A.C. No. 6010 - St. Louis University Laboratory High School Faculty vs. Dela Cruz

Disbarment proceedings were initiated by the Faculty and Staff of Saint Louis University-Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) against Atty. Rolando C. Dela Cruz, the principal of SLU-LHS.
The case centers on allegations of misconduct by the respondent in his capacity as an attorney and notary public.

A pending criminal case for child abuse allegedly committed against a high school student before the Prosecutor’s Office of Baguio City.
A pending administrative case filed by teachers, staff, students, and parents before an Investigating Board established by SLU for alleged unprofessional and unethical conduct involving the misappropriation of funds purportedly meant for teachers.
A pending labor case filed by SLU-LHS Faculty before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Cordillera Administrative Region, for the alleged illegal deduction of salary.

The respondent contracted a second marriage with Mary Jane Pascua while still legally married to Teresita Rivera.
The marriage to Teresita Rivera took place on May 31, 1982, and since their separation in-fact—with no judicial annulment or declaration of nullity—a second marriage was conducted in 1989 without legal resolution of the first union.
The subsequent annulment of the second marriage (declared on October 4, 1994) did not exonerate respondent from the misconduct committed at the time of the bigamous marriage.

The respondent notarized several legal documents from 1988 to 1997 despite his notarial commission having expired on December 31, 1987.
Evidence of notarized documents includes affidavits, deeds of sale, joint affidavits, and a memorandum of agreement among others (a total of fourteen documents noted in the records).
A Certification issued by the clerk of the RTC, Baguio City, confirmed that no commission had been applied for or granted during the period in question.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) was referred the case for investigation, leading to a mandatory preliminary conference.
The complainants reiterated their allegations in their position paper, while the respondent admitted to both contracting a second marriage (while still married) and notarizing documents after his commission had expired.
In his comment, the respondent offered extenuating defenses such as good faith, lack of malice, and noble intentions, but did not address the allegations concerning immorality and malpractice.

The IBP Investigator, Commissioner Acerey C. Pacheco, recommended penalizing the respondent with:

A one (1) year suspension for contracting a second marriage without first resolving his first marriage.
An additional one (1) year suspension for notarizing documents after the expiration of his commission, totaling a two (2) year suspension.

The Court underscored that the practice of law is a privilege, not a right, and may be suspended for misconduct proven by clear and preponderant evidence.
While acknowledging the respondent’s misconduct, the Court emphasized that disciplinary actions should be proportionate and protective of public trust in the legal profession.
The Court compared similar cases and legal provisions (e.g., Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court; relevant jurisprudence on immoral conduct and notarization malpractice) to determine the appropriate disciplinary measure.
Ultimately, the Court determined that disbarment was too harsh under the circumstances and chose instead to impose a suspension penalty.

Whether Atty. Dela Cruz’s actions in contracting a second marriage while still married fell within the ambit of grossly immoral conduct.
Whether notarizing documents after the expiry of his notarial commission constitutes malpractice warranting severe disciplinary action.

Whether the misconduct admitted by the respondent, despite extenuating circumstances and defenses, should lead to disbarment or a lesser penalty such as suspension.
How to balance the need to protect the reputation and integrity of the legal profession with the principle that disciplinary actions should not be unduly harsh if lesser penalties would suffice.

Whether pending criminal, administrative, and labor cases should influence the disciplinary proceedings given the principle of presumption of innocence in those forums.