A.C. No. 3049 - Laguitan vs. Tinio

On May 21, 1987, petitioner Perla Y. Laguitan filed a Petition for Disbarment against respondent Atty. Salvador F. Tinio, charging him with immorality and acts unbecoming a lawyer.
Respondent filed his answer on October 27, 1987.
The Court, through its Resolution dated November 16, 1987, referred the petition to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation.
The Solicitor General held an initial hearing on February 17, 1988, where only respondent and his counsel appeared due to complainant not being duly served notice.
A subsequent hearing scheduled for March 24, 1988 was reset to April 27, 1988 following a motion by respondent and the failure of complainant to appear.
After the initial investigations, the case was transmitted by the Solicitor General to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Commission on Bar Discipline for further investigation and action.
The IBP Commission ordered a hearing on August 18, 1988, initially set for September 9, 1988, with both parties being required to submit additional copies of their pleadings within ten days from notice.
Multiple resets of the hearing date ensued:

The initial hearing on September 9, 1988, was rescheduled to September 20, 1988 because only the complainant appeared.
The September 20, 1988, hearing was set back to October 20, 1988 due to the absence of both parties.
The October 20, 1988, hearing was again reset to November 14, 1988 as only the complainant appeared.
The November 14, 1988 hearing was subsequently rescheduled twice more: on December 15, 1988, and then on January 17, 1989.

On January 27, 1989, the Commission, due to the unexplained absence of respondent at the January 17, 1989 hearing, directed the petitioner to make a formal ex parte offer of evidence before the case could be resolved.
On February 9, 1989, petitioner formally offered her exhibits which included various documentary evidences (ranging from live birth certificates and hospital receipts to baptismal certificates, family pictures, and school records).

Exhibit ‘A’: Certificate of Live Birth of Sheila Laguitan Tinio, intended to prove the filiation of the child.
Exhibit ‘B’: Certificate of Live Birth of Benedict Laguitan, similarly proving filiation.
Exhibits ‘C’ to ‘C-6’: Receipts from the Mt. Carmel Maternity and Children’s Hospital used to demonstrate that petitioner delivered a baby girl at the said hospital and that respondent paid for hospitalization, medicines, and professional fees.
Exhibits ‘D’ to ‘D-2’: Receipts from the Paulino Medical Clinic showing that petitioner also delivered a baby boy there, with expenses likewise paid by respondent.
Exhibits ‘E’ to ‘E-1’: Baptismal certificates of Sheila L. Tinio and Benedict L. Tinio, intended to substantiate respondent’s acknowledgment of paternity.
Exhibits ‘F’ to ‘F-4’: Family pictures evidencing that respondent was seen either alone or with the family during happier times, suggesting a semblance of a familial relationship.
Exhibits ‘G’ to ‘G-3’ (and ‘G-2-A’): School records of Sheila L. Tinio at St. Mary’s Academy, showing that respondent supported the child’s schooling.

In June 1974, petitioner and respondent met and eventually became lovers.
By 1976, the parties began living together as husband and wife.
As a result of their relationship, petitioner bore respondent two children: Sheila (approximately 10 years old) and Benedict (approximately 9 years old at the time of the proceedings).

Prior to meeting petitioner, respondent had contracted a marriage with another woman, and that marriage was still subsisting.
Despite this knowledge, petitioner continued her cohabitation with respondent.
In November 1986, respondent abandoned both petitioner and their two children.

Petitioner, left in a state of helplessness and seeking support for her children (who were already in school), turned to respondent’s parents, who provided her with only P400.00 along with advice to no longer see them.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner noted that respondent had admitted to his illicit relationship and his paternity of the children, and had promised support which he failed to deliver.

Whether respondent Atty. Salvador F. Tinio’s conduct, specifically his engagement in an illicit cohabitation (concubinage) and his failure to support his illegitimate children, constitutes acts of immorality and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar.
Whether the established findings that respondent knowingly maintained a subsisting prior marriage while cohabiting with petitioner, combined with his subsequent abandonment and failure to support the children, provide sufficient grounds for suspension from the practice of law.
Whether the procedural lapses (such as multiple resets of hearings and the ex parte offer of evidence) affect or undermine the substantive determination of respondent’s misconduct.