FACTS:

Complainant Manuel Villatuya filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Bede Tabalingcos, accusing him of unlawful solicitation of cases, violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility for nonpayment of fees, and gross immorality for contracting multiple marriages while his first marriage was still valid. Complainant submitted evidence supporting his claims, including articles of incorporation, letter-proposals, and proof of payment made by clients. He also presented a certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar General-National Statistics Office confirming respondent's three marriages.

Respondent denied the charges and argued that complainant was not his employee but worked for another company where he was a major stockholder. He claimed that complainant's incompetence led to the dismissal of rehabilitation plans in court. Respondent denied unlawful solicitation and presented a joint venture agreement and an affidavit to support his claim that the financial aspect of the cases was handled by another company. He also disputed the affidavit submitted regarding his alleged bigamous marriages.

It was established that respondent submitted three marriage contracts to the National Statistics Office, describing himself as single in the second and third contracts while his first marriage was still valid. Criminal cases for bigamy were filed against respondent by complainant. Respondent filed a motion opposing the charges and disclosed that he had filed petitions to nullify the marriage contracts. Despite the complainant's absence, the Commission scheduled a hearing where only respondent was present. The Commission resolved to submit the administrative case for resolution and later found respondent guilty of violating the rule on solicitation of clients and gross immorality.

The IBP's report and recommendation dismissed the charge of dishonesty but recommended the respondent's disbarment for violating the rule on solicitation of clients and gross immorality. The report was approved by the IBP Board of Governors. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the first charge against the respondent for non-payment of share in the fees should be dismissed.

2. Whether the second charge against the respondent for the unlawful solicitation of clients should be upheld.

3. Whether the third charge against the respondent for bigamy should be considered.

4. Whether the respondent committed bigamy by entering into two marriages while his first marriage was still subsisting.

RULING:

1. The Court affirms the dismissal of the first charge against the respondent. While the agreement between the complainant and the respondent for the sharing of legal fees is violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the complainant failed to provide convincing evidence to prove the existence of the agreement. Therefore, the first charge was correctly dismissed.

2. The Court upholds the second charge against the respondent. The respondent used business entities to solicit clients and advertise his legal services in violation of Rule 2.03 of the Code which prohibits lawyers from soliciting cases for profit. The use of the business entities as a means to procure professional employment is objectionable and violative of the Code. However, since the prevalence of this practice was not proven by the complainant, the recommended reprimand to the respondent is affirmed.

3. The Court considers the third charge of bigamy against the respondent. The submission of NSO-certified copies of the respondent's marriage contracts with three different women, despite being submitted after the administrative case was already submitted for resolution, is admissible. Procedural technicalities do not apply in disbarment cases. Therefore, the charge of bigamy against the respondent will be considered.

4. The respondent is guilty of gross immorality and is therefore disbarred. The court found that the complainant provided convincing and satisfactory proof, including NSO-certified true copies of marriage contracts, that the respondent entered into two marriages while his first marriage was still subsisting. The respondent's denial and vague assertions are not enough to rebut the authenticity and genuineness of the documents. The court also noted that the respondent's filing of civil actions to annul the marriage contracts as ordinary agreements instead of special contracts under the law indicates either a disregard for the sanctity of marriage or gross ignorance of the law. The court held that the respondent's acts of committing bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral conduct, which is a ground for disbarment.

PRINCIPLES:

• An agreement between a lawyer and a layperson to share fees collected from clients secured by the layperson is null and void and may be considered unethical conduct.

• Lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of profit. Engaging in business or other lawful occupations is allowed as long as they are not conducted in such a manner that is inconsistent with the lawyer's duties and can be deemed as indirect solicitation or the practice of law.

• Lawyers must inform clients whether they are acting as a lawyer or in another capacity in occupations related to the practice of law, as certain ethical considerations may differ.

• The burden of proof rests upon the complainant in disbarment proceedings.

• The court, in disbarment proceedings, has the power to inquire into the moral character and fitness of lawyers.

• NSO-certified copies of marriage contracts are competent and convincing evidence.

• Documentation issued by a government agency, like NSO certification, carries evidentiary weight and presumption of regularity.

• Lawyers are expected to exhibit good moral character and are required to abide by the laws in their private lives as well.

• Committing bigamy constitutes grossly immoral conduct and is a ground for disbarment.