Case Digest (A.C. No. 4921)
Facts:
Carmelita I. Zaguirre v. Atty. Alfredo Castillo, A.C. No. 4921, 503 Phil. 474; 102 OG No. 36, 5966 (September 4, 2006), the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. The Court previously issued a Decision dated March 6, 2003 finding respondent Atty. Alfredo Castillo guilty of Gross Immoral Conduct and imposing an indefinite suspension from the practice of law after the Court found that, while already married, he had an extramarital affair with Carmelita I. Zaguirre between 1996 and 1997; Zaguirre bore a child the parties allege to be Castillo’s, and Castillo executed a notarized affidavit acknowledging paternity and promising support but thereafter refused to recognize or support the child.Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration on April 11, 2003, attaching certificates of appreciation, attendance, and good moral character from government, civic and religious organizations and from judges and lawyers in Occidental Mindoro. The Court required comment; the local IBP chapter (Occidental Mindoro) recommended exoneration, citing respondent’s public service and asserted reformation, while the IBP national office (Director for Bar Discipline) advised denial until respondent admitted paternity and agreed to support the child. Zaguirre opposed reconsideration, asserting that Castillo had not truly repented since he still failed to support the child.
Respondent’s wife submitted handwritten letters describing family hardship and urging mitigation; respondent later reiterated willingness to support the child and, in March 2005, submitted photocopies of ten postdated checks (March–December 2005) for P2,000 each. The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Occidental Mindoro informed the Court that Castillo continued to discharge duties and receive salary and benefits despite the suspension. In light of respondent’s representations of repentance and his continued public service, the Court granted reconsideration and converted the indefinite suspension to a definitive two-year suspension, directing that further claims for child support be pursued in the proper court.
A dissenting opinion by Justice Ynares‑Santiago, joined by Chief Justice Davide, Jr., and Justice Panganiban, arg...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should the Court grant Atty. Castillo’s motion for reconsideration and reduce his penalty of indefinite suspension to a definite two‑year suspension?
- May the administrative disciplinary proceeding against a lawyer be used to resolve the complainant’s claim ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)