Case Digest (A.C. No. 10612) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In A.C. No. 10612, decided en banc on January 31, 2023, the Supreme Court addressed a disbarment complaint filed by Atty. Nora M. Saludares (complainant) against her husband, Atty. Reynaldo L. Saludares (respondent). The parties were married on February 7, 1987, and despite the subsisting marriage, respondent allegedly conducted an illicit relationship with a former high-school classmate. During a family recollection in April 2014, he purportedly confessed to a premarital affair that resulted in a pregnancy and abortion. In May 2014, complainant discovered the paramour’s photograph as respondent’s phone wallpaper and a private Facebook folder of her pictures. A series of June 2014 text messages exchanged between respondent and the lady friend contained affectionate terms (“miss you,” “love you, Honey,” “tsupmmmmm”) and instructions for discretion. Upon confrontation, respondent admitted the woman was his “girlfriend,” boasted of her wealth and respectability, and displayed no re Case Digest (A.C. No. 10612) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties, Marriage, and Petition
- Atty. Nora M. Saludares (complainant) filed a disbarment complaint against her husband, Atty. Reynaldo L. Saludares (respondent), accusing him of gross immorality despite their valid marriage contracted on February 7, 1987.
- The complaint alleges that respondent’s extra-marital conduct violates the requirement of good moral character for bar members.
- Allegations of Gross Immorality
- April 2014 confession during a family recollection: respondent admitted an affair predating his marriage and the abortion of a child.
- Discovery of a woman’s photo as respondent’s mobile-phone wallpaper and a private Facebook folder containing her childhood and travel pictures.
- June 2014 text exchanges showing mutual “Miss you,” “Love you, Honey,” clandestine plans, and “tsupmm” (kiss sounds).
- Respondent’s admission before his children that the woman is his “girlfriend,” coupled with boastful remarks about her finances (“maraming pera”) and decorum (“disente”).
- Respondent’s unapologetic stance: “Ano masama sa ginagawa ko? Maghihiwalay naman tayo,” and denial of having a mistress (“She is my girlfriend, she is not my mistress”).
- July 3–18, 2014 trip to the United States allegedly to visit the same woman, corroborated by Facebook photos depicting physical intimacy (holding hands, arm around shoulder).
- Notice of intent to move out of the conjugal home with the woman as his “new wife” upon turnover of a condominium unit in late 2014.
- Procedural History
- February 24, 2015: Complainant filed a Motion to Withdraw the complaint, citing the case’s impact on their children.
- June 17, 2015: Supreme Court Resolution closed and terminated the administrative case.
- Complainant’s Motion for Reconsideration led to a November 28, 2016 Resolution reopening the case and, on April 26, 2017, referral to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and recommendation.
- May 24, 2018: IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended termination for failure to substantiate immorality.
- December 15, 2019: IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation to close and terminate the case.
- Supreme Court disagreed with the IBP, proceeded to resolve the case on the merits.
Issues:
- Whether respondent’s admitted extra-marital relationship constitutes gross immorality under Canon 1, Rule 1.01(a) and Canon 7, Rule 7.03(a) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- Whether the appropriate disciplinary sanction for respondent’s misconduct is disbarment.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)