G.R. No. 179535 - Espineli vs. People

Maelotisea S. Garrido filed a complaint-affidavit and supplemental affidavit for disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Discipline charging Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Romana P. Valencia with gross immorality.
The complaint alleges that Atty. Angel E. Garrido married Maelotisea on June 23, 1962 and fathered six children; that in late 1987 and August 1990 evidence surfaced that he maintained a relationship with Atty. Romana P. Valencia who bore a child, and that a Certificate of Live Birth and a Hong Kong marriage (1978) corroborated the relationship and offspring.
The complaint further alleges that in June 1993 Atty. Angel E. Garrido left the conjugal home to live with Atty. Romana P. Valencia, failed to provide adequate financial support to his children by Maelotisea, and that Maelotisea suffered mental anguish, reputational injury, and sleepless nights.

In his Counter-Affidavit, Atty. Angel E. Garrido denied the charges; he contended that he was already married to Constancia David when he married Maelotisea, that he married Maelotisea only after he and Constancia parted, and that his marriages and the birth of his children predated his admission to the bar (admitted May 11, 1979).
Atty. Angel E. Garrido asserted that he supported his children, that they attended private schools and graduated, and he produced a sworn statement from his secretary concerning payments for support.
In her Counter-Affidavit, Atty. Romana P. Valencia denied being a mistress, asserted that Maelotisea was not the legal wife of Atty. Garrido, and argued that Maelotisea knew of the relationship and had no cause of action against her.

The respondents moved to suspend the IBP proceedings pending criminal concubinage and Atty. Garrido's petition for declaration of nullity; the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline denied the motion.
After the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City declared the marriage between Atty. Garrido and Maelotisea an absolute nullity, the respondents moved to dismiss for lack of personality; the IBP Commission denied that motion.
Maelotisea later moved to dismiss her own complaints to preserve friendly relations with Atty. Garrido; the IBP Commission denied that motion.
Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan submitted a Report and Recommendation on April 13, 2004. The IBP Board of Governors approved and adopted the recommendation with modification under Resolution No. XVI-2004-375 dated July 30, 2004, finding Atty. Angel E. Garrido guilty of conduct lacking the required degree of morality and recommending his disbarment, while dismissing the case against Atty. Romana P. Valencia for lack of merit.
Atty. Angel E. Garrido moved for reconsideration of the IBP resolutio...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the respondents committed *gross immorality* warranting disbarment.
Whether procedural defenses—prescription, criminal complaints, petition for nullity, or the complainant's affidavit of desistance—bar or abate disciplinary proceedings before the Court.
Whether acts allegedly committed before admission to the Bar may be considered in assessing a lawyer's present fitness and mo...(Subscriber-Only)