Chan v. Carrera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Annaliza C. Chan filed a complaint against respondent Atty. Rebene C. Carrera for Gross Misconduct. Chan alleged that she met Carrera in July 2006, and he subsequently pursued a relationship with her, promising to annul her marriage and support her daughter. He introduced her as his fiancée to his school's board of trustees. In September 2008, Chan discovered Carrera was still married and had other children. Despite this, she became pregnant with his child. Their relationship deteriorated, with Carrera allegedly mistreating her, denying paternity, and engaging in affairs with other women. Chan assisted Carrera in his business, helping him recover from losses and save his school, but he continued his womanizing, eventually asking her to leave and return property. Procedural History: Carrera denied the accusations, claiming Chan attempted to extort money and that she was aware of his marital status from the beginning. He asserted he provided for Chan, her daughter, and their son, and that Chan became unreasonable, preventing him from seeing his other children and creating scenes. The case was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). An Investigating Commissioner recommended admonishment, but the IBP Board of Governors (BOG) modified this, first suspending Carrera for three years, then reducing it to one year in a subsequent resolution. The Supreme Court reviewed the case following the IBP's resolution. The Petition: This case reached the Supreme Court on a complaint for Gross Misconduct filed by Annaliza C. Chan against Atty. Rebene C. Carrera. The core issue revolves around Carrera's alleged immoral conduct, specifically engaging in an extra-marital affair and cohabiting with Chan while still married to his lawful spouse. Despite Chan's later attempts to withdraw her complaint, the Court proceeded, citing the nature of disbarment proceedings. The Court found that both parties admitted to their affair and cohabitation for three years, resulting in a child. The Court determined that this conduct violated Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disbarment from the practice of law.
Issue(s)
Whether the complainant's motion to withdraw the complaint bars the continuation of the administrative case against the respondent lawyer. Whether the respondent lawyer's cohabitation with another woman while still legally married to his wife constitutes gross immorality. Whether the respondent lawyer's conduct warrants disbarment from the practice of law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the complainant's request to withdraw her complaint. It found respondent Atty. Rebene C. Carrera guilty of Gross Immorality in violation of Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Consequently, he was DISBARRED from the practice of law, and his name was ordered to be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the complainant's motion to withdraw: The Court held that a motion to withdraw a complaint does not serve as a bar to the investigation of an administrative case against a lawyer. Citing Section 5, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court and the case of Ferancullo v. Atty. Ferancullo, the Court emphasized that administrative proceedings against lawyers are sui generis and continue despite the desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, or withdrawal of the charges by the complainant. The Court's duty to ensure that members of the legal profession conform to the highest standards of morality transcends the private concerns of the complainant, making any deviation a matter of judicial interest. On the issue of gross immorality: The Court found that both parties freely engaged in an extra-marital affair and cohabited for approximately three years despite being legally married to their respective spouses. This cohabitation, which resulted in the birth of a child, was deemed sufficient to hold Carrera administratively liable for grossly immoral conduct. The Court reiterated that a married person's abandonment of their spouse to live and cohabit with another constitutes immorality, which can be so wilful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community. The fact that the illicit partner is also married compounds the immorality. On the issue of the penalty: The Court concluded that Carrera's conduct warranted disbarment. It noted that Carrera's actions, including proposing to annul Chan's marriage, demonstrated a lack of moral character. The Court referenced previous cases such as Amalia R. Ceniza v. Atty. Ceniza, Jr., Narag v. Atty. Narag, Dantes v. Atty. Dantes, Bustamante-Alejandro v. Atty. Alejandro, and Guevarra v. Atty. Eala, where lawyers were disbarred for abandoning their spouses and maintaining illicit affairs. Therefore, Carrera's scandalous and highly immoral conduct made him deserving of the extreme penalty of disbarment.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who abandons his or her spouse to live and cohabit with another, despite both parties being legally married to other individuals, commits gross immorality, warranting disbarment from the practice of law.