G.R. No. 210621 - Manay, Jr. vs. Cebu Air, Inc.

Floreswinda V. Juni (Complainant) married Atty. Mario T. Juni (Respondent) on January 4, 1987, at St. Ignatius De Loyola Chapel.
The union produced two children: Kent V. Juni and Karina V. Juni.

The complainant alleged frequent quarrels due to Atty. Juni’s alleged womanizing.
On April 17, 2002, the complainant ordered Atty. Juni to leave the conjugal home, precipitating a de facto separation.
Two days later, an Affidavit of Undertaking was executed by Atty. Juni, wherein both parties agreed to live separately and for him to provide P20,000.00 monthly for the support of the children.

It was later discovered that Atty. Juni’s act of separation was a ploy to pursue an affair with Ruth S. Vaguchay.
The illicit relationship was evidenced by the birth of Marianne Angel S. Juni on July 18, 2001, and later, Jergen Mae S. Juni on August 13, 2003, both of which occurred during the subsistence of Atty. Juni’s marriage with the complainant.

Despite the prior existing marriage with the complainant, on July 8, 2004, Atty. Juni entered into a contract of marriage with Ruth.
The subsequent marriage was solemnized under Muslim rites and duly recorded in the Civil Registry of Cagayan de Oro City.

On February 26, 2007, Atty. Juni filed an annulment of marriage against the complainant before the RTC of Butuan City, with the decision rendering annulment not yet final.
The complainant, on September 23, 2010, filed a criminal case for Bigamy, alleging gross immorality on the part of Atty. Juni for engaging in sexual relations with a married woman (Ruth, who was already married to Ritchie Vaguchay) and committing acts constituting a bigamous marriage.
The allegations further extended to claims of Atty. Juni’s violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Atty. Juni contended that the administrative complaint was motivated by revenge, particularly because he had initiated an adultery case against the complainant.
He maintained that the separation was due to personal and psychological differences and that his annulment petition in 2007 was a formal attempt to sever marital ties.
He alleged his conversion to Islam in 2000, which he claimed entitled him to subsequent marital actions, and asserted that his relationship with Ruth was not scandalous.
Atty. Juni argued that the complainant’s counter-allegations were tainted by her own misconduct.

On November 3, 2011, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Juni administratively liable for grossly immoral acts, recommending a penalty of censure.
In a subsequent Resolution dated September 27, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors modified the recommendation and recommended disbarment on the ground of contracting a bigamous marriage.

The complainant submitted affidavits, birth certificates of the two children with Ruth, and other documentary evidence attesting to Atty. Juni’s misconduct.
Atty. Juni’s admission of having sired children with Ruth and his public acknowledgment of the illicit relationship further constituted part of the evidence.
His claim of conversion to Islam was not substantiated by the required documentary proof, notably the Certificate of Conversion properly recorded in the Civil Registry.

Whether Atty. Mario T. Juni is administratively liable for the grave misconduct arising from contracting a bigamous marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting.
Whether his actions constituted gross immorality in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether the mitigating factors, including his admission and alleged conversion to Islam, can justify a penalty less severe than disbarment.