Case Digest (A.C. No. 10731) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In A.C. No. 10731, decided October 5, 2021, En Banc, the Supreme Court tackled a Complaint for Disbarment filed on February 15, 2015, by Crisanta G. Hosoya against Atty. Allan C. Contado. The case was docketed as CBD Case No. 16-5086 before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), which investigated whether Contado breached the Lawyers’ Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Hosoya alleged that Contado courted her in 2003 while still legally married, falsely claiming separation-in-fact and pending annulment, then cohabited with her as husband and wife in 2010, resulting in two children (born in 2011 and 2013). She further charged him with failing to provide adequate support, refusing to return her Ford Expedition despite demand letters, and committing acts allegedly violative of RA 7610, RA 9262, and carnapping. Contado denied the grave allegations, submitted receipts and deposit slips to prove support, explained that the vehicle served his election campaigns and r Case Digest (A.C. No. 10731) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Procedural History
- On February 15, 2015, Crisanta G. Hosoya filed a Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Allan C. Contado before the Office of the Bar Confidant.
- The Supreme Court required respondent’s comment and complainant’s reply, then referred the case to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) as CBD Case No. 16-5086.
- Relationship and Cohabitation
- Crisanta met Atty. Contado in 2003; he represented himself as separated-in-fact and seeking marital nullity or annulment.
- In 2010 they agreed to live together; the union produced two children (born 2011 and 2013).
- Allegations of Misconduct by Complainant
- Atty. Contado allegedly cohabited with and impregnated other women, deceiving Crisanta about his marital status.
- Financial neglect: he purportedly left Crisanta to settle family obligations alone, failed to provide adequate support despite demand letters.
- Property conversion: he allegedly took Crisanta’s vehicle (“subject vehicle”) and refused to return it despite demand.
- Continuous violations alleged: RA 7610 (child protection), RA 9262 (anti-violence against women), and carnapping.
- Respondent’s Defense
- Denied vindictive motive, insisted Crisanta’s claims lacked proof. Produced receipts and deposit slips of monetary support.
- Admitted the relationship and birth of two children; maintained he did not abandon his lawful wife and that the vehicle was used in election campaigns and awaits repairs.
- Claimed no carnapping, argued vehicle could not be transported to Manila due to needed repairs.
- IBP CBD Report and IBP BOG Resolution
- CBD (May 2, 2017) found no sufficient proof of non-support or multiple affairs but ruled respondent guilty of immorality and conduct unbecoming for withholding the vehicle. Recommended one-year suspension, censure for vehicle retention, and admonition to support the children.
- IBP Board of Governors (September 28, 2017) adopted the CBD findings but increased the penalty to disbarment for engaging in illicit affairs and failure to support his children.
- Supreme Court Proceedings
- The Court adopted the IBP factual findings and agreed with disbarment.
- Noted that ordering the return of the vehicle is beyond the disciplinary forum’s scope.
Issues:
- Did Atty. Allan C. Contado engage in grossly immoral or dishonest conduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Rules 1.01 and 7.03)?
- Is the penalty of disbarment justified under the circumstances, and should the Court order the return of the subject vehicle in this administrative proceeding?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)