A.C. No. 10439 - Chan vs. Carrera

Case Summary (A.C. No. 10439)

Factual Background: The Affair, Cohabitation, and Subsequent Rupture

Chan alleged that she first encountered Carrera in July 2006 while she was a trainee at Max’s Restaurant, where Carrera was dining with a woman companion whom Chan believed to be his wife. After about two weeks, Carrera returned and requested that Chan serve him. During their interactions, he told Chan he had recently settled a case and earned P4 million, and he asked about her interest in studying nursing or caregiving in a school he owned in Dagupan City. He also left a calling card, which Chan discarded. Thereafter, Carrera frequented the restaurant, sought Chan’s assistance, and made repeated promises. Chan related that Carrera visited her home to meet her parents and represented that he could annul her marriage and would support their daughter. Chan claimed she later joined him in a trip to Hong Kong, after which he bought a house for them in Quezon City and a car for her with the special plate number “ANA” inspired by her name. Carrera also took Chan to his school in Dagupan City, where he called for a board meeting and introduced her as his fiancée and a new member of the board of trustees.

Chan further alleged that in September 2008, around the time they moved to a house at Project 8, Quezon City, she discovered that Carrera was not actually a widower and that his wife was still alive, though confined in an institution. Chan also learned that Carrera had a child with another woman. Chan wanted to end the relationship but found she was pregnant with Carrera’s child. During pregnancy, Chan described the relationship as marked by frequent scolding, mistreatment, accusations that she stole his credit card and withdrew from his account, and even denial of paternity. She also claimed she observed Carrera having illicit relationships with other women, and that when confronted, he offered promises to change without substantial reform.

Despite these alleged transgressions, Chan stated she assisted Carrera when his business suffered losses, working as his paralegal and referring clients. She claimed this contribution helped him recover and purchase more properties. Chan asserted, however, that Carrera continued womanizing. When she confronted him, Carrera allegedly became furious, ordered her out of the home, demanded return of the car he had given her, and forbade her from working as his paralegal. Chan also alleged humiliating conduct when she visited his office to ask for financial support, including invective before giving money.

Respondent’s Version and Admissions

Carrera denied Chan’s allegations and maintained that the complaint was part of an alleged plan to extort money. He admitted that he met Chan at Max’s Restaurant while dining with a lady executive at St. Luke’s Medical Center. He claimed he was drawn to Chan, gave his calling card, and dined at the restaurant almost every week. Carrera stated that when Chan wanted to go to Hong Kong, he granted her request and brought her along. He claimed that in Hong Kong, Chan later revealed she was married and only then did he learn the full details of her marital status. Carrera also narrated that he initially brought Chan to the house of her bachelor uncle, and when he learned she feared harassment from the uncle, he found a house in Novaliches, Quezon City for Chan and her daughter and later bought a house where they lived together. He admitted cohabitation with Chan from September 2006 to September 2008, the period that continued until their move to Project 8. He further admitted that on December 4, 2007, their son, Rebene C. Carrera, Jr., was born.

Carrera insisted that his only “sin” was being sympathetic and charitable toward Chan, while denying that the alleged misconduct related to any unfitness to practice law. He claimed that he was respectful and respectable, having been a member of the academe for more than 20 years, a Director and Treasurer of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Pangasinan Chapter, and a member of the bar in good standing since 1980. Carrera also argued that he informed Chan that the woman he was eating with at the first encounter was not his wife but a classmate and executive at St. Luke’s Medical Center. Chan, according to Carrera, initially told him she was single and only later told him she was married. Finally, he maintained that Chan was the one who became unreasonable, including jealousy and demands to transfer the Project 8 house and car to her name, and that he moved out on August 29, 2009 and returned to his legitimate family.

Proceedings Before the IBP and the Court’s Initial Focus

The Investigating Commissioner of the CBD issued a Report and Recommendation dated August 9, 2010, recommending that Carrera be admonished and warned. The IBP BOG later approved the recommendation with modification in a Resolution dated December 14, 2012, suspending Carrera from the practice of law for three (3) years. Subsequently, the BOG issued another Resolution dated February 11, 2014, affirming its prior action but reducing the suspension to one (1) year. The Supreme Court, however, treated the matter as requiring a more serious penalty than suspension.

In the course of resolution, the Court addressed Chan’s subsequent posture. Chan did not appear interested in pursuing her complaint to its end and had initially manifested disinterest in her Verified Position Paper dated June 6, 2010 and in later pleadings. She asserted that she was induced to file the complaint by individuals with a personal grudge against Carrera. She also alleged that she wrote the complaint in Tagalog, and that an IBP staff translated it into English. Chan claimed that while the translation was done with her consent, she no longer read it and discovered that it exaggerated her original Tagalog complaint. She therefore sought withdrawal of the complaint.

The Court denied Chan’s request to withdraw. It noted the Investigating Commissioner’s observation that Chan was not represented by counsel when she sought withdrawal, and it further sustained the finding that withdrawal did not prevent or terminate the administrative case. The Court invoked Section 5, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, stating that no investigation in a lawyer’s administrative case should be interrupted or terminated due to desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute. The Court explained that disbarment proceedings are sui generis and continue despite complainant desistance, citing doctrinal holdings such as Ferancullo v. Atty. Ferancullo and In re Almacen.

The Core Issues and the Parties’ Competing Positions

The principal issue before the Court was the appropriate disciplinary sanction for Carrera’s conduct, given allegations of gross immorality arising from his relationship with Chan while both were still married to their respective spouses. The Court also addressed whether Chan’s withdrawal and claimed translation exaggerations affected administrative liability.

Chan contended that Carrera’s acts showed gross immorality and gross misconduct. Carrera countered that the complaint was retaliatory and characterized his conduct as sympathetic and non-illegal in its intent, emphasizing his professional accomplishments and asserting a lack of participation in conduct meeting the threshold for “grossly immoral conduct.” Nevertheless, both parties’ narratives converged on the fact of an illicit relationship and cohabitation under circumstances that the Court found dispositive.

The Court’s Ruling: Disbarment for Gross Immorality

The Court held that Carrera’s actuations warranted disbarment, not merely suspension, and declared him guilty of Gross Immorality in violation of Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court ordered that Carrera’s name be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective upon receipt of the decision.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning started with professional responsibility doctrine. It reiterated the “fundamental principle” that lawyers must conform to the highest standards of morality, and that deviations initially raised as a private concern become matters of judicial interest once raised before disciplinary authority. The Court emphasized that even if a complainant is disinterested, the lawyer is not automatically freed from liability for misconduct already incurred.

On the effect of Chan’s alleged exaggeration due to translation, the Court stated that both parties did not deny and even expressly admitted the existence of an extra-marital affair. It found beyond dispute that Chan and Carrera cohabited under one roof from September 2006 to August 2009, practically for about three (3) years, while both remained legally married to other persons. The Court also found that they produced a child whom they named after Carrera. The Court held that these circumstances, by themselves, sufficed to hold Carrera administratively liable for grossly immoral conduct and that the claimed exaggeration could not change the legal character of the admitted acts.

The Court relied on the text of Rule 1.01, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, and Rule 7.03, which prohibits conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law or scandalous behavior to the discredit of the legal profession. It also cited its consistent treatment of immorality as conduct that is wilful, flagrant, or shameless and shows indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. It underscored that the presence of a married illicit partner compounds immorality.

Applying these principles, the Court found the parties’ admissions decisive. It noted that both Chan and Carrera acknowledged an illicit relationship, describing it in Carrera’s own terms as the “chemistry of two consensual adults,” while not denying they were still legally married to another. The Court observed that the parti

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 10439)

The case arose from a Complaint-Affidavit filed by Annaliza C. Chan on September 11, 2009 accusing Atty. Rebene C. Carrera of Gross Misconduct.
The Court resolved to impose disbarment rather than the suspension recommended by the IBP.
The Court acted under its constitutional authority to discipline members of the Bar for breaches of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Annaliza C. Chan served as the complainant and initiated the administrative case against Atty. Rebene C. Carrera.
Atty. Rebene C. Carrera served as the respondent and denied the material allegations, claiming the complaint was an extortion scheme.
The Investigating Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP issued a Report and Recommendation on August 9, 2010 recommending admonition and warning.
The Board of Governors (BOG) of the IBP initially approved, with modification, the recommendation and ordered a three (3) year suspension in a Resolution dated December 14, 2012.
The BOG later issued another Resolution on February 11, 2014, modifying the penalty to a one (1) year suspension.
Chan later sought to withdraw her complaint, but the Court denied the request and proceeded to decide the administrative charges.
The Court ultimately declared the respondent guilty of Gross Immorality, disbarred him, and ordered his name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.

Key Factual Allegations

Chan alleged that she first met Carrera in July 2006 when she was a trainee at Max’s Restaurant.
She alleged that Carrera was dining with a woman companion whom she assumed to be his wife, but Carrera later introduced himself as a widower.
Chan alleged that after two weeks Carrera returned and asked her to be his server, while he told her he had just settled a case and earned P4 million.
Chan alleged that Carrera asked about her interest in nursing or caregiving in a school he owned in Dagupan City.
She alleged that Carrera left his calling card, but she initially discarded it, after which he nevertheless continued to frequent the restaurant and request her assistance.
Chan alleged that Carrera promised her many things, pursued her emotionally, visited her house to meet her parents, and represented that he could annul her marriage and support her daughter.
Chan alleged that Carrera convinced her to travel with him to Hong Kong, after which he bought a house in Quezon City and a car bearing a special plate number “ANA” inspired by her name.
Chan alleged that in Dagupan City, Carrera called a board meeting and introduced her as his fiancée and a new member of the board of trustees.
Chan alleged that in September 2008, around the time they moved to Project 8, Quezon City, she discovered that Carrera was not a widower because his wife was still alive.
She alleged that she also discovered Carrera had a child with another woman.
Chan alleged that despite learning of Carrera’s existing marriage and additional offspring, she remained because she learned she was pregnant with Carrera’s child and considered the welfare of their child.
She alleged that during her pregnancy Carrera frequently scolded and mistreated her, accused her of stealing his credit card and withdrawing from his account, and even denied paternity of the child she carried.
Chan alleged that she often caught Carrera in illicit relationships with other women, and when confronted, he made empty promises to change.
She alleged that she helped Carrera despite his misconduct, including working as his paralegal and referring clients, which helped him recover losses and save his school from closing.
Chan alleged that when she confronted Carrera again about womanizing, he became furious, asked her to leave, demanded the return of the car, forbade her from working as paralegal, and humiliated her when she asked for support for their son.
She alleged that these circumstances constituted grossly immoral conduct warranting the most severe disciplinary penalty.

Respondent’s Denials and Explanations

Carrera denied the accusations and claimed that the complaint was part of an elaborate plan to extort money from him.
He admitted that he met Chan at Max’s Restaurant while dining with a lady executive at St. Luke’s Medical Center and that he was drawn to Chan’s attention.
Carrera admitted that he dined at the restaurant almost every week and later brought Chan to Hong Kong at her request to experience her first plane ride.
He admitted that their relationship intensified during the Hong Kong trip and that upon return he first brought Chan home to a bachelor uncle’s house where she lived.
He explained that when Chan said she was at risk of harassment by her uncle, he sought another house for her in Novaliches, Quezon City and bought a house for her and her daughter.
Carrera stated that Chan later asked him to leave his legitimate family and stay with her, and that because he was emotionally attached he acceded.
He claimed he told his daughter about his decision to leave his original home and that he lived with Chan from September 2006 to September 2008, when they transferred to another house in Project 8.
He stated that Chan and he produced a son, Rebene C. Carrera, Jr., born on December 4, 2007, and that he provided for Chan, her daughter, and their son.
He asserted that he bought houses and cars, gave them toys and clothes, enrolled their son in an educational center, and paid for Chan’s master’s education at St. Joseph’s College.
Carrera claimed Chan became unreasonable by preventing him from seeing his other children, creating scenes at his office, and demanding transfer of the house and car into her name.
He asserted that he moved out on August 29, 2009 to return to his legitimate family’s abode.
He denied that he told Chan he was a widower and stated that Chan knew he was married because his wife was incapacitated and confined at Estrella’s Half-way House due to “schizophrenia.”
Carrera also claimed that he told Chan that the woman executive at their first meeting was his classmate from high school and that Chan admitted his marriage only when they were already in Hong Kong.
He insisted that his only “s