EN BANC
JOVITA
BUSTAMANTE-ALEJANDRO,
Complainant,
A.C.
No.
4256
February 13, 2004
-versus-
ATTYS.
WARFREDO
TOMAS ALEJANDRO
AND
MARICRIS A.
VILLARIN,
Respondents.
D
E C I S I
O N
PER
CURIAM:
This is an Administrative
Case filed in 1994 by Jovita Bustamante-Alejandro charging respondents
Atty. Warfredo Tomas Alejandro and Atty. Maricris A. Villarin with
bigamy
and concubinage.cralaw:red
Complainant alleged
that respondent, Atty. Warfredo Tomas Alejandro, is her husband; that
they
were married on March 3, 1971 at Alicia, Isabela, as evidenced by their
Marriage Contract;[1]
that she bore him three (3) sons, namely, Dino, Eric, and Carlo, born
in
1971, 1973, and 1978, respectively, as evidenced by their respective
Certificates
of Live Birth;[2]
that respondent abandoned her and their children in 1990 to live with
his
mistress, respondent Atty. Ma. Cristina Arrieta Villarin,[3]
at 27-C Masbate St., Quezon City; that respondents have since then been
publicly representing themselves as husband and wife; that respondent
Atty.
Villarin gave birth to Paolo Villarin Alejandro on January 17, 1992 as
a result of her immoral and scandalous relationship with complainant’s
husband whom she named as the father of her son in the latter’s
Certificate
of Live Birth;[4]
and, that in said Certificate of Live Birth, respondent Atty. Villarin
identified herself as “Ma. Cristina V. Alejandro” having been married
to
Atty. Alejandro on May 1, 1990 at Isabela Province. Complainant
alleged
that she filed this Administrative Complaint when she learned that her
husband has been nominated as a regional trial court judge. She
insists
that he is not fit to be a judge considering that he and co-respondent
Atty. Villarin, do not even possess the basic integrity to remain as
members
of the Philippine Bar.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We required respondent
to comment on the Administrative Complaint in our Resolution dated July
4, 1994. When copies of our resolution and of the complaint and
its
annexes addressed to respondent Atty. Alejandro at 27-C Masbate St.,
Quezon
City were returned unserved with notation “moved,” we required
complainant
to submit the correct and present address of her husband.[5]
No similar return of service with respect to respondent Atty. Villarin
appears on the record.cralaw:red
In an Ex-Parte Manifestation
and Motion dated December 5, 1994, complainant insisted that her
husband’s
correct address remains to be 27-C Masbate St., Quezon City; that it
was
him who told the postman that he had already moved; and, that any
subsequent
service by mail will result in the same failure as respondent will
either
refuse service or misrepresent a change of address again.
Complainant,
therefore, asked that copies of the Complaint and Court resolution
requiring
comment be served personally upon her husband by the Court’s process
servers.
We noted and granted the prayer.[6]
However, when the Court’s process server attempted to effect personal
service
on February 16, 1995, respondent Atty. Alejandro was allegedly out of
the
house and his house helper refused to accept service.
Consequently
we considered the copies as having been served upon respondent Atty.
Alejandro
in our Resolution of July 31, 1996,[7]
and required him to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily
dealt
with or held in contempt for his continued failure to file comment, and
to file such comment, considering the considerable length of time that
has lapsed since he has been first required to do so. Respondent
Atty. Alejandro failed to comply. Hence, we fined him P1,000.00
and
directed that he file the required explanation and comment on the
Administrative
Complaint.[8]
When copies of both
Resolutions were again returned unserved with postal notations “moved,”
we required complainant anew to submit the correct and present address
of respondents, within ten (10) days from notice, under pain of
dismissal
of her Administrative Complaint.[9]
In a handwritten letter dated September 10, 1998, complainant disclosed
respondents’ present address as “12403 Dunlop Drive, Houston, Texas.”[10]
We referred this case
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
report
and recommendation, within ninety (90) days from notice, in our
Resolution
of March 17, 2003.cralaw:red
In a Report dated August
26, 2003, IBP Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan recommended that both
respondents
be disbarred on the following rationalization:
In its
Resolution
dated 31 July 1996, the Supreme Court (Second Division) ruled that
respondent
Atty. Alejandro was deemed served a copy of the instant administrative
complaint and of the Court’s Resolution dated 4 July 1994, by
substituted
service pursuant to Rule 1, Section 6 of the Rules of Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the earlier
Resolution
of the Supreme Court dated 4 July 1994, respondents Atty. Alejandro and
Atty. Villarin were directed to file their Comment on the instant
Complaint
within ten (10) days from notice of said Resolution. To date, no
Comment has been filed by either respondent Atty. Alejandro or Atty.
Villarin.
x x x
Complainant
submitted
a photocopy of the Marriage Contract (Annex A of the letter-complaint)
between herself and respondent Atty. Alejandro executed on 3 March
1971.
Complainant also submitted photocopies of the Birth Certificates
(Annexes
B to D of the letter-complaint) of the children born out of her
marriage
to respondent Atty. Alejandro. These documentary evidence
submitted
by complainant clearly show that there was and is a valid and
subsisting
marriage between herself and respondent Atty. Alejandro at the time she
filed the instant administrative complaint against said respondent, her
husband.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In support of her
charge
of bigamy and concubinage against respondents Alejandro and Villarin,
complainant
submitted a photocopy of the Birth Certificate (Annex E of the
letter-complaint)
of one Paolo Villarin Alejandro. The said Birth Certificates
states
that the mother of said Paolo Villarin Alejandro is “Ma. Cristina
Arrieta
Villarin”, while his father is one “Warfredo Tomas Alejandro”.
Said
Birth Certificate also states that the parents of Paolo Villarin
Alejandro
were married on May 1, 1990 in Isabela Province.
Given the Birth
Certificate
of Paolo Villarin Alejandro (Annex E of the Letter-Complaint), and
considering
the failure of respondents Atty. Alejandro and Atty. Villarin to deny
the
charges of complainant, it is submitted that there is sufficient
evidence
on record which establishes the immoral/illicit relationship between
respondents
Atty. Alejandro and Atty. Villarin. However, there is no evidence
on record which would establish beyond doubt that respondent Atty.
Alejandro
indeed contracted a second marriage with Atty. Villarin while his
marriage
to herein complainant was subsisting. Thus, it is recommended
that
as prayed for by complainant, respondents Atty. Alejandro and Atty.
Villarin
be disbarred for willful violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The IBP Commission
on Bar Discipline adopted and approved the above report and
recommendation
in its Resolution No. XVI-2003-169 dated September 27, 2003.cralaw:red
We agree with the IBP
recommendation with respect to respondent Atty. Alejandro.cralaw:red
Indeed Rule 1.01, Canon
1 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility provides –
A lawyer shall not engage
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.cralaw:red
Thus, we have in a number
of cases[11]
disciplined members of the Bar whom we found guilty of misconduct which
demonstrated a lack of that good moral character required of them not
only
as a condition precedent for their admission to the Bar but, likewise,
for their continued membership therein. No distinction has been
made
as to whether the misconduct was committed in the lawyer’s professional
capacity or in his private life. This is because a lawyer may not
divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere
citizen
at another.[12]
He is expected to be competent, honorable and reliable at all times
since
he who cannot apply and abide by the laws in his private affairs, can
hardly
be expected to do so in his professional dealings nor lead others in
doing
so. Professional honesty and honor are not to be expected as the
accompaniment of dishonesty and dishonor in other relations.[13]
The administration of justice, in which the lawyer plays an important
role
being an officer of the court, demands a high degree of intellectual
and
moral competency on his part so that the courts and clients may rightly
repose confidence in him.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the instant case,
sufficient evidence was presented to show that respondent Atty.
Alejandro,
while being lawfully married to complainant, carried on an illicit
relationship
with another woman, co-respondent Atty. Villarin. Although the
evidence
presented was not sufficient to prove that he contracted a subsequent
bigamous
marriage with her, the fact remains that respondent Atty. Alejandro
exhibited
by his conduct a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of
him as a member of the Bar. We have already held that disbarment
proceedings is warranted against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife
and maintains an illicit relationship with another woman[15]
who had borne him a child.[16]
We can do no less in the instant case where respondent Atty. Alejandro
made himself unavailable to this Court and even fled to another country
to escape the consequences of his misconduct.cralaw:red
The same penalty, however,
cannot be imposed on respondent Atty. Villarin. It is noted that
our Resolution dated July 4, 1994 requiring comment on the
administrative
complaint was never “deemed served” upon her, in the same way that it
was
upon Atty. Alejandro. In fact, it does not appear that copies of
the administrative complaint, its annexes, and of our resolution
requiring
comment were even sent to her. Although sent at the address she
allegedly
shared with co-respondent Atty. Alejandro, the envelope bearing the
copies
was addressed to the latter only.[17]
That was why when both service by registered mail and personal service
failed, the copies were deemed served solely upon Atty. Alejandro.[18]
The IBP for its part
attempted to serve copy of the complaint upon Atty. Villarin with
directive
for her to file answer. It is noted, however, that the same was
sent
to respondent’s old address at 27-C Masbate St., Quezon City, not
“12403
Dunlop Drive, Houston, Texas,” which was respondents’ new address on
record
supplied by the complainant. The return of service, therefore,
showed
the postal notation “moved.” Considering the serious consequences
of disbarment proceedings, full opportunity upon reasonable notice must
have been given respondent to answer the charge and present evidence in
her behalf. It is only in clear cases of waiver that an
administrative
case be resolved sans respondent’s answer.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, for gross
immorality, respondent Atty. Warfredo Tomas Alejandro is DISBARRED from
the practice of law, to take effect immediately upon his receipt of
this
Decision. Let copy of this Decision be attached to Atty.
Alejandro’s
personal record in the Office of the Bar Confidant and a copy thereof
be
furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.cralaw:red
The Complaint against
respondent Atty. Maricris A. Villarin is REFERRED BACK to the
Integrated
Bar of the Philippines for further appropriate proceedings.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and
Tinga,
JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Exhibit “A”; Rollo, p. 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Exhs. “B,” “C” and “D”; Id. at 4-6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Respondent’s name appears in the Roll of Attorneys as “Atty. Maricris
A.
Villarin.”
[4]
Exh. “E”; Id. at 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Resolution dated November 9, 1994; Id. at 18.
[6]
Resolution dated January 30, 1995; Id. at 21.
[7]
Id. at 24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Resolution dated February 23, 1998; Id. at 35.
[9]
See Resolutions dated June 18, 1997 and July 22, 1998; Id. at 32 and 41.
[10]
Id. at 44.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Rivera v. Corral, 384 SCRA 1 (2002); Rural Bank of Silay, Inc. v.
Pilla,
350 SCRA 138 (2001); Paras v. Paras, 343 SCRA 414 (2000); Calub v.
Suller,
323 SCRA 556 (2000); Tucay v. Tucay, 318 SCRA 229 (1999); Nakpil v.
Valdes,
286 SCRA 758 (1998); Cordova v. Cordova, 179 SCRA 680 (1989); Pomperada
v. Jochico, 133 SCRA 309 (1984).
[12]
In re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562, 581 (1970).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Lizaso v. Amante, 198 SCRA 1, 11 (1991).
[14]
Paras v. Vailoces, 1 SCRA 954, 957 (1961).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Tucay v. Tucay, 318 SCRA 229 (1999); Obusan v. Obusan, Jr., 128 SCRA
485
(1984).
[16]
Narag v. Narag, 291 SCRA 451 (1998); Toledo v. Toledo, 7 SCRA 757
(1963).
[17]
Rollo, p. 17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
See Resolution dated July 31, 1996; Id. at 24. |