Case Summary (G.R. No. 132264)
Factual Background
In 2003, Crisanta met Atty. Contado, who represented himself as separated-in-fact and pursuing legal dissolution of his marriage. In 2010 they agreed to live together as husband and wife. During cohabitation, Crisanta learned that Atty. Contado was also involved with other women and had fathered children by them, yet she continued the relationship. Financial difficulties arose, and Atty. Contado allegedly failed to adequately support Crisanta and their two daughters. Crisanta also demanded return of her vehicle, which Atty. Contado retained for his election campaigns in 2009, 2010, and 2013.
Procedural History
– February 15, 2015: Complaint for disbarment filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant, alleging violations of the Lawyers’ Oath, CPR, RA 7610, RA 9262, and carnapping.
– Respondent filed Comment; complainant filed Reply.
– Referred to Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) as CBD Case No. 16-5086.
– May 2, 2017: CBD issued Report and Recommendation.
– September 28, 2017: IBP Board of Governors (BOG) adopted findings and escalated penalty to disbarment without extended explanation.
– October 5, 2021: Supreme Court, sitting En Banc, rendered decision.
Findings of the Commission on Bar Discipline
– Non-support: Insufficient evidence to fault Atty. Contado; receipts and deposit slips unrebutted.
– Multiple sexual relations: No supporting evidence.
– Immorality: Guilty of cohabiting and fathering children with Crisanta while still married; conduct unbecoming for failure to return vehicle.
– Recommendation: One-year suspension, censure for vehicle retention, admonition to support children.
IBP Board of Governors’ Resolution
The BOG adopted the CBD’s factual findings but modified the recommended penalty to disbarment and striking of respondent’s name from the Roll of Attorneys for “engaging in an illicit affair and failure to support his children,” without issuing a detailed rationale for the harsher sanction.
Applicable Law and Standards
Constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution governs lawyer disciplinary proceedings post-1990.
Code of Professional Responsibility:
• Rule 1.01 – prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
• Rule 7.03 – forbids conduct, public or private, that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness or brings the profession into disrepute.
Jurisprudence:
• Gross immorality requires conduct so reprehensible as to shock decency (Panagsagan v. Panagsagan).
• Cohabitation by a married lawyer with another woman amounts to gross immorality warranting disbarment (Chan v. Carrera; Ceniza v. Ceniza; Narag; Dantes; Alejandro; Guevarra).
• Retention of property despite demand is dishonest conduct under Rule 1.01 (Buenaventura v. Gille; Sosa v. Mendoza).
Supreme Court’s Analysis
- Admissions: Atty. Contado conceded separation-in-fact from his wife, cohabitation with Crisanta, and birth of two children. His statements confirmed abandonment of lawful spouse and engagement in deceitful, immoral conduct.
- Precedent: Applying Chan v. Carrera, a lawyer’s willful abandonment of his spouse to cohabit and father children with another woman is gross immorality just
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 132264)
Procedural History
- Complaint for Disbarment filed by Crisanta G. Hosoya on February 15, 2015, before the Office of the Bar Confidant.
- Supreme Court ordered respondent Atty. Allan C. Contado to file a Comment, and complainant to file a Reply.
- Case referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) as CBD Case No. 16-5086 for investigation, report, and recommendation.
- CBD proceedings conducted, followed by Position Papers from both parties.
- CBD Investigating Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation on May 2, 2017.
- IBP Board of Governors (BOG) adopted CBD’s findings of fact but elevated the penalty to disbarment on September 28, 2017, without extended explanation.
- Supreme Court took up the administrative case en banc under A.C. No. 10731; decision rendered October 5, 2021.
Factual Antecedents
- Complainant met respondent in 2003; respondent allegedly claimed to be separated‐in‐fact from his wife and seeking marital dissolution.
- In 2010, parties agreed to live together as husband and wife.
- Complainant discovered respondent’s simultaneous cohabitation with and impregnation of other women.
- Cohabitation produced two children born in 2011 and 2013.
- Financial difficulties ensued; respondent allegedly abandoned complainant and children and failed to meet obligations.
- Complainant and children relocated after relationship termination; no further support received.
- Complainant sent demand letters for child support and for the return of her Ford Expedition; respondent provided insufficient support and did not return the vehicle.
- Complainant alleged violations of RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children), RA 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children), and carnapping laws.
Respondent’s Position and Denials
- Respondent denied unsupported allegations and attributed them to spite over a failed relationship.
- Confirmed meeting complainant in 2003 and representation of being separated‐in‐fact.
- Described relationship as mutual assistance; campaign support in 2009 and 2013 elections, including use of subject vehicle.
- Confirmed birth of two children in 2011 and 201