-CBD issued an Order for position papers. The Petition: The complaint prayed for the disbarment of Atty. Catindig and Atty. Baydo for gross immorality and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Tristan A. Catindig committed gross immorality and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage. Whether Atty. Karen E. Baydo committed gross immorality and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by allegedly having an affair with Atty. Catindig.
Ruling
The Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors. Atty. Tristan A. Catindig is found GUILTY of gross immorality and of violating the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law. The charge of gross immorality against Atty. Karen E. Baydo is DISMISSED for lack of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Atty. Tristan A. Catindig's gross immorality: The Court held that Atty. Catindig's act of marrying Dr. Perez in 1984 while his marriage to Gomez, solemnized in 1968, was still subsisting, constituted grossly immoral conduct. Atty. Catindig admitted to obtaining a divorce decree from the Dominican Republic, which he knew was not recognized in the Philippines, yet he proceeded to marry Dr. Perez. This demonstrated a blatant and purposeful disregard of Philippine laws on marriage and a mockery of the institution of marriage. The Court emphasized that a lawyer must uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and contracting a bigamous marriage is a serious offense that reflects a deficiency in moral character, honesty, probity, or good demeanor. The Court found that Atty. Catindig's conduct was not only corrupt and unprincipled but also reprehensible to a high degree, warranting the supreme penalty of disbarment. His subsequent abandonment of Dr. Perez and their son to pursue Atty. Baydo, while not the primary basis for disbarment, further illustrated his propensity towards immoral conduct. The Court rejected Atty. Catindig's defense that Dr. Perez knew their marriage was a nullity, stating that his resort to legal strategies to give a façade of validity to an invalid marriage was unprincipled. On the issue of Atty. Karen E. Baydo's gross immorality: The Court found insufficient evidence to prove the alleged affair between Atty. Catindig and Atty. Baydo. The evidence presented by Dr. Perez consisted of an anonymous letter and a purported love letter from Atty. Catindig to Atty. Baydo. The Court held that an anonymous letter only proves its receipt, not the veracity of its contents, and the love letter, if proven, only shows Atty. Catindig's profession of love, not necessarily an established relationship or affair with Atty. Baydo. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the required evidence is preponderance of evidence. The Court concluded that Dr. Perez failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to substantiate the charges against Atty. Baydo, thus the charge was dismissed for lack of evidence.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer contracting a subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a previous one, even with knowledge that the foreign divorce decree obtained is not recognized in the Philippines, constitutes grossly immoral conduct, violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disbarment.