Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Facts: The complainants are clients of Atty. Justo Paras in two collection cases
namely Civil Case No. 2000-319 and 2000- 321, which were filed against them
by the respondents. Because of Atty. Paras’ suspension, complainants
decided to seek for an out-of-court settlement.
Aida (complainant) went to respondent’s law office and asked if they could
be allowed to pay their obligations by installment which the latter agreed and
on the same day, Aida tendered the first payment of P20,000.00 which was
acknowledged by Francisco in a document containing the letterhead of Yap
Law Office. Aida asked if they are still required to attend pre-trial conferences
but Atty. Francisco Yap told them that they need not to attend anymore since
they will be moving for the dismissal of the case.
Relying on the respondents' assurance, the complainants did not attend the
scheduled hearings. Subsequently, they were surprised to receive copies of
the decisions of the trial court declaring them in default for non-appearance
in the pre-trial conference and ordering them to pay the amount of their
indebtedness and damages. However, the complainants continued tendering
installment payments to the respondents upon the latter's assurance that they
will disregard the decision of the trial court since they already had an out-of-
court settlement before the rendition of said judgment.
The complainants were surprised to learn that the respondents filed a motion
for the issuance of a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 2000-319 which
prompted them to seek legal advice from Atty. Jose V. Cariaga who told them
that they have a good ground to file a disbarment case against the
respondents. The complainants went to Atty. Paras who just assumed
practice after his suspension.
On March 26, 2006, the respondents moved for a motion for reconsideration.
On August 9, 2007, complainants terminated the services of Atty. Paras and
on the same day, complainants executed an Extrajudicial expressing their
lack of intention to initiate a disbarment case and that that statements
contained in the complaint were false thus, they wished to withdraw the
same.
Facts: Dr. Perez (complainant) and Atty. Catindig (respondent) had been
friends way back in college but lost touch after graduation. Sometime in 1983,
their paths crossed and respondent started to court the complainant. During
that time, Atty. Catindig admitted to Dr. Perez that he was already legally
married to Lily Corazon Gomez for the reason that he got the latter pregnant
and the scandal if he refused to marry her, would jeopardize his scholarship
at Harvard Law School.
Atty. Catindig assured Dr. Perez that he would marry her by the time he
obtains a divorce in a foreign country. Consequently, on 1984, Atty. Catindig
and Gomez obtained a divorce decree from Dominican Republic. As a result,
Atty. Catindig and Dr. Perez married in the State of Virginia, USA. Their
union was blessed with a child.
Years later, Dr. Perez came to know that her marriage to Atty. Catindig was
null and void since the divorce decree from respondent’s previous marriage
was obtained from Dominican Republic which was not recognized under
Philippine Laws. Respondent assured plaintiff that he will legalize their
union by the time he obtains a divorce under Philippine Laws and that he
will legally adopt their son.
Atty. Catindig, in his answer, admitted to have been married with Gomez
and that immediately after their wedding, Gomez showed signs that she was
incapable of fulfilling their marital obligations as she was having serious
intimacy problems. Their irreconcilable differences lead to their de facto
separation in 1984. Respondent likewise claimed that Dr. Perez knew from
the very beginning that the divorce decree he obtained from Puerto Rico does
not have any effect in the Philippines but the latter even forced him to marry
her.
On 2001, their relationship went sour and respondent left their home. He
alleged that Atty. Baydo was not the reason as their relationship started to
fall apart as early as 1997. He added that Atty. Baydo did not reciprocate his
feelings and in fact rejected him. Atty. Baydo denied the issue, however, she
claimed that Atty. Catindig started to court her while she was employed in
the firm but rejected the same because he was married and that he was too
old for her. Atty. Catindig still pursued her that is why she resigned from the
firm.
Ruling: Yes. The court agrees with the findings of IBP-CBD and IBP Board of
Governors. A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct
showing any fault or deficiency in his moral character, honesty, probity or
good demeanor. Contracting a marriage during the subsistence of a previous
one amounts to a grossly immoral conduct. Immoral conduct is gross when
it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous
or revolting circumstances as to shock the community's sense of decency.