Bunagan-Bansig vs. Celera

Facts:

Rose Bunagan‑Bansig v. Atty. Rogelio Juan A. Celera, A.C. No. 5581, January 14, 2014; 724 Phil. 141; 10 OG No. 41, 6362 (October 13, 2014), Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. Complainant Rose Bunagan‑Bansig (Bansig) — sister of Gracemarie R. Bunagan, respondent’s legal wife — filed a Petition for Disbarment dated January 8, 2002 against respondent Atty. Rogelio Juan A. Celera for grossly immoral conduct, alleging that respondent contracted a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting.

Bansig submitted certified xerox copies of two marriage certificates: one showing respondent’s marriage to Gracemarie R. Bunagan on May 8, 1997 (City Civil Registry of Manila), and another showing a subsequent marriage to Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba on January 8, 1998 (City Civil Registry of San Juan). Bansig alleged the first marriage had never been annulled or declared void and that the second marriage therefore constituted bigamy and grossly immoral conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.

From February 2002 onward the Court ordered respondent to file a comment. Respondent repeatedly failed to file an answer; he claimed non‑receipt of the complaint and asserted various justificatory circumstances (e.g., changes of residence, lack of notice). The Court repeatedly required Bansig to show service; she submitted affidavits of mailing and registry receipts to several addresses. Multiple show‑cause orders were issued (March 2003; March 17, 2004; May 16, 2005) and the Court imposed a fine (June 30, 2008) and ultimately dispensed with the filing of respondent’s comment, ordered his arrest, and referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation (Resolution dated January 27, 2010).

The NBI returned the arrest warrant unexecuted (warrant returned March 24, 2010) because the addresses provided could not be located; the IBP nonetheless declared respondent in default (Order of Default, August 4, 2010) and, in its Report and Recommendation (January 3, 2011...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Procedural: May the Court proceed and impose discipline notwithstanding respondent’s repeated failure to file a comment and apparent evasion of service?
• Evidentiary/substantive: Are the certified xerox copies of the marriage certificates admissible and sufficient to establish that respondent contracted a second marriage while the first was subsisting?
• Substantive: Do respondent’s acts — contracting a second marriage and willful disobedience of Court orders — constitute grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)