DOROTHY B. TERRE, complainant, vs. ATTY. JORDAN TERRE, respondent. PER CURIAM: In a sworn complaint fled with this Court on 24 December 1981, complainant Dorothy . !erre char"ed respondent #ordan !erre, a member o$ the %hilippine ar with &"rossly immoral conduct,& consistin" o$ contractin" a second marria"e and livin" with another woman other than complainant, while his prior marria"e with complainant remained subsistin". !he Court resolved to re'uire respondent to answer the complaint. 1 (espondent success$ully evaded fve )*+ attempts to serve a copy o$ the Court,s (esolution and o$ the complaint by movin" $rom one place to another, such that he could not be $ound nor reached in his alle"ed place o$ employment or residence. 2 -n 24 .pril 198*, that is a$ter three )/+ years and a hal$, with still no answer $rom the respondent, the Court noted respondent,s success in evadin" service o$ the complaint and the Court,s (esolution and thereupon resolved to &suspend respondent .tty. #ordan !erre $rom the practice o$ law until a$ter he appears and0or fles his answer to the complaint a"ainst him& in the instant case. 3 -n 28 1eptember 198*, respondent fnally fled an .nswer with a 2otion to 1et .side and0or 3i$t 1uspension -rder. In his .nswer, .tty. !erre averred that he had contracted marria"e with complainant Dorothy !erre on 14 #une 1944 upon her representation that she was sin"le5 that he subse'uently learned that Dorothy was married to a certain 2erlito .. ercenilla sometime in 19685 that when he con$ronted Dorothy about her prior marria"e, Dorothy drove him out o$ their con7u"al residence5 that Dorothy had moc8in"ly told him o$ her private meetin"s with 2erlito .. ercenilla and that the child she was then carryin" )i.e., #ason !erre+ was the son o$ ercenilla5 that believin" in "ood $aith that his marria"e to complainant was null and void ab initio, he contracted marria"e with 9elina 2alicdem at Dasol, %an"asinan. 4 In her (eply, complainant Dorothy denied that #ason !erre was the child o$ 2erlito .. ercenilla and insisted that #ason was the child o$ respondent #ordan !erre, as evidenced by #ason,s irth Certifcate and physical resemblance to respondent. Dorothy $urther e:plained that while she had "iven birth to #ason !erre at the %.;<9 re"istered as a dependent o$ 2erlito ercenilla, she had done so out o$ e:treme necessity and to avoid ris8 o$ death or in7ury to the $etus which happened to be in a di=cult breech position. .ccordin" to Dorothy, she had then already been abandoned by respondent #ordan !erre, leavin" her penniless and without means to pay $or the medical and hospital bills arisin" by reason o$ her pre"nancy. !he Court denied respondent,s 2otion to 1et .side or 3i$t the 1uspension -rder and instead re$erred5 by a (esolution dated 6 #anuary 1986, the complaint to the -=ce o$ the 1olicitor <eneral $or investi"ation, report and recommendation. 5 !hen 1olicitor %io C. <uerrero was appointed investi"ator by the -=ce o$ the 1olicitor <eneral. 9e set the case $or hearin" on 4 #uly 1986 with notice to both parties. -n 4 #uly 1986, complainant Dorothy appeared and presented her evidence ex parte, since respondent did not so appear. 6 !he Investi"atin" 1olicitor scheduled and held another hearin" on 19 .u"ust 1986, where he put clarifcatory 'uestions to the complainant5 respondent once a"ain did not appear despite notice to do so. Complainant fnally o>ered her evidence and rested her case. !he 1olicitor set still another hearin" $or 2 -ctober 1986, noti$yin" respondent to present his evidence with a warnin" that should he $ail once more to appear, the case would be deemed submitted $or resolution. (espondent did not appear on 2 -ctober 1986. !he Investi"atin" 1olicitor accordin"ly considered respondent to have waived his ri"ht to present evidence and declared the case submitted $or resolution. !he parties were "iven time to submit their respective memoranda. Complainant Dorothy did so on 8 December 1986. (espondent !erre did not fle his memorandum. -n 26 ;ebruary 199?, the -=ce o$ the 1olicitor <eneral submitted its &(eport and (ecommendation& to this Court. !he (eport summari@ed the testimony o$ the complainant in the $ollowin" mannerA Complainant Dorothy !erre too8 the witness stand and testifed substantially as $ollowsA she and respondent met $or the frst time in 1949 as $ourth year hi"h school classmates in Cadi@ City 9i"h 1chool )tsn, #uly 4, 1986, p. 9+5 she was then married to 2erlito ercenilla, while respondent was sin"le )id.+5 respondent was aware o$ her marital status )ibid, p. 14+5 it was then that respondent started courtin" her but nothin" happened o$ the courtship )ibid, p. 1?+5 they Bcomplainant and respondentC moved to 2anila were they respectively pursued their education, respondent as a law student at the 3yceum Dniversity )tsn, #uly 4, 1986, p. 12, 1*E16+5 respondent continued courtin" her, this time with more persistence )ibid, p. 11+5 she decided nothin" would come o$ it since she was married but he BrespondentC e:plained to her that their marria"e was void ab initio since she and her frst husband were frst cousins )ibid, p. 12+5 convinced by his e:planation and havin" secured $avorable advice $rom her mother and e:EinElaws, she a"reed to marry him BrespondentC )ibid, 12E 1/, 16+5 in their marria"e license, despite her Bcomplainant,sC ob7ection, he BrespondentC wrote &sin"le& as her status e:plainin" that since her marria"e was void ab initio, there was no need to "o to court to declare it as such )ibid, 14E1*+5 they were married be$ore #ud"e %riscilla 2i7ares o$ the City Court o$ 2anila on #une 14, 1944 )F:hibit .5 tsn, #uly 4, 1986, pp. 16E14+5 #ason !erre was born o$ their union on #une 2*, 1981 )F:hibit , tsn, #uly 4, 1986, p. 18+5 all throu"h their married state up to the time he BrespondentC disappeared in 1981, complainant supported respondent, in addition to the allowance the latter was "ettin" $rom his parents )ibid, pp. 19E2?+5 she was unaware o$ the reason $or his disappearance until she $ound out later that respondent married a certain Gilma BsicC 2alicdem )F:hibit C, tsn, #uly 4, 1986, pp. 21E22+5 she then fled a case $or abandonment o$ minor with the City ;iscal o$ %asay City )ibid, p. 2/+ which was subse'uently fled be$ore ranch II o$ the City Court o$ %asay City as Criminal Case Ho. 8161*9 )F:hibit D5 tsn, #uly 4, 1986, p. 24+5 she li8ewise fled a case $or bi"amy a"ainst respondent and 9elina 2alicdem with the o=ce o$ the %rovincial ;iscal o$ %an"asinan, where a prima facie case was $ound to e:ist )F:hibit F5 tsn, #uly 4, pp. 2*E26+5 additionally, complainant fled an administrative case a"ainst respondent with the Commission on .udit where he was employed, which case however was considered closed $or bein" moot and academic when respondent was considered automatically separated $rom the service $or havin" "one on absence without o=cial leave )F:hibit ;5 tsn, #uly 4, 1986, pp. 28E29+.
!here is no dispute over the $act that complainant Dorothy !erre
and respondent #ordan !erre contracted marria"e on 14 #uly 1944 be$ore #ud"e %riscilla 2i7ares. !here is $urther no dispute over the $act that on / 2ay 1981, respondent #ordan !erre married 9elina 2alicdem in Dasol, %an"asinan. Ihen the second marria"e was entered into, respondent,s prior marria"e with complainant was subsistin", no 7udicial action havin" been initiated or any 7udicial declaration obtained as to the nullity o$ such prior marria"e o$ respondent with complainant. (espondent #ordan !erre sou"ht to de$end himsel$ by claimin" that he had believed in "ood $aith that his prior marria"e with complainant Dorothy !erre was null and void ab initio and that no action $or a 7udicial declaration o$ nullity was necessary. !he Court considers this claim on the part o$ respondent #ordan !erre as a spurious de$ense. In the frst place, respondent has not rebutted complainant,s evidence as to the basic $acts which underscores the bad $aith o$ respondent !erre. In the second place, that pretended de$ense is the same ar"ument by which he had invei"led complainant into believin" that her prior marria"e to 2erlito .. ercenilla bein" incestuous and void ab initio )Dorothy and 2erlito bein" alle"edly frst cousins to each other+, she was $ree to contract a second marria"e with the respondent. (espondent #ordan !erre, bein" a lawyer, 8new or should have 8nown that such an ar"ument ran counter to the prevailin" case law o$ this Court which holds that $or purposes o$ determinin" whether a person is le"ally $ree to contract a second marria"e, a 7udicial declaration that the frst marria"e was null and voidab initio is essential. ! Fven i$ we were to assume, arguendo merely, that #ordan !erre held that mista8en belie$ in "ood $aith, the same result will $ollow. ;or i$ we are to hold #ordan !erre to his own ar"ument, his frst marria"e to complainant Dorothy !erre must be deemed valid, with the result that his second marria"e to 9elina 2alicdem must be re"arded as bi"amous and criminal in character. !hat the moral character o$ respondent #ordan !erre was deeply Jawed is shown by other circumstances. .s noted, he convinced the complainant that her prior marria"e to ercenilla was null and void ab initio, that she was still le"ally sin"le and $ree to marry him. Ihen complainant and respondent had contracted their marria"e, respondent went throu"h law school while bein" supported by complainant, with some assistance $rom respondent,s parents. .$ter respondent had fnished his law course and "otten complainant pre"nant, respondent abandoned the complainant without support and without the wherewithal $or deliverin" his own child sa$ely in a hospital. !hus, we a"ree with the 1olicitor <eneral that respondent #ordan !erre, by his actions, &elo'uently displayed, not only his unftness to remain as a member o$ the ar, but li8ewise his inade'uacy to uphold the purpose and responsibility o$ his "ender& because marria"e is a basic social institution. 9 In Pomperada v. Jochico, 1" the Court, in re7ectin" a petition to be allowed to ta8e the oath as a member o$ the ar and to si"n the (oll o$ .ttorneys, said throu"h 2me. #ustice 2elencioE9erreraA It is evident that respondent $ails to meet the standard o$ moral ftness $or membership in the le"al pro$ession. Ihether the marria"e was a 7o8e as respondent claims, or a tric8 played on her as claimed by complainant, it does not spea8 well o$ respondent,s moral values. (espondent had made a moc8ery o$ marria"e, a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects ).rticle 216, Civil Code+. 11 In Bolivar v. Simbol, 12 the Court $ound the respondent there "uilty o$ &"rossly immoral conduct& because he made a dupe o$ complainant, livin" on her bounty and allowin" her to spend $or his schoolin" and other personal necessities while dan"lin" be$ore her the mira"e o$ a marria"e, marryin" another "irl as soon as he had fnished his studies, 8eepin" his marria"e a secret while continuin" to demand money $rom complainant. . . . .& !he Court held such acts &indicative o$ a character not worthy o$ a member o$ the ar.& 13 Ie believe and so hold that the conduct o$ respondent #ordan !erre in invei"lin" complainant Dorothy !erre to contract a second marria"e with him5 in abandonin" complainant Dorothy !erre a$ter she had cared $or him and supported him throu"h law school, leavin" her without means $or the sa$e delivery o$ his own child5 in contractin" a second marria"e with 9elina 2alicdem while his frst marria"e with complainant Dorothy !erre was subsistin", constituted &"rossly immoral conduct& under 1ection 24 o$ (ule 1/8 o$ the (ules o$ Court, a>ordin" more than su=cient basis $or disbarment o$ respondent #ordan !erre. 9e was unworthy o$ admission to the ar in the frst place. !he Court will correct this error $orthwith. I9F(F;-(F, the Court (esolved to DI1.( respondent #ordan !erre and to 1!(IKF -D! his name $rom the (oll o$ .ttorneys. . copy o$ this decision shall be spread on the personal record o$ respondent #ordan !erre in the ar Confdant,s -=ce. . copy o$ this resolution shall also be $urnished to the Inte"rated ar o$ the %hilippines and shall be circulari@ed to all the courts o$ the land.
Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Opinions of the Judges Thereof, in the Case of Dred Scott versus John F.A. Sandford
December Term, 1856.