Case Digest (A.C. No. 2474)
Facts:
Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. v. Atty. Leo J. Palma, A.C. No. 2474, June 30, 2005, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. Complainant Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. filed a disbarment complaint on November 8, 1982 against respondent Atty. Leo J. Palma after Palma, while still married to Elizabeth Hermosisima, married complainant’s daughter Maria Luisa Cojuangco on June 22, 1982.
Respondent moved to dismiss. By Resolution dated March 2, 1983 the Court referred the matter to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for investigation; hearings were held before then-Assistant Solicitor General Oswaldo D. Agcaoili with respondent’s counsel present. On March 19, 1984 respondent asked the OSG to suspend proceedings, asserting that Civil Case No. Pq0401-P (for declaration of nullity of his first marriage) posed a prejudicial question; that motion was denied. Respondent then sought a restraining order from this Court, and on December 19, 1984 the Court issued a Resolution enjoining the OSG from continuing the disbarment proceedings.
After Rule 139-B took effect the OSG transferred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). On October 19, 1998 the IBP Commissioner required the parties to manifest if they wished to pursue the case; complainant confirmed his interest. From February 2, 1999 to January 24, 2002 there were fifteen settings; respondent sought postponement eight times and failed to present his direct testimony in affidavit form despite promises to do so. The IBP Commissioner warned that failure to appear or to submit the affidavit would result in the case being deemed submitted; on January 24, 2002 respondent neither appeared nor submitted the affidavit, and the case was deemed submitted.
On March 20, 2003 the IBP Commissioner recommended a finding of guilt for grossly immoral conduct and violation of the oath, with a three-year suspension; the IBP Board of Governors adopted the finding but reduced the recommended penalty to one year. On September 15, 2004 the Supreme Court rendered a Decision finding respondent guilty of grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath and imposing disbarment. Respondent filed a Motion to Vacate (treated as a motion for reconsideration) raising six grounds: (1) complainant was an improper party; (2) denial of due process because the case was deemed submitted without respondent’s affidavit testimony; (3) the December 19, 1984 restraining order remained in force and thus made subsequent IBP proceedings void; (4) laches because of the 14-year hiatus between the restraining order and the IBP recommencement; (5) t...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the complainant an improper party to file the disbarment complaint?
- Was respondent denied due process when the IBP deemed the case submitted on January 24, 2002 without his direct testimony in affidavit form?
- Did the Supreme Court’s December 19, 1984 restraining order render the IBP proceedings void?
- Does laches bar the disbarment proceeding because of the 14-year hiatus between 1984 and 1998?
- Did the IBP Board of Governors’ one-year suspension attain finality and preclude the Court’s own disciplinary action?
- Can respondent’s asserted good-faith belief that his first marriage was void excuse his conduct or otherwise def...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)