G.R. No. 200418 - Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees vs. Abad

On October 3, 1976, Evangeline Leda (Complainant) and Atty. Trebonian Tabang (Respondent) contracted marriage in Tigbauan, Iloilo, solemnized by Judge Jose T. Tavarro under Article 76 of the Civil Code as a marriage of exceptional character.
The parties agreed to keep the marriage secret until Respondent completed law studies (began 1977) and passed the Bar (1981); they did not cohabit as husband and wife.

Complainant filed Bar Matter No. 78 on January 6, 1982, alleging Respondent’s fraud in declaring himself “single” in his Bar application, thus showing lack of good moral character.
The Supreme Court deferred Respondent’s oath-taking and required an answer. Respondent filed an Explanation (May 26 1982) admitting the secret marriage but asserting it was not yet public and that he believed himself “single.” Complainant conformed.
Respondent moved to dismiss (June 2, 1982) with Complainant’s Affidavit of Desistance; the Court dismissed Bar Matter No. 78 on August 20, 1982, and allowed Respondent to take his oath.

Complainant attached an unsigned letter (Annex F) allegedly from Respondent disparaging her and conceding the void nature of their marriage under Article 76, citing failure to cohabit for five years and lack of required affidavits.

Respondent denied sending the letter and maintained that the marriage was void ab initio for failure to meet Article 76 requisites; thus he honestly believed himself single.
He contended he never abandoned Complainant as they never cohabited.

On May 7, 1984, the Court referred the case to the Solicitor General, who (March 5, 1990) recommended exoneration on the main charges due to Complainant’s absence but a reprimand for inconsistent statements.
The Bar Confidant (undated report) recommended indefinite suspension until the marriage status is settled.

Whether the secret marriage met the requisites of cohabitation, affidavits and majority age under Article 76, Civil Code.
Whether Respondent could legitimately believe himself “single.”

Whether Respondent’s declaration of single status in his Bar application was a material misrepresentation in bad faith.
Whether his conflicting positions in pleadings demonstrate lack of candor and honesty.

Whether Respondent violated Rule 7.01, Canon 7 (misstatement in Bar admission).
Whether Respondent violated Canon 10 and Rule 1001 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (candor and fairness to the court).