Macarrubo v.

Macarrubo

Under: Rule 1.01 – No Unlawful, Dishonest, Immoral, Deceitful Conduct

FACTS:

 Florence Tevez Macarrubo filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Edmundo L Macarrubo with
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Alleged that respondent (Atty. Macarrubo) deceived her into
marriage despite having a previous marriage with Helen Esparza.
o They got married two times, one celebrated by a certain Re. Rogelio J. Bolivar at his Manila
Office and the other marriage was celebrated at the Asian Institute of Tourism Hotel in Quezon
City.
o Respondent convinced the complainant that his first marriage was void
o Complainant added that respondent also contracted a third marriage to a certain Josephine T.
Constantino and abandoned the 2nd wife and her children without giving support.
 Respondent answered the information against him and denied that he deceived the complainant in to
marrying him but instead the complainant actually knew about the first marriage.
o She convinced the respondent to still marry her against his will to protect her reputation since
she was already 3 months pregnant at that time.
 Respondent then presented evidence to support his claim:
o Submitted a decision of RTC of Tugegarao City declaring his marriage with Florence Tevez
(complainant) void ab initio.
o Certification fr NSO and also National Index of Marriages for Bride showing that there is no
record of their marriage.
 Respondent admitted that he left his two children with the complainant but denied that he abandoned
them.
o Presented copies of fully paid educational plans for high school and college and also a check
for the payment of the final amortization of his car which the complainant is using.
 To disprove that he is depraved of moral character, he also submitted certification fr the following
offices:
o Office of the Bar Confidant
o Office of the Obudsman
o Department of Justice
o Philippine National Police
 Respondent also claims that the judicial decree of annulment of his marriage to complainant is res
judicata upon the present administrative case.
 The investigating commissioner rendered a report and recommendation, recommending Atty. Edmundo
L. Macarrubo SUSPENDED FOR THREE MONTHS for gross misconduct reflecting unfavourably on
the moral norms of the profession.
 IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation of the investigating commissioner.

ISSUE/RATIO:

Whether or not a second marriage entered into by a lawyer while his first one is subsisting shall be a ground
for disciplinary action if such second marriage is subsequently declared void. –YES

 General Rule: A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any misconduct whether in his
professional or private capacity which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, in
probity and good demeanor.
  Respondent, while his first marriage was still subsisting entered into a second marriage with
complainant Florence Tevez. And while his second marriage has been annulled it does not exempt him
from being disciplined /sanctioned.
 The respondent’s act of entering into a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting is
considered inconsistent with the good moral character that is required for lawyers to continue
practicing.
o The said act imports moral turpitude and is a public assault upon the basic social institution of
marriage.
 Respondent exhibited the vice of entering into multiple marriages and leaving them behin. And such
pattern of misconduct undermines the institutions of marriage and family.
 Lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be perceived to be of
good moral character and must lead a life in accordance with the highest moral standards of the
community

 Moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such, including
that which makes a mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage outrages the
generally accepted moral standards of the community.
 Respondent breached the following sections of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
o Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
o CANON 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and
support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
o Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.

Whether the decision rendered in default of complainant is res judicata on the final resolution of the
administrative case – NO

 A disbarment case is sui generis because it is neither civil nor criminal but an investigation by the Court
in the conduct of its officers.

WHEREFORE, respondent Edmundo L. Macarubbo is found guilty of gross immorality and is hereby
DISBARRED from the practice of law. He is likewise ORDERED to show satisfactory evidence to the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline and to this Court that he is supporting or has made provisions for the regular
support of his two children by complainant.