Title
Gubaton vs. Amador
Case
A.C. No. 8962
Decision Date
Jul 9, 2018
A lawyer was suspended for one year due to gross immorality after evidence and witness testimonies proved his involvement in an extramarital affair.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-20768)

Allegations of Illicit Relationship

The complaint arose from allegations made by Jildo A. Gubaton that Atty. Augustus Amador engaged in an illicit romantic relationship with his wife, Bernadette, since 2005. Gubaton discovered the relationship while working in the United States in early 2008, having been informed by a house helper that Atty. Amador frequently visited Bernadette and stayed overnight at their residence. Further inquiries at Bernadette's dental clinic reinforced Gubaton's suspicions, as the secretary confirmed the affair.

Evidence of Infidelity

Upon returning to the Philippines in August 2009, Gubaton observed significant changes in his marital relationship, including Bernadette's refusal to sleep with him and later discovering birth-control pills and condoms in their home. Additional evidence included love letters addressed to "Fiscal Amador," which Gubaton believed reinforced the existence of the affair. He personally witnessed interactions between Amador and Bernadette, including a confrontation where he saw them embracing in a vehicle.

Witness Accounts

Others, including Gubaton's sister and community members, substantiated the claims of an affair. These witnesses provided affidavits detailing their observations of Amador’s frequent visits and intimate actions with Bernadette. Notably, one witness alleged having seen the couple together on multiple occasions, thus providing corroborative evidence against Amador.

Respondent's Denial

In his defense, Atty. Amador firmly denied the allegations, contending that he had only a casual acquaintance with Bernadette, claiming their meetings were innocuous and coincidental. He refuted the accusations of romantic involvement and described the allegations as fabrications motivated by malice or jealousy.

IBP's Initial Findings

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Commission on Bar Discipline conducted hearings and initially recommended dismissal of the complaint due to perceived insufficiency of evidence. The commissioner determined that much of the evidence presented was hearsay and lacked direct corroboration linking Amador and Bernadette.

Reversal of Recommendations

However, the IBP Board of Governors later reversed this recommendation, concluding that substantial evidence existed warranting disciplinary action against Amador. After denying Amador’s motion for reconsideration, they suspended him from practicing law for two years.

Legal Standards and Ruling

The court affirmed the IBP's conclusion of administrative liability, emphasizing the standard of proof required for such proceedings is substantial evidence. The court found the complainant’s testimonies and corroborative witness accounts credible, establishing that Amador's conduct constituted gross immorality. Furthermore, the court acknowledged hearsay statements, citing that they were circumstantially relevant to the case and informative about the claims

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.