Republic of the Philippines

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

COMMITTEE ON BAR DISCIPLINE
IBP Building, Doña Julia Vargas Avenue
Ortigas Commercial Complex
Pasig City

LENI MARQUEZ RUGISTA,

Complainant,

-versus- ADM. CASE NO. ______________

FOR: DISBARMENT

ATTY. ROD RUGISTA,

Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------x
 COMPLAINT
COMPLAINANT, LENI MARQUEZ RUGISTA, executed this
complaint for disbarment against herein Respondent, Attorney
ROD RUGISTA (hereafter referred to as “Atty. Rugista”, for
brevity), a member of the Philippine Bar, of legal age, Filipino,
based on the following grounds:

a.) For marrying two other women while

Respondent's first marriage was subsisting in violation of Rules
1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court;

b.) For taking advantage of his profession in falsifying

a Special Power of Attorney to be able to mortgage the property
owned by his in-laws in violation of Section 27 of Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court;
 c.) For unsettling his obligations with the mortgagee
in not paying the mortgage of the property of his in-laws
resulting to the case filed by the mortgagee to foreclose the said
property in violation of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility;

d.) For committing an offense by deceit and immoral

tendencies to appease his sexual desires to have carnal
knowledge with his minor stepdaughter through the use of force
and intimidation thereby resulting to the latter’s pregnancy in
violation of Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court;

All of the foregoing facts are likewise violations of his

duty as a lawyer under Rule 138 Section 20 (a) and Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers, the facts
and circumstances relative thereto are stated in the following
paragraphs:
a.) For marrying two other women while Respondent's
first marriage was subsisting in violation of Rules 1.01 and
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section
27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court

1.) Complainant Leni Rugista (hereinafter referred

to as “Leni”) is married to Respondent Atty. Rugista on May 9,
2005 as evidenced by their marriage certificate hereto
attached as ANNEX “A”. As the Head of Real Estate Brokers for
Manuela Realty which has real estate projects all over the
Philippines, travelling around the country is an integral part
of her duty. During her trip to Cebu to inspect one of their
projects, she met one of their Cebu real estate agents named
Bonita Rugista.
 2.) Surprised to meet someone with the same
surname as his husband since Rugista is not a common name,
she became interested in talking to the agent. During their
casual conversation, she found out that they have the same
husband.

3.) Atty. Rugista married Bonita on June 12, 2013 in

a civil ceremony officiated by Judge Juan dela Cruz in Cebu City.
They have a one-year old son. Copy of the marriage certificate
of Atty. Rugista and Bonita, as well as the copy of the birth
certificate of their son are attached hereto as ANNEXES “B”
and “C”.

4.) Furthermore, it also turned out that Atty.

Rugista, even before marrying Bonita, married another woman
from Davao. He married Amanda in June of 2011 in San Pedro
Church in Davao City and they begot a three-year old son.
 5.) Rule 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that:

“RULE 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in

unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.”

“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.”
 6.) Atty. Rugista’s actions in marrying two women
while his marriage with Leni is still subsisting constitute a
palpable dishonesty and an immoral or deceitful conduct. In the
case of Villatuya v. Tabalingcos1, said actions committed by
herein Respondent are sufficient enough to strike him off in the
roll of attorneys and to disbar him in the legal profession, to wit:
xxx, the Commission found respondent to be guilty of
gross immorality for violating Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27 of
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. It found that
complainant was able to prove through documentary
evidence that respondent committed bigamy twice
by marrying two other women while the latter's first
marriage was subsisting. Due to the gravity of the
acts of respondent, the Commission recommended
that he be disbarred, and that his name be stricken
off the roll of attorneys. (Emphasis supplied)|
 7.) Further, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised
Rules of Court states the ground from which a lawyer can be
removed or suspended by the Supreme Court, to wit:

“Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme

Court on what grounds. - 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,, xxx.” (Emphasis supplied)
8.) Atty. Rugista exhibited lack of degree of morality
required of him as member of the bar. He made a mockery of
marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.
His acts of committing bigamy twice constituted grossly
immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.2
b.) For taking advantage of his profession in falsifying
a Special Power of Attorney to be able to mortgage the
property owned by his in-laws in violation of Section 27 of
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court

9.) Leni and Atty. Rugista, together with Leni’s

daughter on her first marriage, live in a house in Makati City
owned by Leni’s parents, Mario and Flordeliz Marquez. Mario
died on December 2012 followed by Flordeliz on February
2013. However, in 2014, Leni, through her brother Manuel,
found out that the property subject of the holographic will of
their parents was mortgage to the Alejo couple.

Copies of the death certificates of Mario and Flordeliz

are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES “D” and “E”.
 10.) Further investigation resulted that the property
was mortgaged to the Alejo couple by virtue of a Special Power
of Attorney allegedly signed by Leni’s father, Mario, on
February 2013, authorizing the Respondent Atty. Rugista to
enter into an agreement with the Sps. Alejo for the purpose of
mortgaging the subject property to them.

A copy of the Special Power of Attorney with the alleged

signature of Leni’s father is hereto attached and marked as
ANNEX “F”. Further, the date of the Special Power of Attorney
is sub-marked as ANNEX “F-1”.

11.) It was an apparent case of forgery given that

Leni’s father was already deceased at the time of the alleged
signing of the Special Power of Attorney. It must be noted that
Leni’s father died on December 2012 and the Special Power of
Attorney was signed on February 2013.
 12.) Even without further analysis, it is evident that
it was the Respondent who benefited from the proceeds of
the mortgage since the Complainant has no knowledge about
the said mortgage and her parents who are the registered
owners of the property were already deceased.

13.) In the case of In re Avanceña3, the accused is a

lawyer and has taken advantage of the law profession in
committing the crime of falsification of a public document.
According to the Supreme Court, a lawyer of the type of the
accused is a disgrace to the law profession and should be
disbarred.4 Same with the Respondent herein, who took
advantage of his profession and with grave abuse of
confidence in committing the offense through fabrication and
forgery.
 14.) In Brennisen v. Contawi5, the Court disbarred
the lawyer who falsified a special power of attorney in order
to mortgage and sell his client's property. Although in the
instant case, there is no lawyer-client relationship between
the Respondent and the registered owners of the property,
the Supreme Court once held that absence of a formal
lawyer-client relationship will not serve to mitigate the
liability of the accused lawyer. There is no distinction as to
whether the transgression is committed in a lawyer's
private or professional capacity, for a lawyer may not divide
his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen
at another.6
c.) For unsettling his obligations with the mortgagee
in not paying the mortgage of the property of his in-laws
resulting to the case filed by the mortgagee to foreclose
the said property in violation of Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility;

15.) The Sps. Alejo filed a petition for foreclosure of

mortgage when the Respondent did not able to pay the
mortgage amount, in blatant disregard of their agreement.
Since it was the Respondent who benefited from the said
mortgage and was the one who directly entered into
agreement with the Sps. Alejo, it is but proper that he should
be the one to uphold such deal.
 16.) Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states that:

“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.”

17.) As officers of the court, lawyers are bound to

maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but
also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing,
failing in which whether in his personal or private capacity,
he becomes unworthy to continue his practice of law.7
d.) For committing an offense by deceit and immoral
tendencies to appease his sexual desires to have carnal
knowledge with his minor stepdaughter through the use of
force and intimidation thereby resulting to the latter’s
pregnancy in violation of Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court
and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

18.) Bernadette, Leni’s daughter from her first

marriage, confessed to the Complainant the evil actions
committed by the Respondent against her. According to
Bernadette, she was raped by his stepfather, the Respondent
herein, twice when Leni was out of town for work. She was
frightened to tell to her mother about the incidents because the
Respondent threatened to kill her and her mother, Complainant
herein. However, due to the pregnancy, Bernadette has no other
recourse but to tell everything to the Complainant even though
she feared for her life and her mother’s.
 19.) In the case of Barrientos v. Daarol8, the Supreme
Court held that by his acts of deceit and immoral tendencies to
appease his sexual desires, respondent Daarol has amply
demonstrated his moral delinquency. Hence, his removal for
conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar on the grounds of
deceit and grossly immoral conduct (Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules
of Court) is in order. Good moral character is a condition
which precedes admission to the Bar (Sec. 2. Rule 138, Rules
of Court) and is not dispensed with upon admission thereto. It
is a continuing qualification which all lawyers must possess,
otherwise, a lawyer may either be suspended or disbarred.9
 20.) It cannot be overemphasized that the
requirement of good character is not only a condition
precedent to admission to the practice of law; its continued
possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of
law.10 As aptly put by Mr. Justice George A. Malcolm: `As good
character is an essential qualification for admission of an
attorney to practice, when the attorney's character is bad in
such respects as to show that he is unsafe and unfit to be
entrusted with the powers of an attorney, the court retains the
power to discipline him.11
 21.) Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility specifically provides that:

“CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the

constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal
processes.” (Emphasis supplied)

22.) Same like in Section 20 (a), Rule 138 of the

Revised Rules of Court which stated that:

“Sec. 20. Duties of attorneys. - It is the duty of

an attorney: To maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines and to support the
Constitution and obey the laws of the
Philippines; Xxx”(Emphasis supplied)
 23.) In the case at bar, Respondent Atty. Rugista
deliberately and manifestly disobey the law of the land, and
consequently should suffer the fruit of his own doing as a
citizen and as a lawyer in legal profession.

24.) It is worth stressing that the practice of law is

a privilege accorded only to those who measure up to the
exacting standards of mental and moral fitness. In the case
of Barrientos v. Daarol12 which is previously cited, the
Respondent having exhibited debased morality, the Court is
constrained to impose upon him the most severe
disciplinary action — disbarment.
 25.) In view of all the foregoing, it is clear that
Atty. Rod Rugista displayed conduct that are unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful which does not measure up
to the rigorous standard of someone in legal profession and
that he blatantly violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 7, Rule
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Section 20
(a) and 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court and the
Lawyer’s Oath. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 139-B,
Respondent Rugista should be stripped of his license to
practice law in the Philippines.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfully prays that

judgment be rendered against Respondent Rugista for
conducting himself contrary to the Code of Professional
Responsibility and accordingly, be disbarred from practicing
law.

Complainant likewise prays for such further or other reliefs

as may be deemed just or equitable.

Makati City for Pasig City, 13 October 2015.

END NOTES:

1 A.C. No. 6622, [July 10, 2012], 690 PHIL 381-399.

2 Ibid.
3 A.C. No. 407, [August 15, 1967], 127 PHIL 426-429.
4 Ibid.
5 A.C. No. 7481, April 24, 2012, 686 PHIL 342-350
6 Ibid.
7 Tan v. Diamante, A.C. No. 7766, August 5, 2014.
8 A.C. No. 1512 (Resolution), January 29, 1993, citing People v.

Tuanda, 181 SCRA 682 [1990]; Delos Reyes v. Aznar, 179

SCRA 653 [1989])
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid., citing Piatt v. Abordo, 58 Phil. 350 [1933]) citing

People v. Tuanda, Adm. Case No. 3360, 30 January 1990, 181

SCRA 692.
11 Ibid., citing Piatt v. Abordo, 58 Phil. 350 [1933])
12 Supra at note 8.