Case Summary (A.C. No. 2474)
Petitioner
Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., who filed the disbarment complaint on November 8, 1982, alleging grossly immoral conduct by respondent.
Respondent
Atty. Leo J. Palma, found guilty of violating his oath and moral obligations as a lawyer by contracting a second marriage while his first subsisting marriage remained valid.
Key Dates
· June 22, 1982 – Respondent’s second marriage to Maria Luisa Cojuangco.
· November 8, 1982 – Disbarment complaint filed.
· March 2, 1983 – Supreme Court refers case to Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
· December 19, 1984 – Restraining order halts disbarment proceedings pending resolution of nullity petition.
· October 19, 1998 – IBP Commission on Bar Discipline resumes investigation.
· January 24, 2002 – Case deemed submitted for resolution due to respondent’s failure to present testimony.
· March 20, 2003 – IBP Report and Recommendation finds respondent guilty, recommends three‐year suspension, later reduced by the IBP Board to one year.
· September 15, 2004 – Supreme Court Decision disbars respondent.
· June 30, 2005 – Resolution denies respondent’s motion to vacate the disbarment decision.
Applicable Law
1987 Philippine Constitution; Rule 138, Section 27 of the Revised Rules of Court (grounds for disbarment); Rule 139-B governing IBP disciplinary proceedings; Family Code provisions on marriage and spousal obligations; doctrines on standing, due process and laches in disciplinary cases.
Procedural History
After OSG investigation (1983–84) and a temporary restraining order (1984), proceedings were transferred to the IBP under Rule 139-B. From 1998 to 2002, fourteen hearings were scheduled; respondent postponed eight and failed to submit his own direct testimony. The IBP Commissioner deemed the case submitted, the IBP Board adopted a one-year suspension, and the Supreme Court imposed disbarment on September 15, 2004.
Issues Raised in Respondent’s Motion
- Complainant lacks standing as a father rather than the offended spouse.
- Denial of due process by deeming the case submitted without affidavit testimony.
- Continuation of proceedings violates the unlifted 1984 restraining order.
- Laches due to a fourteen-year hiatus before IBP resumed.
- IBP Board’s one-year suspension is final and already served.
- Good-faith belief in bachelor status excuses second marriage.
Standing and Public-Welfare Nature of Disbarment
The Court reaffirmed that disciplinary proceedings serve public welfare, not private redress. Any person may initiate charges, and the Court may act on its own motion. Complainant’s familial relation does not impair the Court’s jurisdiction to determine respondent’s fitness for the Bar.
Due Process Analysis
Due process in administrative discipline requires an opportunity to be heard. Respondent’s repeated postponements and failure to submit testimony caused the delay and justified deeming the case submitted. Representation by counsel and the chance to file motions and pleadings satisfied due-process requirements.
Effect of Restraining Order
The 1984 restraining order rested on a pending nullity petition, which was later dismissed without prejudice. No prejudicial question remains, and the order no longer bars disciplinary action.
Laches
Delay attributable to the Court’s own restraining order cannot be charged against the prosecution of ethical charges. The hiatus did not deprive the Court of its power to discipline respondent once the restraining order lapsed.
Finality of IBP Penalty
Under Rule 139-B
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 2474)
Facts
- Atty. Leo J. Palma was legally married to Elizabeth Hermosisima when, on June 22, 1982, he married Maria Luisa Cojuangco, daughter of Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., then aged 22.
- Complainant Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. filed a disbarment complaint on November 8, 1982, alleging grossly immoral conduct and breach of professional oath.
- Palma’s action prompted proceedings for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Procedural History
- March 2, 1983: Supreme Court referred the complaint to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for investigation.
- March 19, 1984: Palma moved to suspend disbarment proceedings pending the outcome of his nullity case; motion denied.
- December 19, 1984: Supreme Court issued a restraining order enjoining the OSG from further action until civil case outcome.
- 1988–1998: Proceedings stayed; Rule 139-B took effect; case transferred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline.
- October 19, 1998: IBP Commissioner required parties to manifest interest in prosecution; complainant confirmed; respondent sought eight postponements.
- January 24, 2002: Having failed to appear or submit his direct testimony in affidavit form, the case was deemed submitted.
- March 20, 2003: IBP Commissioner recommended a three-year suspension; IBP Board of Governors approved but reduced it to one year.
- September 15, 2004: Supreme Court rendered decision disbarring Palma.
Issues Raised on Reconsideration
- Standing: Whether Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr., as father of the offended party, had proper stand