View full case

FLORENCE TEVES MACARRUBO v. ATTY. EDMUNDO L. MACARRUBO

FACTS:

Florence Teves Macarrubo filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Edmundo L. Macarubbo, accusing him of deceiving her into marrying him despite his existing marriage with Helen Esparza. Florence stated that Edmundo courted her, claiming to be single, and they got married twice. She also alleged that Edmundo married another woman named Josephine T. Constantino and abandoned her and their children without support. Florence submitted documentary evidence, including marriage contracts between Edmundo and Helen, and their own marriage contract. Edmundo did not file an Answer and was declared in default. Florence was allowed to present evidence ex parte. Edmundo later filed a Manifestation/Ex Parte Motion to Re-Open Proceedings, denying the allegations and stating that Florence was aware of his prior marriage and coerced him into a "sham wedding." Edmundo presented evidence, including a court decision declaring his marriage to Florence void ab initio, government certifications, and letters to refute the charges. The Investigating Commissioner recommended a three-month suspension for Edmundo due to gross misconduct and emphasized his duty as a father to support Florence and their children. The recommendation was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors. The case is now before the Court for final disposition.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the respondent, as a lawyer, may be disciplined for misconduct in his private affairs.

  2. Whether or not the respondent's conduct of entering into a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting warrants disciplinary action.

  3. Whether or not the acquittal of the lawyer in a criminal action is determinative of an administrative case against him.

  4. Whether or not the judgment of annulment of the lawyer's marriage exonerates him from a wrongdoing actually committed.

  5. Whether or not the lawyer's multiple marriages and failure to provide regular, monthly support to his children with complainant constitute gross immorality.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the respondent may be disciplined for misconduct in his private affairs if it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor. The evidence on record shows that the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct in his private affairs, which warrants disciplinary action by the Court as the guardian of the purity and integrity of the legal profession.

  2. Yes, the respondent's conduct of entering into a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting warrants disciplinary action. Although the marriage between the complainant and the respondent has been annulled, this does not cleanse his conduct of every tinge of impropriety. The respondent and the complainant started living as husband and wife while his first marriage was still subsisting, rendering him liable for concubinage. Such conduct is inconsistent with the good moral character required for lawyers to continue practicing law. It imports moral turpitude and is a public assault upon the basic social institution of marriage.

  3. The acquittal of a lawyer in a criminal action is not determinative of an administrative case against him.

  4. The judgment of annulment of the lawyer's marriage does not exonerate him from a wrongdoing actually committed.

  5. The lawyer's multiple marriages and failure to provide regular, monthly support to his children with complainant constitute gross immorality.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, thus rendering him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.

  • Conduct of entering into a second marriage while the first marriage is still subsisting warrants disciplinary action as it is inconsistent with the good moral character required for lawyers to continue practicing law.

  • Disbarment cases are sui generis, neither purely civil nor purely criminal, but an investigation by the Court into the conduct of its officers.

  • If the acquittal of a lawyer in a criminal action does not affect an administrative case against him, the judgment of marriage annulment does not exonerate him from a wrongdoing actually committed.

  • Lawyers must lead a life in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community and uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

  • Lawyers shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

  • Lawyers shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on their fitness to practice law, nor behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.