Garrido v. Garrido, A.C. No. 6593, Feb.

4, 2010
Case No. 23 by Frances Eunice C. Vidallo

• Maelotisea Sipin Garrido filed a complaint-affidavit and a supplemental affidavit for disbarment
against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Romana P.Valencia before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Discipline charging them with gross
immorality.
• Maelotisea contends that she is the legal wife of Atty. Angel E. Garrido by virtue of their
marriage on June 23, 1962 and were blessed with six kids.
• One of their daughters, Madeleine, confided to Maelotisea that an unknown caller talked to her
claiming that the former is a child of my husband. Maelotisea ignored and dismissed it, thinking it
was a mere joke. One of their daughters again said she saw his father and Atty. Valencia with a
child strolling in the mall.
• Maelotisea was able to secure the Certificate of Live Birth of the child, stating among others that
the said child is the daughter of Atty. Angel Escobar Garrido and Atty. Romana Paguida Valencia
and were married at Hongkong sometime on 1978.
• Atty. Garrido left their conjugal home and failed to give financial support.
• Atty. Garrido denied Maelotisea's charges and imputations. He alleged that Maelotisea was not
his legal wife, as he was already married to Constancia David. He married Maelotisea after he
and Constancia parted ways. He further alleged that Maelotisea knew all his escapades and
understood his "bad boy" image before she married him in 1962. As he and Maelotisea grew
apart over the years due to financial problems, Atty. Garrido met Atty. Valencia. He became
close to Atty. Valencia to whom he confided his difficulties. Together, they resolved his personal
problems and his financial difficulties with his second family. Atty. Garrido denied that he failed
to give financial support to his children with Maelotisea, emphasizing that all his six (6) children
were educated in private schools; all graduated from college except for Arnel Victorino, who
finished a special secondary course.
• Atty. Garrido emphasized that all his marriages were contracted before he became a member of
the bar on May 11, 1979, with the third marriage contracted after the death of Constancia on
December 26, 1977. Likewise, his children with Maelotisea were born before he became a
lawyer.
• Atty. Valencia denied that she was the mistress of Atty. Garrido. She explained that Maelotisea
was not the legal wife of Atty. Garrido since the marriage between them was void from the
beginning due to the then existing marriage of Atty. Garrido with Constancia. Atty. Valencia
claimed that Maelotisea knew of the romantic relationship between her and Atty. Garrido, as they
met in 1978. Maelotisea kept silent about her relationship with Atty. Garrido and had maintained
this silence when Atty. Valencia financially helped Atty. Garrido build a house for his second
family. Atty. Valencia alleged that Maelotisea was not a proper party to this suit because of her
silence; she kept silent when things were favorable and beneficial to her. Atty. Valencia also
alleged that Maelotisea had no cause of action against her.
• The respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaints after the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City declared the marriage between Atty. Garrido and Maelotisea "an absolute nullity
which the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline also denied.
• The respondents also alleged that they had not committed any immoral act since they married
when Atty. Garrido was already a widower, and the acts complained of were committed before
his admission to the bar.
• Maelotisea filed a motion for the dismissal of the complaints she filed against the respondents,
arguing that she wanted to maintain friendly relations with Atty. Garrido, who is the father of her
six (6) children. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline likewise denied this motion.
 • The Investigating Commissioner submitted her Report and Recommendation for the respondents’
disbarment which was approved and adopted by the CBD of the IBP Board of Governors but with
modification. The case against Atty. Valencia is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
• Atty. Risos-Vidal, Director of the Commission on Bar Discipline, filed her Comment on the
petition. She recommends a modification of the penalty from disbarment to reprimand, advancing
the view that disbarment is very harsh considering that the 77-year old Atty. Garrido took
responsibility for his acts and tried to mend his ways by filing a petition for declaration of nullity
of his bigamous marriage.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Garrido and Atty Valencia should be disbarred from the practice of law.

RULING: Yes, Atty. Garrido and Atty. Valencia are disbarred from the practice of law for gross
immorality.

First, admission to the practice of law is a component of the administration of justice and is a matter of
public interest because it involves service to the public. The admission qualifications are also
qualifications for the continued enjoyment of the privilege to practice law. Second, lack of qualifications
or the violation of the standards for the practice of law, like criminal cases, is a matter of public concern
that the State may inquire into through this Court. In this sense, the complainant in a disbarment case is
not a direct party whose interest in the outcome of the charge is wholly his or her own; effectively, his or
her participation is that of a witness who brought the matter to the attention of the Court.

As applied to the present case, the time that elapsed between the immoral acts charged and the filing of
the complaint is not material in considering the qualification of Atty. Garrido when he applied for
admission to the practice of law, and his continuing qualification to be a member of the legal profession.
From this perspective, it is not important that the acts complained of were committed before Atty. Garrido
was admitted to the practice of law. As we explained in Zaguirre v. Castillo, the possession of good moral
character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the bar and
to retain membership in the legal profession. Admission to the bar does not preclude a subsequent judicial
inquiry, upon proper complaint, into any question concerning the mental or moral fitness of the
respondent before he became a lawyer. Admission to the practice only creates the rebuttable presumption
that the applicant has all the qualifications to become a lawyer; this may be refuted by clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary even after admission to the Bar.

In the case at bar, Atty. Garrido had the gall to represent to this Court that the study of law was his reason
for leaving his wife; marriage and the study of law are not mutually exclusive. He petitioned for the
nullity of his marriage to Maelotisea. Contrary to the position advanced by Atty. Alicia A. Risos-Vidal,
this was not an act of facing up to his responsibility or an act of mending his ways. By his actions,
Garrido committed multiple violations relating to the legal profession, specifically, violations of the bar
admission rules, of his lawyer’s oath, and of the ethical rules of the profession.

The contention of Atty. Valencia that they were not yet lawyers in March 27, 1978 when they got married
shall not afford them exemption from sanctions, for good moral character is required as a condition
precedent to admission to the Bar. Likewise there is no distinction whether the misconduct was
committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity or in his private life. Again, the claim that his marriage to
complainant was void ab initio shall not relieve respondents from responsibility. Although the second
marriage of the respondent was subsequently declared null and void the fact remains that respondents
exhibited conduct which lacks that degree of morality required of them as members of the Bar. They
wanted to marry in Hongkong for the added security of avoiding any charge of bigamy by entering into
the subsequent marriage outside Philippine jurisdiction.
Additional Notes:
• Atty. Garrido violated ethical rules of the profession, specifically, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which commands that he "shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct"; Canon 7 of the same Code, which demands that "[a] lawyer shall
at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession"; Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides that, "[a] lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession."

• In light of the public service character of the practice of law and the nature of disbarment
proceedings as a public interest concern, Maelotisea’s affidavit of desistance cannot have the
effect of discontinuing or abating the disbarment proceedings. As we have stated, Maelotisea is
more of a witness than a complainant in these proceedings. We note further that she filed her
affidavits of withdrawal only after she had presented her evidence; her evidence are now
available for the Court’s examination and consideration, and their merits are not affected by her
desistance. We cannot fail to note, too, that Mealotisea filed her affidavit of desistance, not to
disown or refute the evidence she had submitted, but solely because of compassion.

Ecraela v. Pangalangan, A.C. No. 10676, Sept. 8, 2015

Case No. 24 by Frances Eunice C. Vidallo

FACTS:

• A petition for disbarment was filed by Atty. Roy B. Ecraela with the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) against Atty. Ian Raymond A.
Pangalangan for his illicit relations, chronic womanizing, abuse of authority as an educator, and
"other unscrupulous activities" which cause "undue embarrassment to the legal profession."
• Complainant claims that respondent's actions involve deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct and
grossly immoral conduct in violation of the Lawyer's Oath.
• Complainant and respondent were best friends and both graduated from the University of the
Philippines (UP) College of Law in 1990, where they were part of a peer group or barkada with
several of their classmates.
• After passing the bar examinations and being admitted as members of the Bar in 1991, they were
both registered with the IBP Quezon City.
• Respondent was formerly married to Sheila P. Jardiolin with whom he has three children.
Complainant avers that while married to Jardiolin, respondent had a series of adulterous and
illicit relations with married and unmarried women between the years 1990 to 2007.
• Complainant avers that respondent represented the interest of Manila International Airport
Authority (MIAA) in cancellation proceedings against Kendrick Development Corporation
(KOC) but conspired with the legal counsel of KDC, thereby sabotaging MIAA's case.
• Complainant further contends that in return for his "earnest efforts" in assisting KDC in its case,
respondent was allegedly rewarded with a Toyota Corolla XL which was seen several times by
respondent's classmates and officemates.
 • In connection with his involvement in the MIAA case, complainant claims that respondent was
summoned in a Senate inquiry concerning rampant faking of land titles in the Philippines, which
included an investigation of the alleged spurious land titles of KDC.
• It was further alleged that, during the pendency of the Senate Inquiry, respondent even attempted
to conceal the evidence by requesting complainant's parents to have the Toyota Corolla XL
parked in their residence in Cainta, Rizal, for an indefinite period of time but was refused by the
spouses.
• Complainant also claims that respondent abused his authority as an educator in Manuel L.
Quezon University, San Sebastian College, College of St. Benilde, and Maryknoll College,
where respondent induced his male students to engage in "nocturnal preoccupations" and
entertained the romantic gestures of his female students in exchange for passing grades.
• Respondent simply argued that the petition suffers from procedural and substantive infirmities,
claiming that petitioner failed to substantiate the allegations or charges against him.
• Complainant filed a Comment stating that the allegations in the complaint were deemed admitted
by reason of respondent's failure to make specific or even general denials of such in his Answer.
• In his reply, respondent simply denied all of complainant's accusations in the petition, allegedly
for "lack of knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity
thereof."
• Testimonies were presented confirming complainant's allegations.
• The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that there is more than sufficient evidence
establishing respondent's gross misconduct affecting his standing and moral character as an
officer of the court and member of the bar and recommends the respondent's suspension from the
practice of law for two years with a stern warning that he should reform his conduct.
• The Board of Governors of the IBP issued a Resolution adopting and approving, with
modification, the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Villadolid. As modified, the
Board of Governors disbarred respondent.

ISSUE: WON the respondent committed gross immoral conduct, which would warrant his disbarment.

Yes, respondent's acts amounted to grossly immoral conduct which was fully supported by the evidences
offered and is hereby disbarred from the practice of law.

The practice of law is a privilege given to those who possess and continue to possess the legal
qualifications for the profession. Good moral character is not only required for admission to the Bar, but
must also be retained in order to maintain one's good standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity.

We are not unmindful of the serious consequences of disbarment or suspension proceedings against a
member of the Bar. Thus, the Court has consistently held that clearly preponderant evidence is necessary
to justify the imposition of administrative penalties on a member of the Bar.

The IBP-CBD Report sufficiently showed by preponderant evidence the grounds by which respondent has
been found committing gross immorality in the conduct of his personal affairs. This Court has, in
numerous occasions, revoked the licenses of lawyers who were proven to have not only failed to retain
good moral character in their professional and personal lives, but have also made a mockery of the
institution of marriage by maintaining illicit affairs.

In the present case, through documentary evidences in the form of email messages, as well as the
corroborating testimonies of the witnesses presented, complainant was able to establish respondent's illicit
relations with DOD and CCC by preponderant evidence. Respondent did not specifically deny
complainant's allegations and, instead, questioned the admissibility of the supporting documents. Due to
respondent's own failure to attend the hearings and even submit his own position paper, the existence of
respondent's illicit relations with DDD and CCC remain uncontroverted.

Respondent's pretensions in his Answer were made in attempt to mislead this Commission. Respondent
could have easily admitted or denied said allegations or explained the same, as he (sic) clearly had
knowledge thereof, however, he (sic) chose to take advantage of Complainant's position of being not
present in the country and not being able to acquire the necessary documents, skirt the issue, and mislead
the Commission.

In denying complainant's allegations, respondent had no other intention but to mislead the IBP, which
intention was more so established because complainant was able to submit supporting documents in the
form of certified true copies of the Senate Report, the Ombudsman's Resolution, and Information.

The Court agrees with Commissioner Villadolid's finding that respondent violated the lawyer's oath
which he took before admission to the Bar.

Additional Notes:

• In engaging in such illicit relationships, Respondent disregarded the sanctity of marriage and the
marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws, which as a lawyer he swore
under oath to protect. The 1987 Constitution, specifically A1iicle XV, Section 2 thereof clearly
provides that marriage, an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be
protected by the State.

• In misleading the Commission, he has violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility, which provides that "a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court"
as well as Rule 10.01 and Rule 10.03 thereof which states that "a lawyer should do no falsehood
nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court to be misled by
any artifice" and that "a lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice."