Case Summary (A.C. No. 2474)
Petitioner
Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr.
Respondent
Atty. Leo J. Palma
Key Dates
• 1970s – Complainant engages respondent as counsel.
• June 22, 1982 – Palma marries Cojuangco’s 22-year-old daughter in Hong Kong.
• Aug 24, 1982 – Complainant files nullity petition (CFI Pasay City, Civil Case No. Pq-0401-P).
• Nov 2, 1982 – CFI declares the marriage null and void ab initio.
• Dec 28, 1983 – SC sets aside CFI decision and remands for new trial.
• Nov 8, 1982 – Complainant files disbarment complaint with the SC.
• Oct 19, 1998 – IBP Commission on Bar Discipline orders parties to confirm interest.
• Jan 24, 2002 – Hearing deemed submitted due to respondent’s non-appearance.
• Mar 20, 2003 – IBP Investigating Commissioner recommends three-year suspension (reduced by IBP Board to one year).
• Sept 15, 2004 – SC issues final decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (bar to disbarment proceedings decided post-1990).
• Rule 138, Section 27, Revised Rules of Court (grounds for disbarment).
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 1.01; Canon 1.
Grounds for Disbarment Complaint
Allegations of deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, violation of lawyer’s oath, and grossly immoral conduct arising from respondent’s secret courtship and bigamous marriage to Cojuangco’s under-aged daughter.
Material Facts
• Respondent abused his professional relationship and moral ascendancy over a vulnerable, 22-year-old student.
• He misrepresented himself as a bachelor before Hong Kong authorities and used the complainant’s office resources (airplane ticket) to facilitate the marriage.
• He was still married to Elizabeth Hermosisima with three children at the time.
Procedural History
- CFI nullity petition and decision (1982).
- SC certiorari and remand (1983).
- Disbarment complaint filed with the SC (1982).
- OSG investigation; respondent’s motions to suspend proceedings denied.
- Referral to IBP Commission; delays and respondent’s non-appearance.
- IBP Investigating Commissioner’s Report (2003) recommending three-year suspension; IBP Board reduces to one year.
- Final SC resolution adjudicating disbarment.
Contentions of the Parties
• Complainant: betrayal of trust, undue advantage over daughter, misrepresentation, and bigamous marriage.
• Respondent: lack of cause of action, marriage in good faith, no professional recklessness or malpractice.
Investigations and Recommendations
The OSG and IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found that respondent knowingly entered a bigamous marriage, abused client trust, and committed deceit and grossly immoral conduct. The IBP Board approved guilt findings but lessened suspension from three years to one.
Issues
Whether respondent’s acts—betrayal of trust, misrepresentation, bigamous marriage, and abuse of professional status—constitute grave misconduct and grossly immoral conduct warranting disbarment.
Court’s Analysis
• Lawyers must maintain unimpaired moral fitness; no separation between private conduct and professional responsibility.
• Respondent’s bigamy violated Article 349, RPC, and mocked the sanctity of marriage.
• His deceitful acts and moral indifference contravene Rule 1.01 and Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Precedents uniformly disbar lawyers for com
Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 2474)
Factual Background
- Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. was a client of Angara Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRA); Leo J. Palma was assigned to his cases.
- Cojuangco later hired Palma as personal counsel; Palma became intimate with Cojuangco’s family, traveling and dining with them abroad.
- Palma tutored Cojuangco’s 22-year-old daughter, Maria Luisa (“Lisa”), a student at Assumption Convent.
- On June 22, 1982, Palma secretly married Lisa in Hong Kong, misrepresenting himself as a bachelor and using Cojuangco’s office resources (airline tickets) for the trip.
- The next day, Palma assured Cojuangco that “everything is legal,” though he was already married to Elizabeth Hermosisima with three children.
Procedural History
- August 24, 1982: Cojuangco filed a petition for nullity of marriage in Pasay City CFI (Civil Case No. Pq-0401-P).
- November 2, 1982: The CFI declared Palma’s marriage to Lisa null and void ab initio.
- November 8, 1982: Cojuangco filed a disbarment complaint against Palma before the Supreme Court, alleging deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, oath violation, and gross immorality.
- February 8, 1983: Palma moved to dismiss for lack of cause, claiming good faith in the marriage.
- March 2, 1983: SC referred the complaint to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for investigation.
- December 28, 1983: In G.R. No. 64538, the SC set aside the CFI nullity decision and remanded the case; results remain undisclosed.
- December 19, 1984: The SC restrained the OSG from further disbarment investigation.
- Referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline.
- October 19, 1998: IBP ordered parties to confirm interest in prosecution or face dismissal.
- November 13, 1998: Cojuangco confirmed; Palma sought postponements.
- January 24, 2002: Palma failed to appear at the final hearing; case deemed submitted.
- March 20, 2003: IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended a three-year suspension; IBP Board reduced penalty to one year.