Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

MACARRUBO v MACARRUBO

Facts: Florence Macarrubo by herself and on behalf of her 2 children files a


complaint for disbarment against Edmundo Macarrubo alleging that Edmundo
deceived her into marrying him despite his prior subsisting marriage with a certain
Helen Esparza. Florence further averred that Edmundo entered into a 3rd marriage
with Josephine Constantino; and that he abandoned Florence without providing
them w/ regular support. Edmundo denied the allegations, insisting instead that
complainant Florence was fully aware of his prior subsisting marriage, but that
Florence dragged Edmundo against his will to a 'sham wedding'. Edmundo
submitted the decision of RTC declaring his marriage to complainant void ab initio.
Edmundo claimed that he left complainant and their 2 children w/ her consent.

Issue:W/n Edmundo should be disbarred...

Held: Yes. Facts show that while Edmundo has a subsisting marriage w/ Helen
Esparza w/ whom he had 2 children, he entered into a 2nd marriage with
complainant. While the marriage between complainant Florence and Edmundo has
been annulled by final judgment, this does not cleanse his conduct of impropriety.
Even assuming arguendo that Edmundo was coerced by complainant to marry her,
the duress has ceased after wedding day. Edmundo having freely cohabited with her
and even begot a 2nd child. The decision of RTC annulling their marriage is not res
judicata on the final resolution of this case. A disbarment case is sui generis for it is
neither purely civil nor criminal but is rather an investigation by the court on the
conduct of its officers



A.c.no.6148, feb. 27, 2004Florence macarrubo vs. Atty. Edmundo macarrubo

Facts: the complainant filed a disbarment case against the respondent alleging that
respondent deceived her into marrying him despite his prior subsisting marriage
with a certain helen esperanza.this was also followed by a third time marriage
transaction with josephine constantino.the respondent anchored his defense on the
annullment of the previous marriage he entered as well as the existing annulment
process of the third one.hefurther proved his constant support of their children in
terms of education and their leisure.

Issue: is the act of the respondent in contracting several marriages constitute
immorality despite the fact that those marriages was later declared annulled?

Ruling:yes,the courts find the respondent guilty for gross misconduct
reflectingsunfavorably on the moral norms of the profession.the annulment of his
marriage withfinal judgment did not cleanse his conduct of every tinge of
impropriety.insum,respondent has breached the preceipts of the code of
professional responsibility particularly,rule 1.01,canon 7.01 rule 7.03 of the same
code.the penalty recommended bythe ibp which is 3 months suspension did not
commensurate to the gravity of his conduct,and the court modified it into
disbarment