Facts:

On April 27, 1971, Pilar Abaigar filed an administrative disbarment case against David D.C. Paz, a member of the Philippine Bar. The complaint arose from events that transpired in March 1970 when Abaigar sought legal assistance regarding her divorce case in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, USA. During a telephone call to Congressman Bagatsing's office in Manila, Paz answered and offered his legal services. Trusting his expertise, Abaigar confided her legal issues to him. Following the conclusion of her divorce case, Paz developed a close relationship with Abaigar, professing his love for her. Despite initial hesitations, Abaigar was persuaded by Paz that his civil marriage to another woman was not a barrier to their potential marriage. He proposed to her, and she accepted, leading to an application for a marriage license in late November 1970. They began living together as if they were married, resulting in Abaigar's pregnancy, which she later lost...

Facts:

Filing of the Complaint and Initial Allegations

• On April 27, 1971, Pilar Abaigar filed an administrative case for disbarment against respondent David D.C. Paz, a member of the Philippine Bar.
• The complaint alleged that in March 1970, after seeking legal assistance for her divorce case filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, U.S.A., the complainant contacted Congressman Bagatsing’s office in Manila.
• During that telephone call, David D.C. Paz volunteered his legal services, leading the complainant to confide her case and personal problems to him.

Evolution of the Relationship and the Alleged Misrepresentations

• The complaint asserts that after assisting with her legal case, the respondent developed an increasingly friendly relationship with the complainant and began professing his love for her.
• Despite her initial hesitation, the respondent allegedly convinced her that:
• His cohabitation with another woman was no impediment because he had been “compelled” to contract a civil (non-ecclesiastical) marriage with that woman.
• Since the civil marriage was not recognized under church laws, he could lawfully marry her under ecclesiastical rites.
• The respondent purportedly proposed marriage to the complainant, who, trusting his assertions, accepted.
• An application for a marriage license was made in the latter part of November 1970, and soon thereafter, they began living together as husband and wife.
• The relationship allegedly resulted in the complainant’s pregnancy, which was later lost due to causes beyond her control.
• In the third week of April 1971, the complainant was introduced to Virginia Paz, who was identified as the respondent’s wife from his previous civil marriage, thus casting doubt on the respondent’s representations.

Respondent’s Answer and Alternate Narrative

• In his answer filed on June 10, 1971, the respondent denied any illicit relationship with the complainant.
• He asserted that:
• The complainant initially sought legal assistance at Congressman Bagatsing’s office and was directed to Atty. Geronimo Flores before later requesting his help.
• He assisted her with various legal matters, such as drafting a letter to her husband (Samuel L. Navales) and helping with a criminal case against her sister, among others.
• He denied having informed her of any existing marital ties or being compelled to introduce any notion of a forced civil marriage.
• There was no proposal of marriage, no application for a marriage license, and no act of deception or undue advantage taken against her.
• Additionally, the respondent explained that certain financial transactions (e.g., a loan for hospitalization expenses) and additional legal help were acts of pity or professional assistance, not components of an illicit relationship.

Subsequent Proceedings and Investigative Developments

• On August 20, 1971, the Court referred the case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation.
• The Solicitor General filed his report on June 30, 1973, focusing on:
• The allegation of deceit and grossly immoral conduct under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
• Whether respondent Paz misled the complainant regarding the legal validity of marrying despite his existing marriage.
• The credibility and legal acumen of the complainant, noting her educational background and familiarity with legal issues (such as the non-recognition of U.S. divorces in the Philippines).
• His findings indicated that the evidence suggested the complainant acted with enough awareness to question the legal implications of a remarriage despite knowing both her husband and the respondent’s wife were alive.
• On July 29, 1972, the Court resolved to have the Solicitor General file the corresponding complaint pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 139 of the Revised Rules of Court.
• On September 4, 1975, the Solicitor General filed a complaint for suspension of the respondent from practicing law for at least six months.

Additional Developments and Inconsistencies in the Complainant’s Testimony

• The complainant, in a verified letter-petition dated March 29, 1974, addressed to Chief Justice Querube C. Makalintal, mentioned suspicious activities involving Rodolfo del Prado, who was alleged to have colluded with the respondent.
• In this letter, she contradicted part of her earlier complaint by stating there was never an illicit relationship and that their relationship was akin to that of an engaged couple.
• She clarified that her grievance was primarily tied to a loan recovery rather than a pursuit of revenge for deception.
• These inconsistencies contributed to the questioning of her credibility.

Issue:

• Whether the respondent, David D.C. Paz, deceived the complainant by misrepresenting his marital status and the legal implications thereof, thus inducing her to enter into an illicit relationship under false pretenses.
• Whether the alleged sexual intimacy and the subsequent behavior of the respondent constituted grounds for disbarment under the charge of deceit and gross immoral conduct.
• Whether the evidence available, including hotel guest cards and testimonies, was sufficient to meet the heavy burden of proof required for disbarment.
• Whether the complainant’s contradictory statements (in her original complaint versus her letter-petition) affected the credibility and legal sufficiency of her allegations against the respondent.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)