Hosoya v. Contado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Crisanta G. Hosoya met Atty. Allan C. Contado in 2003. Contado represented that he was separated-in-fact from his wife and was working on the nullity of his marriage. In 2010, the parties began cohabiting as husband and wife, a relationship that produced two children born in 2011 and 2013. During this time, Contado used Hosoya's vehicle (a Ford Expedition) for his gubernatorial and mayoral election campaigns in Eastern Samar. After the relationship soured, Hosoya discovered Contado was cohabiting with other women and had not legally dissolved his marriage. Contado refused to return the vehicle despite demands, claiming it needed major repairs and could not be transported to Manila. Procedural History: Hosoya filed a Complaint for Disbarment on February 15, 2015, before the Office of the Bar Confidant, alleging gross immorality, non-support, and carnapping. The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Contado guilty of immorality and conduct unbecoming for failing to return the vehicle, recommending a one-year suspension and the return of the vehicle. The IBP Board of Governors (BOG) adopted the findings but modified the penalty to disbarment. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for final action on the IBP's recommendation. Contado admitted to the relationship and the children but argued he was separated-in-fact from his wife and provided support within his means. He denied carnapping, asserting the vehicle was voluntarily given for his use and remained in his possession due to mechanical failure. The primary issue was whether his cohabitation while married and his refusal to return the vehicle warranted disbarment.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Contado is guilty of gross immorality for cohabiting with the complainant while being legally married to another. Whether Atty. Contado's failure to return the subject vehicle constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether the Court can order the return of the subject vehicle in a disciplinary proceeding.
Ruling
The Supreme Court finds Atty. Allan C. Contado GUILTY of gross immorality in violation of Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is DISBARRED from the practice of law, and his name is ordered stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys. The Court takes exception to the IBP's recommendation to order the return of the vehicle, as it is a civil or criminal matter beyond the scope of disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that Atty. Contado's cohabitation with the complainant while his legal marriage subsisted constitutes gross immorality. Grossly immoral conduct is defined as behavior so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree. Under Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer must not engage in immoral conduct or behave in a scandalous manner that reflects poorly on the profession. The Court emphasized that abandoning a legal spouse to live with a paramour amounts to adultery or concubinage, which are grounds for disbarment. Applying the precedent in Chan v. Carrera, the Court held that the respondent's admission of the relationship and the resulting children is sufficient to warrant the supreme penalty of disbarment. The respondent's professional achievements cannot mitigate the scandalous nature of his private conduct, which evinces a lack of moral character and probity. On Issue 2: Regarding the failure to return the subject vehicle, the Court ruled that such an act constitutes conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar. A lawyer's refusal to return property despite a lawful demand is considered akin to a deliberate failure to pay a debt, which violates Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court found the respondent's excuse—that the vehicle needed major repairs—to be flimsy and unacceptable, noting that he should have repaired it to facilitate its return. Prompt fulfillment of financial and property obligations is a fundamental duty of every lawyer to maintain the integrity of the profession. Consequently, this dishonest and deceitful conduct further justifies the imposition of a severe administrative penalty. On Issue 3: Finally, the Court clarified that it cannot order the actual return of the vehicle to the complainant within the context of a disciplinary proceeding. The primary purpose of an administrative case is to determine the respondent's fitness to remain a member of the Bar, not to adjudicate civil or criminal liabilities. Matters involving the recovery of property are civil in nature and must be resolved through the proper proceedings in trial courts. The Court noted that while the failure to return the property is a ground for discipline, the actual recovery of the asset requires a separate civil or criminal action. Therefore, the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to order the return of the vehicle was rejected for lack of jurisdiction in this specific forum.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court maintains that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions, including the requirement of good moral character. Grossly immoral conduct, such as abandoning a legal spouse to cohabit with another, evinces a lack of moral character, honesty, and probity, rendering a lawyer unfit to continue in the profession. Furthermore, while disciplinary proceedings can punish a lawyer for the deceitful act of failing to return property or pay debts, the Court lacks the jurisdiction in such proceedings to order the actual restitution or return of property, as these are civil or criminal matters to be resolved in trial courts.