FACTS:

Maelotisea Sipin Garrido filed a complaint-affidavit and supplemental affidavit for disbarment against Atty. Angel E. Garrido (Atty. Garrido) and Atty. Romana P. Valencia (Atty. Valencia) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Discipline, alleging gross immorality. Maelotisea claimed that she was the legal wife of Atty. Garrido and they were married in 1962, with six children together. Maelotisea stated that she discovered her husband's infidelity when her daughter told her about an unknown caller claiming to be Atty. Garrido's child, and when another daughter saw him with Atty. Valencia and their child. Maelotisea further alleged that Atty. Garrido left their conjugal home to live with Atty. Valencia, and failed to provide financial support for their children. She also filed a disbarment proceedings against Atty. Valencia for their immoral acts.

In his counter-affidavit, Atty. Garrido denied Maelotisea's charges and claimed that she was not his legal wife as he was already married to another woman when he married her. He argued that he and Maelotisea grew apart over the years due to financial problems, and he became close to Atty. Valencia who helped him resolve his personal and financial difficulties. Atty. Garrido also denied failing to provide financial support for his children with Maelotisea, stating that all his children were educated in private schools and most graduated from college. Atty. Valencia, in her counter-affidavit, denied being Atty. Garrido's mistress and claimed that Maelotisea was not the legal wife since their marriage was void from the beginning due to Atty. Garrido's existing marriage. She argued that Maelotisea knew about her relationship with Atty. Garrido but kept silent, and that Maelotisea had no cause of action against her.

Motions were filed by both parties during the course of the hearings, including a motion for suspension of proceedings and a motion to dismiss the complaints. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline denied these motions. The Investigating Commissioner recommended disbarment for Atty. Garrido and dismissal of the complaint against Atty. Valencia, which was later approved by the IBP Board of Governors. Atty. Garrido filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. He then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, arguing that he did not commit gross immorality and that the offenses charged have prescribed. Atty. Garrido requested to be allowed to retain his profession on humanitarian grounds. The Director of the Commission on Bar Discipline recommended a modification of the penalty from disbarment to reprimand, considering Atty. Garrido's age and his attempts to rectify his situation.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure apply in the determination of a lawyer's qualifications and fitness for membership in the Bar.

2. Whether the time that elapsed between the immoral acts charged and the filing of the complaint is material in considering the qualification of the lawyer.

3. Whether the affidavit of desistance filed by the complainant can have the effect of discontinuing or abating the disbarment proceedings.

4. What is the standard for determining immoral conduct that would warrant disbarment.

5. Whether Atty. Garrido should be disbarred for his pattern of gross immoral conduct.

6. Whether Atty. Valencia should be administratively liable for gross immorality.

7. Whether Atty. Valencia exhibited conduct which lacks the degree of morality required of a member of the Bar.

8. Whether Atty. Valencia lacked good moral character.

9. Whether Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Romana P. Valencia should be disbarred from the practice of law on the grounds of gross immorality and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

10. Whether the power to disbar should be exercised in this case.

RULING:

1. Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure do not apply in the determination of a lawyer's qualifications and fitness for membership in the Bar.

2. The time that elapsed between the immoral acts charged and the filing of the complaint is not material in considering the qualification of the lawyer.

3. The affidavit of desistance filed by the complainant does not have the effect of discontinuing or abating the disbarment proceedings.

4. Immoral conduct warranting disbarment must be grossly immoral, involving acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community.

5. Yes, Atty. Garrido should be disbarred. His pattern of gross immoral conduct, which included leaving his wife to pursue his law studies, having romantic relationships with other women during his marriage, misrepresenting himself as a bachelor, and contracting a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting, among others, warranted his disbarment. His actions were not only corrupt and unprincipled but also reprehensible to the highest degree. By his actions, he committed multiple violations relating to the legal profession, violated his lawyer's oath, the bar admission rules, and the ethical rules of the profession.

6. Yes, Atty. Valencia should be administratively liable for gross immorality. The fact that she married Atty. Garrido and engaged in a relationship with him while his first marriage was still subsisting demonstrated her involvement in the grossly immoral conduct. The argument that their marriage to each other was void ab initio did not exempt her from administrative liability, as good moral character is required for admission to the Bar.

7. Yes, Atty. Valencia exhibited conduct which lacks the degree of morality required of a member of the Bar. Although her marriage to the respondent was subsequently declared null and void, her actions of entering into a romantic relationship with a married man and later marrying him, despite knowing that he had two marriages subsisting, demonstrate a lack of moral character.

8. Yes, Atty. Valencia lacked good moral character. Her actions of engaging in a romantic liaison with a married man, not objecting to him having a second family, and eventually marrying him even before the declaration of nullity of his second marriage, show a disregard for the sanctity of marriage and a lack of moral values.

9. Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Romana P. Valencia are disbarred from the practice of law for gross immorality and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

10. The power to disbar should be exercised in this case.

PRINCIPLES:

• Admission to the practice of law is a matter of public interest and requires the possession of good moral character.

• 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.

• The time that elapsed between the immoral acts charged and the filing of the complaint is not material in considering the qualification of a lawyer for disbarment purposes.

• Affidavits of desistance filed by complainants in disbarment proceedings do not have the effect of discontinuing or abating the proceedings.

• Immoral conduct warranting disbarment requires conduct that is grossly immoral, not simply immoral.

• Lawyers are expected to live up to the standards and norms of the legal profession, including upholding the ideals and principles embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. They are bound to maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as morality, including honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.

• Good moral character is a requirement for admission to the Bar and must be continuously possessed by lawyers throughout their practice.

• Violations of the lawyer's oath, the bar admission rules, and the ethical rules of the profession can lead to disbarment or other disciplinary actions.

• Gross immoral conduct, whether committed in a lawyer's professional capacity or in their private life, may result in administrative liability.

• Moral character is not subjective but corresponds to objective reality. To possess good moral character, a person must have personal characteristics of being good and not merely a good reputation.

• The requirement of good moral character for lawyers serves four general purposes: protecting the public, protecting the public image of lawyers, protecting prospective clients, and protecting errant lawyers from themselves.

• Lawyers must not only be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and lead lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community.

• Gross immorality is measured against actions that are corrupt, unprincipled, reprehensible to a high degree, scandalous, and revolting, to the point of shocking the community's sense of decency.

• Lawyers have a duty to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of morality and their behavior must not demean the dignity of and discredit the legal profession.

• Membership in the Bar is a privilege that can be withdrawn if a lawyer lacks the essential qualifications required of lawyers.

• The power to disbar should be exercised with great caution and only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as a legal professional and as an officer of the Court.