P.S.

Ang gicite ni Sir na case is ang 2013 case which is the Petition for Extraordinary
Mercy Na. Humana ug disbar ang lawyer ana na case pero magpareinstate siya. Ako
lang giapil ang Disbarment case pag 2004 para makasabot ta.

MACARRUBO VS MACARRUBO
[A.C. No. 6148. February 27, 2004]

Facts:
In 1982, Edmundo Macarrubo married Helen Esparza. In 1986, he began his career
as a lawyer. However in 1991, Macarrubo married Florence Teves while his marriage with
Esparza was subsisting. In June 2000, Teves filed a complaint for disbarment against
Macarrubo. Teves alleged that Macarrubo made her believe that his marriage with Esparza
was void; that Macarubbo lived with her as her husband but later on left her and then
Macarrubo subsequently married another woman named Josephine Constantino whom he
subsequently abandoned. Teves presented as evidence documents proving Macarubbo’s
marriages as well as photos of him and his wife as a family. Macarrubo was initially
declared in default for failing to appear multiple times but was subsequently given the
opportunity to defend himself.
In his defense, Macarrubo avers that he was only coerced to marry Teves in order to
save her face because at that time she was already pregnant; that Teves sent some
strangers to pick Macarrubo up wherever he goes. He presented a judicial declaration of
the nullity of his marriage with Teves; that the marriage was void for being a sham. He also
averred that the ruling in the said case serves as res judicata on the disbarment case
because Teves failed to appear in the annulment case. He also avers that his third marriage,
with Constantino, is currently being annulled due to similar circumstances.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a second marriage entered into by a lawyer while his first one is subsisting
shall be a ground for disciplinary action if such second marriage is subsequently declared
void.
HELD:
Yes. Macarubbo is disbarred. Even though his second marriage is declared void, it is still
undeniable that he contracted it while his first one is subsisting. Further, since the second
marriage is void, he is then liable for concubinage for living with another woman while his
first marriage is subsisting. The Supreme Court cannot give credit to his defense that both
second and third marriages are shot gun marriages. He is a lawyer and is unlikely to be
coerced. One incident of a “shotgun marriage” is believable, but two such in succession
would tax one’s credulity. Macarrubo’s actions show a blatant disregard to the institution
of marriage and family. His acts import moral turpitude and is a public assault upon the
basic social institution of marriage.
As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must
also be perceived to be of good moral character and must lead a life in accordance with the
highest moral standards of the community. The moral delinquency that affects the fitness
of a member of the bar to continue as such, including that which makes a mockery of the
inviolable social institution of marriage, outrages the generally accepted moral standards of
the community. Macarrubo violated the following provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility:
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner
to the discredit of the legal profession.
Anent the issue of res judicata, it has been long ruled that disbarment cases are sui generis
cases. A disbarment case is neither purely civil nor purely criminal but is rather an
investigation by the Court into the conduct of its officers. Thus, if the acquittal of a lawyer
in a criminal action is not determinative of an administrative case against him, or if an
affidavit of withdrawal of a disbarment case does not affect its course. In this case, the
annulment of Macarrubo’s second marriage will not work to remove such second marriage
as a ground for disbarment.

In Re: Petition for Extraordinary Mercy of Edmundo Macarrubo

Adm. Case No. 6148
January 22, 2013
(This is the case cited by Sir)

Facts:
In February 2004, Edmundo Macarrubo was disbarred for having contracted two bigamous
marriages (gross immorality). He filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. In June
2012, Macarrubo filed a petition for extraordinary mercy with the Supreme Court averring
that he is now a reformed man; that he continued to provide support to his children in all
three marriages; that after his disbarment he went to his hometown (Enrile, Cagayan)
where he tended to an orchard; that he took care of his mom until her death in 2008; that
he is working for the local government there; that he also teaches in a local college there;
that he is active in socio economic activities helping those who are in need.
ISSUE: Whether or not Macarrubo should be reinstated to the Roll of Attorneys.
HELD:
 Yes. He sufficiently proved that he is reformed. At 58 years old, Macarrubo can still
contribute to the upliftment of the law profession and the betterment of the society. He
still has productive years ahead of him. The Supreme Court also notes the guidelines in
granting judicial clemency, to wit:
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be
limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines, judges or judges associations and prominent members of the community
with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case
for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-
reformation.
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of
reform.
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years
ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.
4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal
acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or
administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.
Applying the foregoing standards to this case, the Court finds the instant petition
meritorious.

Respondent has sufficiently shown his remorse and acknowledged his indiscretion
in the legal profession and in his personal life. He has asked forgiveness from his children
by complainant Teves and maintained a cordial relationship with them. Records also show
that after his disbarment, respondent returned to his hometown in Enrile, Cagayan and
devoted his time tending an orchard and taking care of his ailing mother until her death in
2008. In 2009, he was appointed as Private Secretary to the Mayor of Enrile, Cagayan and
thereafter, assumed the position of Local Assessment Operations Officer II/ Office-In-
Charge in the Assessor’s Office, which office he continues to serve to date. Moreover, he is a
part-time instructor at the University of Cagayan Valley and F.L. Vargas College during the
School Year 2011-2012. Respondent likewise took an active part in socio-civic activities by
helping his neighbors and friends who are in dire need.

He presented several documents to prove that he is reformed, i.e., affidavits by

respected people from his locale attesting to his civic works, certifications from the
barangay and NBI as well as other local organizations/agencies. The local church also
certified that Macarrubo has been complying with the doctrines of the church. Further, the
local IBP chapter supports his reinstatement.
The Court notes the eight (8) long years that had elapsed from the time respondent
was disbarred and recognizes his achievement as the first lawyer product of Lemu National
High School,35 and his fourteen (14) years of dedicated government service from 1986 to
July 2000 as Legal Officer of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports; Supervising
Civil Service Attorney of the Civil Service Commission; Ombudsman Graft Investigation
Officer; and State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice.36 From the attestations and
certifications presented, the Court finds that respondent has sufficiently atoned for his
transgressions. At 5837 years of age, he still has productive years ahead of him that could
significantly contribute to the upliftment of the law profession and the betterment of
society. While the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline and even remove its errant
officers, concomitant to it is its duty to show compassion to those who have reformed their
ways, as in this case.

Accordingly, respondent is hereby ordered .reinstated to the practice of law. He is,

however, reminded that such privilege is burdened with conditions whereby adherence. to
the rigid standards of intellect, moral uprightness, and strict compliance with the rules and
the law are continuing requirements.