ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

chanrobles.com

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1959 > September 1959 Decisions > Adm. Case No. 225
September 30, 1959 - ANITA CABRERA v. FRANCISCO G. AGUSTIN
106 Phil 256:

Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

EN BANC
[Adm. Case No. 225. September 30, 1959.]
ANITA CABRERA, Petitioner, v. FRANCISCO AGUSTIN Y GARCIA, Respondent.
Bienvenido A. Tan, Jr. for Petitioner.
Francisco Agustin y Garcia in his own behalf.
Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Federico V. Sian for the Government.

SYLLABUS

DebtKollect Company, Inc.

1. DISBARMENT; FICTITIOUS MARRIAGE; ACTS THAT CONSTITUTE IMMORALITY. When a member of

the bar, bent on satisfying his lust, lures an innocent woman, who does not have an exact notion of a
legal and valid marriage, into going through the different stages of a stimulated marriage, and inveigled
her into beleiving that they were from that moment, husband and wife, and because of the deceit
succeeds in his evil desire that brought about the birth of a child, and later on marriews another woman,
he has failed to maintain that degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of, and
must be possessed by, members of the bar. Therefore, he is disbarred from the practice of law and his
name stricken from the roll of attorneys.

DECISION

PADILLA, J.:

This is a complaint filed by Anita Cabrera charging Francisco Agustin y Garcia, a member of the bar, with
immorality.

ChanRobles Intellectual Property

Division

Sometime in April 1953 the respondent courted the complainant and proposed marriage. In July 1954
she accepted his proposal. On 27 November 1954 the affianced couple proceeded to Pasay City to obtain
their respective residence certificates and thereafter repaired to the Office of the Local Civil Registrar at
the City Hall of Manila to apply for a marriage license and in the room of Mr. Leoncio V. Aglubat both
signed two sheets of paper (Exhibits A and B). Mr. Aglubat asked them whether they were willing to
marry each other and in answer they said they were. From the room of Mr. Aglubat they entered
another room and there a lady doctor took blood from them. After coming from the lady doctors room,
the respondent told the complainant that as they were already married they would go to Grace Park and
call on his uncle to introduce her to him. He called a taxi to go there. In Grace Park they went to a
house which she later on learned was the Venus Hotel. After the respondent had signed a book, he and
the complainant went inside a room the door of which he closed. The respondent asked the complainant
to have sexual intercourse with him for they were already married. Because of his insistence and
assurance that they were already married, she gave in to his desire. From then on they continued to
have sexual intercourse in the same place once a month for three consecutive months and in another
hotel near the Espiritu Santo Church. Three days after the first contact, the respondent showed to her
the report of her blood test and drew her attention to the fact that after the printed word "occupation"
the handwritten word "bride" appears, which shows, according to him, that they were already married
(Exhibit C). Sometime in January 1955 she asked the respondent why despite their marriage they had
not yet lived as husband and wife. The respondent excused himself by saying that he was still waiting
for the release of the result of the bar examinations. After he passed the bar examinations, the
respondent gave her his diploma issued by the Clerk of the Supreme Court (Exhibit D) to show his
affection to her. She then told him to settle down and he agreed to talk to her parents. Sometime in
March he spoke to her father and the latter told him that as they were Catholics it would be better for
them to be married in the Catholic Church. He agreed. On 26 April 1955 both went to the Office of the
Local Civil Registrar at the City Hall in Manila to get the marriage license which they had applied for
previously (Exhibit E). The respondent handed to the complainant the original copies of their
applications for marriage license (Exhibits A & B); the marriage license (Exhibit E); a copy of the notice
of publication of their applications for marriage license (Exhibit E-1); and the official receipt for the
marriage license fee of P2.00 paid by the respondent (Exhibit E-2), with instructions to bring them to
the Espiritu Santo Church after two weeks. On 2 May 1955 they went to the Espiritu Santo Church to
make arrangement for their wedding, where the respondent filled out the blanks in a mimeographed
questionnaire (Exhibit F), and set the date of the wedding on 15 May 1955, for which the fee charged
was P22 (Exhibit G.) However, before the date set, the complainant received a letter from the
respondent withdrawing from their agreement to marry. She showed to her father the documents in her
possession and he found out that they had not been married civilly. She confessed to him that she was
on the family way. On 4 August 1955 she delivered at the Saint Marys Hospital a baby girl whom she
named Delia Agustin (Exhibit H). On 9 June 1955 the respondent married Asuncion Talan.
The respondent admits his relationship with the complainant and acknowledges the child Delia Agustin
as his own. His defense in breaching his promise to marry the complainant was that her family insisted
on a pompous wedding, the expenses of which he had to defray; and that he noticed she was mentally
deranged because she often smiled for no cause at all. He denies that he deceived her into believing
that they had been married civilly to satisfy his carnal desire and insist that she submitted to his desire
voluntarily.
The respondents defense cannot be believed. If it were true that the complainants family was insisting
on a pompous wedding, then why should she choose a wedding at the Espiritu Santo Church for which
the fee was P22? Moreover, the complainant knew that she was on the family way and any undue
demand for a pompous wedding would thwart their plans. For that reason, she would be the first to
oppose such a demand and prevail upon her family not to insist on it. Likewise, the respondents claim
that when the complainants family insisted on a pompous wedding he suggested to her to elope cannot
be true. In the condition the complainant found herself she would jump at the idea and grab the
opportunity to save her from embarrassment.
The respondents suspicion that the complainant was mentally deranged cannot withstand scrutiny,
because if it were true that he suspected her to be so, why did he persist on having sexual intercourse
with her? The truth is that all along he never intended to redeem the complainants honor. He had
inveigled her into believing that they had been married civilly to satisfy his carnal desire. He himself
admits that what prompted him to offer and propose marriage to her was to satisfy such desire. On the
other hand, the complainant has not gone far in educational attainment, having reached the first year of
high school only, and does not have the slightest idea of a legal and valid marriage. Thus she fell an
easy prey of a man like the respondent, a lawyer who knows the intricacies of the law and the way to
extricate himself from the mess that he has brought about.

September-1959 Jurisprudence
G.R. No. L-12826 September 10, 1959 - LUCINA
EVANGELISTA v. PEDRO DEUDOR
106 Phil 170
G.R. No. L-11923 September 18, 1959 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO BARROSO

The respondent has not maintained the highest degree of morality and integrity, which at all times is
expected of, and must be possessed by, members of the bar.1 He is, therefore, disbarred from the
practice of law and his name in the roll of attorneys stricken out.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, Barrera and
Gutirrez David, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

1. In re Pelaez, 44 Phil., 567; Balinon v. De Leon, 94 Phil., 277; 50 Off. Gaz., 583.

106 Phil 177

G.R. Nos. L-137727-3 September 18, 1959 - PRIMO
PANTI v. JUAN ALBERTO
106 Phil 181
G.R. No. L-13919 September 18, 1959 - AGUSTIN

Ads by Google
Ads by Google
Ads by Google

Maria Cabrera
Family Law
VS Bar
Marriage Law
Lawyer Law
Attorney Law
Phil Law
VS GR
Case Attorney Cases in Law Case Lawyer Appeals Case

G.R. No. L-13919 September 18, 1959 - AGUSTIN

PARAISO v. JESUS CAMON

Back to Home | Back to Main

106 Phil 187

QUICK SEARCH

G.R. No. L-12152 September 22, 1959 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. CRISOSTOMO ABONALES
106 Phil 190

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

G.R. No. L-10923 September 23, 1959 - CEFERINO

INCIONG v. MIGUEL TOLENTINO

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

106 Phil 207

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

G.R. No. L-13119 September 22, 1959 - RICARDO

TANTONGCO v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA
LA CAMPANA
106 Phil 198

G.R. No. L-11803 September 23, 1959 - CHAN LAI v.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
106 Phil 210
G.R. No. L-14233 September 23, 1959 - RAFAEL
PASTORIZA
v.
DIVISION
SUPERINTENDENT
OF
SCHOOLS
106 Phil 216
G.R. No. L-13371 September 24, 1959 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. AGATON SALAZAR
106 Phil 221

Main Indices of the Library --->

G.R. No. L-13408 September 24, 1959 - LO KIO v.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
106 Phil 224
G.R. No. L-13665 September 24, 1959 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. FELIPE BUSTAMANTE
106 Phil 228
G.R. No. L-10940 September 25, 1959 - AMPANG TAN
v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
106 Phil 233
G.R. No. L-13000 September 25, 1959 - GAUDENCIO
D. DEMAISIP v. COURT OF APPEALS
106 Phil 237
G.R. No. L-12102 September 29, 1959 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO BAO
106 Phil 243
G.R. Nos. L-12812-13 September 29, 1959
FILIPINAS COLLEGES v. MARIA GARCIA TIMBANG

106 Phil 247

Adm. Case No. 225 September 30, 1959 - ANITA
CABRERA v. FRANCISCO G. AGUSTIN
106 Phil 256
G.R. No. L-9854 September 30, 1959 - LEON VELEZ v.
RAMON O. NOLASCO
106 Phil 260
G.R. No. L-10374 September 30, 1959 - GAVINA
PEREZ v. JOSE C. ZULUETA
106 Phil 264
G.R. No. L-10677 September 30, 1959 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. JAIME CANARE
106 Phil 270
G.R. Nos. 11113 & L-11134 September 30, 1959 COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ILAGAN AND
ALEJANDRINO
106 Phil 277
G.R. No. L-11751 September 30, 1959 - CONCEPCION
VDA. DE OPINION v. SIMPLICIO BILLONES
106 Phil 284
G.R. No. L-12181 September 30, 1959 - LUCIO R.
ILDEFONSO v. ERNESTO Y. SIBAL
106 Phil 287

Go!

G.R. No. L-12205 September 30, 1959 - FORTUNATO

MILLARE v. ISIDRO MILLARE
106 Phil 293
G.R. No. L-13014 September 30, 1959 - JOSE RUEDA
v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS
106 Phil 300
G.R. No. L-13209 September 30, 1959 - NATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS
106 Phil 307
G.R. No. L-13548 September 30, 1959 - SALVADOR
LACUNA v. MACARIO M. OFILADA
106 Phil 313
G.R. No. L-13712 September 30, 1959 - SERAFIN G.
DAVID v. JOSE M. SANTOS
106 Phil 318
G.R. Nos. L-14059-62 September 30, 1959 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ
106 Phil 325
G.R. No. L-11443 September 30, 1959 - MAXIMA
GROSPE v. COURT OF APPEALS
106 Phil 1144
G.R. No. L-14339 September 30, 1959 - MATIAS
GAMBOL v. MANUEL P. BARCELONA
106 Phil 328

Copyright 1998 - 2015 ChanRobles Publishing Company

| Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions

ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

| chanrobles.com

RED