G.R. No. 259965 - Planters Development Bank vs. Fatima D.G. Fuerte

In April 1953, the respondent, Francisco Agustin y Garcia, a member of the bar, began courting the complainant, Anita Cabrera, and proposed marriage.
In July 1954, the complainant accepted his proposal.

On November 27, 1954, the affianced couple proceeded to Pasay City to obtain their residence certificates.
They then went to the Office of the Local Civil Registrar at the City Hall of Manila where, in the presence of Mr. Leoncio V. Aglubat, they each signed two sheets of paper (Exhibits A and B).

Mr. Aglubat inquired if they were willing to marry, and both confirmed in the affirmative.
They subsequently went to another room where a lady doctor took their blood, leading to the generation of a report (Exhibit C) which the respondent later used to imply that a marriage had already taken place.

After leaving the registrar’s office, the respondent asserted that since they were already married, they should visit Grace Park to meet his uncle.
At a hotel in Grace Park (later identified as the Venus Hotel), the respondent signed a book and then proceeded to a private room with the complainant where he solicited sexual intercourse, claiming their marital status as justification.
The couple engaged in sexual relations:

Initially at the Venus Hotel.
Subsequently, on a monthly basis for three consecutive months and in another hotel near the Espiritu Santo Church.

Three days after their first sexual encounter, the respondent showed the complainant the blood test report emphasizing the handwritten term “bride,” further insinuating that they were already married.
By January 1955, the complainant questioned the absence of a conventional cohabitation as husband and wife.

The respondent explained he was awaiting the release of his bar examination results.
Upon passing the exam, he presented his diploma (Exhibit D) as a token of his commitment.

In March 1955, after speaking with her father, the complainant was advised that as Catholics they should marry in the Catholic Church, leading to a renewed effort to regularize their marital status.

On April 26, 1955, the couple went again to the Office of the Local Civil Registrar to retrieve their previously filed marriage license applications.

The respondent handed over the original copies of their applications (Exhibits A & B), the marriage license (Exhibit E), a notice of publication (Exhibit E-1), and the official receipt for the fee (Exhibit E-2).

On May 2, 1955, they visited the Espiritu Santo Church to arrange for the wedding.

Prior to the scheduled wedding, the respondent sent a letter withdrawing from the marriage agreement.
The complainant, upon reviewing the documents with her father, discovered that they had not been married civilly.
The complainant admitted to being pregnant, and on August 4, 1955, delivered a baby girl, Delia Agustin (Exhibit H).
On June 9, 1955, the respondent solemnized his marriage with Asuncion Talan.
Although the respondent acknowledged his relationship with the complainant and recognized the child as his own, his later actions and excuses raised significant doubts about his intentions.

His withdrawal was due to the complainant’s family insisting on a lavish wedding, which imposed excessive financial burdens.
He doubted the complainant’s sanity, citing her unexplained laughter as evidence of mental instability.

The financial argument was undermined by the modest fee of ₱22 chosen for the church wedding.
The claim regarding the complainant’s mental state was inconsistent with his continued pursuit of sexual relations.

Ultimately, the evidence indicated that the respondent deliberately misled the complainant regarding their marital status to satisfy his carnal desires.

Whether the respondent deliberately deceived the complainant by leading her to believe that they were legally married when, in reality, no proper civil or religious marriage had been consummated.
Whether the respondent’s conduct—using fabricated or misleading evidence of marriage status, engaging in sexual intercourse under false pretenses, and subsequently denying the marriage—constitutes a violation of the moral and ethical standards expected of a member of the bar.
Whether the respondent’s actions warrant severe disciplinary measures, including disbarment from the practice of law, in light of his breach of professional ethics and personal integrity.