A.C. No. 377 - Bolivar vs. Simbol y Manuel

The disbarment proceedings were initiated against respondent Abelardo Simbol y Manuel on moral grounds.
The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation.
Complainant Concepcion Bolivar, acting as the sole witness, completed her testimony on September 4, 1959.
Multiple postponements of the hearing occurred, with scheduled dates including November 13, 1959; January 15, 1960; February 24, 1960; April 4, 1960; May 9, 1960; July 1, 1960; and August 4, 1960.
A significant gap emerged in the record until the Solicitor General filed his report on October 28, 1963, noting that the complainant had made a sworn withdrawal and desistance but still recommended disciplinary action against the respondent with a suspension of at least five (5) years.
Notices were sent to the respondent:

On October 31, 1963, a transmittal letter accompanied by a copy of the complaint was mailed through the respondent’s counsel, Atty. Valentino G. Castro, requiring a response within 15 days.
Due to a change of address, subsequent mailing on December 6, 1963, was directed to 232 Maria Cristina Street, Dumaguete City, but was returned as undeliverable.

At the hearing set on February 3, 1964, only the representatives for the complainant appeared; neither the respondent nor any counsel representing him was present.

Complainant Concepcion Bolivar, aged 27, with an education up to the sixth grade, became acquainted with respondent in April 1952.
Respondent initiated courtship in December 1952, promising marriage, and the couple began living together as husband and wife by April 7, 1953.
The respondent publicly asserted that Concepcion was his wife, solidifying a semblance of legitimacy to their relationship.

Concepcion, convinced by the promise to marry, provided financial support for respondent’s studies—totaling around P8,000.00—and assisted with other personal and educational needs.
Despite cohabiting and bearing a child (Eduardo Bolivar Simbol, baptized on April 22, 1957), respondent continuously postponed or disrupted plans for a formal marriage by citing various pretexts (lack of a person to solemnize, "expired" marriage license, completion of studies, and securing employment).

Confronted with evidence of respondent’s secret marriage to Lydia Lingat in Angeles on January 5, 1957, Concepcion’s suspicions were confirmed, revealing that respondent had deceived her repeatedly.
Even after Concepcion discovered the deception, respondent attempted to reconcile by falsely promising to leave his wife and resume their relationship, while simultaneously demanding further financial aid.

Despite an amicable settlement and the complainant’s subsequent withdrawal of her complaint, the underlying facts revealed a pattern of deceit, exploitation, and grossly immoral conduct inconsistent with the ethical standards expected of a member of the bar.
The Solicitor General’s report and previous cases of similar misconduct fortify the basis for disciplinary action, emphasizing that a compromise between the parties does not absolve the respondent of his professional misdeeds.

Whether the court could proceed with disciplinary action ex parte given that:

The respondent failed to answer the Solicitor General’s complaint despite being duly served.
The respondent, along with his counsel, did not appear at the scheduled hearing.

Whether the complainant’s withdrawal and desistance from the proceedings nullified the need for disciplinary measures.
Whether the respondent’s repeated non-appearance and failure to update his whereabouts constituted a waiver of his right to be heard under Section 30, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
The extent to which the respondent’s conduct—particularly his deception in personal matters—reflected on his moral fitness to practice law.