JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF NULLITY Cojuangco vs Palma A.C. No.

2474 June 30, 2005 Facts: On June 22, 1982, respondent Atty. Leo J. Palma, despite his subsisting marriage, wed Maria Luisa Cojuangco, the daughter of complainant Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. Thus, the latter filed on November 1982, a complaint disbarment against respondent. Palma moved to dismiss the complaint. On March 2, 1983, the court referred the case to OSG for investigation and recommendation. The Assistant Solicitor General heard the testimonies of the complainant and his witness in the presence of respondents counsel. On March 19, 1984 respondent filed with the OSG an urgent motion to suspend proceedings on the ground that the final actions of his civil case for the declaration of nullity of marriage between him and his wife Lisa, poses a prejudicial question to the disbarment proceeding, but it was denied. The OSG transferred the disbarment case to the IBP, the latter found respondent guilty of gross immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer, hence, was suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years. In his motion for reconsideration, respondent alleged that he acted under a firm factual and legal conviction in declaring before the Hong Kong Marriage Registry that he is a bachelor because his first marriage is void even if there is judicial declaration of nullity. Issue: Whether or not a subsequent void marriage still needs a judicial declaration of nullity for the purpose of remarriage. Held: Respondents arguments that he was of the firm factual and legal conviction when he declared before the HIC authorities that he was a bachelor since his first marriage is void and does not need judicial declaration of nullity cannot exonerate him. In Terre vs Terre, the same defense was raised by respondent lawyer whose disbarment was also sought. We held: xxx respondent Jordan Terre, being a lawyer, knew or should have known that such an argument ran counter to the prevailing case law of this court which holds that purposes of determining whether a person is legally free to contract a second marriage, a judicial declaration that the first marriage was null and void an initio is essential. Even if we were to assume, arguendo merely, that Jordan Terre held that mistaken belief in good faith, the same result will follow. For if we are to hold Jordan Terre to his own argument, his frist marriage to complainant Dorothy Terre must be deemed valid, with the result that his second marriage must be regarded as bigamous and criminal

Case: JOSELANO GUEVARRA vs. ATTY.JOSE EMMANUEL EALAA.C. No. 7136August 1, 2007

Facts: H e f i r s t m e t r e s p o n d e n t i n J a n u a r y 2000 when his (complainant's) then -fiance Irene Moje (Irene) introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to

Marianne (sometimes spelled "Mary Ann")Tantoco with whom he had three child r e n . A f t e r h i s m a r r i a g e t o I r e n e o n O c t o b e r 7 , 2000, complainant noticed that from January t o M a r c h 2 0 0 1 , I r e n e h a d b e e n r e c e i v i n g from respondent cell phone calls, as well as messages some of which read "I love you," "I miss you," or "Meet you at Megamall."Complainant also noticed that Irene h a b i t u a l l y w e n t h o m e v e r y l a t e a t n i g h t o r e a r l y i n t h e m o r n i n g o f t h e f o l l o w i n g d a y , and sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked about her whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parents' house i n B i n a n g o n a n , R i z a l o r s h e w a s b u s y w i t h h er work. In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and respondent t o g e t h e r o n t w o o c c a s i o n s . O n t h e s e c o n d occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house. On April 22, 2001, complainant went uninvited to Irene's birthday celebration at w h i c h h e s a w h e r a n d r e s p o n d e n t celebrating with her family and friends. Out of embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue immediately. Following that i n c i d e n t , I r e n e w e n t t o t h e c o n j u g a l h o u s e and hauled off all her personal belongings, p i e c e s o f f u r n i t u r e , a n d h e r s h a r e o f t h e household appliances. Complainant later f o u n d , i n t h e m a s t e r ' s b e d r o o m , a f o l d e d social card bearing the words "I Love You" on its face, which card when unfolded contained handwritten letter dated October 7, 2000,the day of his wedding to Irene. Complainant soon saw respondent's car and that of Irene c o n s t a n t l y p a r k e d a t N o . 7 1 - B 1 1 th Street, New Manila where, as he was to later learn sometime in April 2001, Irene was already residing. He also learned still later that when his friends saw Irene on or about January 18, 2002 together with respondent during a concert, she was pregnant. The relationship gave birth to Samantha Louise Irene Moje. Respondent specifically denies having ever flaunted an adulterous relationship. He averst h a t t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p w a s l o w p r o f i l e a n d k n o w n o n l y t o t h e i m m e d i a t e m e m b e r s o f their respective families. Although, from respondents Answer, he does not deny carrying on an adulterous relationship with Irene. The IBP-CBD found the charge against r e s p o n d e n t s u f f i c i e n t l y p r o v e n . T h e Commissioner thus recommended 19 that respondent be disbarred for violating Rule1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same Code. However, the IBP-CBD annulled and set aside the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner anda c c o r d i n g l y d i s m i s s e d t h e c a s e f o r l a c k o f merit, by Resolution dated January 28, 2006.Hence, the present petition before this court. Issues: 1. Whether or not an illicit relationship w i t h a m a r r i e d w o m a n i n a d i s c r e e t manner would constitute a gross immoral conduct that would warrant disbarment against a lawyer.2. Whether or not the acquittal of an accused in a criminal charge is a bar to an disbarment proceeding. Ruling :U n d e r S e c t i o n 2 7 o f R u l e 1 3 8 o f t h e R e v i s e d R u l e s o f C o u r t , T h e i m m e d i a t e l y quoted Rule which provides the grounds for disbarment or suspension uses the phrase "grossly immoral conduct," not "under scandalous circumstances." "Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not h i s w i f e o r w i t h o u t t h e b e n e f i t o f m a r r i a g e should be characterized as 'grossly immoral conduct' depends on the surrounding circumstances." 35 The case at bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a m a r r i e d w o m a n w h o i s n o t h i s w i f e . I t i s immaterial whether the affair was carried out discreetly.

Although it may be true that the RTC o f Q u e z o n C i t y g r a n t e d t h e n u l l i t y o f t h e i r marriage (complainants) and later the complainant withdraw the criminal complaint against the respondent thus leaves acquittal of the respondent, the same would not have b e e n a b a r t o t h e p r e s e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e complaint. Citing the ruling in Pangan v.Ramos, the acquittal of respondent Ramos[of] the criminal charge is not a bar to these[administrative] proceedings. The standards of legal profession are not satisfied byconduct which merely enables one to escape the penalties of criminal law. Moreover, this Court, in disbarment proceedings is acting inan entirely different capacity from that which courts assume in trying criminal case. Also in Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pools, Inc. v.Atty. Naldoza, administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they may proceed independently of civil and criminal cases. Held: Petition granted, ATTY. JOSEEMMANUEL EALA disbarred.

Dacanay vs. Baker and Mckenzie Nature: Administrative case in the SC Facts: Dacanay sought to enjoin Juan Collas and nine other lawyers from practicing law under the name Baker and McKenzie, a law firm organized in Illinois Yes. Baker and McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec 1, Rule 138, ROC) DACANAY V BAKER & MCKENZIE AQUINO; May 10, 1985 (ice baguilat)

NATURE Administrative Case

FACTS Dacanay seeks to enjoin Torres and 9 other lawyers from practicing law under Baker & McKenzie (a law firm organized in Illinois, USA). Torres used the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie on a letter to Rosie Clurman that asks her to release 87 shares of Cathay Products Intl. Inc. to HE Gabriel (a client). Dacanay denied any liability of Clurman and asked whether she is being represented by Baker

& McKenzie as counsel as well as the purpose of the letterhead. No reply coming from Clurman thus this Administrative Case. ISSUE WON the lawyers should be enjoined from practicing law under Baker & McKenzie HELD Yes, they should be enjoined. Baker & McKenzie is an alien law firm and cannot practice law in the country. Using the name constitutes representation of being associated with the firm which is deemed to be unethical. Respondents are enjoined from practicing law under the firm name Baker & McKenzie.

ABANDONMENT OF LAWFUL WIFE AND MAINTAINING ILLICIT RELATIONSHIP AS GROUND FOR DISBARMENT JOVITA BUSTAMANTE-ALEJANDRO VS. ATTY. WARFREDO TOMAS ALEJANDRO and MARICRIS VILLARIN AC No. 4256. February 13, 2004 Facts: Complainant submitted a photocopy of the marriage contract between her and respondent Atty. Alejandro in support of her charge of bigamy and concubinage against the latter and Villarin. She also submitted a photocopy of the birth certificate of a child of the respondent and also stated that they were married in May 1, 1990 in Isabela, Province. The Supreme Court directed respondents to file their comment on the complaint within 10 days but they failed to comply. Copies of the resolution, complaint and its annexes were returned to both respondents unserved with notation moved, same as when served personally. Complainant was required anew to submit the correct, present address of respondents under pain of dismissal of her administrative complaint. She disclosed respondents address at 12403 Develop Drive Houston, Texas in a handwritten letter. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that both respondents be disbarred. The Supreme Court ordered Atty. Alejandro to be disbarred while the complaint against his co-respondent Atty. Villarin was returned to the IBP for further proceedings or it appears that a copy of the resolution requiring comment was never deemed served upon her as it was upon Atty. Alejandro. Issue: Whether or not abandonment of lawful wife and maintaining an illicit relationship with another woman are grounds for disbarment. Held: Sufficient evidence showed that respondent Atty. Alejandro, lawfully married to complainant, carried on an illicit relationship with co-respondent Atty. Villarin. Although the evidence was not sufficient to prove that he co0ntracted a subsequent bigamous marriage, that fact remains of his

deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as member of the bar. A disbarment proceeding is warranted against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife and maintains an illicit relationship with another woman who had borne him a child. We can do no less in this case where Atty. Alejandro even fled to another country to escape the consequences of his misconduct. Therefore, Atty. Alejandro disbarred from the practice of law while the complaint against Atty. Villarin was referred back to the IBP.