FACTS:
Complainant Rose Bunagan-Bansig filed a Petition for Disbarment against respondent Atty. Rogelio Juan A. Celera for Gross Immoral Conduct. Bansig alleged that respondent contracted a second marriage with Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba while his first marriage to Gracemarie R. Bunagan was still valid and subsisting. She claimed that the first marriage was not annulled or declared void. Respondent failed to submit his comment on the complaint and was required to show cause for his failure. He argued that he did not receive a copy of the complaint and accused Bansig of trying to mislead and frighten him. The Court granted respondent's request to be furnished a copy of the complaint and Bansig complied. However, respondent continued to fail in submitting his comment and was repeatedly required to show cause. He claimed that he did not know the nature or cause of the complaint and asserted that he has yet to receive a copy. Various attempts were made to contact respondent, including sending notices to his different addresses, but none were successful. In 2010, the Court issued a warrant of arrest against respondent after he repeatedly failed to comply with the Court's resolutions. However, respondent could not be located as the given addresses were non-existent or untraceable.
ISSUES:
-
Whether the respondent's act of contracting a second marriage while his first marriage is subsisting constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment.
-
Whether the respondent's repetitive disregard of the Court's Resolution requiring him to file his comment on the complaint constitutes willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the Court.
RULING:
-
Yes, the respondent's act of contracting a second marriage while his first marriage is subsisting constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment. The respondent's action made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.
-
Yes, the respondent's repetitive disregard of the Court's Resolution requiring him to file his comment on the complaint constitutes willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the Court. The respondent's defiant stance against the Court, as demonstrated by his deliberate non-compliance with the Court's directives, indicates utter disrespect to the judicial institution.
PRINCIPLES:
-
A disbarment case is sui generis, neither purely civil nor purely criminal, but rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers.
-
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations by substantial evidence.
-
Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
-
Clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty of disbarment or suspension.
-
Certified xerox copies of marriage certificates issued by a public officer in custody thereof are admissible as the best evidence of their contents.
-
The certified xerox copies of marriage certificates should be accorded the full faith and credence given to public documents.
-
The Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and requires them to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
-
Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
-
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as an attorney by the Supreme Court for grossly immoral conduct or for willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court.
-
A Court's Resolution is not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively. Willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the Court may be grounds for suspension or disbarment.