Bunagan-Bansig vs. Celera

Petition for Disbarment and the Alleged Misconduct

Complainant narrated that on May 8, 1997, respondent and Gracemarie R. Bunagan entered into a contract of marriage, supported by a certified xerox copy of the certificate of marriage issued by the City Civil Registry of Manila. Complainant stated that she was the sister of Gracemarie, who was the legal wife of respondent. Despite the subsistence of that marriage, respondent allegedly contracted a second marriage on January 8, 1998 with Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba (Alba), evidenced by a certified xerox copy of the marriage certificate issued by the City Registration Officer of San Juan, Manila. Complainant emphasized that the first marriage had not been annulled or declared void by any lawful authority at the time respondent contracted the second marriage. She contended that such conduct constituted grossly immoral conduct and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar, warranting disbarment.

Procedural History: Orders to Comment and Respondent’s Repeated Non-Compliance

In a Resolution dated February 18, 2002, the Court required respondent to file a comment. Respondent did not file the required comment despite receipt of the Resolution, as shown by Registry Return Receipt No. 30639. The Court then issued a Resolution dated March 17, 2003 requiring respondent to show cause why he should not be held in contempt or disciplinarily dealt with for failure to file a comment. On December 10, 2002, complainant filed an Omnibus Ex Parte Motion seeking, among others, that respondent’s failure to comment be deemed a waiver.

Respondent later claimed that he did not know the nature of the administrative case, contending that he did not receive the complaint or other processes of the Court except through complainant’s motion. He also asserted that complainant’s filings were meant to intimidate him and his wife from pursuing criminal complaints for falsification of public documents they had filed against complainant and her husband. Respondent further maintained that he only obtained a copy of the Court’s show cause order when he visited a brother who occupied their former residence, and he argued that complainant failed to send the complaint to him despite knowing his law office address. Respondent added allegations of sibling rivalry tied to an unpaid obligation amounting to P2,000,000.00, and claimed that he and his wife received death threats, causing them to transfer residences.

Recognizing respondent’s assertions, the Court issued further directives. In a Resolution dated July 7, 2003, it required complainant to furnish respondent a copy of the administrative complaint and to submit proof of service, and it again required respondent to file a comment. Complainant submitted an Affidavit of Mailing as proof that the complaint was mailed to respondent at No. 238 Mayflower St., Ninoy Aquino Subdivision, Angeles City, evidenced by Registry Receipt No. 2167. On March 17, 2004, the Court again resolved to require respondent to show cause for failure to file the comment despite receipt of the complaint.

Respondent again submitted an explanation asserting that he still had not received a copy of the complaint and asked that complainant be ordered to furnish it. The Court, in an August 25, 2004 resolution, granted respondent’s prayer to be furnished the complaint and required complainant to furnish the same to respondent. After complainant submitted a manifestation with proof of mailing and alleged respondent’s dilatory tactics, the Court issued another Show Cause Order on May 16, 2005. The Court later noted a returned and unserved copy of the show cause order marked “RTS-Moved” and required complainant to submit the correct and present address.

Complainant manifested that respondent continued to indicate No. 238 Mayflower St., Ninoy Aquino Subdivision, Angeles City as his residential address, yet notices sent to that address were returned marked “moved.” She asserted that in a related civil case respondent had entered his appearance with a mailing address in Quezon City. Respondent’s situation prompted the Court, in a February 13, 2006 resolution, to resend the show cause order to respondent’s alleged new address at Unit 8, Halili Complex, 922 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City.

When respondent still failed to comply, the Court, in a Resolution dated June 30, 2008, imposed a fine of P1,000.00 payable to the Court or a penalty of imprisonment of five (5) days if the fine was not paid, and required respondent to comply with the earlier order to file his comment. Because respondent again failed to comply, the Court, in a Resolution dated January 27, 2010, dispensed with the filing of respondent’s comment, ordered the arrest of respondent, and directed the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to arrest and detain respondent and to submit a report of compliance. The Court also referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation.

Effect of the Arrest Attempts and the IBP Proceedings

The Return of Warrant dated March 24, 2010 showed that respondent could not be located; the address at Halili Complex and Aurora Blvd. in Cubao, Quezon City could not be found, and surveillance indicated it was a vacant lot with debris of a demolished building. Because of the lack of enforceable leads, the warrant could not be enforced. The IBP, however, reported that respondent’s address was at No. 41 Hoover St., Valley View Royale Subd., Taytay, Rizal based on its records. Despite this, respondent failed to appear before the mandatory conference and hearings before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) despite several notices. In an Order dated August 4, 2010, Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala of the IBP-CBD declared respondent in default, and the case was submitted for report and recommendation.

On January 3, 2011, the IBP-CBD issued its Report and Recommendation, recommending that respondent be suspended for two (2) years from the practice of law.

The Issues and the Standard of Proof in Administrative Disbarment

The Court treated the disbarment proceeding as sui generis, not purely civil nor purely criminal, but an inquiry into the conduct of an officer of the court. The Court held that such an administrative proceeding continues despite desistance by the complainant or failure to prosecute, and it did so especially in this case where respondent failed to answer despite numerous notices.

In administrative proceedings, the Court ruled that the complainant bears the burden of proving the allegations by substantial evidence, defined as relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It further explained that, given the severe consequence of disbarment or suspension, the Court consistently requires clear preponderant evidence to justify the imposition of administrative penalty. It also reiterated that the case must be established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof in order to justify disciplinary action.

Evidence Establishing Bigamy Through Certified Marriage Certificates

On the merits, the Court found a preponderance of evidence that respondent contracted a second marriage while his first marriage remained subsisting. The first marriage was supported by a certified xerox copy of the certificate of marriage issued on October 3, 2001 by the City Civil Registry of Manila, which stated that respondent contracted marriage on May 8, 1997 with Gracemarie R. Bunagan at the Church of Saint Augustine, Intramuros, Manila. The second marriage was supported by a certified xerox copy of the certificate of marriage issued on October 4, 2001 by the City Civil Registry of San Juan, Manila, which stated that respondent contracted marriage on January 8, 1998 with Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba at the Mary the Queen Church, Madison St., Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila.

The Court noted that the second marriage occurred barely a year after the first, which indicated that the first marriage was still subsisting at the time respondent contracted the second marriage. The Court further held that certified copies of public records are admissible and may prove the contents of the original under Section 7 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which provides for evidence admissible when the original is a public record. The Court ruled that these certified xerox copies, issued by public officers in custody of the public records, merited full faith and credence as public documents and were competent and convincing evidence of bigamy for purposes of the disbarment proceeding. In the Court’s view, committing bigamy rendered respondent unfit to remain a member of the Bar.

Code of Professional Responsibility Violations and Grounds for Disbarment

The Court examined respondent’s conduct against the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 1.01, Canon 7, and Rule 7.03, which collectively require a lawyer to refrain from unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and avoid conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law or behaves scandalously to the discredit of the profession.

The Court held that respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of the morality required of a lawyer. It characterized respondent’s contracting of a second marriage while the first marriage remained subsisting as a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution requiring respect and dignity. The Court found that the act constituted grossly immoral conduct, a ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Willful Disobedience of Lawful Orders: Additional Basis for Discipline

The Court declined to fully resolve the administrative matter without addressing respondent’s defiant stance toward the judicial process. The decision emphasized respondent’s repetitive disregard of the Court’s resolutions requiring him to file a comment. It