A.C. No. 2474 - Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Palma

Case Summary (A.C. No. 2474)

Key Individuals and Context

Complainant: Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. (father of Maria Luisa Cojuangco)
Respondent: Atty. Leo J. Palma (then married to Elizabeth Hermosisima; later married Maria Luisa Cojuangco)
Other persons: Elizabeth Hermosisima (respondent’s first wife); Maria Luisa Cojuangco (complainant’s daughter)
Context: Complaint for disbarment based on respondent’s second marriage while his first marriage subsisted; disciplinary proceedings transferred from the OSG to the IBP under Rule 139-B.

Petitioner, Respondent and Procedural Posture

Complainant filed a disbarment complaint on November 8, 1982. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) conducted investigation; respondent sought suspension of disciplinary proceedings pending resolution of a civil case for declaration of nullity of his first marriage. The Court issued a restraining order on December 19, 1984 enjoining the OSG from continuing the disbarment proceedings. After Rule 139-B took effect, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) resumed the case in 1998. After multiple postponements by respondent, the IBP deemed the case submitted on January 24, 2002. The IBP Commission recommended suspension; the IBP Board reduced the penalty to one year suspension and transmitted the record to the Supreme Court, which on September 15, 2004 found respondent guilty of grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath, imposing disbarment. Respondent moved to vacate; the Court denied the motion.

Key Dates (selected)

Marriage to complainant’s daughter: June 22, 1982.
Disbarment complaint filed: November 8, 1982.
Restraining order issued by the Court: December 19, 1984.
IBP resumed case and required manifestations: October 19, 1998.
Case deemed submitted by IBP Commission: January 24, 2002.
IBP Report & Recommendation: March 20, 2003.
Supreme Court decision challenged by motion: Decision dated September 15, 2004; Motion to Vacate denied by resolution of the Court.

Applicable Law and Precedents Cited

Constitution applied: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date is after 1990).
Rules and statutes referenced: Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court (ground for disbarment); Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court (transfer of disciplinary cases to IBP) and Section 12 thereof regarding Board of Governors’ recommendations; Family Code provisions cited (e.g., Art. 68, Art. 220) and other authorities cited in the decision.
Precedential decisions relied upon: Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos; Pimentel, Jr. v. Llorente; Montemayor v. Bundalian; Terre v. Terre; Cordova v. Cordova; Cuyegkeng v. Cruz; and related authorities as cited in the record.

Facts and Central Allegation

While married to Elizabeth Hermosisima, respondent married Maria Luisa Cojuangco on June 22, 1982. Complainant alleged grossly immoral conduct and abuse of trust given respondent’s role as complainant’s counsel and close associate, and the circumstances surrounding the marriage (including use of complainant’s resources).

Procedural History in Disciplinary Forum

OSG investigated; respondent unsuccessfully moved to suspend disciplinary proceedings pending a civil annulment/nullity case. A restraining order halted OSG hearings in 1984. After Rule 139-B, the IBP took jurisdiction. The IBP conducted multiple hearings from 1999–2002, during which respondent repeatedly sought postponements and ultimately failed to present his direct testimony in affidavit form when warned that failure would result in submission. The IBP Commission found respondent guilty and recommended a three-year suspension; the IBP Board adopted the finding but reduced the recommended penalty to one year and transmitted the record to the Supreme Court for final action.

Issues Raised in Respondent’s Motion to Vacate

(1) Complainant allegedly an improper party (not the offended party).
(2) Denial of due process because the case was deemed submitted without respondent’s direct testimony in affidavit form.
(3) Proceedings before the IBP were void because the Court’s 1984 restraining order had not been lifted.
(4) Laches due to the almost 14-year hiatus between the restraining order and IBP resumption.
(5) Finality and having served the IBP Board of Governors’ one-year suspension.
(6) Good-faith belief that respondent was free to remarry and therefore acted under an honest legal conviction.

Standing and Nature of Disciplinary Proceedings

The Court reaffirmed that disbarment proceedings are for public welfare and disciplinary in nature; the person who lodges the complaint need not be the offended party. Citing Rayos-Ombac and related authority, the Court explained that the identity or interest of the complainant does not bar the Court from investigating and disciplining a lawyer if the record proves deceit or grossly immoral conduct.

Due Process and Submission of the Case

The Court held that respondent was not denied due process. The disciplinary proceedings before the IBP spanned multiple settings; respondent sought eight postponements out of fifteen hearings from February 2, 1999 to January 24, 2002 and failed to present his direct testimony in affidavit form despite warnings that failure would result in submission. The Court emphasized that due process in administrative proceedings is satisfied by a meaningful opportunity to be heard; respondent was represented by counsel throughout and had prior opportunities to challenge and cross-examine during the OSG investigation.

Effect of the 1984 Restraining Order

The original restraining order was based on the existence of a prejudicial question pending in Civil Case No. Pqa0401-P. The Court observed that the civil case was dismissed without prejudice (per complainant’s allegation, which respondent did not deny), removing the basis for the restraining order; consequently, there was no continuing impediment to the IBP proceedings.

Laches and Delay

The Court rejected a laches defense. The 14-year lapse before IBP resumed the matter resulted from the Court-ordered restraining order of December 19, 1984; the delay was not attributable to inaction inconsistent with prosecution by complainant or by the Court, and thus laches did not excuse the respondent.

Finality of IBP Board Resolution and Imposition of Discipline

The Court clarified that the IBP Board of Governors’ resolution recommending suspension is recommendatory under Section 12, Rule 139-B; it does not attain finality or operate as final disciplinary a

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 2474)

Case Caption and Nature

Title as presented in the source: "EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LEO J. PALMA, RESPONDENT."
Report citation: 501 Phil. 1 EN BANC, A.C. NO. 2474, June 30, 2005.
Nature of action: Disbarment proceeding / disciplinary action against a lawyer for grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer.
Relief sought in the motion under consideration: Respondent Leo J. Palma's Motion to Vacate (treated as a motion for reconsideration) of the Court's Decision dated September 15, 2004 finding him guilty and imposing the penalty of disbarment.

Summary of Facts

Respondent Leo J. Palma was married to Elizabeth Hermosisima; that marriage was still subsisting on June 22, 1982.
On June 22, 1982, while still married to Elizabeth Hermosisima, respondent married Maria Luisa Cojuangco, who was then 22 years old and the daughter of complainant Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr.
Complainant filed a disbarment complaint with the Supreme Court on November 8, 1982 against respondent for the marriage and related misconduct.
Respondent initially moved to dismiss the complaint.
The Court, by Resolution dated March 2, 1983, referred the case to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for investigation, report and recommendation.
The OSG (then Assistant Solicitor General Oswaldo D. Agcaoili) heard testimony of the complainant and his witness in the presence of respondent's counsel.
On March 19, 1984, respondent filed with the OSG an urgent motion to suspend proceedings on the ground that the final outcome of Civil Case No. Pqa0401-P (for declaration of nullity of his marriage to his wife Lisa) posed a prejudicial question to the disbarment proceeding; that motion was denied.
Respondent filed an urgent motion for issuance of a restraining order; on December 19, 1984 the Court issued a Resolution enjoining the OSG from continuing the disbarment proceedings.
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court took effect in the interim, and the OSG transferred the disbarment case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
On October 19, 1998, IBP Commissioner Julio C. Elamparo required the parties to manifest within ten days whether they wished to pursue the case; complainant confirmed his continuing interest on November 13, 1998.
From February 2, 1999 to January 24, 2002 there were fifteen scheduled hearings; respondent sought postponement eight times and failed to present his direct testimony in affidavit form as promised.
On August 28, 2001 complainant moved that respondent be deemed to have waived his right to present evidence and that the case be deemed submitted for resolution; complainant later withdrew that motion upon assurance by respondent's counsel that respondent would present his evidence at the next hearing.
Respondent later manifested that he could not return to the Philippines for direct testimony and promised to submit his direct testimony in affidavit form, but on January 24, 2002 he neither appeared nor presented such affidavit testimony.
The IBP Commissioner, having set a final hearing and warned respondent, deemed the case submitted for resolution on January 24, 2002.
On March 20, 2003 the IBP Commissioner submitted a Report and Recommendation finding respondent guilty of gross immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer and recommending suspension for three years; the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Report but reduced the penalty to one year suspension.
On September 15, 2004 the Supreme Court rendered the assailed Decision (disbarring respondent).
Respondent filed a Motion to Vacate the Court's September 15, 2004 Decision (treated as a motion for reconsideration).

Procedural Chronology

June 22, 1982: Respondent marries Maria Luisa Cojuangco while married to Elizabeth Hermosisima.
November 8, 1982: Complainant files disbarment complaint with the Supreme Court.
March 2, 1983: Supreme Court Resolution referring case to OSG for investigation.
March 19, 1984: Respondent files motion to suspend proceedings before OSG; motion denied.
December 13, 1984: Respondent files urgent motion for restraining order.
December 19, 1984: Supreme Court issues Resolution enjoining OSG from continuing proceedings; OSG suspends hearing scheduled for December 20, 1984.
Rule 139-B takes effect; OSG transfers the case to IBP.
October 19, 1998: IBP Commissioner requests manifestation from parties about pursuing the case.
November 13, 1998: Complainant manifests continued interest.
Feb 2, 1999 – Jan 24, 2002: Fifteen scheduled hearings before IBP Commissioner; respondent postpones hearings eight times.
January 24, 2002: Case deemed submitted for resolution by IBP Commissioner.
March 20, 2003: IBP Commissioner submits Report and Recommendation (guilty; 3-year suspension recommended).
June 21, 2003: IBP Board of Governors resolution reduces suspension to one (1) year (adopted and approved Report and Recommendation).
September 15, 2004: Supreme Court Decision rendered (disbarment imposed).
Motion to Vacate (treated as motion for reconsideration) filed by respondent, raising six issues; Court resolves the motion and denies it in Resolution dated June 30, 2005.

Issues Raised by Respondent in Motion for Reconsideration (Motion to Vacate)

First: The complaint for disbarment was filed by an improper party because the complainant is not the offended party (standing challenge).
Second: Respondent was denied due process because the case was deemed submitted for resolution on January 24, 2002 without his direct testimony in affidavit form.
Third: The disbarment proceedings before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline are void because the Supreme Court's December 19, 1984 restraining Resolution enjoining the OSG had not been lifted.
Fourth: The Decision is barred by laches due to a lapse of almost fourteen years between the December 19, 1984 restraining Resolution and October 19, 1998 when the IBP Commissioner resumed the investigation.
Fifth: The IBP Board of Governors' June 21, 2003 resolution imposing a one-year suspension on respondent has attained finality and should be deemed already served.
Sixth: Respondent acted in a "firm factual and legal conviction" when he declared before the Hong Kong Marriage Registry that he was a bachelor because his first marriage was void even without a judicial declaration of nullity; this purported good faith should exonerate him.

Complainant's Counterarguments (as reported)

Complainant argued that respondent cannot claim denial of due process because the failure to adduce his evidence was due to his own fault.
Complainant contended it is too late to invoke the Supreme Court's December 19, 1984 Resolution restraining the OSG from continuing proceedings.
Complainant asserted laches does not apply because the 14-year hiatus was caused by the December 19, 1984 restraining Resolution.
Complainant maintained the one-year suspension imposed by the IBP Board of Governors cannot be deemed final and served because it is merely a recommendation to the Supreme Court.
Complainant insisted that even if respondent's previous marriage was annulled, it cannot erase the betrayal of trust and abuse of confidence committed against complainant.

Court's Standard and Preliminary Observations

The Court notes the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution and indicates willingness to resolve all new issues raised in the motio