A.C. No. 6573 - Salmingo vs. Rubica

Complainant Ignacio J. Salmingo filed an administrative complaint for the disbarment of Atty. Rodney K. Rubica.
The complaint was premised on alleged procedural misdeeds committed by respondent during his handling of a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Liza Jane EstaAo.

On January 9, 2003, respondent filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Liza Jane before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental (Civil Case No. 2243-40).
Liza Jane was to be served summons at her given address in Bacolod City; however, the summons was returned unserved as it was claimed that no one was found at that address.
Respondent then obtained leave of court to effect service by publication, resulting in the summoning via the Visayan Post—a weekly newspaper of local circulation in Negros Occidental.
With Liza Jane’s absence and the ex parte presentation of evidence before Branch 40 of the Silay RTC, the trial court ultimately declared the marriage null and void on May 23, 2003 due to evidence of a prior valid marriage of Liza Jane, with the judgment becoming final on July 17, 2003.

Complainant alleged that respondent deliberately concealed Liza Jane’s true address to prevent her from being directly served, thereby enabling the filing of ex parte evidence.
It was asserted that respondent limited the publication of summons to only a locally circulating newspaper instead of a newspaper of general circulation throughout the Philippines.
Complainant further charged that respondent failed to serve a copy of his petition on the Office of the Solicitor General and the proper local prosecutorial offices.
Another allegation involved the respondent’s failure to cause the registration of the decree of nullity in the Civil Registry.
Based on these allegations, complainant prayed for the setting aside of the RTC decision, the reopening of the case with the City Prosecutor representing the State, the deletion of respondent’s name from the Roll of Attorneys, and the imposition of retrial costs.

Respondent denied any knowledge of Liza Jane’s real address and asserted that he did not deliberately conceal it.
He maintained that he complied with the procedural requirements and questioned the complainant’s standing to contest the trial court’s decision.
In rebuttal to the allegation regarding the concealment of Liza Jane’s address, respondent provided evidence that he had been sending allowances via deposits in a bank account accessible nationwide through ATMs.

The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for an investigation, report, and recommendation regarding the alleged misconduct.
The IBP investigating commissioner initially recommended a three-month suspension for gross misconduct against respondent.
However, the IBP Board of Governors ultimately resolved to dismiss the administrative complaint due to a lack of sufficient evidence.

The allegations cited respondent’s non-compliance with provisions of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, specifically:

Section 5 on the contents and form of the petition (including filing in six copies and serving copies on the Office of the Solicitor General and the local prosecutor’s office).
Section 6 regarding the proper method for service of summons when the respondent’s whereabouts are unknown.
Other provisions related to the filing of answers, investigation of collusion, and the registration/publication of the decree of nullity.

Respondent’s conduct was measured against the Rules of Court which, at the time of his petition, did not require the same additional procedural steps introduced by the amended rules effective after May 15, 2003.

Whether Atty. Rubica deliberately concealed Liza Jane’s true address to facilitate the ex parte presentation of evidence in his petition for nullity of marriage.

The issue centers on whether such concealment amounted to gross misconduct warranting disciplinary action.

Whether the publication of summons in a newspaper of local circulation, instead of one of general circulation as later required by amended rules, constituted a violation of procedural mandates.

It must be ascertained whether the requirement to publish in a newspaper of general circulation was applicable at the time of filing.

Whether the failure to serve copies of the petition on the Office of the Solicitor General and the local prosecutor’s office breached the procedural requirements.

This includes evaluating the applicable rules at the time the petition was filed versus the amended provisions.

Whether the respondent’s alleged failure to cause the registration and publication of the decree of nullity in the Civil Registry amounted to a procedural deficiency meriting disciplinary sanctions.

Whether the complainant, by invoking the State’s interest in protecting the sanctity of marriage, possessed the necessary standing to challenge the trial court’s decision and the respondent’s conduct during the nullity proceedings.

Whether the complainant met his burden of proving the charges by clear and preponderant evidence, taking into account the presumption of innocence afforded to lawyers in disciplinary proceedings.