Republic of the Philippines

Integrated Bar of the Philippines

COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE
______, Manila City
LENI RUGISTA,
Complainant,
- versus -

CBD

Case

No.

___________
ATTY. ROD RUGISTA,
Respondent.
x----------------------------------------------x

Verified Answer
The undersigned respondents, Atty. Rod Rugista, most respectfully depose
and say, that:
1. He is the spouse of Leni Rugista, head of real estate brokers for
Manuela Realty. That he is a managing partner of Batas Law Firm in
Manila, which has another branch in Cebu, Philippines.
2. He is the same person complained in A.M. No.___________ allegedly
involving Gross Immoral Conduct, Violation of his oath as lawyer,
and violation of Code of Professional Responsibility when he
allegedly entered into two other marriages while his marriage to Leni
Rugista still subsist, and allegedly committed a carnal knowledge to
Leni Rugistas daughter, Bernadette without her consent that resulted
to her pregnancy.
3. On the night of December 24, 2015, Rod Rugista narrated that he saw
a few sweet text messages in the inbox of his wifes mobile phone,
this messages was from the personal driver of his wife, Jun Salisi. Rod
confronted her wife, Leni Rugista, and his wife did not deny the fact
that she had a secret relationship with her driver, Jun Salisi, she
explained that she has fallen in love with the driver because of being
with him most of the time rather than Rod, however, she insisted that
there was no sexual intercourse happened between them. Rod Rugista
despite being deeply hurt in his wife unfaithfulness, he still forgive his
wife, just promise to end their forbidden relationship and look for
another driver.

4. Sometime in June 18, 2016, Rod Rugista had received a txt message
from his wife while he was in their Cebu office for some business
purposes, the message composes jun punta ka d2 bahay, wala si
rod, nasa cebu, next week pa babalik, needless to say, Lenis
message for jun was sent to wrong person. For this time, Rod rush
back to manila and saw Jun Salisi on their house, they scuffled and
eventually stop by some concern baranggay police near the house.
5. Rod Rugista filed an annulment and adultery case against her wife
sometime in July 2016.
A copy of annulment papers and pending case was attached in
ANNEX A
6. That the paragraph 5 of the sworn statement of Leni Rugista dated
September 26, 2016 is denied. The Truth of the matter are as follows:
Rod said that the marriage certificate presented was fake and made
only to discredit his good standing as a lawyer, he said the he keep
faithful and loyal to his wife despite of what happen to their
relationship and never contracted another marriage even before their
marriage.
7. Rod believes that this is one of his wifes plans to revenge from
adultery case he filed against her and her paramour. He wishes to test
the authenticity of documents and the identity of the alleged Bonita
Rugista to establish the motive.
8. That the paragraph 9 of the sworn statement of Leni Rugista dated
September 26, 2016 was also denied. The Truth of the matter as
follows: Leni Rugistas daughter in her first marriage, Bernadette, was
financed by Rod Rugista in her study and personal needs as a teen
ager and treat her as his very own daughter, he believes that
Bernadette was only instructed only by Leni to tell lies.
9. That Bernadette was get pregnant by her classmate, her long time
lover, Amboy Pasarap, who most at the time had overnight stay on the
house especially when Rod and Leni was out of town respectively.
10.Rod requested the complainant to provide paternity test in her
allegation and not a pregnancy test. Rod said that Leni Rugista was
only induced by revenge, that she was so desperate to destroy Rods
credibility, even to use her own daughter to her evil motive just to
support her allegations.

11. That the paragraph 9 of the sworn statement of Leni Rugista dated
September 26, 2016 is absolutely a lie. Rod Rugista reiterated that he
never contracted any marriage other than his marriage to Leni because
it is clear to him that his marriage to Leni Rugista still subsist and it is
immoral as it was provided in the following provisions:
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct
Canon 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity
of the legal profession as well as Rule 7.03 of the same code, which
provides that, a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public
or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.
.
Further, Sec. 27 of Rule 138 of Rules of Court states:
A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other
gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for
any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the
admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful
order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilful appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice
of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

12.In addition, Rod has no personal knowledge of the alleged teacher

from Davao, Amanda, and he further states that since he married to
Leni, he always visits his relatives in Davao together with Leni. Rod
said that he never been to Havana, he further reiterated that this is
another strategy of Leni Rugista to destroy his personality as a
prominent lawyer.

13. Rod cited the case of FE A. YLAYA vs. ATTY. GLENN CARLOS
GACOTT A.C. No. 6475 January 30, 2013, the case as follows:

The Court explained that Moral turpitude includes everything which

is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. It
involves an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private
duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to society in general,
contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between
man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or
good morals.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is on the complainant;
the Court exercises its disciplinary power only if the complainant
establishes her case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence.
Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one
side is, as a whole, superior to or has a greater weight than that of the
other party. When the pieces of evidence of the parties are evenly
balanced or when doubt exists on the preponderance of evidence, the
equipoise rule dictates that the decision be against the party carrying
the burden of proof.
b. Merits of the Complaint
In administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof required
is preponderance of evidence which the complainant has the burden to
discharge. "Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence
adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has a greater weight
than that of the other. It means evidence which is more convincing to
the court as worthy of belief compared to the presented contrary
evidence.
Under Section 1, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, in determining
whether preponderance of evidence exists, the court may consider the
following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) the
witnesses manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and
opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the
nature of the facts to which they testify, and the probability or
improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses interest or want of
interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may
ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number of witnesses,
although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the
greater number. By law, a lawyer enjoys the legal presumption that he
is innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is proven, and
that as an officer of the court, he is presumed to have performed his
duties in accordance with his oath.

In this case, the complainants evidence and the records of the case do
not show the respondents deliberate fraudulent and deceitful acts. In
the absence of such proof, the complaint for fraud and deceit under
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility must
perforce be dismissed.

The Prayer
WHEREFORE, it is prayed of the Honorable Commission on Bar
Discipline and the Board of Governors to dismiss the instant case.
Other reliefs just and equitable are also prayed for.
26 September 2016, Manila City.
By:
ATTY. ROD RUGISTA
IBP No. 123456 / Manila IV / 10-01-2000
PTR No. 1435314 / Manila / 10-01-2000
Roll No. 60944 / MCLE No. IV -0007338 / 08-10-2012
Cc:
LENI RUGISTA
Makati City

Republic of the Philippines )

City of Manila

)SC

Verification
I, ROD RUGISTA, of legal age, Filipino, do hereby depose and state:
1. I wrote the foregoing Verified Answer;
2. I read and understood the same; and

3. All the allegations therein are true of my personal knowledge and based on
authentic documents.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I sign this Verification on 26 September
2016 in the City of Manila.

ROD RUGISTA
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on 26 September
2016 in Manila, affiant exhibiting his IBP ID No. 123456 and Drivers Lic.
No. N02-94-241544, issued by the LTO and expiring on December 10, 2016.
Doc. No.: ___;
Page No.: ___;
Book No.: ___;
Series of 2016.